- Joined
- Jan 27, 2013
- Messages
- 28,824
- Reaction score
- 20,497
- Location
- Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Care to drop the CON game and dispute the facts. BushII isn't so much refraining from political comment as not invited to comment. No appearances at the conventions. No attending campaigns to support GOP candidates, very unusual. So it goes far past 'rising above the fray' to a very simple no GOP politician wants to be photographed with Loser BushII.
But let's give it 20 to 30 years, even Nixon was remembered well at his State Funeral....eace
Here's a hypothetical: if Bush were to come out of hiding and announce his support for re-opening the gov't and raising the debt ceiling, would that have any effect?
Or do Dems and Repubs equally loathe him and it wouldn't make a difference?
I like this idea Polgara..
After our basement flooded with mine-shaft backup and wrecked it, we've been in a holding pattern..
What do you do with a wife who is a recycling hoarder and a procrastinator??I really could use some hep here.
Course being a Bush didn't hurt... :roll:
So what was the score on the military entrance test, it isn't a true IQ test, I took one, my GT was 126, OCS required 120.
Giving some stats rather than 'just saying' would be helpful. The 2006 Simonton study has BushII from 119 uncorrected to 124 cumulative. Clinton has a 141 and a 148 respectively.
How can you dispute "facts"? If you actually come up with some facts, let me know, and I'll comment on them. Otherwise, we're wasting time. You clearly know nothing about Bush II or Bush I or the way the family operates in politics and outside politics so your "facts" are, as I said previously, "utter nonsense". I'd just ask what part of "I'm not going to be involved in politics from now on" don't you understand? The man said he's had his time in politics and he's moved on to other things. Just because know-it-all liberal/progressive ex-Presidents think that their opinions are worth anything and can't help telling everyone else how to live their lives doesn't mean the Bush men, having left the Oval Office, have to follow the same insufferable path to annoyance. Instead of asking where Bush is, why the hell aren't you asking when Carter and Clinton will **** off and go away?
I have always said the three smartest presidents in the modern era are GHWB (top of class at Yale), Richard Nixon (top of his class at Duke Law School) and Clinton (Top of his class at Georgetown).
The problem is that the US does not need more debt. It needs less.
Interesting but I asked you to back-up your claims on what the military entrance test scores were. You claim something as if you have the scores handy, though you incorrectly call the GT score an IQ score- I'd like to see the numbers.
Not sure your claims about Kerry are accurate- I find he graduated Yale in the standard 4 years and was chosen to give the class oration at graduation. As for BushII I find he was a cheerleader and president of his frat house, but nothing of note academically.
I guess this has to be pointed out over and over again, but the debt ceiling does not add to the debt. We will have the debt whether it is raised or not because Congress has already spent the money.
I guess you must have slept through the entire 2004 election. Kerry refused to release his grades for months and finally someone found them and it turned out that Bush has a slightly higher GPA despite all the claims he was less intelligent than Kerry. He also got into the top B school in the country while Kerry-who had an equally high pedigree, had to settle for a much lower ranked law school
I have always wondered who spent all the Money under the ceiling. And you really think that we will have more debt with a higher ceiling or a lower one? I would have thought the President would stop spending in time to stay under the ceiling. Somehow it seems uncool to spend more than your limit. It sounds like signing a check you know will bounce.
Maybe Kerry should have gotten his father to fix his grades and acceptances for him, like Bush did.
No, I'm basically telling the truth, because there's no way in hell that Bush would have gotten into any of those schools if his name had been George Walker Obama.I love when liberals with BDS make up such crap. Having gone to yale and having a brother who was an admissions officer (long after Bush attended that school) its fun watching people just spew stuff out their six because they are mad that Bush is better educated than they are
1) In the pre Inslee Clark days at Yale (where clark turned down highly qualified white male prep school men to let in unqualified blacks in an effort to make up for years of prep school favoritism), schools like Andover sent more than half their graduates to the big three. Bush was an average student at Andover and a legacy. people with those two credentials alone were generally accepted at Yale. SO Bush was no different than hundreds like him
2)If Bush's father fixed his grades why was his average at Yale also average? And having been accepted at Harvard B school and knowing that Bush did not have a legacy connection to Harvard, your claims or insinuation that Bush was accepted there because of his father is moronic.
SO you are basically lying because you are mad that Bush has a better academic resume than your hero Kerry
No, I'm basically telling the truth, because there's no way in hell that Bush would have gotten into any of those schools if his name had been George Walker Obama.
