John Kerry: Nice wheels

[Mark Hickey]

[email protected] (JP) wrote:

>[email protected] (Peter Van Buren) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>> Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>> > >The recovery *is* stalled. What I *hope* is that Americans don't fall
>> > >for ******** story that one month of job creation represents any kind
>> > >of significant recovery.
>> >
>> > 800,000 jobs since August. But why don't you post some statistical
>> > indicators showing the economy is "stalled"? C'mon, I know you can do
>> > it.
>
>The recession ended in 2001. Up until August (assuming you're right)
>there were no jobs created. Since then, only 800k, an average of about
>100k/jobs per month. The same data that shows 300k jobs created last
>month also shows that there was now wage growth. I don't know about
>you, but when there is no wage growth for American workers, and when
>jobs are being created at a paltry average of 100k/month, I will call
>that a stalled economy. You, OTOH, may wish to call an economy stalled
>when GDP is not growing. You are welcome to that definition if you
>like, but with around 2 *million* jobs lost since the economy started
>"growing" again, I'll stick with my definition.

The job growth has been understandably slow during the Bush
administration...
1) the economy was in a death spiral when he took office
2) the huge corporate scandals (Enron et al) shook investor confidence
severely
3) the 9/11 attacks

Surely you wouldn't claim that had Al Gore been in office none of this
would have slowed down job growth? The way employment is measured is
convoluted and archaic (and lags reality by a considerable measure).
Check out the size of the actual US work force over the years, based
on the "household survey" numbers (that aren't inaccurately influenced
by the "business survey's" inability to account for new businesses):

http://data.bls.gov/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?request_action=wh&graph_name=LN_cpsbref1

Note the *growth* in jobs.

>For comparison, as I stated before, Clinton had 23 months over eight
>years with 300k+ jobs; Bush has had one (1). Job creation lags behind
>recovery, but not to the degree we have seen under Bush. So I would
>say that this "recovery" is stalled at the part where jobs are
>created, because 100k jobs/month does not constitute recovery. If over
>the next year, the economy begins to create *good* jobs at the rate of
>300k/month, then maybe we got something, but again, ONE MONTH OF JOBS
>DATA IS NOT A TREND OR A "RECOVERY"!

Like Mr. Kerry, you seem to want to confuse "jobs" with "economy".
The "recovery" is a fact, and I'd never suggest that a one month spike
(positive or negative) suggests a trend. The reason the jobs are
lagging behind the rest of the economy longer than normal is because
US industry has experienced unprecedented gains in productivity.
That's also good, because it means we've gotten more efficient, and
we'll be doing a LOT more with even more workers.

>And there is nothing about the
>economic conditions as I enumerated them previously that would cause
>me to put money on the economy continuing to grow over the next year
>enough to keep that rate up. But, if you're lucky (or unlucky, if you
>run a small business making relatively high-end low production
>titanium bicycle frames) the trend may last just long enough to get
>Bush re-elected before everything goes into the crapper again.

I'm very bullish on the economy right now - Wall Street is on fire
with all the great news (not hurting my portfolio a bit, either).

>Hickey may call it a recovery; I call it ****.

I call it "reality" - either you're wrong or every economic analyst on
earth is wrong. Heck, even Kerry isn't trying to say the economy
isn't roaring back any longer.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

 

[JP]

Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> The job growth has been understandably slow during the Bush
> administration...
> 1) the economy was in a death spiral when he took office
> 2) the huge corporate scandals (Enron et al) shook investor confidence
> severely
> 3) the 9/11 attacks

Poor Little Boy George- just a helpless bystander while the US goes to
hell in a handbasket all around him. He's made some stirring speeches,
though.

> Surely you wouldn't claim that had Al Gore been in office none of this
> would have slowed down job growth?

What a clever question. I will give you credit- you have absorbed well
the essential right-wing debate tactic of throwing out red herrings.

Of course there would have been slower job growth- for a while. But
Bush hasn't had "slower job growth", he is down about 2 million jobs,
the worst record since Hoover. And he has continued to lose jobs for
three years, using the losses as an excuse to further enrich his
backers with huge taxcuts.

