#McCrystal called back to Washington to explain Rolling Stone article
5521 Dead, 654 since 1/20/09
rolling-stone
Stanley McChrystal recalled over Rolling Stone article
US commander in Afghanistan apologises for magazine article in which he
criticises Barack Obama and ambassador to Kabul
* Jon Boone in Kabul and Matthew Weaver
* guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 22 June 2010 12.27 BST
* Article history
President Barack Obama meeting with General Stanley McChrystal, the top
commander in Afghanistan President Barack Obama meets General Stanley
McChrystal, the top commander in Afghanistan, late last year. Photograph:
Pete Souza/White House/AP
General Stanley McChrystal, the US commander of all Nato-led forces in
Afghanistan, has been recalled to Washington after he criticised Barack
Obama's administration in a magazine profile due to be published later
this week.
A Nato official confirmed that McChrystal would travel to Washington
tomorrow to explain the Rolling Stone article, in which he said that he
felt "betrayed" by the US ambassador to Kabul, Karl Eikenberry. One of
his aides also told the magazine that McChrystal was "disappointed" by
his first meeting with an unprepared Obama.
The official was unable to say how long the general would be away, but
did say that McChrystal believed he had largely "sorted" the situation
after immediately calling the people he had attacked in the profile to
apologise.
Earlier today, McChrystal attended a meeting with the Afghan president,
Hamed Karzai, with Eikenberry and Richard Holbrooke, the US special
representative whom McChrystal also belittled in the magazine article.
A US diplomat said that while "the story sucked" and that McChrystal
"running amok" was "kind of embarrassing", the row would not affect
policy or the way the men worked together.
Earlier today, McChrystal issued a statement offering his "sincerest
apology" for the comments and the article. "It was a mistake reflecting
poor judgment and should never have happened," he said.
The statement adds: "Throughout my career, I have lived by the principles
of personal honour and professional integrity. What is reflected in this
article falls far short of that standard."
According to the article, due to be published on Friday, although
McChrystal voted for Obama, the two didn't get on from the start. And
Obama felt McChrystal was too outspoken last autumn when he called for
more troops to be sent to Afghanistan.
"I found that time painful," McChrystal admitted in the article. "I was
selling an unsellable position."
Obama agreed to deploy an extra 30,000 US troops but only after months of
dithering that many in the military found frustrating. The troop
commitment was coupled with a pledge to begin bringing them home in July
2011, setting what strategists advising McChrystal regarded as an
arbitrary deadline.
McChrystal's statement said: "I have enormous respect and admiration for
President Obama and his national security team, and for the civilian
leaders and troops fighting this war and I remain committed to ensuring
its successful outcome."
The profile, headlined The Runaway General, emerged from several weeks of
interviews and travel with McChrystal's tight circle of aides.
Describing Obama's first White House meeting as a "photo-op", one aide
told the magazine: "Obama clearly didn't know anything about him, who he
was. The boss was pretty disappointed."
The article lists administration figures said to back McChrystal,
including defence secretary Robert Gates and secretary of state Hillary
Clinton.
But the vice-president, Joe Biden, heads a list of those against him. The
article quotes members of McChrystal's team making jokes about Biden.
"Biden? Did you say: Bite me?" an aide said. Another McChrystal aide
reportedly called the White House national security adviser, Jim Jones, a
"clown" who was "stuck in 1985".
The article claims McChrystal has seized control of the war "by never
taking his eye off the real enemy: The wimps in the White House".
Biden initially opposed McChrystal's proposal for additional forces last
year, favouring a narrower counterterrorism strategy.
A leaked internal document revealed that Eikenberry shared those doubts
about the additional troops. In it, Eikenberry said the Afghan president
Hamid Karzai was not a reliable partner for the counterinsurgency
strategy.
In the Rolling Stone article, McChrystal said he felt "betrayed" and
accused the ambassador of blaming others.
"Here's one that covers his flank for the history books," McChrystal told
the magazine. "Now, if we fail, they can say 'I told you so.'"
A spokeswoman for the US embassy in Kabul said: "We have seen the article
and General McChrystal has already spoken to it. As Ambassador Eikenberry
has said on many occasions, he and General McChrystal are both are fully
committed to the President's strategy and to working together as one
civilian-military team to implement it."
Some of the strongest criticism was reserved for Richard Holbrooke,
Obama's special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan.
"The boss says he's like a wounded animal," a member of the general's
team is quoted as saying. "Holbrooke keeps hearing rumours that he's
going to get fired, so that makes him dangerous."
David Hartung
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/22/stanley-mcchrystal-apologises-
> rolling-stone
>
>
> Stanley McChrystal recalled over Rolling Stone article
My guess is that the good General is about to be fired, and rightly so.
General McChrystal's comments may have been a mistake, and he seems to
be a highly competent officer. That does not, however, give him
authority to publicly oppose, or disrespect, the President.
Barrack Obama may is an incompetent, America hating, crooked excuse for
a president, but he is the President, and as such, officers, especially
general officers, do not have the right to be publicly disrespectful.
Phlip
> On 06/22/2010 08:40 AM, 5521 Dead, 654 since 1/20/09 wrote:
>
> > rolling-stone
>
> > Stanley McChrystal recalled over Rolling Stone article
>
> My guess is that the good General is about to be fired, and rightly so.
Yup. Covering up the torture scandals and Stilman's murder weren't
enough to get him fired.
> General McChrystal's comments may have been a mistake, and he seems to
> be a highly competent officer. That does not, however, give him
> authority to publicly oppose, or disrespect, the President.
>
> Barrack Obama may is an incompetent, America hating, crooked excuse for
> a president, but he is the President, and as such, officers, especially
> general officers, do not have the right to be publicly disrespectful.
Your hypocrisy never rests.
wy
> On 06/22/2010 08:40 AM, 5521 Dead, 654 since 1/20/09 wrote:
>
> > rolling-stone
>
> > Stanley McChrystal recalled over Rolling Stone article
>
> My guess is that the good General is about to be fired, and rightly so.
>
> General McChrystal's comments may have been a mistake, and he seems to
> be a highly competent officer. That does not, however, give him
> authority to publicly oppose, or disrespect, the President.
>
> Barrack Obama may is an incompetent, America hating, crooked excuse for
> a president, but he is the President, and as such, officers, especially
> general officers, do not have the right to be publicly disrespectful.
What about Usenet posters and Tea Partiers?
Phlip
We're not helping the enemy. A general dissing his president is.