Whereas Barack Hussein Obama didn't get into Columbia, or Harvard Law, with his father's help. It wasn't even available to him. He made it anyway, and on merit.
you are lying. more than half of Andover went to Yale Princeton or Harvard that year. Obama got into Columbia and Harvard because he was black. He didn't get into Harvard Law on Merit. he didn't even make a 3.4 average at Columbia. I never heard of a white getting into Harvard law back when that mattered to me getting into Harvard Law from yale with anything less than a 3.7 average. In fact, when I met with the admissions director of HLS, she noted that if you didn't have at least a 3.6 don't bother applying. So Obama was an affirmative action recipient. Same with Columbia
One never really knows if a person was properly awarded admission or not until they prove themselves in life that they were indeed worthy. Barack Obama - by his amazing success in life coming from rather humble beginnings - has without any doubt proved his admission to Harvard was right and proper.
But all this could be a thing of the past if we only decided that only the highest scoring applicants with the best High School GPA's were to be admitted to all colleges and all other criteria would be irrelevant and not considered.
Do you support that Turtle.
Obama got into Columbia because he applied and was accepted. He got into Harvard Law because he did well at Columbia. He got where he got on merit, something you clearly don't understand, because you don't have any.you are lying. more than half of Andover went to Yale Princeton or Harvard that year. Obama got into Columbia and Harvard because he was black. He didn't get into Harvard Law on Merit. he didn't even make a 3.4 average at Columbia. I never heard of a white getting into Harvard law back when that mattered to me getting into Harvard Law from yale with anything less than a 3.7 average. In fact, when I met with the admissions director of HLS, she noted that if you didn't have at least a 3.6 don't bother applying. So Obama was an affirmative action recipient. Same with Columbia
Technically Congress authorizes the spending, the President spends the money until he has to borrow, then Congress tells him he can borrow it. I know, it's f***** up.
Yep! Got to do something about that. No more borrowing for a while?
I don't think it's that simple.
I see similarities between the national debt and global warming. Like the debt, global warming gets worse over time. Global warming activists might like it if we cut out emissions today so that the trend doesn't continue, but it is logistically impossible and would hobble society to cut down our energy uses that much before we have a replacement for fossil fuels. You'd be asking people to give up cars, planes, power, and lots of other things that contribute to the problem. It would be crazy to do that. The way to combat global warming is a gradual process: first slow down emissions, then introduce new energy sources, and then replace the old with the new.
Debt activists have the same urgency that environmentalists have, but about our debt. It's at something like $17 trillion and grows every year we have a deficit, which is basically every year. It seems obvious to say that we just cut out all expenses that we can't afford, but what would that really do? Our annual budget is around $4T, and the deficit is around $1T, meaning we are only collecting about $3T in taxes. To balance the budget today we would have to cut about 25% of our expenses immediately. It's hard to explain how impossible that would be; it would basically be like this current shutdown, but permanently. Even the hated sequester only makes the same amount of cuts over 8 years. And balancing the budget would only stop borrowing, not stop the debt from increasing due to interest.
Removing for a second the chance that tax revenues would be affected, if we wanted to completely eliminate the debt as fast as possible, we could cut the budget to basically $0 and it would still take more than four years before we pay down our debt. So cutting spending is not the only solution. We need to figure out instead how to grow our economy and tax revenues. You do that through policy changes and planning, not gutting expenditures.
Both cases are the results of choices that go back decades, and both are long term problems that deserve workable long term solutions.
You are absolutely right that there are similarities to global warming. There are however a few major differences. The most important ones I see are that we are approaching the point, where the consequences are becoming highly dangerous to us in the very near future and could spin out of control suddenly like they did with Lehman. The other is that we are close enough to this happening, that it was irresponsible to continue making deficits at the present rate and install a program that will initially increase spending and reduce economic activity.
Now this does not mean that I was totally against trying to get the economy running again after 2008. But that is a long time ago and Obama was not capable of getting other nations to shoulder part of the responsibility. He also did not reduce the deficit. But that was his job description and he said he could.
Well put, but I still think global warming is as much or more important an issue to tackle than our debt, thinking in the long term. And taxes could take a huge dent out of the deficit if it were ever be politically acceptable. In general, the debt seems much more manageable in the next couple decades.
Really? You think it is much more important to work on global warming, which is a long term goal, long term being thousands of years, instead of the debt which will kill the country in a very short time span? Really?
Really, you have to place yourself 500 years from now and think about how history remembers our generation. If we failed at curbing global warming because people wanted jobs.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?