And, Al, good ole Al Gore, would not have been on vacation for a month
when the US was threatened with terrorist attacks. Having chaired a
commission to recommend airline security improvements he would have
been extremely well qualified as Chief Executive to "shake the tree"
of the law enforcement and intelligence bureaucracies to stop the
attacks when he was warned of them as Bush was. If anyone coulda done
it, it was Gore. So I will not even concede your premise that 9/11 was
inevitable.

Furthermore, having considerably more intelligence that Bush, and not
suffering from ideology-induced myopia, Gore would not have pushed
ahead with unaffordable taxcuts if the deficit started to bloom. His
taxcuts were more aimed at the middle class than at the ultrawealthy,
and would have gotten more money into the hands of people that needed
it to spend, and so would have been more effective at reviving the
economy. There are many things that Gore is likely to have tried; Bush
has tried one thing and one thing only: taxcuts for the wealthy,
despite the fact that most economist seem to agree that that one thing
was particularly unsuited as an economic stimulus.

> The way employment is measured is
> convoluted and archaic (and lags reality by a considerable measure).
> Check out the size of the actual US work force over the years, based
> on the "household survey" numbers (that aren't inaccurately influenced
> by the "business survey's" inability to account for new businesses):

Not this nonsense again. This is an example of "changing horses in
midstream". Whatever measure you pick, it has to be consistent.
Personally, I think that a measure that excludes "discouraged job
seekers" leaves a lot to be desired. You, OTOH, would probably like to
count the long-term unemployed selling their personal belongings on
eBay to try to make ends meet as "self-employed". That is only a
slight exaggeration. The Bush apologists do seem to want to count
cottage industries that are the pathetic recourse of people who have
lost much better paying jobs and are past hope of anything better.

Economic growth no longer means better wages passed along to the
middle class or fuller employment, it means more profits passed to
shareholders. What we know about this "recovery" dovetails perfectly
with what we know about George Bush- the job market sucks and salary
growth sucks, no matter how you measure it.

JP

 

[Mark Hickey]

[email protected] (JP) wrote:

>Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
>> The job growth has been understandably slow during the Bush
>> administration...
>> 1) the economy was in a death spiral when he took office
>> 2) the huge corporate scandals (Enron et al) shook investor confidence
>> severely
>> 3) the 9/11 attacks
>
>Poor Little Boy George- just a helpless bystander while the US goes to
>hell in a handbasket all around him. He's made some stirring speeches,
>though.
>
>> Surely you wouldn't claim that had Al Gore been in office none of this
>> would have slowed down job growth?
>
>What a clever question. I will give you credit- you have absorbed well
>the essential right-wing debate tactic of throwing out red herrings.

You've got the dodge the issue left wing shuffle down to an art form.
;-)

>Of course there would have been slower job growth- for a while. But
>Bush hasn't had "slower job growth", he is down about 2 million jobs,
>the worst record since Hoover. And he has continued to lose jobs for
>three years, using the losses as an excuse to further enrich his
>backers with huge taxcuts.

Oh, so Gore wouldn't have lost ANY jobs. The man must be a magician.

>And, Al, good ole Al Gore, would not have been on vacation for a month
>when the US was threatened with terrorist attacks. Having chaired a
>commission to recommend airline security improvements he would have
>been extremely well qualified as Chief Executive to "shake the tree"
>of the law enforcement and intelligence bureaucracies to stop the
>attacks when he was warned of them as Bush was. If anyone coulda done
>it, it was Gore. So I will not even concede your premise that 9/11 was
>inevitable.

Errrr, I don't know if you realize this, but Gore was around for the
previous eight years and from all indications the Clinton
administration did less to prevent terrorist attacks than did the Bush
administration. And you know it's funny - for a guy on "vacation",
Bush sure seems to have an awful lot of visitors that are the same
folks that "visit" him when he's working. Like his staff and foreign
leaders and such.

>Furthermore, having considerably more intelligence that Bush, and not
>suffering from ideology-induced myopia, Gore would not have pushed
>ahead with unaffordable taxcuts if the deficit started to bloom. His
>taxcuts were more aimed at the middle class than at the ultrawealthy,
>and would have gotten more money into the hands of people that needed
>it to spend, and so would have been more effective at reviving the
>economy. There are many things that Gore is likely to have tried; Bush
>has tried one thing and one thing only: taxcuts for the wealthy,
>despite the fact that most economist seem to agree that that one thing
>was particularly unsuited as an economic stimulus.