5521 Dead, 654 since 1/20/09
> On 06/22/2010 08:40 AM, 5521 Dead, 654 since 1/20/09 wrote:
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/22/stanley-mcchrystal-
apologises-
>> rolling-stone
>>
>>
>> Stanley McChrystal recalled over Rolling Stone article
>
> My guess is that the good General is about to be fired, and rightly so.
I just read some of the interview, and I agree. I can't see how any
sitting president could put up with that sort of insubordination.
Apparently the man encouraged his aides to refer to the VP as "Bite Me".
>
> General McChrystal's comments may have been a mistake, and he seems to
> be a highly competent officer. That does not, however, give him
> authority to publicly oppose, or disrespect, the President.
>
Well, looking at Afghanistan, I question his competence. Not that there
is really much anyone could do there, but the American occupation has
been spectacularly bad.
> Barrack Obama may is an incompetent, America hating, crooked excuse for
> a president, but he is the President, and as such, officers, especially
> general officers, do not have the right to be publicly disrespectful.
More to the point, a country with undisciplined officers at the top is a
country that is not going to win any wars.
BushCo Petroleum Spill
"David Hartung" <da...@lemagroup.us> wrote in message
news:1ZKdnZ_7iJf4Xr3R...@giganews.com...
> On 06/22/2010 08:40 AM, 5521 Dead, 654 since 1/20/09 wrote:
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/22/stanley-mcchrystal-apologises-
>> rolling-stone
>>
>>
>> Stanley McChrystal recalled over Rolling Stone article
>
> My guess is that the good General is about to be fired, and rightly so.
>
> General McChrystal's comments may have been a mistake, and he seems to be
> a highly competent officer. That does not, however, give him authority to
> publicly oppose, or disrespect, the President.
If you people who suffer from syphilus eating holes in you brain want to
impeach the guy who tells it like it is and is trying to clean up the 8 year
republican Bush toga-party...
"BRING IT ON"!
You aren't happy unless you have some bullshitter like Reagan sugarcoating
the truth for your lame, insecure, loser lives.
McChrystal is one of Deserter Bush's incompetents there to drag on the wars
for corporatists.
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5216 (20100621) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
David Hartung
> rolling-stone
>
>
> Stanley McChrystal recalled over Rolling Stone article
>
> US commander in Afghanistan apologises for magazine article in which he
> criticises Barack Obama and ambassador to Kabul
>
> * Jon Boone in Kabul and Matthew Weaver
> * guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 22 June 2010 12.27 BST
> * Article history
>
> President Barack Obama meeting with General Stanley McChrystal, the top
> commander in Afghanistan President Barack Obama meets General Stanley
> McChrystal, the top commander in Afghanistan, late last year. Photograph:
> Pete Souza/White House/AP
>
> General Stanley McChrystal, the US commander of all Nato-led forces in
> Afghanistan, has been recalled to Washington after he criticised Barack
> Obama's administration in a magazine profile due to be published later
> this week.
McChrystal will likely be fired, and he will then probably retire. Once
he is retired, he will no longer be obligated to publicly support
Obama's policies.
I would love to see this man run for President in 2012. Even if such a
rund does not survive to the general election, it would be worth it to
see McChrystal call Obama to task for his inept leadership.
Salty Stan
<dea...@deadduz.com> wrote:
>-
>
-
> One of
> his aides also told the magazine that McChrystal was "disappointed" by
> his first meeting with an unprepared Obama.
>
Well, when we elect an amateur president with no experience it would
be hard to expect otherwise.
>-
>
wy
> On 06/22/2010 08:40 AM, 5521 Dead, 654 since 1/20/09 wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > rolling-stone
>
> > Stanley McChrystal recalled over Rolling Stone article
>
> > US commander in Afghanistan apologises for magazine article in which he
> > criticises Barack Obama and ambassador to Kabul
>
> > * Jon Boone in Kabul and Matthew Weaver
> > * guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 22 June 2010 12.27 BST
> > * Article history
>
> > President Barack Obama meeting with General Stanley McChrystal, the top
> > commander in Afghanistan President Barack Obama meets General Stanley
> > McChrystal, the top commander in Afghanistan, late last year. Photograph:
> > Pete Souza/White House/AP
>
> > General Stanley McChrystal, the US commander of all Nato-led forces in
> > Afghanistan, has been recalled to Washington after he criticised Barack
> > Obama's administration in a magazine profile due to be published later
> > this week.
>
> McChrystal will likely be fired, and he will then probably retire. Once
> he is retired, he will no longer be obligated to publicly support
> Obama's policies.
>
> I would love to see this man run for President in 2012. Even if such a
> rund does not survive to the general election, it would be worth it to
> see McChrystal call Obama to task for his inept leadership.
An inept leadership requires that there be a continued streak of
fumblings. What has fumbled under Obama that has affected you
personally? And don't bring up the Gulf spill, because it's being
shown that BP withheld a lot of info from everyone, including Obama,
and still continues with its obstructionist policies, likely thanks to
the license to spill it got from Bush and gang.
Phlip
Mission Accomplished!
sillapond
Nor does your partisan spite.
sillapond
You ARE the enemy, tool.
5521 Dead, 654 since 1/20/09
> On 06/22/2010 08:40 AM, 5521 Dead, 654 since 1/20/09 wrote:
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/22/stanley-mcchrystal-
apologises-
>> rolling-stone
>>
>>
>> Stanley McChrystal recalled over Rolling Stone article
>>
>> US commander in Afghanistan apologises for magazine article in which he
>> criticises Barack Obama and ambassador to Kabul
>>
>> * Jon Boone in Kabul and Matthew Weaver
>> * guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 22 June 2010 12.27 BST * Article history
>>
>> President Barack Obama meeting with General Stanley McChrystal, the top
>> commander in Afghanistan President Barack Obama meets General Stanley
>> McChrystal, the top commander in Afghanistan, late last year.
>> Photograph: Pete Souza/White House/AP
>>
>> General Stanley McChrystal, the US commander of all Nato-led forces in
>> Afghanistan, has been recalled to Washington after he criticised Barack
>> Obama's administration in a magazine profile due to be published later
>> this week.
>
> McChrystal will likely be fired, and he will then probably retire. Once
> he is retired, he will no longer be obligated to publicly support
> Obama's policies.
Like happened over a dozen times during the Bush administration.
>
> I would love to see this man run for President in 2012. Even if such a
> rund does not survive to the general election, it would be worth it to
> see McChrystal call Obama to task for his inept leadership.
