Hitting the newswires is an article that purports to prove one thing but actually proves another.
"Sen. John F. Kerry's grade average at Yale University was virtually identical to President Bush's record there, despite repeated portrayals of Kerry as the more intellectual candidate during the 2004 presidential campaign."
Basically, Kerry's Yale cume average was 76 while Bush's was 77.
The thing is, if you read the article, Kerry tanked his Freshman year, with several D's and one failed course. But during his subsequent three years his grades steadily improved. He was never cum laude or anything, but the point is...he learned from his mistakes.
Whereas Bush started off with an average of 77 and didn't deviate from it for four years. Kerry improved exponentially. Bush didn't.
But, hey, what else to expect from the supposedly liberal-leaning press than an article that essentially tries to say that Kerry is no smarter than Bush.
PAD
Posted by Peter David at June 7, 2005 10:25 AM | TrackBack | Other blogs commentingI'd also be interested in seeing what sorts of courses the two of them took; which of them (if either) had the more demanding cirriculum?
I knew art majors in college who sailed into an 'A', while engineering students sweated for a 'B-'.
The GPA alone doesn't tell it.
I'd also be interested in seeing what sorts of courses the two of them took; which of them (if either) had the more demanding cirriculum?
For what it's worth, the Boston Globe article that appears to have originated this story includes the following details:
"The transcript shows that Kerry's freshman-year average was 71. He scored a 61 in geology, a 63 and 68 in two history classes, and a 69 in political science. His top score was a 79, in another political science course. Another of his strongest efforts, a 77, came in French class."
"Under Yale's grading system in effect at the time, grades between 90 and 100 equaled an A, 80-89 a B, 70-79 a C, 60 to 69 a D, and anything below that was a failing grade. In addition to Kerry's four D's in his freshman year, he received one D in his sophomore year. He did not fail any courses.
"Bush went to Yale from 1964 to 1968; his highest grades were 88s in anthropology, history, and philosophy, according to The New Yorker article. He received one D in his four years, a 69 in astronomy."
Not that that's a complete picture, but there's a bit more detail for you...
Ohhhhhhh Please for God's sake, you cannot be serious!!!! Why are you making an issue out of this? Were their majors the same? Did they have the same professors? Anyone who has been to college knows that there is a world of difference in someone who majors in say communications versus someone who majored in business, and even if you are in the same major professor A may be a better teacher than professor B, and you can only fit professor B in your schedule. 770-79 is a C in most places, so they were both average. Big Deal!
"Ohhhhhhh Please for God's sake, you cannot be serious!!!! Why are you making an issue out of this?"
Me? I didn't report the story. It's being reported in major US newspapers. It's been made into an issue whether I comment on it or not. So I might as well comment on it.
PAD
Either way you lean, it is safe to say that neither of them excelled in academia.
The reason it is news is because Kerry did not want his transcripts released during the campaign because the trend at the time was to paint Bush as as being an idiot because of his mediocre grades while at Yale (some would argue he is an idiot in spite of his mediocre grades). It was a smart move not to release Kerry's transcripts during the campaign because that would give his opponents ammunition to counter the "Bush is stupid" argument.
Using improvement of Kerry's grades is a pretty weak argument of his being smarter than someone else. Sure it shows something, but I don't think it proves intellectual superiority. What it really shows is that Kerry did nothing his first year in school and must have decided after that to do some real work. I don't honestly believe that he really earned those D's. The only way to get D's and F's is to not try at all. Kerry's first year really shows just a lack of dedication and probably that he was chasing skirts his first year.
The fact is neither of them were geniuses and it goes to show that really smart people don't get involved politics and our country suffers because of this.
Greg
Actually, basing someone's current intelligence on how they performed in school 40 years ago is sort of like wondering whether an adult still sucks his thumb. It's the intelligence they display now that should be the determining factor on how they are judged.
L.H. Hicks:
"Actually, basing someone's current intelligence on how they performed in school 40 years ago is sort of like wondering whether an adult still sucks his thumb."
Heck, I'd say that basing someone's intelligence on how they performed in school five years ago -- or even five days ago -- is pretty much the same thing. In general, college is essentially the same as high school in that you're served much better by a willingness to play the game than you are by your intelligence.
I'm not just saying that because my grades in the last two years of college were abysmal (a fact that was most likely connected to the fact that I went to approximately 30% of my classes each week), either.
Honestly, I read this story and rolled my eyes. I was (and am) a Bush supporter, but I honestly couldn't give a crap what his grades were in college, or what his IQ is, or whether he mangles the word "nuclear." I support him because his stance on the issues is aligned with mine more often than his opponent's stances were. Why anyone feels the need to bring anything else into the picture is beyond me.
Why should we care at this point? Kerry lost. Bush won. And we're stuck with Mr. 77 until 2008...when his brother Jeb runs.
You know, it's unfortunate, but the last poster is probably righton both counts... Sigh....
I agree, you can't make this a one-on-one argument without putting it in the proper context. When I was in college, I had some friends who spent every waking moment in the library, sweating out a C in microbiology or pre-law, while other friends were getting an A in film appreciation and other no-brainer liberal arts classes, and spending their nights and weekends at keg parties. I remember one friend who didn't take any classes before 11 a.m. because he would have been too hung over to show up.
Just to muddy the waters even more, I went to a Catholic high school here in New Jersey, where classes were divided into five 'phases.' Phase five would be the most advanced, allowing you to get advanced placement for college, while phase one students had to have their shoes marked left and right. My parents always insisted that I take the most advanced English and history classes for example, and it often got quite frustrating, struggling under massive amounts of homework to eke out maybe a C+ while my best friends were cruising through less challenging classes and getting an A. With hindsight, it was probably better for my future career as a journalist to have worked that much harder in English class, but at the time, it was a bitter pill to swallow, watching one of my friends get a car for a straight A report card, in much less challenging classes. So let's see the full transcript before we compare records. I'm not a huge John Kerry fan, but I don't think Bush missed too many keg parties during his college days.
Me? I didn't report the story. It's being reported in major US newspapers. It's been made into an issue whether I comment on it or not. So I might as well comment on it.
PAD
BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Why comment on it then? This morning my co-worker told me he pooped last night, but that doesn't mean I'm going to go around and tell everyone else about it. What a loser-style cop-out, "someone else reported it!" And here I thought the story itself was the funny low point-thanks for the laugh!
This morning my co-worker told me he pooped last night, but that doesn't mean I'm going to go around and tell everyone else about it.
Dude, you just did.
> that would give his opponents ammunition to counter the "Bush is stupid" argument.
Special on Newsworld [one of Canada's national news networks] this evening.
"STUPIDITY: a look at stupidity as a driving force of society, from Tom Green to George Bush."
Could be fun. 8-)
Grades in college are not a sure sign of stupidity. Now, not releasing one's records during a presidential campaign, waiting until speculation is rampant that one is trying to hide something, and then, after having lost the election, releasing them only to have it revealed that there was nothing to be embarassed about...truly, Kerry may be the dumbest politician ever to be nominated by a major party. He may be the standard by which all future politicians will be judged. In some far flung future cyborg politicians will do something stupid and people will laugh and say "Boy, he's a real Kerry!" and not even know what it means.
At least Hillary has some real smarts so there's almost no chance that the next Democrat nominee will be more stupid than the last one...unless they nominate Kerry again and, whatever else you say about Democrats, they tend to be very unforgiving of loser nominees so that would seem unlikely.
"Whereas Bush started off with an average of 77 and didn't deviate from it for four years. Kerry improved exponentially. Bush didn't."
Perspective is a funny thing.
I interpreted the story differently, and would have written the above line as follows:
"Whereas as Bush maintained his mediocre grades, Kerry had to stuggle to achieve even less stellar results."
Later,
Chip
But back to this...maybe I'm just a stickler for grades but is it really "improving exponentially" to go from a 71 to a 76??? Usually "exponentially" is saved for more impressive gains like the population of rats on an island with an infinite food supply or Michael Moore's waistline after that Golden Corral started their all you can eat lunch buffet.
Kerry is lucky they didn't use the current grading curve we use at my high school--he would have a D average while Bush would have a C. Oh the humiliation!
Omigod. I take it back. Go to http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/06/07/yale_grades_portray_kerry_as_a_lackluster_student/
and take a look at the pictures of Bush and Kerry from college. I was wrong, Kerry had a GREAT reason to try to keep this under wraps. Jesus! My cat jumped off my lap when that picture came up. And even though Bush looks like he's got a large caterpillar crossing over his forhead he stilllooks like Brad Freaking Pitt compared to John Forbes. Holy crap.