I wonder if you've even looked at the distribution of those tax cuts.
Sure it benefitted the upper strata - after all, they DO pay most of
the taxes (the top 25% of the taxpayers pay 83% of the taxes). The
child income credit, elimination of the marriage penalty and
increasing the limits for various boundaries all helped the lower
income folks a lot.

Some examples of the "middle class" you feel was left out:

A family of four with a total income of $75,000 gets a 19% reduction
($1,122) in federal income taxes. If the family income is $40,000,
their income taxes drop from $1,178 to $45 (a 96% decrease). 3
million individuals and families had their federal income tax
liability completely eliminated. 34 million families with children,
including 6 million single moms, will receive an average tax cut of
$1,549 per year.

How did the tax cut on capital investment work? Starting in the third
quarter of 2002, business investment declined by 1.1%, 0.1%, and 0.6%
fot the next three quarters. After the cuts, business investment
INcreased by 7%, 12.8% and 6.9% during the next three. Seems to have
worked, eh?

>> The way employment is measured is
>> convoluted and archaic (and lags reality by a considerable measure).
>> Check out the size of the actual US work force over the years, based
>> on the "household survey" numbers (that aren't inaccurately influenced
>> by the "business survey's" inability to account for new businesses):
>
>Not this nonsense again. This is an example of "changing horses in
>midstream". Whatever measure you pick, it has to be consistent.
>Personally, I think that a measure that excludes "discouraged job
>seekers" leaves a lot to be desired. You, OTOH, would probably like to
>count the long-term unemployed selling their personal belongings on
>eBay to try to make ends meet as "self-employed". That is only a
>slight exaggeration. The Bush apologists do seem to want to count
>cottage industries that are the pathetic recourse of people who have
>lost much better paying jobs and are past hope of anything better.

You're ignoring the fact that the home survey method is inherently
MORE accurate than the business survey model, particularly in
capturing the tremendous growth in small businesses over the last few
years (and there HAS been a lot). If you'd like to discount
legitimate small businesses, by all means use another method of
measurement - but remember that Bill Clinton was bragging about 5.7%
unemployment during the 1996 campaign.

>Economic growth no longer means better wages passed along to the
>middle class or fuller employment, it means more profits passed to
>shareholders. What we know about this "recovery" dovetails perfectly
>with what we know about George Bush- the job market sucks and salary
>growth sucks, no matter how you measure it.

And it would suck a lot worse had someone tried to tax the economy
back into shape. We've just come through a "perfect storm" scenario
and have suffered VERY little overall.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

 

[michael.moak]

[This is clearly the most important political information concerning our future votes. Thank you for such an incredibly detailed exposition on GWB’s not so old ranch. This info along with the knowledge that Kerry is a cyclist is enough to cement my vote….NOT!



--

 

[leapn]

Appkiller wrote:
> C'mon, the reason the guy was a clerk is 'cuz everyone knew he was a
> little short in the head and liked to drink A LOT.
> I am shocked every time I hear someone I regard as a real cyclist saying
> anything in support of "the environment will fix itself no matter what I
> do" Dumbya.
> Read this 41 page report and be very afraid and very angry. Bush doesn't
> care about our kids (no child left behind, unless, of course, it costs
> money), he doesn't care about water or air quality, in fact, I don't
> think he cares about anything unless he's told to.
> http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/page.cfm?p-
> http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/page.cfm?p- ageID=1322
> Get with the program and engage your brain - the triumvirate of pure
> evil (dumbya, cheney, rove) is motivated by greed and supported/enabled
> by stupidity. Have you paid attention to what they have been doing or
> have you been too busy wondering why the sign said "Mission
> Accomplished" but our kids keep dying?
> And how about that brilliant exit strategy - "we have a date but no plan
> and we don't know who we're gonna transfer power to but we're too busy
> thinking up lies about Kerry to worry about that". Damn fine strategery.
> Nice economy and deficit too. Nice jokes about WMD (hey, Brit Hume,
> screw you, you unfeeling *******).
> dumbya only is president because big business and the supremes put him
> there. He only got into an ivy league college 'cuz daddy put him there.
> He only got into the Guard 'cuz daddy put him there. The only thing that
> he has brought to the table is his checkered past and minimal
> intellectual function, which, I guess, made him a perfect mannequin for
> the cheney/rove moron management team.
> I can see it:
> r: "No, George, its nu-ku-lar. Say it."
> s: "But Karl, all the smart people say nu-cle-ar."
> t: "Now, George, you know that you aren't smart and we don't like
> pretenders. Plus, if you sound like the idiot you are, the public
> won't be put off by your feigned ability to think, speak and
> understand at a level beyond their own."
> u: "Yes Karl - hey, can I have that beer now?"
> v: "No, George, remember, we told everyone you gave that up. And no more
> pretzels!"
> <Cheney walks in>
> w: "Got him trained yet?"
> x: "Yeah, Karl, am I trained yet? Hey, I gotta make wee-
> wee." <bumps his head on lamp as he leaves> "Doh."
> Holy ****, this guy just blows the lid right off the old Peter
> Principle. But maybe I misunderestimate him. Make the pie higher! Put
> food on your family!
> App, who is looking forward to Bush trying to run for a third term on
> the grounds that he didn't really win the first time.