He's as well qualified as Sarah Palin or Newt Gingrich or Mike Huckabee...
5521 Dead, 654 since 1/20/09
Comrade! Our evil plan to destroy America has succeeded! I shall inform
our masters in Moscow!
sillapond
Except he as a 2 term Governor, try again.
But, forever and ever, always blame Bush.
5521 Dead, 654 since 1/20/09
It can't be easy dealing with generals who have no sense of discipline.
>
>>-
>>
lab~rat >:-)
puked:
There will be no shortage of candidates running for office, Republican
AND Democrat, campaigning against the Obama reign of terror on the
US...
--
lab~rat >:-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
5521 Dead, 654 since 1/20/09
An utterly worthless governor in a state with the weakest administrative
powers in the union.
David Hartung
Based upon your postings over the years, and based upon the fact that
McChrystal is a General officer, the evidence suggests that he has a
much better developed sense of discipline than you will ever have.
Phlip
> Based upon your postings over the years, and based upon the fact that
> McChrystal is a General officer, the evidence suggests that he has a
> much better developed sense of discipline than you will ever have.
So I walked in to the shrink, and I said...
...shrink? I wanna kill.
--Arlo Guthrie, Alice's Restaurant
5521 Dead, 654 since 1/20/09
wrote:
Let me guess: you think that Brass Hats get to be Brass Hats based on
pure merit.
And the good soldier fairy comes along and leaves a nickle under your
pillow each time you lose a tooth, too.
Phlip
<ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
> >Based upon your postings over the years, and based upon the fact that
> >McChrystal is a General officer, the evidence suggests that he has a
> >much better developed sense of discipline than you will ever have.
>
> Let me guess: you think that Brass Hats get to be Brass Hats based on
> pure merit.
Whereas presidents _don't_.
Instru Mental
> Except he as
Whatever you say, spammy.
'Shit happens'
---Traitorous 'Spammy' Sam's reply to the fact that 34 Americans
died and 170 were injured when Israel attacked the USS Liberty.
Spammy is a gutless coward who has never served his country in
uniform.
Instru Mental
> the enemy
Instru Mental
>> Your hypocrisy never rests.
>
>
> Nor does your partisan spite.
Your hypocrisy defines the core of your being.
Lefty
> On 06/22/2010 08:40 AM, 5521 Dead, 654 since 1/20/09 wrote:
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/22/stanley-mcchrystal-apologises-
>>
>> rolling-stone
>>
>>
>> Stanley McChrystal recalled over Rolling Stone article
>
> My guess is that the good General is about to be fired, and rightly so.
>
> General McChrystal's comments may have been a mistake, and he seems to
> be a highly competent officer. That does not, however, give him
> authority to publicly oppose, or disrespect, the President.
I think they may just call him back for a dressing down. He may not be
fired. He's doing a credible job over there, to the point that it looks
like we'll start pulling out of there on or ahead of schedule.
>
> Barrack Obama may is an incompetent, America hating, crooked excuse for
> a president, but he is the President, and as such, officers, especially
> general officers, do not have the right to be publicly disrespectful.
I disagree with your assessment of the most competent president we've
seen in decades but you have the right attitude and I therefore have to
respect your opinion.
lab~rat >:-)
<ze...@finestplanet.com> puked:
Of course not. Obviously they have foreign backers, are treated to a
generous dose of affirmative action, are able to keep their birth
places and educational backgrounds secret, not do one single thing
resembling a step toward their ultimate goal, and magically become
"Brass Hats". I mean, why not?
Lefty
> On Jun 22, 7:06 am, David Hartung<da...@lemagroup.us> wrote:
>> On 06/22/2010 08:40 AM, 5521 Dead, 654 since 1/20/09 wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/22/stanley-mcchrystal-apolog...
>>> rolling-stone
>>
>>> Stanley McChrystal recalled over Rolling Stone article
>>
>> My guess is that the good General is about to be fired, and rightly so.
>
> enough to get him fired.
Bush never fired anyone who agreed with him on anything.
>
>> General McChrystal's comments may have been a mistake, and he seems to
>> be a highly competent officer. That does not, however, give him
>> authority to publicly oppose, or disrespect, the President.
>>
>> Barrack Obama may is an incompetent, America hating, crooked excuse for
>> a president, but he is the President, and as such, officers, especially
>> general officers, do not have the right to be publicly disrespectful.
>
> Your hypocrisy never rests.
That's not hypocrisy. He has an opinion about the president but he
respects the office. Fault the opinion but it's not hypocritical.
Lefty
> On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 09:06:28 -0500, David Hartung wrote:
>
>> On 06/22/2010 08:40 AM, 5521 Dead, 654 since 1/20/09 wrote:
>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/22/stanley-mcchrystal-
> apologises-
>>> rolling-stone
>>>
>>>
>>> Stanley McChrystal recalled over Rolling Stone article
>>
>> My guess is that the good General is about to be fired, and rightly so.
>
> I just read some of the interview, and I agree. I can't see how any
> sitting president could put up with that sort of insubordination.
> Apparently the man encouraged his aides to refer to the VP as "Bite Me".
>>
>> General McChrystal's comments may have been a mistake, and he seems to
>> be a highly competent officer. That does not, however, give him
>> authority to publicly oppose, or disrespect, the President.
>>
> Well, looking at Afghanistan, I question his competence. Not that there
> is really much anyone could do there, but the American occupation has
> been spectacularly bad.
Things have turned around there to a significant degree. The number of
Afghan security has more than quintupled since Obama took office, and
they are closer than ever to taking over their own security. There is
almost no al Qaeda presence in Afghanistan now. And they are on schedule
to start bringing troops home on schedule or before. He's actually
proven himself quite competent at following orders. How he feels about
the president and his staff personally doesn't matter. The issue is his
insubordinance. Telling his wife the president's people are boobs in the
privacy of his own home is one thing; telling a Rolling Stone reporter
that is quite another.
>
>> Barrack Obama may is an incompetent, America hating, crooked excuse for
>> a president, but he is the President, and as such, officers, especially
>> general officers, do not have the right to be publicly disrespectful.
>
> More to the point, a country with undisciplined officers at the top is a
> country that is not going to win any wars.
No one has won a war since 1945.
Bert Hyman
wrote:
> Bush
Who?
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@iphouse.com
Phlip
> privacy of his own home is one thing; telling a Rolling Stone reporter
> that is quite another.
Maybe they got him stoned - that's an old trick of theirs.