Blast from the past-- Harold Raines in The Guardian "Does anyone in America doubt that Kerry has a higher IQ than Bush? I'm sure their SATs and college transcripts would put Kerry far ahead."
But in fairness--and I always strive to be fair--Kerry did say that in his first year he spent a lot of time learning to fly, which no doubt came in very handy when he was flying that boat in 'Nam.
Here's the difference: Bush never pretended to be anything but a "C" student, although he was just a single point away from having a "B" cume.
Kerry, on the other hand, didn't even release his grades until TODAY!
The articles says: Bush got a "cumulative score of 77 for his first three years at Yale and a roughly similar average under a non-numerical rating system during his senior year."
Kerry's freshman-year average was 71. He got a cumulative 76 for his four years.
Mr. David claims falsely that Kerry's rising from a 71 to a 76 is an "exponential" rise, that therefore Kerry "learned" and "improved," and comes to his usual conclusion: BUSH SUCKS.
Not surprising. It's the only political sentiment Mr. David is capable of.
Oh, for Pete sakes, PAD, that's a lame argument based on some pretty weak assumptions. My high school grade fluctuation mirrored Kerry's, but my eventual turnaround had less to do with "learning by my mistakes" than it did "uh, oh, if I keep screwing up, I'll never get a diploma."
Neither Kerry or Bush did that well, and frankly, one has wonder why the top-ranked Yalies are never on a ballot.
And the only reason this whole issue is news at all is because Kerry refused to release his Yale grades until just last week.
Th original post is a perfect example of how liberal bias works.
If we didn't have access to the whole article, all we'd have are Mr. David's false claims and distortions. We'd go away thinking, wow, Bush sucks and Kerry got SO much better during his college years.
Since we DO have access to the whole article, David's claims are easily disproven, and David is revealed as someone who distorts the facts to advance his own viewpoint.
Another way to put it: Peter David is a liar.
X-Ray:
Of course, Peter is a liar. It is what he does for a living. Writing fiction and comics is lying for a living. On the other hand, in a lie lies the truth. And to quote you, "Bush Sucks".
What utter nonsense! Simply being a "writer," if that is what Mr. David actually is, is NOT a license to lie.
It's amusing how you liberals cannot come up with specifics, so you lie and distort, like David did in his post. Now, you're doing it too -- trying to say telling lies is OK if one is a writer.
Oh well, anything to prove BUSH SUCKS, even if you have to make it up!
Dear X-Ray:
Where do you get off calling anyone a liar?
Peter read something and analyzed it. These were the conclusions he drew from the articles he referenced. He didn't put URL's down, but these stories are easy enough to find. It's a headline article at bostonglobe.com.
A "lie" is summed up as: intentional misleading towards a false conclusion.
Peter did not do that. He presented his interpretation (supported by the article), and then opened it up for debate. His assertion, incidentally, is sound: one who learns from his mistakes is preferable to one who does not. It seems very much to sum up the past four years of political policy, and points to the problem of perception in, and a flaw in the logic of, the media and the populace in the last election. This is not a disctintion without a difference.
For example, at what point does Pres. Bush open the floor to debate in his "Town Meetings" (or a press conference, for that matter (or did you forget about Mr. Gannon already?)). Or are you conveniently igorning the facts in order to support your opinion and mislead us in your argument? Context matters.
While writers invent, they do not often lie. And there is a difference you ought to recognize. If you do not, I suggest returning to college and taking an English course or two. Studying and actaully doing the assignments is often useful in later life. Having actually read Peter's books/comics (and being academically invested in Arthurian Literature, some of his parody was quite snarky), I can assure you that he is not a professional liar. Inventor? Adapter? Transformer? Theif? Yes, all of these things (and in a good way, for the most part). But not a liar.
Inflamatory comments show only that you are rude and insecure in your own position. Be a decent fellow, and think about what you say before you post.
Actually, I thought this story PROVES the bias of the media. This story didn't come out until eight months after the election, long after any negative effects it might have had on Kerry were long behind him.
I also appreciate how this is NOT a story now that it doesn't help Kerry at all. Eight months or more ago, it would have been the lead story on the news.
1PErsonally, I just think PAD wanted to write something, saw this and figured it would get some folks britches in a bundle and put it out there. And as much as I like to discuss politics and religion (and all the other big 'no-no's of conversation), it often comes out like two blind guys arguing about the color of something. Neither one can prove their point and even if a third party comes along, neither can actually fully trust what the person says. In the end, I don't like Bush. I didn't mind his pop and was worried Jeb would run so imagine my surprise when the tard of the family comes forward to win it. But I didn't like his competition either. Politicians are what's wrong with politics. Maybe that's why I enjoy arguing/discussing politics... I don't really care who wins the debate. It's a lose/lose situation.
Though I have to admit, I would've preferred just about anyone else win except W. But only so I wouldn't have to listen to his damn speeches.
To Aaron Drucker-
I "get off" calling David a liar because that is what he IS.
The article stated that "Kerry's freshman-year average was 71. He got a cumulative 76 for his four years." So, Kerry got a rise from 71 to 76, a rise that DID NOT affect the letter grade.
David calls this an "exponential" rise, for the purpose of supporting his theme that BUSH SUCKS. But it is clearly NOT an exponential rise.
That's why David didn't give exact numbers, only his distortion of those numbers! That, my friend, is a lie, plain and simple. No matter what spin you want to put on it.
If you can't see that, go back to your dictionary and look up exponential, and explain how a meaningless rise of 5 points is exponential.
Hmmmm.. how to get out of THIS one?
No doubt you'll try to redefine the word exponential. Should be fun.
for the purpose of supporting his theme that BUSH SUCKS
And yet you're the one who introduced those words into this thread. This was a discussion about the relative value of grades, but it seems the you couldn't wait to say "bush sucks".
Freudian slip?
Repressed or rechanneled angerperhaps?
"And yet you're the one who introduced those words into this thread. This was a discussion about the relative value of grades, but it seems the you couldn't wait to say "bush sucks". Freudian slip? Repressed or rechanneled angerperhaps?"
Actually, here's the truly hilarious thing. Any debater with two gray cells to rub together (which obviously this guy doesn't have) will tell you that the one thing you DON'T want to do is keep repeating the views of your opponents. Why? Because the specifics of various arguments tend to fade with time, but the reiterations remain in the minds of everyone within the sound of your voice...including those who are on the fence about it.
So this guys keeps saying "Bush Sucks," and even though he doesn't actually believe it, he's helping to reinforce the fundamental message. He's helping his opponents even while he delusionally believes he's hurting them.
Classic. And funny.
PAD
A reporter asked John Kerry what his SAT numbers were. Kerry said he hadn't checked his mileage lately. (Ba-bump, crash!)
Exponential is perspective thing... Speaking from experiance i was told my grades rose exponentially by a math teacher in high school when i rose my grade up from a 68 to a 77. It all depends on the perspective at the time. Its a descriptor word, which despite its exact definition can be used that way. Especially to emphasize something or to make it more dramatic, which may have been done here. But thats not lying its only a matter of perspective on the point. PAD didn't lie.
Anyway raising a 4 year cumelative that much is pretty hard. Especially in the final years of school. At least it is for me. Keep in mind one has to average their years worth of classes to a higer point to raise it up each year. And the classes at least at my school get harder and harder with the more upperdivision classes i take. Its much easier to keep an average around the same point for years than to raise it.
I "get off" calling David a liar because that is what he IS.
Dude, X-Ray, Bush campaigned on measuring strength by dominance -- dominance in the middle east, dominance over women, dominance in systematically flushing the election totals of black counties in Florida -- and now it burns you that his popularity is sinking like a rock. You're saying to yourself Where is that delicious dominance I was promised for voting for Bush?
Look at yourself. Relentlessly attacking a weblogger you disagree with anonymously. There's no defense against a hidden agenda -- what you get off from is dominance.
The problem with measuring strength by dominance is your dependence on someone to dominate. Needy is not strong. JFK measured strength by generosity -- not by neediness.
Seriously, for your own sake, release the hostages you keep in your basement and get help. There's no justification for protecting your taste for human blood.
"Anyway raising a 4 year cumelative that much is pretty hard."
Actually, if Kerry got a 71 his first year and only managed to raise it to a 77 in the next 3 years he would end up with a cumulative total of 75.5 which we will kindly round out to a 76...so Kerry's exponential growth may never have exceeded Bush. Kinda sad for those who put much stock in the whole "my guy is smarter" argument but live by the bad argument die by the bad argument...