Well said ! I'm going to copy this to send to some of my non-cycling ABB
(you know that's Anybody But Bush) friends.

I'm continually amazed when I read or hear pro-Bush dialogue. Then I
remember all the dumb-asses I knew in high school who thought math and
science were tough subjects - so they opted for shop class or history
(isn't that what Dumbya got his dee-gree in?). Of course, they were
happy if they broke 1000 on their SATs and got into the best "party
college". Hey, they got college degrees (even though they didn't exactly
understand what Economics was really about) and a job. They are now for
Bush because they like his cliches (he has no substance). Then they join
a Republican group, or babble with Rush or another similar mindless
lemming support group.

I'm basically a Southern Conservative. I'm for guns, a strong military,
the death penalty, smaller government, and lower taxes. However, Bush
is a walking nightmare. He has taken an economy with a major multi-
hundred billion surplus and turned it into - what is it now - A 400
billion deficit? That is what is called bad management. At least
Haliburton and the oil companies are making money. Do any of you
numbnuts find it curious that our oil industry exective branch managers
(Bush and Cheney - they are in what is called "The Executive Branch")
are managing our country during the largest gas price increase in the
history of the country.

So take it from someone who took those science, math, and econ courses,
to put Bush and Cheney back in office for another 4 years will result in
environmental, legal, and economic damage that will take many, many
years for some quality leadership to repair.





--

 

[leapn]