(-:
sillapond
You burned out old hippies are an undistinguished lot.
sillapond
When Obama was behind in the primaries in delegate count the DNC
announced they would hold a special "pre-convention" meeting to bind
them to him and make sure Hillary wouldn't prevail.
"Merit"?
5521 Dead, 654 since 1/20/09
wrote:
Reagan and Bush Junior pretty much killed the notion that the
presidency was based on ability.
Phlip
He just said McChrystal owes his position to merit, whereas Obama does
not. Double standards.
sillapond
Elected vs. appointed.
Oh...never mind...
David Hartung
> On 6/22/2010 10:06 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>> On 06/22/2010 08:40 AM, 5521 Dead, 654 since 1/20/09 wrote:
>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/22/stanley-mcchrystal-apologises-
>>>
>>>
>>> rolling-stone
>>>
>>>
>>> Stanley McChrystal recalled over Rolling Stone article
>>
>> My guess is that the good General is about to be fired, and rightly so.
>>
>> General McChrystal's comments may have been a mistake, and he seems to
>> be a highly competent officer. That does not, however, give him
>> authority to publicly oppose, or disrespect, the President.
>
> I think they may just call him back for a dressing down. He may not be
> fired. He's doing a credible job over there, to the point that it looks
> like we'll start pulling out of there on or ahead of schedule.
I suppose that anything is possible. I am looking at this as a former
military man. One thing that military members may not ever do, is to
publicly criticized the chain of Command, or the civilian leadership of
the military. In giving an interview to Rolling Stone magazine, and
saying what he did, General McChrystal very definitely violated that rule.
At his level, there is really only one thing to do.
Of course, the final decision is up to the President.
>> Barrack Obama may is an incompetent, America hating, crooked excuse for
>> a president, but he is the President, and as such, officers, especially
>> general officers, do not have the right to be publicly disrespectful.
>
>
> I disagree with your assessment of the most competent president we've
> seen in decades but you have the right attitude and I therefore have to
> respect your opinion.
And I yours.
David Hartung
I have a lot more experience with General officers than do you, and even
the worst, most incompetent(neither adjective describes McChrystal) must
have a finely tuned sense of discipline in order to be promoted beyond
captain.
Lefty
He didn't say that. He said that Obama is the president whether
McChrystal likes it or not and the office is due proper respect, if not
the man. And he's right. At least about that. He's wrong about Obama of
course.
Phlip
> team is quoted as saying. "Holbrooke keeps hearing rumours that he's
> going to get fired, so that makes him dangerous."
Breaking News: Rolling Stone Magazine now accepting public bids for
who to get fired next.
David Hartung
You are welcome to your opinion, but once again, you have demonstrated
your own blind partisanship.
5521 Dead, 654 since 1/20/09
I bet you can't name a President dumber than Bush, and you're our
resident expert on "dumb".
David Hartung
Based upon their actions, every Democratic president since 1976 is
"dumber that Bush".
5521 Dead, 654 since 1/20/09
Liar.
Phlip
> Every GOP president since 1960 (except Gerald Ford) has lied more,
> harmed the country more, engaged in more disastrous policy, committed
> more anti-american sentiment than Democratic presidents.
You forgot "got their officials jailed more".
Salty Stan
> On 06/22/2010 12:09 PM, 5521 Dead, 654 since 1/20/09 wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 08:52:57 -0700, Salty Stan wrote:
>
> >> On Jun 22, 9:40 am, "5521 Dead, 654 since 1/20/09"<dea...@deadduz.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>> -
>
> >> -
> >>> One of
> >>> his aides also told the magazine that McChrystal was "disappointed" by
> >>> his first meeting with an unprepared Obama.
>
> >> Well, when we elect an amateur president with no experience it would be
> >> hard to expect otherwise.
>
> > It can't be easy dealing with generals who have no sense of discipline.
>
> McChrystal is a General officer, the evidence suggests that he has a
> much better developed sense of discipline than you will ever have.
LOL! Thanks, Hartung, that was my laugh for today!
Salty Stan
> On 6/22/2010 10:06 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>
> > On 06/22/2010 08:40 AM, 5521 Dead, 654 since 1/20/09 wrote:
>
> >> rolling-stone
>
> >> Stanley McChrystal recalled over Rolling Stone article
>
> > My guess is that the good General is about to be fired, and rightly so.
>
> > General McChrystal's comments may have been a mistake, and he seems to
> > be a highly competent officer. That does not, however, give him
> > authority to publicly oppose, or disrespect, the President.
>
> I think they may just call him back for a dressing down. He may not be
> fired. He's doing a credible job over there, to the point that it looks
> like we'll start pulling out of there on or ahead of schedule.
>
> > Barrack Obama may is an incompetent, America hating, crooked excuse for
> > a president, but he is the President, and as such, officers, especially
> > general officers, do not have the right to be publicly disrespectful.
>
> I disagree with your assessment of the most competent president we've
> seen in decades but you have the right attitude and I therefore have to
> respect your opinion.
I have to agree also. No matter what was McChrystal's axe to grind, he
should not have done it publicly. It would be difficult now to sack
him, he is administrating over a crucial time in the war, and it's not
the time to upset teh apple cart with a transition period. Only the
troops would suffer.
Salty Stan
> On 06/22/2010 03:23 PM, 5521 Dead, 654 since 1/20/09 wrote:
> >> Whereas presidents _don't_.
>
> > Reagan and Bush Junior pretty much killed the notion that the
> > presidency was based on ability.
>
> You are welcome to your opinion, but once again, you have demonstrated
> your own blind partisanship.
I would have said "stupidity"
:)
Salty Stan
>
> > You are welcome to your opinion, but once again, you have demonstrated
> > your own blind partisanship.
>
> I bet you can't name a President dumber than Bush,
Let's see, Bush has degrees from both Harvard and Yale.
BTW, mind if I ask YOUR educational background, Zepp?
David Hartung
Good question. I suspect that Zepp will either ignore it, or try and
make the case that education is not the issue.
lab~rat >:-)
<wsjam...@gmail.com> puked:
What the fuck does Obama care if the troops suffer. His ratings would
suffer, that's the only thing saving McChrystal right now...
--
lab~rat >:-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
lab~rat >:-)
puked:
Right, because liberals protect their own and make up lies to keep
them in office. You have one faggot that should be doing time for
running a prostitution ring out of his house. Oh, but he didn't know.
He's just a oblivious moron. So that's why he's a lefty hero.