Speaking of which, if X-Ray isn't deliberately pretending to be dense he's doing a fine job of looking like it. Chill, fool. Argue with logic or not at all, or, if you must behave emotionally, don't accuse others of the same.
PAD's argument
"Whereas Bush started off with an average of 77 and didn't deviate from it for four years. Kerry improved exponentially. Bush didn't."
simply proves that PAD's reading comprehension "sucks."
The end of the article clearly states...
[i]Like Kerry, Bush reportedly suffered through a difficult freshman year and then pulled his grades up.[/i]
Bush just pulled his grades up higher than Kerry, thus making the point made irrelevant.
"Omigod. I take it back. Go to http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/06/07/yale_grades_portray_kerry_as_a_lackluster_student/"
Dear God, he looks like Richard Kiel.
Its kinda tough to base their comparative smarts in either case....and Ill use myself as an example. I went into college with a 90 average from a rough Catholic high school. My first 3 years of college...I had a cumulative 2.4 GPA (basically a C+). Why? Not because I'm an idiot...but basically because I didnt give a crap about studying. I wanted to hang out, party and skip class. When I finally decided on a major and waanted to go to grad school, I buckled down and made the Deans list twice, and graduated in 5 years with a 3.1. Basically slightly over a B. And I consider myself much much smarter than a B...and much much lazier also. Anyway, my point is, both of them could be idiots, one of them could be, or both of them maybe just didnt give a crap and didnt realize the ramifications.
Mike
When discussing this story (as opposed to throwing hissy fits at those who don't share your politcal beliefs) it helps to keep in mind the now defunct tradition of the "Gentleman's C" that many colleges and all the Ivy Leagure schools adhered to. There was a tacit agreement between faculty and students that, if the student made bare-bones attempt in the course, they could expect a C, or in other words, a nice respectable grade. It was, for the times, a form of grade inflation. So were those C averages legitimate? Maybe. Then again, maybe not.
Mark
Re: Gentlemen's C. Also keep in mind that Kerry and Bush just predate the big jump in general college grade inflation (one suggested reason for its start was professors being unwilling to open students up to the Vietnam draft). Today, those scores would be a minimum of 10 points higher.
[Amused a couple of years back by an article, curiously enough also in the Globe, which revealed that 92% of the most recent Harvard undergrad class graduated with honors. The comments from Yale and Princeton reps were nicely subtly snarky. Harvard's since reduced the number, although I think it's still at least 50%, which was around what I recall reported for Yale and Princeton]
Frankly, neither Kerry nor Bush strike me as sharp intellectually. Gore actually is, btw, and I base this on having had lunch with him a year or so back with a fairly small group of people, none of whom were flacks or entourage types (i.e. no softballs).
A reporter asked John Kerry what his SATs were and Kerry said that he didn't own any SATs. His family owned SATs. (ba-bump, crash!)
I called Peter David a liar, because he lied. Tellingly, he had no objection to this characterization at all, Not a single word. Rather than defend himself, he calls what I said, "Classic. And funny."
I think that tells the tale. David knows he lied, knows he cannot defend himself, so he tries to mock and redirect the discussion.
Since I'm so "funny," this out to give David a great laugh:
Peter David is a liar. Peter David is a liar. Peter David is a liar. Peter David is a liar. Peter David is a liar. Peter David is a liar. Peter David is a liar. Peter David is a liar. Peter David is a liar. Peter David is a liar. Peter David is a liar. Peter David is a liar. Peter David is a liar. Peter David is a liar. Peter David is a liar. Peter David is a liar. Peter David is a liar. Peter David is a liar. Peter David is a liar. Peter David is a liar.
Well, it was so FUNNY when David wrote BUSH SUCKS over and over, so I'm sure it's funy now too. Right, liar?
And ultimately, as comforting and self indulgent as it is to accuse world leaders of being much much less intelligent than we are, the sad truth is that they were smart enough to become world leaders while the rest of us, conversely, are not. I think I once saw richard Beltzer at a comedy club deal with a heckler with one of the best lines ever--something like "Hey, I'm up on stage holding a microphone and you're down there holding a beer. God has a plan and you're not in it."
X-Ray. It wasn't funny then. Ain't funny now. Won't be funny later. What's the point?
Bill...he isn't interested in making any sort of point. He's interested in being noticed, like a six year old making armpit noises. I mean, he probably even thinks that I was surprised that he responded the way he did. No. I expected it. I thought, "What's the more juvenile thing he can do?" and figured correctly.
Fortunately, I didn't care.
That's why I haven't bothered talking to him. Not sure why anyone else is. He's the board's latest troll, the grown-ups will ignore him, and eventually he'll go away.
PAD
The POINT, of course, is that Peter David is a liar.
And I AM funny.. David said so himself!
By the way... I am NEVER going away. From now on, I am this site's political watchdog.
Everything Peter David ever says politically is meant to prove BUSH SUCKS, and I intend to refute this, as well as EVERY post that supports this false claim, FROM NOW ON.
Get used to it!
Here's a post by Kevin Drum today on how the republicans have to take every opportunity to produce hit pieces on Bill Clinton so American can forget how good things were under his presidency: . Like X-Ray, they have to drown out the truth.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_06/006448.php
Nope, I won't, X-Ray. You are just the newest fool and idiot to show up here. Been there, done that.
Since there's no information on course load, major, personal events, it's really a non-story. Kerry "improved". That may mean he started taking easier courses. That may mean he hit his stride in his major. There's no way to know. Bush was more consistent.
Let's compare it to Trek (hey, we need to do that on a PAD board). TOS was better than TNG on its best day, and much worse than TNG on its worst day. On average, though, they were both very good shows.
So, Kerry==TOS, Bush==TNG.
At the end of the day, though, an average is just an average.
PAD,
Any chance of the site going to some sort of format with an "ignore" function? Just kidding...mostly.
Seriously, I heard this stuff being trumpeted by Rush Limbaugh at lunch before I switched stations and saw the same points that you did. I also went through a period of poor grades early in college before I got my act together, so I know how deceptive those number can be in that fashion. And that doesn't even begin to address the problem that using scholastic grades as a measure of inteligence is a poor idea to begin with. Personally, I decided that Bush was an idiot when I heard him speak. Unfortunately, I'm a Texan, so my vote against him was doomed to not make a difference. On the bright side, he's no longer the Governor.
"From now on, I am this site's political watchdog."
Wow. That's sad. If you'd gotten here just a bit earlier you could have snagged Assistant to the Site Dolt.
But as long as we're filling positions when is someone gonna step up to the plate and be our Official Attractive Cyber-Babe? Drunken Raconteur? Guy Whose Life Is So Screwed Up It Makes The Rest Of Us Feel Good About Ourselves?
First point:The classes were different, I suppose the teachers were different, so do I REALLY need to bring up apples and oranges? I mean, when I was in college, I got an A- in one algebra class, and a D- minus in another. The difference? Teacher A- had personality and gave us more than numbers. Teacher D- minus spoke as though he were Ben Stein on downers.
Second point:Kerry LOST THE ELECTION. The horse is DEAD, stop beating the damn thing already. I wanted him to win, but he didn't, and now the media brings THIS out like it'll change anything. Besides the egos in certain red states. "Oh, their guy's dumb too!" Slow news day.
Third point: X-ray, dude, take one of your pills and get away from the computer. Life ain't that serious and dead is dull. I speak from experience. Shrub won, our host is not a liar, he's entitled to an opinion, and who the *&%$ raised you? When addressing someone by their last name, it's polite to use an honorific such as mister or miss or what have you. It should have been MISTER DAVID in every one of you posts. And just because you post and start an argument, X-ray, don't think we all don't see through you.
And I AM funny.. David said so himself!
Are you sure he wasn't referring to my earlier post, which he quoted, as funny?
Everything Peter David ever says politically is meant to prove BUSH SUCKS
Explain how the last 2 PAD posts "Tony Tony Tony" & "FALLEN ANGEL TO IDW" fit your paranoid claim.
Actually, Bill, I think Monsieur X-Ray fills that last position quite well...
True intellectuals tend not to win elections anyway- Adlai Stevenson lost twice and he may have been the most brilliant man ever to run for that office.
I think the average Bush voter likes looking at Dubya with the knowledge that he's no smarter than they are. Not that Kerry's a genius either, if he hadn't been such an inept campaigner, he'd be President right now.