Mark Hickey wrote:
> [email protected] (Appkiller) wrote:
> >C'mon, the reason the guy was a clerk is 'cuz everyone knew he was a
> >little short in the head and liked to drink A LOT.
> Blah, blah, blah.
> It's kinda funny don't you think?
> Those who are taking issues with Kerry generally state specific actions,
> quotes and voting records.
> Those who are taking issue with Bush figure foaming at the mouth and
> spewing vindictives will make their point sufficiently. It does make the
> point, but probably not the one you intend.
> Oh and BTW, the sailors aboard that boat put up the "Mission
> Accomplished" sign.. you should take it up with them.
> Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles
> http://www.habcycles.com/http://www.habcycles.com Home of the
> $695 ti frame
> >I am shocked every time I hear someone I regard as a real cyclist
> >saying anything in support of "the environment will fix itself no
> >matter what I do" Dumbya.
> >
> >Read this 41 page report and be very afraid and very angry. Bush
> >doesn't care about our kids (no child left behind, unless, of course,
> >it costs money), he doesn't care about water or air quality, in fact, I
> >don't think he cares about anything unless he's told to.
> >
> >http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/page.cfm?pa-
> >http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/page.cfm?pa- geID=1322
> >
> >
> >Get with the program and engage your brain - the triumvirate of pure
> >evil (dumbya, cheney, rove) is motivated by greed and supported/enabled
> >by stupidity. Have you paid attention to what they have been doing or
> >have you been too busy wondering why the sign said "Mission
> >Accomplished" but our kids keep dying?
> >
> >And how about that brilliant exit strategy - "we have a date but no
> >plan and we don't know who we're gonna transfer power to but we're too
> >busy thinking up lies about Kerry to worry about that". Damn fine
> >strategery.
> >
> >Nice economy and deficit too. Nice jokes about WMD (hey, Brit Hume,
> >screw you, you unfeeling *******).
> >
> >dumbya only is president because big business and the supremes put him
> >there. He only got into an ivy league college 'cuz daddy put him there.
> >He only got into the Guard 'cuz daddy put him there. The only thing
> >that he has brought to the table is his checkered past and minimal
> >intellectual function, which, I guess, made him a perfect mannequin for
> >the cheney/rove moron management team.
> >
> >I can see it:
> >
> >r: "No, George, its nu-ku-lar. Say it."
> >
> >b: "But Karl, all the smart people say nu-cle-ar."
> >
> >r: "Now, George, you know that you aren't smart and we don't like
> > pretenders. Plus, if you sound like the idiot you are, the public
> > won't be put off by your feigned ability to think, speak and
> > understand at a level beyond their own."
> >
> >b: "Yes Karl - hey, can I have that beer now?"
> >
> >r: "No, George, remember, we told everyone you gave that up. And no
> > more pretzels!"
> >
> ><Cheney walks in>
> >
> >c: "Got him trained yet?"
> >
> >b: "Yeah, Karl, am I trained yet? Hey, I gotta make wee-
> > wee." <bumps his head on lamp as he leaves> "Doh."
> >
> >
> >Holy ****, this guy just blows the lid right off the old Peter
> >Principle. But maybe I misunderestimate him. Make the pie higher! Put
> >food on your family!
> >
> >App, who is looking forward to Bush trying to run for a third term on
> >the grounds that he didn't really win the first time.



Hey Mark - you are lost in space. Try to get yourself some "lernin' ".



--

 

[Mark Hickey]

leapn <[email protected]> wrote:

>I'm continually amazed when I read or hear pro-Bush dialogue. Then I
>remember all the dumb-asses I knew in high school who thought math and
>science were tough subjects - so they opted for shop class or history
>(isn't that what Dumbya got his dee-gree in?).

Bachelors in History from Yale, MBA from Harvard.

You must have some real credentials if you think that's weak... wanna
impress us with 'em? Heh.

<snipped the rest of the blather>

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

 

[Tom Sherman]

Mark Hickey wrote:

> leapn <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>I'm continually amazed when I read or hear pro-Bush dialogue. Then I
>>remember all the dumb-asses I knew in high school who thought math and
>>science were tough subjects - so they opted for shop class or history
>>(isn't that what Dumbya got his dee-gree in?).
>
>
> Bachelors in History from Yale, MBA from Harvard.
>
> You must have some real credentials if you think that's weak... wanna
> impress us with 'em? Heh....

Ever hear of legacy admissions - one of the primary reasons Shrub was
admitted into Yale?

Besides, what university would turn down a member of a prominent wealthy
and powerful political family, considering the potential future
financial rewards for that university? They are also likely to go to
unusual measures (intensive personal tutoring, etc.) to make sure the
scion scrapes by with a C average (like Shrub) and graduates.

If you believe that Shrub would have been admitted into Yale and Harvard
solely on his academic abilities, you are obviously rather misguided.

--
Tom Sherman – Quad City Area

 

[Chris Dorn]

Tom Sherman wrote:

> Mark Hickey wrote:
>
>> leapn <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I'm continually amazed when I read or hear pro-Bush dialogue. Then I
>>> remember all the dumb-asses I knew in high school who thought math and
>>> science were tough subjects - so they opted for shop class or history
>>> (isn't that what Dumbya got his dee-gree in?).
>>
>>
>>
>> Bachelors in History from Yale, MBA from Harvard.
>>
>> You must have some real credentials if you think that's weak... wanna
>> impress us with 'em? Heh....
>
>
> Ever hear of legacy admissions - one of the primary reasons Shrub was
> admitted into Yale?
>
> Besides, what university would turn down a member of a prominent
> wealthy and powerful political family, considering the potential
> future financial rewards for that university? They are also likely to
> go to unusual measures (intensive personal tutoring, etc.) to make
> sure the scion scrapes by with a C average (like Shrub) and graduates.
>
> If you believe that Shrub would have been admitted into Yale and
> Harvard solely on his academic abilities, you are obviously rather
> misguided.
>
Last time I checked it was pretty difficult to fly a fighter jet..... a
little more of a brain stretch than peddling a bike! He has to have some
intellligence, somewhere.
Chris Dorn