5521 Dead, 654 since 1/20/09
wrote:
It really doesn't matter how often you squeak that silly little lie,
it is going to remain a silly little lie no matter how often you
squeak it.
lab~rat >:-)
<ze...@finestplanet.com> puked:
LOL, since you're the first one to step in it, are you saying you
wouldn't know if your wife or mother were running a prostitution ring
out of your house? If not, you're as clueless as Frank.
5521 Dead, 654 since 1/20/09
wrote:
>On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 10:49:52 -0700, "5521 Dead, 654 since 1/20/09"
><ze...@finestplanet.com> puked:
>
>>On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 13:04:41 -0400, "lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 08:59:50 -0700 (PDT), Phlip <phli...@gmail.com>
>>>puked:
>>>
>>>>On Jun 23, 6:36 am, Nort...@tweet.net wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Every GOP president since 1960 (except Gerald Ford) has lied more,
>>>>> harmed the country more, engaged in more disastrous policy, committed
>>>>> more anti-american sentiment than Democratic presidents.
>>>>
>>>>You forgot "got their officials jailed more".
>>>
>>>Right, because liberals protect their own and make up lies to keep
>>>them in office. You have one faggot that should be doing time for
>>>running a prostitution ring out of his house. Oh, but he didn't know.
>>>He's just a oblivious moron. So that's why he's a lefty hero.
>>
>>It really doesn't matter how often you squeak that silly little lie,
>>it is going to remain a silly little lie no matter how often you
>>squeak it.
>>
>
>LOL, since you're the first one to step in it, are you saying you
>wouldn't know if your wife or mother were running a prostitution ring
>out of your house? If not, you're as clueless as Frank.
Frank is clueless because he didn't know about a bullshit right wing
story that was invented years after the fact?
lab~rat >:-)
<ze...@finestplanet.com> puked:
It must have been a hell of a story, because Frank confirmed it to be
true. Congratulations in proving yourself to be a stooge led by the
left wing disinformation police.
5521 Dead, 654 since 1/20/09
wrote:
Now you're just flat-out lying, cupcakes. But amuse us: give us a
cite, there.
Congratulations in proving yourself to be a stooge led by the
>left wing disinformation police.
Uh huh. Cite?
Phlip
<ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 14:37:36 -0400, "lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 11:19:47 -0700, "5521 Dead, 654 since 1/20/09"
> ><ze...@finestplanet.com> puked:
>
> >>On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 14:03:55 -0400, "lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net>
> >>wrote:
>
> >>>On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 10:49:52 -0700, "5521 Dead, 654 since 1/20/09"
> >>><ze...@finestplanet.com> puked:
>
> >>>>On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 13:04:41 -0400, "lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net>
> >>>>wrote:
>
You know - the left wingers, like Media Matters, who police
disinformation.
You are just their stooge, attempting to post the truth behind all the
spin.
lab~rat >:-)
<ze...@finestplanet.com> puked:
Sheesh, no wonder you're defending Frank, ya fuckin' pansy.
>But amuse us: give us a
>cite, there.
So we're clear, you're saying that Frank never had a prostitution ring
running out of his house. Is this what you're claiming?
>
>Congratulations in proving yourself to be a stooge led by the
>>left wing disinformation police.
>
>Uh huh. Cite?
--
lab~rat >:-)
puked:
>On Jun 23, 11:53 am, "5521 Dead, 654 since 1/20/09"
My contention is that Barney Frank, a known and admitted gay whore
monger, had his whore running a whore business out of Frank's house.
My editorial was that if that were the case, Frank would have known or
he would have been an oblivious moron.
AND, he acknowledged that he paid said whore for sex, AND confirmed
that said whore was running a whore business out of his house.
Is there anything untruthful about what I repeated there?
5521 Dead, 654 since 1/20/09
Ah. Playing stupid, are you?
Oh. Not playing.
I see.
5521 Dead, 654 since 1/20/09
wrote:
And you're still a liar.
>
>>But amuse us: give us a
>>cite, there.
>
>So we're clear, you're saying that Frank never had a prostitution ring
>running out of his house. Is this what you're claiming?
Or knew about it, yes.
lab~rat >:-)
<ze...@finestplanet.com> puked:
He claimed he didn't know about it.
I think he's lying.
He confirmed that it happened and that he fired him and threw him out
when he found out.
I think he did that when it became public.
Now, separating fact from opinion, do you still have a problem with my
assertion?
>>
>>>
>>>Congratulations in proving yourself to be a stooge led by the
>>>>left wing disinformation police.
>>>
>>>Uh huh. Cite?
--
sillapond
With trial lawyers heavily funding the Dems this surprises you?
sillapond
Pot-kettle.
Instru Mental
> With
'Shit happens'
---Traitorous 'Spammy' Sam's reply to the fact that 34 Americans
died and 170 were injured when Israel attacked the USS Liberty.
Spammy is a gutless coward who has never served his country in
uniform.
Instru Mental
> Pot-kettle.
Ray Fischer
>On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 08:59:50 -0700 (PDT), Phlip <phli...@gmail.com>
>puked:
>
>>On Jun 23, 6:36 am, Nort...@tweet.net wrote:
>>
>>> Every GOP president since 1960 (except Gerald Ford) has lied more,
>>> harmed the country more, engaged in more disastrous policy, committed
>>> more anti-american sentiment than Democratic presidents.
>>
>>You forgot "got their officials jailed more".
>
>Right, because liberals protect their own and make up lies to keep
The rightard NEVER takes any responsibility. If there's a crime then
it's always somebody else's fault.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>On Jun 22, 10:08 pm, "5521 Dead, 654 since 1/20/09"
><dea...@deadduz.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 20:30:45 -0500, David Hartung wrote:
>-
>>
>> > You are welcome to your opinion, but once again, you have demonstrated
>> > your own blind partisanship.
>>
>> I bet you can't name a President dumber than Bush,
>
>Let's see, Bush has degrees from both Harvard and Yale.
And you think that that makes him smart? Maybe it just means that his
family has lots of money.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
5521 Dead, 654 since 1/20/09
The Affirmative Action poster child. Just ask Davie and Billie Jim here:
why, they hate people who get unfair advantages over hard working white
trash. Don't you, boys?
The most pathetic thing about G-Dub is that if there is one insight he
ever had, it was that without his family wealth and connections, he would
just be pumping gas somewhere in east Texas.
QuiG...@webtv.net
David Hartung
Please list for us your educational background and your life's
accomplishments.
My guess is that in both areas you fall well short of George W Bush.