I still love the bit attributed to Stevenson;
"Governor, that was a great speech! You'll get the vote of every intelligent citizen!"
"That's not enough. I need a majority."
Posted by: X-Ray
"Well, it was so FUNNY when David wrote BUSH SUCKS over and over, so I'm sure it's funy now too. Right, liar?"
Posted by: Bladestar
"Nope x-ray
You're just a pathetic fucking child"
it's like a kindergartner talking to a pre-schooler.
bladestar, who very often goes on a rant calls someone else that goes off on a rant a child is pretty fucking funny.
Heck, you can tell Kerry's smarter by the way he talks. ::snicker::
So how come Kerry wasn't smart enough to get elected, and Bush was?
X-Ray bores me. Repetitive name-calling is the hallmark of a limited imagination, and a sad sign of the times when the once respectable Republican party (and its representatives) must resort to playground foolishness in order to be a part of a meaningful discourse.
As a college instructor, I can tell you that raising your grade is deceptively hard. But the apples and oranges statement is, ultimately, correct. Only if they had attained the same grades in the same courses would the comparison be more than superficial. I imagine X-Ray would not do well in one of my seminars. I demand logic and solid rhetorical structure from my students.
Oh, well. And, incidentally, PAD did end his post saying the article was trying to say Kerry and Bush are about equal in intelligence, just in case people were seriously wondering if a professional writer was a "poor reader." Perhaps one should read the whole 6-paragraph post before commenting.
While it may not be universally true, I'm willing to be that being a pretty good reader is a prerequisite to being a professional writer. If I'm not mistaken PAD makes his living from writing. Not the easiest thing to do, imho. I do not always agree with him, but I do respect him. And remember, this is his (public) home. You are a guest.
If you're serious, try to be the "political conscience" of this site, X-Ray. We'll be forced to ignore you until you make a good point. Try to give evidence. Try to consider the facts. Never forget context. And think before you speak (or type, as the case may be). We'll respect you as you respect us.
Oh, and virtually every use of the word "exponential" is hyperbole. For what it is, that's pretty apparent. However, looking at the numbers, we know Kerry started with a 71 and ended with an 81, which is roughly a 15% increase in GPA. He progressively improved. Which was the point. The harder the courses, the more dedicated and focused the student. Great? No. But not bad, either. It also jibes with the quality of his character, his campaign performance(s), and his personal history.
Bush: more of the same. What can I say? Maybe grades are a predictor of life trends.
TTFN
I said, "Everything Peter David ever says politically is meant to prove BUSH SUCKS."
Someone who can't read said, "Explain how the last 2 PAD posts "Tony Tony Tony" & "FALLEN ANGEL TO IDW" fit your paranoid claim."
Explanation: Those posts are not political. I said political. Learn to read before you attack reflexively.
P.S. Another person posted, "virtually every use of the word 'exponential' is hyperbole." The word was innaccurate, and a lie, so as I predicted, someone tried to redefine the word! It apparently no longer means what it means, because "virtually every use of it is hyperbole."
Great logic. Maybe you should notify Webster's dictionary, and have them change the definition to suit your fancy.
P.P.S. Peter David STILL has no problem with being called a liar. Why? He knows it's true!
Anyone else find it a bit alarming about how much attention is paid to relatively minor things like grades in college? Heck, I wouldn't want my college grades printed in a newspaper, and they were better than both candidates!
Wouldn't be a novel idea for the press to concentrate on what candidates do once in their chosen careers rather than what happened when they were young (and stupid)?
Just my two cents....
The smart folks stay out of the political limelight and run things from behind the scenes at their office at corporate headquarters :)
Regarding a certain person's insistance on saying the same thing over and over and LOUDER each time...
Noise proves nothing. Often a hen who has merely laid an egg cackles as if she had laid an asteroid.
-Mark Twain
Y'know, I could make a case that Twain's quote of "I never let my schooling interfere with my education" applied to both Bush and Kerry. Bush didn't let it interfere with his education of how to schmooze, and Kerry didn't let it interfere with his practical politics education (the Yale Political Union, where Kerry apparently spent most of his time, was probably the most significant organization on campus at the time, and my understanding is that those heavily involved in it would learn a lot about speechmaking, debate, making alliances, organization, etc.).
Regarding your obtuseness ...
I am still waiting for a specific way Bush has negatively affected your own life.
Loud enough for you?
You've missed my point.
I don't care whether you support Bush or not. It's irrevelant to me. I personally do not like the man, but I will listen to what others have to say.
What bothers me is a the lack of respect you show to others when presenting your point of view. It isn't necessary to be nasty. You feel that George W is a brilliant and insightful leader? More power to you. Instead of calling Mr David a liar (and typing it repetitively), explain why you think the rise was not "exponential" Perhaps your interpretation of the word is simply different from his.
Want to disagree? Fine, disagree.
Want respect? Show respect.
"Repetitive name-calling is the hallmark of a limited imagination, and a sad sign of the times when the once respectable Republican party (and its representatives) must resort to playground foolishness in order to be a part of a meaningful discourse."
Now, now. It's no more logical to call X-Ray a representative of the Republicans than it is to call the biggest liberal idiot one can find a representative of the Democrats.
On the topic at hand again, you really have to allow some us the schadenfreude od seeing people who claimed that Bush's grades proved him a moron kind of hoisted by their own petard or at least finally being able to see that grades are not always a fair judge of intelligence.
I pointed out earlierthat a rise from 71 to 76 is not exponential. The word has a meaning, it is not open to "interpretation." Rising from 71 to 76 is NOT exponential. Call it so is a LIE.
Respect? Hah!
I called Peter David a liar because he told a blatant lie. Liars lie, that's the defination of the word. David lied, so he IS a liar.
Other than that, ALL the name-calling by posters here has been directed towards ME. So go tell your story to them.
But, hey, what else to expect from the supposedly liberal-leaning press than an article that essentially tries to say that Kerry is no smarter than Bush.
PAD,
Uhmm, last time I checked, Rush Limbaugh is hardly a member of the liberal leaning press, and he is the only reason I even heard about it today. I think this was more a matter a Boston paper mad that Kerry kept things from them then the press being either liberal or conservative. But hey, of course I would think that way since I am a conservative. ;-)
Iowa Jim
I called Peter David a liar because he told a blatant lie. Liars lie, that's the defination of the word. David lied, so he IS a liar.
What is the deal? Can't you make a point without calling PAD a liar? The fact that he interprets facts differently hardly makes him a liar (or an idiot for that matter). By all means disagree, but do so in a rational manner. It will help you win far more arguments.
Iowa Jim
It was in the opening monologue on Letterman just now. And it was all over CNN, which is supposedly the most liberal of the majors.
"Arguing on the internet is just like being in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded."
-ganked from someone's sig at the DCMB
Official Attractive Cyber-Babe? ...Guy Whose Life Is So Screwed Up It Makes The Rest Of Us Feel Good About Ourselves?
Hey, I can do both! AND be a receptionist! :)
"[Peter David] interprets facts differently."
If you truly believe that calling a rise from 71 to 76 "exponential" is merely "an interpretation," I would not trust your judgment on any important matter.
It's quite obviously a lie intended to support a political viewpoint. How in the world can you not see this? An "exponential" rise is an astronomical, huge, gigantic rise. Going from a cume of 71 to 76 simply does not qualify.
And pretending it's all just a matter of "interpretation" is obtuse.
"It was all over CNN, which is supposedly the most liberal of the majors."
And there's the proof! If CNN even MENTIONS the word conservative, that is conclusive proof that they are NOT liberal at all!
Except for the fact that the point of 999 out of 1,000 of their reports is (what else) BUSH SUCKS!
I called Peter David a liar because he told a blatant lie. Liars lie, that's the defination of the word. David lied, so he IS a liar.Other than that, ALL the name-calling by posters here has been directed towards ME.
Because you are operating under the shelter of anonymity, which suits a predatory agenda over a fairness. No one else here is reserving the right to be a predator.
It's no more logical to call X-Ray a representative of the Republicans than it is to call the biggest liberal idiot one can find a representative of the Democrats.
Actually, dude, x-ray kinda does represent republicans.
Bush won't cut his monthlong vacation short to deal with the memo warning him about bin Laden, or fire anyone after 9-11 for thwarting Richard Clarke or the FBI from doing anything about it -- but he'll cut his vacation short to keep a feeding tube in Terri Schiavo?