 

[Mark Hickey]

Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:

>Mark Hickey wrote:

>> Bachelors in History from Yale, MBA from Harvard.
>>
>> You must have some real credentials if you think that's weak... wanna
>> impress us with 'em? Heh....
>
>Ever hear of legacy admissions - one of the primary reasons Shrub was
>admitted into Yale?

<snip>

Spin it as you will, Bush earned a Bachelors in history from Yale and
an MBA from Harvard, getting better grades along the way than the
"intellectual" he ran against in 2000.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

 

[JP]

Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> If you believe that Shrub would have been admitted into Yale and Harvard
> solely on his academic abilities, you are obviously rather misguided.

Hardly anyone ever seems to complain about affirmative action for
dumbasses- the kids that grew up with every conceivable advantage,
accomplished nothing and then went on to an Ivy League school (where
they also accomplished nothing) based on a preference derived from
their parents' wealth and power.

At least the UT Law School had the common decency to reject Bush's
application.

JP

 

[Eagle Jackson]

>
> Ever hear of legacy admissions - one of the primary reasons Shrub was
> admitted into Yale?
>

How do you know that? Do you know what Bush's SAT scores were?

Certainly, the admission rate for legacies is higher at top
universities than for non-legacies. No question Bush's family had
some role at Yale. Yet lots of well qualified students who are
legacies and come from prominent families get denied at Yale (and
other top schools)?

But what about Harvard for his MBA? That is even more selective and
no legacy advantage.

You may not like Bush. I don't particularly care for him either. But
it's wrong to say he's stupid. No one who gets elected president is
stupid. He has led a privileged life. So has John Kerry. Big deal.

 

[Peter]

Eagle Jackson wrote:
>>Ever hear of legacy admissions - one of the primary reasons Shrub was
>>admitted into Yale?
>>
>
>
> How do you know that? Do you know what Bush's SAT scores were?

566 verbal, 640 math. Average of the Yale freshman class was 670/705 at
that time.
>
> Certainly, the admission rate for legacies is higher at top
> universities than for non-legacies. No question Bush's family had
> some role at Yale. Yet lots of well qualified students who are
> legacies and come from prominent families get denied at Yale (and
> other top schools)?

 

[Weisse Luft]

But what is ENTIRELY uncalled for was Kerry's comment after the
President had a mountain bike crash. Its called true character.



--

 

[Tim McNamara]

Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:

> If you believe that Shrub would have been admitted into Yale and
> Harvard solely on his academic abilities, you are obviously rather
> misguided.

As much as I despise GWB and his policies, think he ought to be
impeached and run out of town, I don't think you have any proof to
back up these assertions. Yale and Harvard are not going to admit
drooling idiots into their schools, no matter who their parents are.
Well, unless they are members of a secret cabal- that might get you
in.

 

[JP]

[email protected] (Eagle Jackson) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> >
> > Ever hear of legacy admissions - one of the primary reasons Shrub was
> > admitted into Yale?
> >
>
> How do you know that? Do you know what Bush's SAT scores were?

As shown in another post, his scores were quite low for Yale. He has
never released his prep school grades but for a person to get in with
those SAT scores without Affirmative Action for Dumbasses, they would
have to be extremely high- probably 4.0 (when 4.0 used to mean
something, which it doesn't that much anymore from a lot of schools).

(The traditional affirmative action recipients are usually
overachievers who have done better than anyone could have expected
given their opportunities in life, compared to the dumbasses who have
screwed around for 12 years or so because they knew they were going to
get a free ride from their Daddy. Guess which one I think deserves the
opportunity to go to Yale.)

> Certainly, the admission rate for legacies is higher at top
> universities than for non-legacies. No question Bush's family had
> some role at Yale. Yet lots of well qualified students who are
> legacies and come from prominent families get denied at Yale (and
> other top schools)?

Like who?