Phlip
> > The most pathetic thing about G-Dub is that if there is one insight he
> > ever had, it was that without his family wealth and connections, he would
> > just be pumping gas somewhere in east Texas.
>
> Please list for us your educational background and your life's
> accomplishments.
>
> My guess is that in both areas you fall well short of George W Bush.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Argumentum ad hominem. And it shows you didn't get the point.
If Zepp had been born a scion of an oil-n-politics dynasty, he could
have been president, too.
Affirmative action is picking someone based on useless external
details, instead of merit.
Oh, and Bush bought himself a Harvard degree. Obama's a Harvard
professor. (On sabatical, no doubt...)
Phlip
Modulo the capacity to form complete sentences...
Man_of_Mind
>
> On 06/23/2010 11:31 PM, 5521 Dead, 654 since 1/20/09 wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 03:24:35 +0000, Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>
---
>>>> Let's see, Bush has degrees from both Harvard and Yale.
>>>
>>> And you think that that makes him smart? Maybe it just means that his
>>> family has lots of money.
>>
>> The Affirmative Action poster child. Just ask Davie and Billie Jim here:
>> why, they hate people who get unfair advantages over hard working white
>> trash. Don't you, boys?
>>
>> The most pathetic thing about G-Dub is that if there is one insight he
>> ever had, it was that without his family wealth and connections, he would
>> just be pumping gas somewhere in east Texas.
>
> Please list for us your educational background
Hey, David.. You're awfully quick to run away from providing
cites and facts to support your own self-important proclamations..
Why should Zepp even bother with your silly request?
> My guess is that in both areas you fall well short of George W Bush.
I doubt that Zepp will not compare to George "I know how hard
it is to put food on your family" Bush in a lot of ways, but
my guess is that you're too gullible for right-wing jingoisms
to critically reason your way out of your fallacy arguments..
--In short, you'll turn tail and run away yet again..
David Hartung
1. Zepp could never be the president of the USA, he is not a citizen.
2. In the USA, wealth is not required to gain an education. I assume the
same is true in Canada where Zepp is from.
3. You accuse Bush of "buying" his degrees. Prove it.
4. Provide credible evidence that Obama is a professor anywhere.
We still have not seen evidence of Zepp's life accomplishments, nor
yours for that matter.
Man_of_Mind
>
> On 06/22/2010 09:08 PM, 5521 Dead, 654 since 1/20/09 wrote:
--
>> I bet you can't name a President dumber than Bush, and you're our
>> resident expert on "dumb".
>
> Based upon their actions, every Democratic president since 1976 is
> "dumber that Bush".
Prove it..
--That shouldn't be too hard for a redneck, hunh?
Phlip
> 1. Zepp could never be the president of the USA, he is not a citizen.
If he were born with Bush-like connection, including citizenship, he
could have been president. Duh!
> 2. In the USA, wealth is not required to gain an education. I assume the
> same is true in Canada where Zepp is from.
All colleges operate a "legacy" system, where you move to the front of
the line if your family attended that school. Affirmative action for
whites.
> 3. You accuse Bush of "buying" his degrees. Prove it.
Don't misunderestimate him.
> 4. Provide credible evidence that Obama is a professor anywhere.
Nope. Whatever blog cite I hit would be "too liberal' for you.
Obama's a professor of constitutional law at Harvard. Google it.
Phlip
The one that brought us prosperity, stopped a war (without a long
bloody occupation), and balanced the budget? That president dumber
than Bush?
Steve
wrote:
>On Jun 24, 5:27 am, David Hartung <da...@lemagroup.us> wrote:
>
>> > The most pathetic thing about G-Dub is that if there is one insight he
>> > ever had, it was that without his family wealth and connections, he would
>> > just be pumping gas somewhere in east Texas.
>>
>> Please list for us your educational background and your life's
>> accomplishments.
>>
>> My guess is that in both areas you fall well short of George W Bush.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Argumentum ad hominem. And it shows you didn't get the point.
>
>If Zepp had been born a scion of an oil-n-politics dynasty, he could
>have been president, too.
actually, Zepp has no idea who his parents are/were... Presumably a
hooker and a merchant mariner... one or both being alcoholic and/or
obese...
Steve
wrote:
"When I was In high school, I loved getting drunk and tearing
around in the mountains of Central California."
--David B.(Zepp) Jamieson Dec 7 1999
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.misc/msg/7230848ec0c07282?hl=en&
David Hartung
> On Jun 24, 5:57 am, David Hartung<da...@lemagroup.us> wrote:
>
>> 1. Zepp could never be the president of the USA, he is not a citizen.
>
> If he were born with Bush-like connection, including citizenship, he
> could have been president. Duh!
As I said, Zepp could never be president.
>> 2. In the USA, wealth is not required to gain an education. I assume the
>> same is true in Canada where Zepp is from.
>
> All colleges operate a "legacy" system, where you move to the front of
> the line if your family attended that school. Affirmative action for
> whites.
If true, such does not stop those who want an education from getting one.
>
>> 3. You accuse Bush of "buying" his degrees. Prove it.
>
> Don't misunderestimate him.
Unable to support your claim?
>> 4. Provide credible evidence that Obama is a professor anywhere.
>
> Nope. Whatever blog cite I hit would be "too liberal' for you.
>
> Obama's a professor of constitutional law at Harvard. Google it.
Here is a resume for Obama.
Please show me on here where Obama was a professor anywhere. Please
note, a lecturer is not the same as a professor.
Another note, Obama was the first president of the Harvard Law Review to
get the job based upon anything other than academic performance.
Man_of_Mind
>
> On 06/23/2010 11:19 AM, Faulty Spam whined futilely at:
>>
>> On Jun 22, 10:08 pm, "5521 Dead, 654 since 1/20/09" replied:
>>>
>>> On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 20:30:45 -0500, David Hartung <va...@lemming.gop> wrote:
----
>>>> You are welcome to your opinion, but once again,
>>>> you have demonstrated your own blind partisanship.
>>>
>>> I bet you can't name a President dumber than Bush,
>>
>> Let's see, Bush has degrees from both Harvard and Yale.
>>
>
> Good question. I suspect that Zepp will either ignore it
You're again projecting your own right-wing sociopathy..
--In typical knee-jerk fashion..
David Hartung
> On 6/24/2010 7:27 AM, David Hartung <va...@lemming.gop> whined:
>>
>> On 06/23/2010 11:31 PM, 5521 Dead, 654 since 1/20/09 wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 03:24:35 +0000, Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "slapped_raw" <wsjam...@gmail.com> writhed in denials:
> ---
>>>>> Let's see, Bush has degrees from both Harvard and Yale.