X-Ray is chickenshit, and Bush is chickenshit, and Bush's chickenshit is starting to manifest in the polls. For the sake of the country, I hope it doesn't let up.
"Actually, dude, x-ray kinda does represent republicans"
I'm not entirely sure I agree with that. We have any number of conservatives and GOPers on this board, and I don't see them flocking to support the village idiot. I mean, when even Iowa Jim is telling the guy he's out of line, that indicates to me he's pretty much out there on his own, a fact underscored by his need to create alternate identities to back himself up.
PAD
Bladestar,
"Nope X-Ray. You're just a pathetic fucking child"
You know, X-Ray is acting like such an unimaginative, immature, idiotic child I have to agree with you Bladestar. 100%.
Bladestar,
"Nope X-Ray. You're just a pathetic fucking child"
Jerome Maida
"You know, X-Ray is acting like such an unimaginative, immature, idiotic child I have to agree with you Bladestar. 100%."
Wow.
Ok, is there still time to buy apocalypse insurance?
Seriously, though, it is good to see in these fractured times, that there are still things that can bring everybody together. *sniff* Brings a tear to my eye...
(some would argue he is an idiot in spite of his mediocre grades).
Which is the argument Kerry's party should've gone with. :)
Unfortunately, few are very interested in the truth.
Kerry is lucky they didn't use the current grading curve we use at my high school--he would have a D average while Bush would have a C.
And yet, Bush is proud to be a C-average student. I don't know about the rest of you, but I would, you know, strive to be a better student, and I wouldn't really strive to be mediocre. :)
So how come Kerry wasn't smart enough to get elected, and Bush was?
Politics is, at best, a game of propoganda. And, as we have learned over the last 5+ years, the Bush Administration excels at it.
I'm not entirely sure I agree with that.
Well, if there's one thing everybody should know about the internet, is that in no way does any group using it present an accurate representation of the population at large.
However, I do think in X-Ray's case, one could make an exception.
"Seriously, though, it is good to see in these fractured times, that there are still things that can bring "everybody together. *sniff* Brings a tear to my eye..."
Made me laugh. Thanks! I like fun.
"And yet, Bush is proud to be a C-average student."
Bush was a just single point away from having a B average. But don't let the facts get in your way. Like Peter David, just omit the actual numbers and mischaracterize them!
Like Peter David, just omit the actual numbers and mischaracterize them!
Hard to mischaracterize what Bush himself has stated.
He stated he was proud to be a C-average student.
Not "one point away from B-average".
So, if you have a problem with this fact, take it up with that idiot you worship that is unfortunately our president.
Y'know....Einstein was anything but an A student. So I find that this whole debate is rather pointless. The fact remains that Bush was SMART ENOUGH to surround himself with the people who could get him elected. Kerry was unsuccessful. So let's deal with the situation now as the freedom clock winds down, and hope that the damage can be contained.
Before anyone attacks me as being a blind liberal, I'd STILL like to go fishin' with Dubya. Love him or hate him, he strikes me as a "regular guy" and perhaps that's what part of his success stems from.
X-Ray seems to bear a striking resemblance in his posting-content with that other troll we had a number of months back, whose name escapes me (and probably everyone else as well). Much ado about nothing.
Here's a wonderful quote from Bush, just for X-Ray:
"I'll probably say it three more times, see, in my line of work you gotta keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kinda catapult the propaganda."
Wow, a president who calls his own statments propoganda. What a country we live in.
Maybe next time he can go on about how great it woudl be if he were a dictator. No, wait, he's already done that too.
What X-Ray has been struggling to get across may be this:
He seems to be hung up on the correct mathematical usage of exponential as in exponential growth: "development at an increasingly rapid rate in proportion to the growing total number or size; a constant rate of growth applied to a continuously growing base over a period of time" - from dictionary.com
Aaron Drucker I think was also correct: Most people using the term "exponential" or "exponentially" aren't limiting themselves to the strict definition of the term as used in math.
I understood that PAD wasn't using the word that way, or that the numbers weren't right for that meaning. I also understood what he WAS saying in terms of the numbers improving over the next three years.
Perhaps X-Ray's predetermined agenda is showing through.
The only thing that disappoints me more than these kinds of trollish figures are when respected individuals cave to their attention-craving. There's a reason there's the warning: "Don't feed the trolls."
PAD, you're better than this. You can't argue logic with someone who's devoid of it.
I mean, when even Iowa Jim is telling the guy he's out of line,
I think the words I would have actually used was more along the lines of off the deep end. Whatever line existed was obliterated a long time ago.
Iowa Jim
"I think the words I would have actually used was more along the lines of off the deep end."
Well, I checked, and as it turns out, what you actually said was that you were "disgusted" by the posts. So we both weren't exact, which is fine. The point is that you didn't point to the guy as some sort of standard bearer of GOP ideals.
PAD
"What are you accomplishing?"
Isn't it obvious?
(Number of posts made about me by Peter David, who is "Donne" with me: FOUR in just one night! I'd hate to see what would happen if he paid attention to me.)
X-Ray: It's amusing how you liberals cannot come up with specifics, so you lie and distort, like David did in his post.
Luigi Novi: Right, because conservatives are so qualitatively and genetically different from liberals that they have the market cornered on honesty. Oh no, the flaws in human character from which dishonesty is derived is not universal at all. Cons are honest. Libs are not. How naive you are.
X-Ray: I called Peter David a liar, because he lied.
Luigi Novi: Nope. Sorry. Thank you for playing. A liar is someone who lies habitually. If a liar is someone who has told a lie, then everyone on this board is a liar, including you, X, since you have no doubt lied at some point in your lifetime.
X-Ray: Tellingly, he had no objection to this characterization at all, Not a single word. Rather than defend himself...
Luigi Novi: You proceed from the false presumption that flimsy arguments like yours necessarily need to be responded to. They don't. Some people are so incompetent in constructing a cogent point that some people feel that there is little point in responding to it.
X-Ray: he calls what I said, "Classic. And funny."
Luigi Novi: Actually, he didn't. He said that reiterating your opponent's argument is. He never said that being called a liar was. He made it clear that your writing "bush sucks" was classic and funny. Interesting that you claim "distortion" on Peter's part, which you feel justifies calling him a liar, but when you distort his words (even attributing words to him that he never said, like "bush sucks"), it's somehow okay.
Hey, hear that chirping sound?
(Turns to the window)
Oh look! The hypocrites are in season!
X-Ray: I think that tells the tale. David knows he lied, knows he cannot defend himself...
Luigi Novi: Nope. That's simply your conclusion. NOt something that anyone here "knows."
According to the article at the Boston Globe, Kerry's GPA was an 81 in his Senior Year. That's a 10 point rise from the 71 in his Freshmen year. Obviously, you can't have a literal exponential rise in GPA unless you start out with, say, a 2. 10 points is pretty good, though.
"Luigi Novi: Nope. Sorry. Thank you for playing. A liar is someone who lies habitually."
Then I guess any word can be "interpreted" to mean anything then. For example, you said "Nope." I interpret that as meaning you agree with me totally!
Thank you!
"[Daivd] calls what I said, "Classic. And funny."
Luigi Novi: Actually, he didn't."
Actually, he did.
"According to the article at the Boston Globe, Kerry's GPA was an 81 in his Senior Year. That's a 10 point rise from the 71 in his Freshmen year. Obviously, you can't have a literal exponential rise in GPA unless you start out with, say, a 2. 10 points is pretty good, though."
That is not what the article said. Kerry rose from 71 to 76. Is there any OTHER way you'd like to try to make Peter David's lies into truth?
"According to the article at the Boston Globe, Kerry's GPA was an 81 in his Senior Year. That's a 10 point rise from the 71 in his Freshmen year. Obviously, you can't have a literal exponential rise in GPA unless you start out with, say, a 2. 10 points is pretty good, though."That is not what the article said. Kerry['s average] rose from 71 to 76. Is there any OTHER way you'd like to try to make Peter David's lies into truth?
Peter posted casually, and your need to drive the people you disagree with from casualness is just that -- your need. Your needieness is sickening.
And when I say your neediness is sickening, I'm not recommending you repress yourself or jump out of a window or anything like that. You need to stop confusing your neediness with strength.
Mike--
Please read the WHOLE article, not just select paragraphs! It IS 71 to 76 -- an "exponential" rise, according to the Peter David lie.
And if I'm so "needy," what does that make YOU for responding so many times to ME?
QUOTE: "The transcript shows that Kerry's freshman-year average was 71."
