> On 6/22/2012 5:11 PM, Hawwwke-Ptooey showed his ignorance again:
>> On 6/22/2012 3:31 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>> On 6/22/2012 2:59 PM, Hawwwke-Ptooey showed his ignorance again:
>>>> On 6/21/2012 5:52 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>> No it doesn't it proves us right. Someone that was a failure in
>>>>>>>> high
>>>>>>>> school that goes on to an Ivy League school and does extremely well
>>>>>>>> there obviously was underachieving in high school and had a lot of
>>>>>>>> potential that was not being used.
>>>>>>> I know what you mean. Do to the choatic circumstances of my
>>>>>>> youth, I
>>>>>>> was a high school dropout with only a GED at 15, working as a
>>>>>>> machine
>>>>>>> operator in an electronics plant. But now I have several degrees,
>>>>>>> including a doctorate with honors. One's life ought not be
>>>>>>> predetermined by one's childhood or parentage.
>>>>>> I learned the same lesson in life. I was not a high school drop out
>>>>>> but
>>>>>> I did exceedingly poorly. I was near the bottom of my class when I
>>>>>> graduated. It took me a long time but I did eventually straighten
>>>>>> myself
>>>>>> out and got a couple degrees myself, which only goes to show that you
>>>>>> shouldn't count out the slow starters.
>>>>> You got an AA degree from a community college, which doesn't really
>>>>> count as a degree - it's not required for admission to /any/
>>>>> bachelor's
>>>>> program anywhere - and you got a worthless bachelor's degree in a
>>>>> worthless field from a shitty backwater university. You never did
>>>>> anything with your bachelor's degree; all you do is brag about it.
>>>> You're ignorant and a blabbermouth. You continuously talk as if you
>>>> have
>>>> all kinds of information you are not privy to. You don't know jack
>>>> about
>>>> my education. Yet you pretend you do.
>>> You got an AA degree from a community college, which doesn't really
>>> count as a degree - it's not required for admission to /any/ bachelor's
>>> program anywhere - and you got a worthless bachelor's degree in a
>>> worthless field from a shitty backwater university. You never did
>>> anything with your bachelor's degree; all you do is brag about it.
>>>> Just know that I am better
>>>> educated than you are,
>>> No, you're not. You're much *worse* educated than I am, in large part
>>> because you didn't obtain a bachelor degree until an advanced age, and
>>> you coasted through a shitty school to get it. I earned my bachelor
>>> degree in five years after high school (one year off to live overseas),
>>> and then I attended graduate school.
>>> You never learned to think, and in fact you never *have* thought. All
>>> you do is emote, based on shitty extreme left-wing values you somehow
>>> absorbed - *wrongheaded* left-wing values.
>> I did more than "attend" graduate school.
> You didn't do *anything* in graduate school, you douche - you were never
> even *admitted* to graduate school.
See, that's what I mean when I say you don't know a thing about me. You have a lot of mistaken ideas but you don't really know anything. I will tell you one thing though. I had good enough grades when I graduated from college to be accepted by the graduate school. If you know anything about academics that should tell you what kind of undergraduate student I was.
>>>>>> The fact is we know how well Obama
>>>>>> did in the Ivy League. We know how well he's done every step of the
>>>>>> way
>>>>>> to becoming president of the U.S.
>>>>>> We know how smart and how capable Obama is from what he has done.
>>>> We don't know *anything* about Obama being smart and capable, you
>>>> fuckwit. Other than collecting some degrees, Obama never did anything
>>>> meaningful. He was a "community organizer", which is a fancy term for
>>>> professional rabblerouser and is in fact a *DISQUALIFYING* activity for
>>>> being president. He taught law - whatever law he had learned, *NOT*
>>>> any
>>>> of his original scholarship - at a law school as a lecturer; he was not
>>>> a legal scholar. He served several undistinguished, unproductive terms
>>>> in the Illinois legislature where he left virtually *NO* record of
>>>> legislative achievement, and 2/3 of a term in the US Senate, which time
>>>> was equally undistinguished.
>>>> He's not a dummy, but he is *far* from the scintillating intellect you
>>>> fucking fawning dopes make him out to be.
>>> The problem is that you take a guy like Obama that has excelled at every
>>> level and
>> Obama is hardly a model of excellence. In fact, the only things that
>> conceivable could be taken as evidence of excellence are his graduation
>> from Harvard law school, and his presidency of the law review while
>> there. *Nothing* else he has done in his life bespeaks excellence, most
>> particularly his legislative "career", which was among the most
>> undistinguished in recent memory.
> Ha, ha, ha, you really are something. You have a guy that is a
> successful author,
Ha ha ha ha ha ha!