> But what about Harvard for his MBA? That is even more selective and
> no legacy advantage.

Wrong. What he had was Affirmative Action for Dumbasses: a wealthy and
very powerful father. To its everlasting credit, the UT law school to
which he applied simultaneously had the guts to reject him. Have you
seen his Yale transcript? It was pathetic- low C average. Any normal
person would have a hard time getting into *any* grad school with
those grades, let alone Harvard Business School. And there is nothing
about his academic career to suggest that his GMAT would have jumped
1.5-2.0 standard deviations over his SAT score.

> You may not like Bush. I don't particularly care for him either. But
> it's wrong to say he's stupid.

Define stupid. If you define it as average to moderate intelligence
combined with a cruel sociopathic character and lack of intellectual
curiousity, then I think that relative to his position and advantages
in life, Bush qualifies as stupid, which is not to say that he doesn't
have a certain sociopathic knack for wielding his power to his best
advantage (with the help of one or two crafty people who are a lot
smarter than he is, but just as cruel), sorta like a Mafia don.

I think Bush probably has significant learning disabilities
exacerbated by years of alcoholism, and comes from a dysfunctional and
tragic family. Get him the help he needs but for God's sake get him
out of the White House.

> No one who gets elected president is
> stupid.

Bush was elected president. Bush is stupid. Therefore, at least one
person who gets elected president *is* stupid.

> He has led a privileged life. So has John Kerry. Big deal.

The question is, what have they done with their privilege?

Kerry volunteered to serve in Vietnam, and served with honor and
courage despite his opposition to the war, and came home and led a
movement to stop the war and stop any more Americans from dying there.
But only after he had stepped up and done his duty.

Bush hid from the Vietnam war in the TANG in a slot obtained through
the influence of his father, while supporting the duty of those sons
less fortunate than himself to go and die there.

Kerry has dedicated his entire adult life to public service; Bush has
spent most of his adult life in a state of dissapation, going from one
failed business venture to the next on the coattails of his father's
power and influence until Karl Rove decided to prove that it was
possible to get even a cruel, sociopathic dullard elected governor of
Texas and president of the United States by playing on the good nature
of the American people, who simply could not consider the possibility
that they were and are being lied to, time after time on issue after
issue.

There is no question who is the better man. There is no question who
has used his privelege to the benefit of others instead of himself and
his cronies. One person has behaved as a hero in the truly classic
sense of the word, one is loathsome. More and more of us are finding
the courage to admit this sad truth about our president to ourselves,
and to make the decision to set things right this time.

JP

 

[Weisse Luft]

Jp wrote:
> [email protected] (Eagle Jackson) wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> > >
> ... Blah, blah, blah.



Despite your protracted analysis, why is John Kerry always acting like a
spoiled brat? To wit, why was it a Secret Service agent that spoiled his
snow boarding and why did John Kerry make that awful comment on GWB's
MTB crash?

Kerry is a self-serving, major league AH.



--

 

[Mark Hickey]

[email protected] (JP) wrote:

>Hardly anyone ever seems to complain about affirmative action for
>dumbasses- the kids that grew up with every conceivable advantage,
>accomplished nothing and then went on to an Ivy League school (where
>they also accomplished nothing) based on a preference derived from
>their parents' wealth and power.

So, just to make sure I understand how this works...

IF you had been "unlucky" enough to have a famous parent or two
(business tychoon, polititian, poet, artist, bicycle racer), and you
then accomplished whatever it is you've accomplished in your own life
to this point, it should be ridiculed and minimized... and wouldn't be
as valuable as it is now.

Did I get that right?

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

 

[Tom Sherman]

Chris Dorn wrote:

> ...
> Last time I checked it was pretty difficult to fly a fighter jet..... a
> little more of a brain stretch than peddling a bike! He has to have some
> intellligence, somewhere.

I wonder if Shrub knows the difference between peddling and pedaling?

--
Tom Sherman – Quad City Area

 

[Tom Sherman]

JP wrote:

> ...
> Bush was elected president. Bush is stupid. Therefore, at least one
> person who gets elected president *is* stupid....

Does it count when the margin of victory in the election is 5-4 in the
US Supreme Court?

--
Tom Sherman – Quad City Area