QUOTE: "[Kerry] showed a slight improvement in subsequent semesters, topping out with an 81 average his senior year. Kerry had a cumulative average of 76."
And if I'm so "needy," what does that make YOU for responding so many times to ME?
Someone addressing the neo-con paradigm of painting neediness as strength. For the damage this is doing to the country, I again refer to I Used To Be a Neocon
Hey, let's try this: X-ray's whole argument is based on the idea that PAD lied when he said Kerry's increase of his grade average (from 71 his freshman year, to a final cumulative average of 76) was an exponential increase. Exponential means either a rapid increase, or the raising of something to a power.
So, anyone really good with math (or at least better than I am) care to take a stab at seeing what power a cumulative average increase from 71 to 76 is?
I can use a logical approach: Someone else already pointed out that Kerry would only need a 3 year cumulative average of 77.6 in order to finish with a 76. I'd see a 6.6 increase in one year...a whole grade increase in a system that uses + and - grades...as the exponential grading equivilent of rising a power in math.
So, having thusly disproven X-ray's theory, I guess that makes HIM a liar, at least in this instance.
Yes! And you didn't have to develop hardly ANY intricate and technical mathmatical formulas to prove your "point." (Well, just one.) I'm sure everyone, when seeing the word "exponential," does that same formula in their head.
So, having thusly mocked your theory, I guess that makes YOU a liar, at least in this instance.
X-Ray: Then I guess any word can be "interpreted" to mean anything then. For example, you said "Nope." I interpret that as meaning you agree with me totally!
Luigi Novi: How do you figure this? “Nope” can be interpreted to mean that I agree with you? How so? Why is it that “distortion” on the part of others means that you can call them liars, but when you do it, it's okay?
X-Ray Daivd] calls what I said, "Classic. And funny."
Luigi Novi: Actually, he didn't.
X-Ray: Actually, he did.
Luigi Novi: No. You claimed that he said this in response to your calling him a liar. He didn't. He said it in response to you “Bush sucks” retort. Nice little Straw Man on your part.
"Luigi Novi: 'Nope' can be interpreted to mean that I agree with you?"
Yes, it can. Thank you for agreeing with me!
"X-Ray: Actually, he did. Luigi Novi: No."
Yes.
"Yes! And you didn't have to develop hardly ANY intricate and technical mathmatical formulas to prove your "point." (Well, just one.) I'm sure everyone, when seeing the word "exponential," does that same formula in their head."
Hey, is that sarcasm? I can't tell...
What are you saying? That the average, ordinary person is incapable of figuring out a simple average? Here's my "intricate and technical" formula: X/4 = y, where X = cumulative grades, and y = grade point average.
Now, the hard part....inserting the known quantities and unknown variables you want to solve for: (71 + X)/4 = 76.
When is basic algebra taught these days? 6th grade? 5th?
My point, which I had thought was clearly made, but I'll explain it in Village Idiot terms, was that you can't take a term like "exponential" and apply it to something like a GPA just because it's based on a number system. Grading scales are not necessarily linear, so you can't say that 76 is not exponentially greater than 71, just because there's only 5 "points" between them. Take, for example, the decible scale. A 3 point increase represents roughly a doubling of the sound power. So something that is 63 dB has twice the sound power of something at 60 dB...an exponential increase, even though there are only 3 "points" between the two factors.
Oh, in order to effectively mock something, you have to be able to say something negative about it. A basic algebra formula that most 6th graders should be able to figure out, set up, and work, hardly qualifies as "intricate and technical." Also, mocking someone doesn't make you right, and them wrong.
However, proving someone wrong does, in fact, make them wrong. I've proven you, X-ray, wrong. The best you can do is try to paint my response as overly technical (which, again, would not make me wrong, just demonstrate some aptitude you appear to lack) and then dismiss me through mockery. Which would suggest that you have no way to counter my response.
Teacher: "Class, please define 'exponential.' "
Bobb: "OK! Exponential means X/4 = y, where X = cumulative grades, and y = grade point average. Now, the hard part....inserting the known quantities and unknown variables you want to solve for: (71 + X)/4 = 76."
Teacher: "what are you babblong about? I asked you to define a word, and you give me a formula."
Bobb: "But it's so EASY! Are you stupid?"
Mr. David asserts that Kerry's grades improved "exponentially." The characteristic of an exponential curve is a small increase in the beginning, with the rate of increase steadily becoming greater. So Mr. David is saying that Kerry's grades didn't improve much his second year, but they improved more in his third year and still more in his fourth.
So saying that his grades improved exponentially is not a particularly flattering statement.
As for the accuracy of the statement, the article which I've seen doesn't provide sufficient information. It says Kerry got a first-year average of 71, a senior-year average of 81, and a cumulative 76 for all four years. That's consistent with linear improvement, not with an exponential curve. If his improvement were exponential, the 4-year average would have to be lower, or the senior year average higher.
But I agree with many others that what's important isn't the grades themselves, but that Kerry concealed his grades in order to avoid comparison with the "stupid" Bush. The mantra that Bush is a dummy is such a convenient substitute for raising substantive issues.
The mantra that Bush is a dummy is such a convenient substitute for raising substantive issues.
...except that isn't a mantra propogated by liberals, but by conservatives to hide the fact that his agenda is predatory. Bush's stupidity is merely something liberals believe.
To Gary McGath:
Bravo! But don't expect facts to matter to the lunatic liberals that post here. They know only one thing, their mantra ... BUSH SUCKS.
"The mantra that Bush is a dummy..."
But I love this mantra! The liberals never seem to realize its implications. If Bush is THAT dumb, then what does that make the libs themselves, and John Kerry, whom Bush has consistently beaten?
Any comment that Bush is dumb also implies that those he consistently defeats are FAR dumber! Their usual lame comeback: But Bush didn't "REALLY" win! GOP voters were tricked, are stupid ... etc, etc. Whine on, my children!
...then what does that make the libs themselves, and John Kerry, whom Bush has consistently beaten?
As I've been saying -- Bush is a predator who harvests middle-class savings.
He gets votes by measuring strength by dominance. The poor who vote for him are like a prostitute knifing a guy for stopping her pimp from beating her.
Again, your neediness is sickening. Maybe I'm responsible for prolonging your displays of neediness here, by calling it what it is.
But I can't think of anything that gives evil greater license than the pretense of virtue. In the comic book community, that was the theme preserved in the recent Sin City adaptation, and is the harm caused by the censorship the CBLDF fights.
If Bush is THAT dumb, then what does that make the libs themselves, and John Kerry, whom Bush has consistently beaten?
It means Dems are thankfully that they don't have a Karl Rove churning out the propoganda, nor a Cheney or Rumsfeld to pull Bush's strings.
If people like Bush because he comes across as "an everyday Joe", then this country is in trouble.
"It means Dems are thankfully that they don't have a Karl Rove churning out the propoganda, nor a Cheney or Rumsfeld to pull Bush's strings."
No ... it really means they are world-class bad losers.
"Your neediness is sickening."
Then PLEASE ignore me! I'm begging you. I need you to ignore me.
I can see why PAD labled X-ray a clod.
Ok, OK, I'll stop feeding the troll.
"I can see why PAD labled X-ray a clod. Ok, OK, I'll stop feeding the troll."
Thank you! But making posts about me is not really ignoring me, is it.
Who said I was ignoring you? By "stop feeding the troll," I meant I'd stop giving you an excuse to embarrass yourself by giving you something to respond to.
But I'll be happy to ignore you, from now on.
From The Boston Globe article:
"The records, which the Navy Personnel Command provided to the Globe, are mostly a duplication of what Kerry released during his 2004 campaign for president, including numerous commendations from commanding officers who later criticized Kerry's Vietnam service. . . . An earlier release of the full record might have helped his campaign because it contains a number of reports lauding his service."
Looks like some of those Swift Boat guys actually said nice things about Kerry in the past. Hey!! Wait a minute. Aren't The Swift Boat Veterans liars?
The Swift Boat campaign is just a glaring example of how the public can be swayed...get a few people that will follow blindly (kool-aid drinkers, I call them), throw in a few statements that have a tinge of credibility (SBVs against Kerry), then repeat ad nauseum in public, and pretty soon, you have yourself an unassailable "truth." Despite the fact that there's not a shred of supportable fact contained within that "truth." The sheer repetitive nature of the statement creates it's own viability.
Then PLEASE ignore me! I'm begging you. I need you to ignore me.