> an attorney,
Where did he make partner? How long was he a practicing lawyer?
> a former U.S. senator,
Two thirds of one term, and he achieved *NOTHING* in four years.
His record in the Illinois state senate is equally bereft of achievement.
> and now the president of the U.S.
A con job.
> He started with nothing,
He's done nothing good.
He is not an example of excellence. He's an example of resume padding.
> On 6/22/2012 5:16 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 6/22/2012 5:11 PM, Hawwwke-Ptooey showed his ignorance again:
>>> On 6/22/2012 3:31 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>> On 6/22/2012 2:59 PM, Hawwwke-Ptooey showed his ignorance again:
>>>>> On 6/21/2012 5:52 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>>> No it doesn't it proves us right. Someone that was a failure in
>>>>>>>>> high
>>>>>>>>> school that goes on to an Ivy League school and does extremely
>>>>>>>>> well
>>>>>>>>> there obviously was underachieving in high school and had a lot of
>>>>>>>>> potential that was not being used.
>>>>>>>> I know what you mean. Do to the choatic circumstances of my
>>>>>>>> youth, I
>>>>>>>> was a high school dropout with only a GED at 15, working as a
>>>>>>>> machine
>>>>>>>> operator in an electronics plant. But now I have several degrees,
>>>>>>>> including a doctorate with honors. One's life ought not be
>>>>>>>> predetermined by one's childhood or parentage.
>>>>>>> I learned the same lesson in life. I was not a high school drop out
>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>> I did exceedingly poorly. I was near the bottom of my class when I
>>>>>>> graduated. It took me a long time but I did eventually straighten
>>>>>>> myself
>>>>>>> out and got a couple degrees myself, which only goes to show that
>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>> shouldn't count out the slow starters.
>>>>>> You got an AA degree from a community college, which doesn't really
>>>>>> count as a degree - it's not required for admission to /any/
>>>>>> bachelor's
>>>>>> program anywhere - and you got a worthless bachelor's degree in a
>>>>>> worthless field from a shitty backwater university. You never did
>>>>>> anything with your bachelor's degree; all you do is brag about it.
>>>>> You're ignorant and a blabbermouth. You continuously talk as if you
>>>>> have
>>>>> all kinds of information you are not privy to. You don't know jack
>>>>> about
>>>>> my education. Yet you pretend you do.
>>>> You got an AA degree from a community college, which doesn't really
>>>> count as a degree - it's not required for admission to /any/ bachelor's
>>>> program anywhere - and you got a worthless bachelor's degree in a
>>>> worthless field from a shitty backwater university. You never did
>>>> anything with your bachelor's degree; all you do is brag about it.
>>>>> Just know that I am better
>>>>> educated than you are,
>>>> No, you're not. You're much *worse* educated than I am, in large part
>>>> because you didn't obtain a bachelor degree until an advanced age, and
>>>> you coasted through a shitty school to get it. I earned my bachelor
>>>> degree in five years after high school (one year off to live overseas),
>>>> and then I attended graduate school.
>>>> You never learned to think, and in fact you never *have* thought. All
>>>> you do is emote, based on shitty extreme left-wing values you somehow
>>>> absorbed - *wrongheaded* left-wing values.
>>> I did more than "attend" graduate school.
>> You didn't do *anything* in graduate school, you douche - you were never
>> even *admitted* to graduate school.
> See, that's what I mean when I say you don't know a thing about me.
I know you didn't apply to, get accepted by or attend graduate school.
You're a do-nothing. You plodded through a bullshit degree at a bullshit school at age 50. It was nothing but resume padding; meaningless.
>>>>> No it doesn't it proves us right. Someone that was a failure in high
>>>>> school that goes on to an Ivy League school and does extremely well
>>>>> there obviously was underachieving in high school and had a lot of
>>>>> potential that was not being used.
>>>> I know what you mean. Do to the choatic circumstances of my youth, I
>>>> was a high school dropout with only a GED at 15, working as a machine
>>>> operator in an electronics plant. But now I have several degrees,
>>>> including a doctorate with honors. One's life ought not be
>>>> predetermined by one's childhood or parentage.
>>> I learned the same lesson in life. I was not a high school drop out but
>>> I did exceedingly poorly. I was near the bottom of my class when I
>>> graduated. It took me a long time but I did eventually straighten myself
>>> out and got a couple degrees myself, which only goes to show that you
>>> shouldn't count out the slow starters.
>> You got an AA degree from a community college, which doesn't really
>> count as a degree - it's not required for admission to /any/ bachelor's
>> program anywhere - and you got a worthless bachelor's degree in a
>> worthless field from a shitty backwater university. You never did
>> anything with your bachelor's degree; all you do is brag about it.
