eersandbeers wrote:Probably. Do you think he was smart enough to even get in let alone graduate? Those Ivy League schools are notorious for being persuaded by money.

Sort of how Ted Kennedy "made the grade" as well I might add.

believer wrote:

eersandbeers wrote:Probably. Do you think he was smart enough to even get in let alone graduate? Those Ivy League schools are notorious for being persuaded by money.

Sort of how Ted Kennedy "made the grade" as well I might add.

Didn't Teddy get caught up in some academic cheating scandal, too? I believe he was expelled from Harvard because of it.

Let's not rag on Bush for being dumb when you've got a drunk and a cheat who is heralded as some great American -- and our current president likely got his degree handed to him because of his skin color. He certainly didn't have any accomplishment of note while he was in college (other than those related to his skin color).

Writerbuckeye wrote:

believer wrote:

eersandbeers wrote:Probably. Do you think he was smart enough to even get in let alone graduate? Those Ivy League schools are notorious for being persuaded by money.

Sort of how Ted Kennedy "made the grade" as well I might add.

Didn't Teddy get caught up in some academic cheating scandal, too? I believe he was expelled from Harvard because of it.

Let's not rag on Bush for being dumb when you've got a drunk and a cheat who is heralded as some great American -- and our current president likely got his degree handed to him because of his skin color. He certainly didn't have any accomplishment of note while he was in college (other than those related to his skin color).

Or maybe our President busted his ass and did the wolrk.
Obama entered Harvard Law School in late 1988. He was selected as an editor of the Harvard Law Review at the end of his first year,[31] and president of the journal in his second year.[32] During his summers, he returned to Chicago, where he worked as a summer associate at the law firms of Sidley Austin in 1989 and Hopkins & Sutter in 1990.[33] After graduating with a Juris Doctor (J.D.) magna cum laude[34] from Harvard in 1991, he returned to Chicago.[31] Obama's election as the first black president of the Harvard Law Review gained national media attention[32] and led to a publishing contract and advance for a book about race relations,[35] though it evolved into a personal memoir. The manuscript was published in mid-1995 as Dreams from My Father.[35]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama

I would be proud if my son acheived all this while in law school.

The best thing that could ever happen to this country would be the end of a "party-system." Americans need candidates who will do what they think is best for the country, not what their party leaders want them to do. It's time to stop listening to what the media has to say and time to start researching candidates and topics on your own. An educated voter is the best voter!

Writerbuckeye wrote:

believer wrote:

eersandbeers wrote:Probably. Do you think he was smart enough to even get in let alone graduate? Those Ivy League schools are notorious for being persuaded by money.

Sort of how Ted Kennedy "made the grade" as well I might add.

Didn't Teddy get caught up in some academic cheating scandal, too? I believe he was expelled from Harvard because of it.

Let's not rag on Bush for being dumb when you've got a drunk and a cheat who is heralded as some great American -- and our current president likely got his degree handed to him because of his skin color. He certainly didn't have any accomplishment of note while he was in college (other than those related to his skin color).

That opinion is BS and garbage and you know it.

It's not BS.

The man published virtually NOTHING during his entire college career -- and won't release anything about his past college or work history.

That tells me he either has something to hide (I don't think this is it) or what he did was pretty pedestrian and lackluster, and would taint his image as this great writer/orator. They need to keep the curtain pulled on the man from Oz.

When he releases his college and work history, and I see actual evidence that he accomplished anything, I'll change my view. Until then, he's flown by on his skin color and little else.

Writerbuckeye wrote: It's not BS.

The man published virtually NOTHING during his entire college career -- and won't release anything about his past college or work history.

That tells me he either has something to hide (I don't think this is it) or what he did was pretty pedestrian and lackluster, and would taint his image as this great writer/orator. They need to keep the curtain pulled on the man from Oz.

When he releases his college and work history, and I see actual evidence that he accomplished anything, I'll change my view. Until then, he's flown by on his skin color and little else.

You give the Obama bashers a bad name with this sort of nonsense. You really do.

Somehow, you opine that Obama's earning of magna cum laude is because of his skin color?

Laughing My Fuckin ass off. Per rules of LJ....aren't you supposed to link wild ass assertions such as this?

Certainly, in the vast depths of the internet, you can come up with a source supporting your "claim".

Where are his fellow class mate right wingers with an agenda out there that claim that Obama was in fact a dumb ass?

Footwedge wrote:Per rules of LJ....aren't you supposed to link wild ass assertions such as this?

Personal opinions do not require links.

I just wrote: "The man published virtually NOTHING during his entire college career -- and won't release anything about his past college or work history.

That tells me he either has something to hide (I don't think this is it) or what he did was pretty pedestrian and lackluster, and would taint his image as this great writer/orator. They need to keep the curtain pulled on the man from Oz."