>>>>
>>>> And you think that that makes him smart? Maybe it just means that his
>>>> family has lots of money.
>>>
>>> The Affirmative Action poster child. Just ask Davie and Billie Jim here:
>>> why, they hate people who get unfair advantages over hard working white
>>> trash. Don't you, boys?
>>>
>>> The most pathetic thing about G-Dub is that if there is one insight he
>>> ever had, it was that without his family wealth and connections, he
>>> would
>>> just be pumping gas somewhere in east Texas.
>>
>> Please list for us your educational background
>
> Hey, David.. You're awfully quick to run away from providing
> cites and facts to support your own self-important proclamations..
>
> Why should Zepp even bother with your silly request?
No one says that he has to, but Zepp, like you, spend a lot of time
attacking the intelligence of a man who survived 8 years in the most
high pressure man-killing job in the universe. At the same time both of
you make it very clear that you think quite highly of yourselves. This
makes questions about your education and accomplishments fair game.
>> My guess is that in both areas you fall well short of George W Bush.
>
> I doubt that Zepp will not compare to George "I know how hard
> it is to put food on your family" Bush in a lot of ways, but
> my guess is that you're too gullible for right-wing jingoisms
> to critically reason your way out of your fallacy arguments..
You may guess all you wish, and you may even be right, but what has that
to do with the discussion?
> --In short, you'll turn tail and run away yet again..
I suppose it is possible, I learned years ago not to take Usenet
discussions seriously.
Phlip
> note, a lecturer is not the same as a professor.
The title is "professor", because universities expect their best
lecturers to also have outside jobs.
> Another note, Obama was the first president of the Harvard Law Review to
> get the job based upon anything other than academic performance.
Okay, you're a hater. Bush gets white privilege, and skates through
with a C average. Obama, however, gets to edit a flagship magazine
that everyone will be reading and critiquing, but that just must be
affirmative action. Gotcha.
5521 Dead, 654 since 1/20/09
Yeah, I didn't have a Senator grandpappy, a vice president daddy, and
family millions.
On the bright side, my granddad wasn't a traitor to his country.
Steve
<dea...@deadduz.com> wrote:
If Jamieson had had all that, he would have pissed it all away like he
has all his opportunities.
>On the bright side, my granddad wasn't a traitor to his country.
Zepp has no idea who either of his granddads were...
Man_of_Mind
>
> On 06/24/2010 07:55 AM, Man_of_Mind was amused by the pithy remarks from:
>>
>> On 6/24/2010 7:27 AM, David Hartung <va...@lemming.gop> whined:
>>>
>>> On 06/23/2010 11:31 PM, 5521 Dead, 654 since 1/20/09 wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 03:24:35 +0000, Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "slapped_raw" <wsjam...@gmail.com> writhed in denials:
>>>>>> Let's see, Bush has degrees from both Harvard and Yale.
>>>>>
>>>>> And you think that that makes him smart? Maybe it just means that his
>>>>> family has lots of money.
>>>>
>>>> The Affirmative Action poster child. Just ask Davie and Billie Jim
>>>> here: why, they hate people who get unfair advantages over hard
>>>> working white trash. Don't you, boys?
>>>>
>>>> The most pathetic thing about G-Dub is that if there is one insight he
>>>> ever had, it was that without his family wealth and connections, he
>>>> would just be pumping gas somewhere in east Texas.
>>>
>>> Please list for us your educational background
>>
>> Hey, David.. You're awfully quick to run away from providing
>> cites and facts to support your own self-important proclamations..
>>
>> Why should Zepp even bother with your silly request?
>
> No one says that he has to, but
Here comes the wind-up..
> Zepp, like you, spend a lot of time attacking the intelligence
> of a man who survived 8 years in the most high pressure
> man-killing job in the universe
Your metaphor is somewhat silly, if not grandiose..
Here comes the pitch..
> At the same time both of you make it very clear that you think
Yup, as opposed to you, who merely knee-jerks to a tune called
out by "entertainers" who think they're "leaders" of your so-called
"conservative" movement.. You know, the anti-tax, militia movement
and "tea-party" crowd..
Did it ever once occur to you that you're being exploited?
>>> My guess is that in both areas you fall well short of George W Bush.
>>
>> I doubt that Zepp will not compare to George "I know how hard
>> it is to put food on your family" Bush in a lot of ways, but
>> my guess is that you're too gullible for right-wing jingoisms
>> to critically reason your way out of your fallacy arguments..
>
> You may guess all you wish
Unfortunately for you, my 'guesses' are a lot more calculated
than yours. You simply insinuate and imply that which you have
not the spine/cojones to support with factual presentations..
In fact, when challenged, your opinions tend to evaporate like
frost on a window, once the light of Reason shines fully..
Hence, your next evasion..
> and you may even be right, but what has that to do with
> the discussion?
That blustering foolish remarks, such as yours and McCrystal's,
have consequences that you're not fully going to acknowledge
because it doesn't suit your self-aggrandizing proclamations,
until you get called on the carpet for it..
>> --In short, you'll turn tail and run away yet again..
>
> I suppose it is possible
As predicted..
--You've again avoided any discussion, and posted more evasions..
5521 Dead, 654 since 1/20/09
You don't normally get into Harvard with a "C" average, but Bush was
what's called a "Legacy", which is rich white boy-speak for "Affirmative
Action baby". And they were reportedly "gentleman's 'C's", the academic
equivalent of a mercy fuck.
Steve
Not likely;
here we have Zepp lying in an attempt to cover up
his previous stupid claim about capital gains.
"I've never claimed that listing cap gains on a 1040
will put you in jail, only that trying to list them
at a lower rate would."
--David B.(Zepp) Jamieson Aug 5 2006
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/1634d84e583d3c46?hl=en&
....but here is, in fact, where he made the very
claim he denies he ever made........
"If Nevermore tries paying cap gains with a 1040, he'll
be in jail soon enough."
--David B.(Zepp) Jamieson, Dec 3, 2005
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/30fdaff423e2029b?hl=en&
5521 Dead, 654 since 1/20/09
> On 06/24/2010 07:43 AM, Phlip wrote:
>> On Jun 24, 5:27 am, David Hartung<da...@lemagroup.us> wrote:
>>
>>>> The most pathetic thing about G-Dub is that if there is one insight
>>>> he ever had, it was that without his family wealth and connections,
>>>> he would just be pumping gas somewhere in east Texas.