> You're ignorant and a blabbermouth. You continuously talk as if you have
> all kinds of information you are not privy to. You don't know jack about
> my education. Yet you pretend you do. Just know that I am better
> educated than you are, meaning I have more degrees than you do.
Having degrees is only some evidence of education, but it isn't proof that you're educated. We all probably know idiots with advanced degrees and exceptionally well educated people without any. Consider that George Bush is a graduate of Harvard and Yale, every bit a much as Obama is a graduate of Columbia and Harvard.
Plimpton claims to have some sort of technical degree from an unnamed school and admits that he tried, but failed, to get a graduate degree. So the resentment he obviously feels toward those who achieved what he could not is at least understandable, although he's being a typically petty and childish jerk about it. That, along with his general egocentrism, also explains why he downplays the significance of any sort of academic achievement other than the narrow technical training he had, and therefore vastly overrates.
But I'm sure, had Plimpton succeeded in instead of failed out of graduate school, he'd be crowing about it instead of trying to denigrate those who achieved what he couldn't. He'd be an even worse know-it-all blowhard than he is now, if such a thing were possible.
His opinion of Associate's degrees is just more of his usual ignorant blather. Lots of employers, especially in technical fields, are specifying Associate degrees as either a requirement or as a cause to offer more pay. If I recall correctly, the military will also make you a sergeant right after training if you enlist with an Associate's degree. Also, many universities will admit transfer students who did well in getting an AA or AS, who they might not have accepted right out of high school.
I can only suppose his claimed technician's degree in some bullshit field like "computer programming" or whatever left him quite under-prepared for the broader and more challenging academic demands of research, writing and critical thinking required to complete most graduate programs. But that happens sometimes; people with just a technical background founder when confronted with the broader intellectual and academic demands of that part of graduate study outside their specific technical subject area, much as baccalaureate in Romance Literature wound if he found himself in an advanced theoretical physics seminar. A student can usually make up any deficiencies in their education as an undergraduate, but you can't really get through graduate school if you're not academically prepared and intellectually up to it to begin with. For whatever reason, Plimpton didn't make it, and now he resents those who did and heaps scorn on their achievement, even though he once aspired to it himself.
> On 6/22/2012 3:31 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 6/22/2012 2:59 PM, Hawke wrote:
>>> On 6/21/2012 5:52 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>> No it doesn't it proves us right. Someone that was a failure in high
>>>>>>> school that goes on to an Ivy League school and does extremely well
>>>>>>> there obviously was underachieving in high school and had a lot of
>>>>>>> potential that was not being used.
>>>>>> I know what you mean. Do to the choatic circumstances of my youth, I
>>>>>> was a high school dropout with only a GED at 15, working as a machine
>>>>>> operator in an electronics plant. But now I have several degrees,
>>>>>> including a doctorate with honors. One's life ought not be
>>>>>> predetermined by one's childhood or parentage.
>>>>> I learned the same lesson in life. I was not a high school drop out
>>>>> but
>>>>> I did exceedingly poorly. I was near the bottom of my class when I
>>>>> graduated. It took me a long time but I did eventually straighten
>>>>> myself
>>>>> out and got a couple degrees myself, which only goes to show that you
>>>>> shouldn't count out the slow starters.
>>>> You got an AA degree from a community college, which doesn't really
>>>> count as a degree - it's not required for admission to /any/ bachelor's
>>>> program anywhere - and you got a worthless bachelor's degree in a
>>>> worthless field from a shitty backwater university. You never did
>>>> anything with your bachelor's degree; all you do is brag about it.
>>> You're ignorant and a blabbermouth. You continuously talk as if you have
>>> all kinds of information you are not privy to. You don't know jack about
>>> my education. Yet you pretend you do.
>> You got an AA degree from a community college, which doesn't really
>> count as a degree - it's not required for admission to /any/ bachelor's
>> program anywhere - and you got a worthless bachelor's degree in a
>> worthless field from a shitty backwater university. You never did
>> anything with your bachelor's degree; all you do is brag about it.
>>> Just know that I am better
>>> educated than you are,
>> No, you're not. You're much *worse* educated than I am, in large part
>> because you didn't obtain a bachelor degree until an advanced age, and
>> you coasted through a shitty school to get it. I earned my bachelor
>> degree in five years after high school (one year off to live overseas),
>> and then I attended graduate school.
>> You never learned to think, and in fact you never *have* thought. All
>> you do is emote, based on shitty extreme left-wing values you somehow
>> absorbed - *wrongheaded* left-wing values.
