Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Yea, relating your 'associations' with a past president who also had a lot of schooling to open the eyes of the blind to the notion that a degree or two means anything...
I really can't even figure out what you are claiming now.I thought your point was that Palin is, like Clinton, common folk.
I think your bias is uncontrollable anymore.
Bias toward what and against what?
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 150
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I really can't even figure out what you are claiming now.
You haven't been able to since page 1 obviously
I thought your point was that Palin is, like Clinton, common folk.
And your point was that Clinton was like academical scholars and Palin was like bimbo beauty queens.Which of us was more right?I'll give you a hint, me. By a factor of...8 at least.
Bias toward what and against what?
Towards liberal hate and against conservative superiority in the arena of ideas.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Towards liberal hate and against conservative superiority in the arena of ideas.
This is stupid on multiple levels.I don't think Palin is well-informed or smart enough to run the country. That doesn't make me for liberals or liberal policies, just against Palin being president. I don't think Clinton was a good president, but I think he was a smart, well-educated person. But dishonest and politically opportunistic.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Are YOU putting him in the same intellectual bucket as George W. Bush; the Yale and Harvard business graduate who flew fighter jets and owned a baseball team? ( In other words twice the man Clinton could ever hope to be )
You can't be serious. Bill Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar who came from nothing to become President. W was born into extreme wealth and power, coasted through Yale (legacy!) and Harvard with admittedly mediocre grades, managed to get a coveted gig in the Air Force that would keep him out of Vietnam despite questionable test scores*, and temporarily was part-owner (and did have major responsibilities) of a baseball team that never reached the playoffs even once in his ten years on board. *
It was an era when service in the Guard was a coveted assignment, often associated with efforts to avoid active duty in Vietnam. Bush was accepted for pilot training after having scored only 25 percent on the pilot's aptitude test, the lowest acceptable grade.
And that's the Washington Post I'm quoting, not JimBobsQuoteMachine.com.
Link to post
Share on other sites
You can't be serious. Bill Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar who came from nothing to become President. W was born into extreme wealth and power, coasted through Yale (legacy!) and Harvard with admittedly mediocre grades, managed to get a coveted gig in the Air Force that would keep him out of Vietnam despite questionable test scores*, and temporarily was part-owner (and did have major responsibilities) of a baseball team that never reached the playoffs even once in his ten years on board.
You do know that to be a Rhodes's scholar you are selected for the following: ( from wiki )Rhodes' legacy specified four standards by which applicants were to be judged: Literary and scholastic attainments; ( ie You passed your classes ) Energy to use one's talents to the full, as exemplified by fondness for and success in sports; ( Clinton was in the Band! IN THE BAND) Truth, courage, devotion to duty, sympathy for and protection of the weak, kindliness, unselfishness and fellowship; ( code for bleeding heart liberal ) Moral force of character and instincts to lead, and to take an interest in one's fellow beings. ( code for womanizer )So let's not pretend that this is a "Only super duper smart people get this" award. 3/4ths of the award is for your level of liberalness
And that's the Washington Post I'm quoting, not JimBobsQuoteMachine.com.
Being at the bottom of the passing level to fly one of the most dangerous machines in the world still puts you above 95% of the population. He got through the entire flight school, which has a heavy wash out rate. I was at a talk by the test pilot for the F-104, flying that thing is a little harder than laying astro turf in your El Camino to pick up fat chicks at the trailer park. But I do love that you praise Clinton for the Rhodes Scholarship, then try to denigrate Bush for using service in the National Guard to avoid Vietnam.You do know that Clinton actively protested America on foreign soil while using his Rhodes Scholarship to avoid the draft? He also used his time there to visit Russia, one year after they had invaded Czechoslovakia? "Sure they're a brutal regime, might be a nice place to vacation"and Bush could easily have been called up to active duty except the war was winding down and pilots were not needed.So whom served better? A man learning to fly fighter jets who could have been called up, or a man who used a liberal scholarship to leave his country and bad mouth it while visiting its greatest enemy?Quote by Clinton: "A lot of wonderful people love their country and hate the military."Clinton is and always has been scum.Bush is twice the man Clinton will ever be.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think Clinton was a good president, but I think he was a smart, well-educated person. But dishonest and politically opportunistic.