My understanding is that the most resolved critics of a movement are those who have been converted from it, like the guy who wrote I Used To Be a Neocon.
You aren't the only Bush supporter reading this thread, so just because you aren't a likely candidate to see how poor voters of Bush voted against their own self-interest (like a prostitute knifing a guy for stopping her pimp from beating her), that doesn't mean letting you continue with your inconsistencies won't reach another candidate.
With Bushes popularity down 20-points from where Clinton was when impeachment began, maybe it's time to start feeding the trolls.
Bobb wrote: "The Swift Boat campaign is just a glaring example of how the public can be swayed...get a few people that will follow blindly (kool-aid drinkers, I call them), throw in a few statements that have a tinge of credibility (SBVs against Kerry), then repeat ad nauseum in public, and pretty soon, you have yourself an unassailable "truth." Despite the fact that there's not a shred of supportable fact contained within that "truth." The sheer repetitive nature of the statement creates it's own viability."
In my opinion, anyone who dismisses the Swift Boat Veterans arguments out of hand is a "Kool-aid Drinker" as well. The truth, from all the evidence I've seen, lies somewhere in between both arguments.
I tend to believe Bush got elected for two reasons:
1) He represents the values of most Americans, and
2) Democrats do not represent the values of most Americans (I would say the representative liberals on this site, though intelligent and sincere, do not represent what most Americans think are important).
People weren't tricked. The American people aren't prostitutes knifing the guy who stops their pimp from beating them, they are people who don't want to become prostitutes to the Democratic pimp (working hard so their money can be redistributed to those who don't, against their will). Democrats encourage the poor to stay poor, afixed to the government teat. Republicans do NOTHING to prevent people from moving up; republicans are not pimps, they don't force people to work for them, at worst, they discourage people from staying poor.
R. Maheras, I'd agree...any time you dismiss something out of hand, you're at least getting in line to drink the funny colored water. Which I'm sure some people supporting Kerry did, simply because Kerry was their guy.
Then there are others of us that actually did some research into what the SBV were saying. As I said, I found them to have a tinge of credibility (many of them actually were SB vets themselves, serving about the same time as Kerry, and in some instances, involved in the same missions as Kerry), but that I saw not one single statement from someone that actually, physically served with Kerry on the missions in question. All of those vets, those that actually had first-hand accounts of Kerry's service, were supportive of Kerry and the official record.
So I dismissed the SBV messages after seeing that their claims were not based on any good evidence.
"With Bushes popularity down 20-points from where Clinton was when impeachment began,"
You could probably say that Bush's popularity is dropping exponentially...
PAD
"You could probably say that Bush's popularity is dropping exponentially...
PAD"
..........
bwa-hahahahahahhahhahahah! :)
Republicans do NOTHING to prevent people from moving up; republicans are not pimps, they don't force people to work for them, at worst, they discourage people from staying poor.
They're also then, by default, heartless bastards who don't want to help those in need.
Case in point: a great number of those filing for bankruptcy do so because of medical hardship.
So what do the Republicans and their big business buddies do? Make it more difficult for these people to file for bankruptcy.
And you think they don't prevent people from improving their lives?
Also no exemption in the new bankruptcy law for soldiers in combat &/or their families.
Just the usual Republican support for the troops.
Query: What was the voting record on the recent bankruptcy bill? Was it a straight-line party vote?
http://www.indiadaily.com/breaking_news/31776.asp
Says it passed the House 302-126, and the Senate 74-25. This wasn't exaclty a partisan bill, although it was penned by a Republican. There was some talk during the debate over it that it would make getting credit easier, and lower interest rates. Most experts I've seen discussing it have stated that your average personal credit card interest rate won't be going down at all. And in a world where a DOG can get a credit card, is it any wonder that there's a large number of bad accounts out there?
But, rather than recognize that the credit industry has created it's own mess (mass mailings, targeting young and inexperienced college students and recent grads, granting huge credit limits to students with little to no income), our government decides to throw them a bone...because, let's face it, banks present a huge lobby group.
This isn't just a republican decision, much as I'd like to say it is. This is just a general failure of the government to look out for the average citizen. Those truly need bankruptcy protection must now go through an even longer, and more expensive, process in order to do so. Which is just what someone contemplating bankruptcy wants to hear...another bill coming their way.
Query: I may be mistaken, but aren't there already legal protections relating to financial and employment issues for members of the armed services when they are deployed? Aren't a lot of the problems many of them are encountering due to poor private industry education of their responsibilities, rather than the need for further protections?
Oh, and thank you, Bobb, for the information relating to my first question.
Thank you, Peter David, for continuing to ignore me!
(I'm sure your very funny "exponential" pun was not at all directed to me.)
That brings you up to NINE posts about me ... even though you are "donne" with me.
Wow .. if you were NOT donne with me, you'd probably make EVERY post about me!
How exponential!
"They're also then, by default, heartless bastards who don't want to help those in need."
No, they don't want the GOVERNMENT to do it; many are willing to help personally. Remember the charity reports on Kerry and Bush? Kerry, rich as he is, gives sparingly; Bush gives copiously (one might dare say: exponentially) and always has.
Jason, as I understand it, there are very few protections for deployed soldiers. Full-time enlisted you don't really need to worry about...I'm pretty sure their families are allowed to remain on their domestic base, and since meals and such are provided, they don't really see a cut in income (apologies if I've got that wrong, someone feel free to correct me).
It's the deployed guard that run into hardships. The only thing required by law is that they are able to resume their jobs when they return. The only pay they are guaranteed is their guard pay, often a frail fraction of their civilian income. Most employers will allow them to use accumulated leave (if any), but that will run out long before their current deployment ends.
Some employers voluntarily maintain their Guard employees civilian salaries, but are not required to do so. So many guard families, especially those with children, are suffering extreme financial hardship right now. If the mother has to quit her job to care for children, they could effectively go from 2 salaries to less than 1 salary. It's also hard on members that own their business.
They are desperately in need of additional assistance.
Thank you again, Bobb. I understand about the regular forces. I asked because within the last month I saw a news report (my apologies, I can't remember the network/news show source) talking about Guard and Reserve members who were having problems with landlords, and in that story they talked about protections under the law that prevent a creditor from seizing assets or evicting someone while someone's deployed. According to the report, the laws are already on the books; it was a lack of public education about reservists' rights while deployed. I didn't look it up at the time, but I was reminded of the story after reading some of the posts above and was curious if anyone knew more. I genuinely don't remember enough to be sure I've got my facts straight.
Case in point: a great number of those filing for bankruptcy do so because of medical hardship.So what do the Republicans and their big business buddies do? Make it more difficult for these people to file for bankruptcy.
And you think they don't prevent people from improving their lives?
Also no exemption in the new bankruptcy law for soldiers in combat &/or their families.Just the usual Republican support for the troops.
Supports my point: the poor who vote republican are voting against their own self-interest -- like a prostitute knifing a guy for stopping her pimp from beating her.
They do this in campaigns that can be summarized as "You will know America is strong by our dominance." The republican politicians leave the voters feeling strong, while they implement policy to harvest middle-class savings.
"The poor who vote republican are voting against their own self-interest -- like a prostitute knifing a guy for stopping her pimp from beating her."
----------
Yet strangely enough ... the military voted overwhelmingly for Bush.
THEY ARE STUPID!
P.S. Is that the only simile you know? Repeating it over and over is like a prostitute knifing a guy for stopping her pimp from beating her!
I never called anyone stupid. Like I mentioned here, there's no defense against your relentless, anonymous agenda, and you appear to be getting off on domination. You have an appetite for human blood -- confusing your need for domination with strength -- for which you should seek help.
Just asking, should we consider the half of the Democratic Senators that voted for the recent bankruptcy law as buddies of the Republicans and Big Business? Please refer to Bobb's post above and form your own opinion; I'm purposefully referring you to his actual post instead of quoting from it in order to avoid somehow misrepresenting someone else's words.
There are legitimate complaints about how President Bush has handled social services in this country, but it seems like a tough sell to me to characterize a non-partisan vote in Congress as all one party's doing.
Ah, those are different matters I'm not as familiar with, Jason, but it appears you are correct.
http://www.military.com/Resources/ResourcesContent/0,13964,31042,00.html
not sure if the guard/reserve members all are aware of these protections...they probably need to contact credit card companies, for instance. And if their family members get evicted while they are away, because they are unaware of their legal protections, well, that doesn't help them that much.
Looks like maybe there were a few guard/reserve members that missed a newsletter?