>>>
>>> Please list for us your educational background and your life's
>>> accomplishments.
>>>
>>> My guess is that in both areas you fall well short of George W Bush.-
>>> Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> Argumentum ad hominem. And it shows you didn't get the point.
>>
>> If Zepp had been born a scion of an oil-n-politics dynasty, he could
>> have been president, too.
>>
>> Affirmative action is picking someone based on useless external
>> details, instead of merit.
>>
>> Oh, and Bush bought himself a Harvard degree. Obama's a Harvard
>> professor. (On sabatical, no doubt...)
>
> 1. Zepp could never be the president of the USA, he is not a citizen.
I'm not the scion of a rich, politically connected family, either. We're
talking hypotheticals here, bubbles. Google the word if you don't know
what it means.
>
> 2. In the USA, wealth is not required to gain an education. I assume the
> same is true in Canada where Zepp is from.
Much more so. Canadian universities don't have "legacy admissions" any
more. You can't get in with a low "C" average because daddy was a
student.
>
> 3. You accuse Bush of "buying" his degrees. Prove it.
>
Who accused him of that?
> 4. Provide credible evidence that Obama is a professor anywhere.
There we go with the "PROVE India exists!" bullshit. Or is this one of
those verb tense traps? I bet it is. He WAS a professor of
constitutional law. Now he's just the president of the United States.
>
> We still have not seen evidence of Zepp's life accomplishments, nor
> yours for that matter.
You don't even HAVE a life, Davy. And neither of us are trying to
justify getting into Harvard with shit grades, let alone becoming
President of the United States.
5521 Dead, 654 since 1/20/09
> On 06/24/2010 08:03 AM, Phlip wrote:
>> On Jun 24, 5:57 am, David Hartung<da...@lemagroup.us> wrote:
>>
>>> 1. Zepp could never be the president of the USA, he is not a citizen.
>>
>> If he were born with Bush-like connection, including citizenship, he
>> could have been president. Duh!
>
> As I said, Zepp could never be president.
You'll have to forgive Dave. Hypotheticals require abstract reasoning
powers, and as you may have noted, Dave's skill sets are roughly those of
a dog's.
>
>>> 2. In the USA, wealth is not required to gain an education. I assume
>>> the same is true in Canada where Zepp is from.
>>
>> All colleges operate a "legacy" system, where you move to the front of
>> the line if your family attended that school. Affirmative action for
>> whites.
>
> If true, such does not stop those who want an education from getting
> one.
Really? Harvard has unlimited space? According to the Education
Department Office for Civil Rights, the Legacies who make up 40% of
Harvard admissions are "significantly less qualified than non-legacy
admissions.
There aren't any empty chairs at Harvard. So even if you assume that
half the legacies aren't worthless and undeserving drones like George,
that means that 20% of the spots at Harvard were pissed away on the
worthless rich.
5521 Dead, 654 since 1/20/09
Are you under the impression that very few other people were critical of
Bush's intelligence?
Now, we could spend the next few weeks providing quotes that show what an
utter moron the man was. There are hundreds of them, after all. But
let's make it easy: give us an extremious quote from Bush that suggests
intelligence, articulation, and education. Just one will be good.
David Hartung
>> Please show me on here where Obama was a professor anywhere. Please
>> note, a lecturer is not the same as a professor.
>
> The title is "professor", because universities expect their best
> lecturers to also have outside jobs.
Shall I check that with one of my professors?
Obama was not a professor at Harvard, according to the resume I linked
to, he was a lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School. Had his
proper title been "professor", it would have been on that resume.
>> Another note, Obama was the first president of the Harvard Law Review to
>> get the job based upon anything other than academic performance.
>
> Okay, you're a hater. Bush gets white privilege, and skates through
> with a C average. Obama, however, gets to edit a flagship magazine
> that everyone will be reading and critiquing, but that just must be
> affirmative action. Gotcha.
I never said that Bush did not benefit from his family's position and
wealth. That the children of the wealthy and the powerful, have benefits
the rest of us don't is a given. Live with it, because that will never
change.
The fact remains that until the year that Obama became the editor, that
position was based upon pure academic performance. They changed the
selection procedures, and magically the Harvard Law Review had its first
black editor. The evidence supporting an "affirmative action" pick,
circumstantial though it is, is mighty compelling.
David Hartung
>> note, a lecturer is not the same as a professor.
>
> The title is "professor", because universities expect their best
> lecturers to also have outside jobs.
Check this:
http://www.law.uchicago.edu/people/faculty/all/all/Full Time Teaching
Faculty
You will note that the school at which Obama taught, differentiates
between "lecturer" and "professor"
sillapond
> On 6/24/2010 7:27 AM, David Hartung <va...@lemming.gop> whined:
>>
>> On 06/23/2010 11:31 PM, 5521 Dead, 654 since 1/20/09 wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 03:24:35 +0000, Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "slapped_raw" <wsjam...@gmail.com> writhed in denials:
> ---
>>>>> Let's see, Bush has degrees from both Harvard and Yale.
>>>>
>>>> And you think that that makes him smart? Maybe it just means that his
>>>> family has lots of money.
>>>
>>> The Affirmative Action poster child. Just ask Davie and Billie Jim here:
>>> why, they hate people who get unfair advantages over hard working white
>>> trash. Don't you, boys?
>>>
>>> The most pathetic thing about G-Dub is that if there is one insight he
>>> ever had, it was that without his family wealth and connections, he
>>> would
>>> just be pumping gas somewhere in east Texas.
>>
>> Please list for us your educational background
>
> Hey, David.. You're awfully quick to run away from providing
> cites and facts to support your own self-important proclamations..
Like you just did?
> Why should Zepp even bother with your silly request?
Why should your purported three PhDs matter?
>> My guess is that in both areas you fall well short of George W Bush.
>
> I doubt that Zepp will not compare to George "I know how hard
> it is to put food on your family" Bush in a lot of ways, but
> my guess is that you're too gullible for right-wing jingoisms
> to critically reason your way out of your fallacy arguments..
Which include gems like your red herring put-down of Bush's hackneyed
speech malapropisms?
> --In short, you'll turn tail and run away yet again..
The way you have been ducking my questions?
sillapond
One need only cite Jimmy Carter's "synfuels" debacle, the Iranian
hostages, and Clinton's "wall of separation" between intelligence
agencies to cement that tomb of futility.