It's well documented that Obama has refused to release anything he wrote during his college days or produced during his limited time working outside of being an elected official.

I'm not basing my conclusions on a bunch of nothing here. When the man actually produces something he wrote (of consequence) during his time as Law Review editor (or whatever he was) then I'll be happy to rescind what I said.

Until then...

Well, I think that Reagan. Clinton, Carter, both Bushes are dumbasses. The reason for my opinion is due to the fact that none of their college writings were published. I also think that they were elected because they were white.

Footwedge wrote: Well, I think that Reagan. Clinton, Carter, both Bushes are dumbasses. The reason for my opinion is due to the fact that none of their college writings were published. I also think that they were elected because they were white.

Whatever guy.

I don't believe any of them ran a campaign that strongly emphasized TRANSPARENCY.

Can you spell H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E and L-I-A-R?

I know you can.

Writerbuckeye wrote:I'm not basing my conclusions on a bunch of nothing here. When the man actually produces something he wrote (of consequence) during his time as Law Review editor (or whatever he was) then I'll be happy to rescind what I said. .Until then...

But, but, but....Writer. C'mon. He don't need to produce no stinkin' relevant wrtings. After all, he did (cough) "win" a Nobel Peace Prize just for being himself.

That in and of itself demonstrates how brilliant this man is.

Bill Clinton promised to run the most ethical administration in American history and we all know how that turned out.

So what makes you think Barrack Hussein Obama won't run the most transparent administration in American history? :rolleyes:

Writerbuckeye wrote:

Footwedge wrote: Well, I think that Reagan. Clinton, Carter, both Bushes are dumbasses. The reason for my opinion is due to the fact that none of their college writings were published. I also think that they were elected because they were white.

Whatever guy.

I don't believe any of them ran a campaign that strongly emphasized TRANSPARENCY.

Can you spell H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E and L-I-A-R?

I know you can.

And this post has what to do about the subject at hand again? He's a hypocrite and liar because he didn't publish his magna cum laude papers?

Footie,

TRANSPARENCY.

That was the other point Writer made.

CenterBHSFan wrote: Footie,

TRANSPARENCY.

That was the other point Writer made.

Thanks for pointing out the very obvious that he was trying hard to ignore.

CenterBHSFan wrote: Footie,

TRANSPARENCY.

That was the other point Writer made.

Whereby Obama has not been as transparent as I would like, he is head and shoulders over the last guy in power...and it's not even close. Center...start a thread on that subject..I would love to compare and contrast....starting with the cost of wars hidden by the last guy, yet open booked with the new guy.

Oh...and Center...here is one book for starters. Read the remarks section...the Bush 43 administration had the most opaque presidency in our history.

Homeland Security Opacity
Torture Opacity
Hidden and False Intel
Falsifying the cost of wars.

The list is endless.

http://www.amazon.com/Dead-Certain-Presidency-George-Bush/product-reviews/0743277287/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

I understand that there has been a lack of transparency with the current administration, and i am very upset/frustrated with it.

But it has nothing to do with releasing his college papers. Do you want him to scan his high school papers and throw them out there as well?

Transparency has to do with what he and the administration are doing WHILE IN OFFICE. Freaking ludicrous to claim that he isn't being transparent because he won't give you his term paper from an undergraduate history class.

Footwedge wrote:

CenterBHSFan wrote: Footie,

TRANSPARENCY.

That was the other point Writer made.

Whereby Obama has not been as transparent as I would like, he is head and shoulders over the last guy in power...and it's not even close. Center...start a thread on that subject..I would love to compare and contrast....starting with the cost of wars hidden by the last guy, yet open booked with the new guy.

Here we go again...making comparisons where NONE are warranted.

The discussion wasn't whether Obama was more or less transparent than his predecessor -- it was the FACT that Obama promised transparency and made it a key point of his campaign, and has gone back on that to the point that calling him a liar is being kind.

Bush is GONE, folks. Your guy is in office. Try defending his (often indefensible) actions instead of making some bogus comparison to the last president.

cbus4life wrote: I understand that there has been a lack of transparency with the current administration, and i am very upset/frustrated with it.

But it has nothing to do with releasing his college papers. Do you want him to scan his high school papers and throw them out there as well?

Transparency has to do with what he and the administration are doing WHILE IN OFFICE. Freaking ludicrous to claim that he isn't being transparent because he won't give you his term paper from an undergraduate history class.

It's called HYPOCRISY.

The man says he wants total transparency, but makes deliberate efforts to hide much of his past.

But that issue aside, he has chucked aside what he promised in so many ways, not the least of which have been pushing through legislation before folks have really had a chance to see what's in it (the stimulus bill), and trying to do the same with health care.

If he didn't want any critiques of his policies, he shouldn't have promised everything would be open.

He's a liar.