Again Bobb, thank you for the information. Frightening to think that protections like this already exist, and yet people in our armed forces still lose their homes sometimes because they are either unaware of their rights or have to educate others about them.
Just asking, should we consider the half of the Democratic Senators that voted for the recent bankruptcy law as buddies of the Republicans and Big Business?
I don't see why not.
Seeing as how the majority party sets the agenda, however, it only seems reasonable (ha, ha, reason) that they should receive the lion's share of the blame.
X-ray complains I'm repeating my point, that poor who vote republican are voting against their own self-interest -- like a prostitute knifing a guy for stopping her pimp from beating her. Yet the plain truth continues to daunt him and his fellow republicans.
"Also no exemption in the new bankruptcy law for soldiers in combat &/or their families.
Just the usual Republican support for the troops. "
Just remember that while Bush claims to support the military, he doesn't care about the hardships and murders he inflicts upon the INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE that make up the military. To Bush, the military is a toy, not a collection of people.
Actually...I'd say it isn't exactly a toy to him, but he just doesn't mind "collateral damage."
Actually, Mike, I would have to say that your preferred analogy in illustrating your point is a little distracting due to its graphicness. However, I am still considering your actual argument.
At this point I would refer to something that bothered me during Kerry's campaign, which is off-topic and not a response to your post, but something I'm still curious about: how did he expect people like the poor, who I'm inferring you think would vote in their self-interest if they were aware of a better option than the situation they know, to go to his website to see his ideas for change?
Forgot to finish my thought:
The poor are not known for having extensive internet access, though there are several programs out there trying to remedy this. Even with internet access, though, how many people liked being referred to a website instead of hearing Kerry actually say what he thought needed to be done? I think the campaign was decided, at least to some degree, to a perceived lack of ideas in the Democratic party. In other words people on the fence might have decided differently if presented with a complete argument, substantiated by clear thought on objectives and methods.
I will say one thing for Bush though. Soldier's families are no longer living in poverty. I believe it took him and the Republican Congress until his second term to correct this travesty.
However, while the Overseas Coupon Program is no longer necessary, we now need a MinimumWageWorker Coupon Program.
And before the onslaught begins about President Bush and his ability to communicate ideas, he had already served a full term which demonstrated what he was thinking already. I don't believe anyone can say they didn't understand, at least partially, what President Bush was about when they voted last year.
Here's some help for the followers of Sisyphus:
http://www.impeach-bush-now.org/
http://www.thefourreasons.org/
Best of luck.
which demonstrated what he was thinking already
Demonstrating what Bush is thinking is very easy, since it doesn't take much time. (which brings this thread back to where it began, though I fully realize this might be a fruitless attempt.)
As much as I dislike Bush and his sithian cohorts, I agree with the analogy with Sisyphus. That said, all hope is not lost.
Bush will be gone Jan 21, 2009. I can just pray that the world isn't completely destroyed by that time.
Bobb, the situation regarding Guard (and Reserve) soldiers is far more complex than you may realize, and deployments affect soldiers in different ways. Let's say you are a Master Sergeant who has 12 years in the Reserve. In your civilian job, you work in a local factory. When you activated and deploy, you now in the same status as active duty, and your monthly pay would break down as such:
Base pay (MSgt with 12 years in): $2980.20
Housing allowance (off base/with dependents): $750.60 (deployed less than 140 days)
Food allowance (BAS): $254.46
Combat Pay: $225
This comes to about $4210.26 per month, or about $50,500 per year.
For Guard members and Reservists who are activated and deployed for 140 days or more, receive the active duty housing allowance, which in, say, Illinois, may be from $200 to $1,000 a month more, depending on where the Guard member/Reservist lives.
Thus, a Reservist master sergeant from Chicago would receive about $62,000 per year if deployed. An officer from Chicago, say, a Lieutenant Colonel with 12 years in, would make considerably more -- about $95,000 per year. That’s because the base pay for a Lieutenant Colonel (O-6) with 12 years of service is $5,799 per month (or about $69,588 per year).
Only a soldier’s Base Pay in taxable.
Other benefits: The military member becomes eligible for the inexpensive SGLI term life insurance, which costs around $25 a month for $250,000 worth of coverage. Dependents of activated Guard members/Reservists who are deployed also become eligible for Tricare (The DoD’s healthcare program), Delta Dental, legal assistance, and other benefits, along with commissary and exchange privileges.
In addition, some soldiers are eligible for bonuses and special duty pay.
Thus, in my opinion, although there are instances where there are there are financial hardship for deployed members (especially professionals who are civilian airline pilots, doctors and lawyers, or those who are small business owners), the average Guard member or Reservist is not getting screwed financially when deployed -- especially if they are from a low income or middle class backgrounds.
Just asking, should we consider the half of the Democratic Senators that voted for the recent bankruptcy law as buddies of the Republicans and Big Business?
Well, for one, did a single Republican vote against this bill? I don't believe so.
Also, some Democrats went to great lengths to try and get amendments added to the bill to protect those with medical hardships, the military, etc.
All were shot down by the Republicans.
"Bush will be gone Jan 21, 2009. I can just pray that the world isn't completely destroyed by that time."
Thank God you're here. We need someone grounded in reality, who doesn't exaggerate or overly dramatize things!
how did he expect people like the poor, who I'm inferring you think would vote in their self-interest if they were aware of a better option than the situation they know, to go to his website to see his ideas for change?
While Bush's campaign can be summaraized as "we know America is strong from our dominance." Kerry made the mistake of not offering an alternative relief. He stopped at merely
addressing the attacks made against him.
At the time, the SBV attacks seemed irrational and daffy. Bush campaigned in the role of a hero, and Kerry was selected in the democratic primaries because he had an actual record as a hero.
Once he let the sbv attacks pressure him to abandon the hero role -- without offering the voters some form of alternative relief -- you could say he lost the election there. At least that's how it looked to me.
My problem isn't that Bush is stupid, so much as that he seems to WANT to be PERCIEVED as stupid, and, indeed, seems to feel that being percieved as intelligent would be a bad thing. Kerry at least TRIED to look smart.
Just asking, should we consider the half of the Democratic Senators that voted for the recent bankruptcy law as buddies of the Republicans and Big Business?
Craig answers...sort of
Well, for one, did a single Republican vote against this bill? I don't believe so.
Also, some Democrats went to great lengths to try and get amendments added to the bill to protect those with medical hardships, the military, etc.
All were shot down by the Republicans.
So.... should we consider the half of the Democratic Senators that voted for the recent bankruptcy law as buddies of the Republicans and Big Business?
Me, I'd just say yes.
Thanks, Rick.
I had figured only the worst cases were making the news, so it's good to know that there are only a few reservists and guards in financial trouble.
So.... should we consider the half of the Democratic Senators that voted for the recent bankruptcy law as buddies of the Republicans and Big Business?
Consider me the optimist: it's only half of all of them instead of all of them. ;)
But, I'd like to see you address the point of why the Republicans shot down every proposal to try and help those most in need.
"Kerry made the mistake of not offering an alternative relief. He stopped at merely addressing the attacks made against him."
------
Yes! He made the "mistake" of having no program of his own. Oopsie! AND he was especially effective at addressing those Swift Boat Vets For Truth guys. Good job, President Kerry!
After reading various comments about the SBV ads, I begin to appreciate some of the benefits of living in Texas and not being subjected to the non-stop blitz of ads that some of you poor guys must have been getting.
Craig: My questions about what protections are already in place for members of our armed services, and the responses that others provided, to me suggest that instead of being against such protections, perhaps the bi-partisan group was against unnecessary legal statutes that were duplicative of what's already in place. To be honest I cannot claim what's going on inside the head of any member of Congress. I'm pretty disgusted with all of them for letting things get to this point of partisan divisiveness that is strangling our ability to move forward in any direction.
Their grades mean nothing. I graduated in the bottom 3% of my class and yet I have a registered IQ of 160. (Genius, but just barely.)
So, what we're saying here is that Bush started out stupid and ended up stupid. Kerry, on the other hand, started out really stupid and ended up just plain stupid, thanks to his vast improvement. Either way, the country was going to be in the hands of morons
Todd, you don't seem to understand that going from really stupid to plain stupid ... is an exponential improvement!
TAC: Their grades mean nothing. I graduated in the bottom 3% of my class and yet I have a registered IQ of 160. (Genius, but just barely.)
Luigi Novi: Barely??? I thought the genius level began at around 120. Wouldn't 160, therefore, be well into the genius range?