Clinton had a law degree and while under oath before a Federal judge he lied to his face.Some of his defenses he presented for his legal argument:* "It depends on how you define "alone" ... there were a lot of times when we were alone, but I never really thought we were." * "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is" Yea...I'm not sure you should be so quick to point out what a smart man Clinton was by pointing to his school learnin'.
Link to post
Share on other sites
But I do love that you praise Clinton for the Rhodes Scholarship, then try to denigrate Bush for using service in the National Guard to avoid Vietnam.and Bush could easily have been called up to active duty except the war was winding down and pilots were not needed.
Actually, it was the Washington Post who pointed out that, "the Guard was a coveted assignment, often associated with efforts to avoid active duty in Vietnam."My main issue was with you trying to paint W as an intellectual, something that even he would probably admit is simply untrue. He was a mediocre student who was basically born into royalty.The Post article also said this:
A review of Bush's military records shows that Bush enjoyed preferential treatment as the son of a then-congressman, when he walked into a Texas Guard unit in Houston two weeks before his 1968 graduation from Yale and was moved to the top of a long waiting list.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Clinton had a law degree and while under oath before a Federal judge he lied to his face.Some of his defenses he presented for his legal argument:* "It depends on how you define "alone" ... there were a lot of times when we were alone, but I never really thought we were." * "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is" Yea...I'm not sure you should be so quick to point out what a smart man Clinton was by pointing to his school learnin'.
The legal wiggling you are presenting there is quite intelligent. He was not convicted of any charges. Sneaky, but intelligent.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, it was the Washington Post who pointed out that, "the Guard was a coveted assignment, often associated with efforts to avoid active duty in Vietnam."
Not saying it wasn't, but he flew jets, jets that had a higher than average accident rate, he found a way to not go to Vietnam while still serving his country. I don't fault anyone for not wanting to go to Vietnam.
My main issue was with you trying to paint W as an intellectual, something that even he would probably admit is simply untrue. He was a mediocre student who was basically born into royalty.
Actually, I was pointing out to BJ that the whole, 'He's got a degree from X' paint brush that he applied to Clinton could be easily refuted by pointing out that Bush had more degrees and obviously you liberals can NEVER except that he was anything but a dolt.
The Post article also said this:
Oh my...you mean someone used their connections to get preferential treatment....in America?I am shocked, shocked I say.I am willing to be though, that having a daddy in the senate doesn't get you a free set of keys to an F-104. I know it doesn't make you capable of landing one dead stick.
Link to post
Share on other sites
The legal wiggling you are presenting there is quite intelligent. He was not convicted of any charges. Sneaky, but intelligent.
YEAAAAA Situation ethics FTWWinning a case by blatant bs and confusion is the sign of a GREAT MAN.You got to love liberals...they are up in arms that Bush might have used a situation of his connections to avoid going to a war that they themselves call an immoral war while praising people that ran to Canada. But they are so impressed that Clinton used his position to con his way out of committing a felony. Because even though they believe in their soul that EVIL white men who use their power to seduce young employees to submit to sex should be killed...unless you are president, then its 'just sex'...YEAAAAA Situation ethics.
Link to post
Share on other sites
YEAAAAA Situation ethics FTWWinning a case by blatant bs and confusion is the sign of a GREAT MAN.You got to love liberals...they are up in arms that Bush might have used a situation of his connections to avoid going to a war that they themselves call an immoral war while praising people that ran to Canada. But they are so impressed that Clinton used his position to con his way out of committing a felony. Because even though they believe in their soul that EVIL white men who use their power to seduce young employees to submit to sex should be killed...unless you are president, then its 'just sex'...YEAAAAA Situation ethics.
LOL, get'em balloon guy!! I've only been here a day, but I've read 6 threads here, and obviously this is a liberal site. Of course they'll say, "hey, we were just talking about how smart he is, not how ethical".But those are the SAME THING, because ethics (morality) only comes from Jesus Christ. So they pretend like they are "moral" without even acknowledging where morality comes from!Keep up the good work, I'm here to help you.