Footwedge wrote:

CenterBHSFan wrote:Footie,

TRANSPARENCY.

That was the other point Writer made.

Whereby Obama has not been as transparent as I would like, he is head and shoulders over the last guy in power...and it's not even close. Center...start a thread on that subject..I would love to compare and contrast....starting with the cost of wars hidden by the last guy, yet open booked with the new guy.

Footie, while I most certainly can do that, what's the point? You must understand, I'm not sticking up for Bush in what I posted ^^^.
I just pointed out what Writer was driving at.

Besides, when have we ever talked about Obama without at least 1 Bush comparison? ANY topic? I can't think of one...
I think that card is over/out-played. Seriously. What could possibly be mentioned that hasn't already be brought up at least a dazillion times?

I think Obama can stand upon his own merits when it comes to HIS campaign promises. One of which, was, transparency.
I have nothing to prove with that.
To me, President Obama has something to prove with that, not me.

believer wrote: Another good read related to BHO's fading media romance: 7 Stories Obama doesn't want told

Very good article.

Footwedge wrote: Oh...and Center...here is one book for starters. Read the remarks section...the Bush 43 administration had the most opaque presidency in our history.
Homeland Security Opacity
Torture Opacity
Hidden and False Intel
Falsifying the cost of wars.
The list is endless.
http://www.amazon.com/Dead-Certain-Presidency-George-Bush/product-reviews/0743277287/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

That's fine with me. Really, what are you wanting to argue about, here?
What do you want me to do? Find something where Bush promised transparency?
Was TRANSPARENCY one of Bush's more notable campaign slogans/promises? I cannot remember, and honestly don't think it matters concerning what Obama has promised.

CenterBHSFan wrote:

Footwedge wrote:

CenterBHSFan wrote:Footie,

TRANSPARENCY.

That was the other point Writer made.

Whereby Obama has not been as transparent as I would like, he is head and shoulders over the last guy in power...and it's not even close. Center...start a thread on that subject..I would love to compare and contrast....starting with the cost of wars hidden by the last guy, yet open booked with the new guy.

Footie, while I most certainly can do that, what's the point? You must understand, I'm not sticking up for Bush in what I posted ^^^.
I just pointed out what Writer was driving at.

Besides, when have we ever talked about Obama without at least 1 Bush comparison? ANY topic? I can't think of one...
I think that card is over/out-played. Seriously. What could possibly be mentioned that hasn't already be brought up at least a dazillion times?

I think Obama can stand upon his own merits when it comes to HIS campaign promises. One of which, was, transparency.
I have nothing to prove with that.
To me, President Obama has something to prove with that, not me.

Reread the thread...the turn was towards Obama's supposed transparency problems. Anyone that bashes Obama for transparency needs to be reminded about how horrible the last guy was in this regard.

I have no problem at all in people disliking this president. But when the GOPers want to lay claim on the horrors of this administration, then memory checks should be in order and comparisons made to the last guy in power.

Maybe you find my references to Bush 43 annoying. Sorry. These are political boards and as such, I will voice my opinion comparing the new guy with the old guy.

What's annoying to me are those that post Obama's doings...as if they've never been done before...especially by their own party electorate.

Want to complain about Obama? Then complain about things that he's done differently from Bush. That makes for interesting debate.

I see no reason for people to complain about deficit spending... Other than those that allign themselves with the libertarian POV. McCain would have done the exact same thing. Probably worse given his preference/propensity for perpetual wars. Bush virtually doubled the national debt during his 8 year tenure. Obama increased the debt about 10% /15%. People forget (or simply don't know) that the government runs on a fiscal year...which means that about half of the additional spending this past year's debt falls under Bush's watch (TARP anyone)?

Yet I hear from the right winged pundits that Obama has set all time records in this area. Well no he hasn't...not even close. Who exactly are making these outrageous claims? Certainly not the GAO, that's for sure.

Transparency issue.....again....a comparable policy which I've shown....Obama is not nearly as opaque as Bush 43. Again, you people need to think before you bash. That's all I'm saying here.

Hell, former press secretary Scott McClelland wrote a book bashing Bush (his boss) for transparency issues.

...Or at the very least, use a pre-emptive softening statement...such as..."well, just like the last guy in power, the present guy continues the policy of opacity in not sharing all that should be shared with the American people" and then cite your concerns.

Without fairness in posting, one's credibility on political boards becomes flawed...and opens the door to being sent into the "partisan hack" columns...both left or right.

Footwedge wrote: Maybe you find my references to Bush 43 annoying. Sorry. These are political boards and as such, I will voice my opinion comparing the new guy with the old guy.

Is that the level of debate you want, though? The political equivalent of Rams vs. Browns?

Obama's performance is what it is without regard to whether the previous officeholder was the best ever, the worst, or somewhere in between.