Link to post
Share on other sites
actually just as likely
I would have a moral objection to using God's name in a screen name.I bet that it's scram OR BigD
Link to post
Share on other sites
Palin is pretty much finished. Michele Bachmann has stolen her niche and does a better job at it.
This thread should have ended a long time ago or been renamed "Bachmann Derangement Syndrome". Palin has been associated with failure in too many ways and has outlived her usefulness. Bachmann is her obvious replacement, and Palin simply can't compete against her. I'll make a more specific prediction- Palin will either not run(more probable) or drop out of the race extremely early. A year from now we will be wondering why anyone talked about her at all(something I wonder currently).
Link to post
Share on other sites

Michele Bachmann is THE candidate. I love how liberals are laughing at her right now. They are going to laugh her right into the White House.Did you know that the lovely and brilliant (she has a law degree, liberal naysayers) Bachmann shared a vision with TWO OTHER PEOPLE that lead her to her husband? Her husband, her friend and she all were given a revelation by God that set her on this path. Look it up if you don't believe me.Just think about that for a minute. It is really powerful, especially in these times when the liberal socialist extremists in this country are trying to drive God and individual responsibility and freedom out of our lives - lead by Barrack HUSSEIN Obama. Bachmann is God sent. I for one am thankful for her and am excited for her presidency.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Michele Bachmann is THE candidate. I love how liberals are laughing at her right now. They are going to laugh her right into the White Jouse.Did you know that the lovely and brilliant (she has a law degree, liberal naysayers) Bachmann shared a vision with TWO OTHER PEOPLE that lead her to her husband? Her husband, her friend and she all were given a revelation by God that set her on this path. Look it up if you don't believe me.Just think about that for a minute. It is really powerful, especially in these times when the liberal socialist extremists in this country are trying to drive God and individual responsibility and freedom out of our lives - lead by Barrack HUSSEIN Obama. Bachmann is God sent. I for one am thankful for her and am excited for her presidency.
Bachman is NOT running for prez.She is running for vice prez.I would bet 5 to 1 that she ends up on someones ticket, if I knew how to do that sort of thing on the internets.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Bachman is NOT running for prez.She is running for vice prez.I would bet 5 to 1 that she ends up on someones ticket, if I knew how to do that sort of thing on the internets.
You are really underestimating Bachmann and might be unaware of her history and meteoric rise in politics. She lost exactly one election, a small one early in her career. After that loss she said she wasn't going to listen to anyone other than her husband, God, and her own conscious. Since then she has steamrolled every opponent she has ever had and I don't know if you noticed she SHOT up to 1 point behind Romney in the latest poll. Skyrocketed.Her constituents are well aware she doesn't play second fiddle to any politician and she is well known for not taking or given any quarter in compromise. She is absolutely NOT running for Vice, and I'd take your wager in a heartbeat.
Link to post
Share on other sites
You are really underestimating Bachmann and might be unaware of her history and meteoric rise in politics. She lost exactly one election, a small one early in her career. After that loss she said she wasn't going to listen to anyone other than her husband, God, and her own conscious. Since then she has steamrolled every opponent she has ever had and I don't know if you noticed she SHOT up to 1 point behind Romney in the latest poll. Skyrocketed.Her constituents are well aware she doesn't play second fiddle to any politician and she is well known for not taking or given any quarter in compromise. She is absolutely NOT running for Vice, and I'd take your wager in a heartbeat.
This has nothing to do with underestimating, Id vote for her, but she wants to be prez, and probably cant do it coming straight from the house.So unless she can revive Lincoln, and convince him to be her second fiddle, being the vice first is her best bet.Imagining a Christie-bachman ticket.
Link to post
Share on other sites
This has nothing to do with underestimating, Id vote for her, but she wants to be prez, and probably cant do it coming straight from the house.So unless she can revive Lincoln, and convince him to be her second fiddle, being the vice first is her best bet.Imagining a Christie-bachman ticket.
I agree that it is a tough hill to climb. I think she has what it takes though.By the way, I'm thinking Bachmann-Christie! :club:
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...