> I did more than "attend" graduate school.
I "attended" several spaces launches. Does that mean I'm and astronaut? I also "attended" several weddings. Does that make me some sort of polygamist?
> On 6/22/2012 4:59 PM, Hawke wrote:
>> On 6/21/2012 5:52 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>> No it doesn't it proves us right. Someone that was a failure in high
>>>>>> school that goes on to an Ivy League school and does extremely well
>>>>>> there obviously was underachieving in high school and had a lot of
>>>>>> potential that was not being used.
>>>>> I know what you mean. Do to the choatic circumstances of my youth, I
>>>>> was a high school dropout with only a GED at 15, working as a machine
>>>>> operator in an electronics plant. But now I have several degrees,
>>>>> including a doctorate with honors. One's life ought not be
>>>>> predetermined by one's childhood or parentage.
>>>> I learned the same lesson in life. I was not a high school drop out but
>>>> I did exceedingly poorly. I was near the bottom of my class when I
>>>> graduated. It took me a long time but I did eventually straighten
>>>> myself
>>>> out and got a couple degrees myself, which only goes to show that you
>>>> shouldn't count out the slow starters.
>>> You got an AA degree from a community college, which doesn't really
>>> count as a degree - it's not required for admission to /any/ bachelor's
>>> program anywhere - and you got a worthless bachelor's degree in a
>>> worthless field from a shitty backwater university. You never did
>>> anything with your bachelor's degree; all you do is brag about it.
>> You're ignorant and a blabbermouth. You continuously talk as if you have
>> all kinds of information you are not privy to. You don't know jack about
>> my education. Yet you pretend you do. Just know that I am better
>> educated than you are, meaning I have more degrees than you do.
> Having degrees is only some evidence of education, but it isn't proof
> that you're educated.
> On 6/22/2012 7:11 PM, Hawke wrote:
>> On 6/22/2012 3:31 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>> On 6/22/2012 2:59 PM, Hawke wrote:
>>>> On 6/21/2012 5:52 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>> No it doesn't it proves us right. Someone that was a failure in
>>>>>>>> high
>>>>>>>> school that goes on to an Ivy League school and does extremely well
>>>>>>>> there obviously was underachieving in high school and had a lot of
>>>>>>>> potential that was not being used.
>>>>>>> I know what you mean. Do to the choatic circumstances of my
>>>>>>> youth, I
>>>>>>> was a high school dropout with only a GED at 15, working as a
>>>>>>> machine
>>>>>>> operator in an electronics plant. But now I have several degrees,
>>>>>>> including a doctorate with honors. One's life ought not be
>>>>>>> predetermined by one's childhood or parentage.
>>>>>> I learned the same lesson in life. I was not a high school drop out
>>>>>> but
>>>>>> I did exceedingly poorly. I was near the bottom of my class when I
>>>>>> graduated. It took me a long time but I did eventually straighten
>>>>>> myself
>>>>>> out and got a couple degrees myself, which only goes to show that you
>>>>>> shouldn't count out the slow starters.
>>>>> You got an AA degree from a community college, which doesn't really
>>>>> count as a degree - it's not required for admission to /any/
>>>>> bachelor's
>>>>> program anywhere - and you got a worthless bachelor's degree in a
>>>>> worthless field from a shitty backwater university. You never did
>>>>> anything with your bachelor's degree; all you do is brag about it.
>>>> You're ignorant and a blabbermouth. You continuously talk as if you
>>>> have
>>>> all kinds of information you are not privy to. You don't know jack
>>>> about
>>>> my education. Yet you pretend you do.
>>> You got an AA degree from a community college, which doesn't really
>>> count as a degree - it's not required for admission to /any/ bachelor's
>>> program anywhere - and you got a worthless bachelor's degree in a
>>> worthless field from a shitty backwater university. You never did
>>> anything with your bachelor's degree; all you do is brag about it.
>>>> Just know that I am better
>>>> educated than you are,
>>> No, you're not. You're much *worse* educated than I am, in large part
>>> because you didn't obtain a bachelor degree until an advanced age, and
>>> you coasted through a shitty school to get it. I earned my bachelor
>>> degree in five years after high school (one year off to live overseas),
>>> and then I attended graduate school.
>>> You never learned to think, and in fact you never *have* thought. All
>>> you do is emote, based on shitty extreme left-wing values you somehow
>>> absorbed - *wrongheaded* left-wing values.
>> I did more than "attend" graduate school.
> I "attended" several spaces launches.
Hawwwke-Ptooey, of course, never applied for, was accepted to or attended graduate school. He has a degree in a shitty field from a shitty school, a degree he obtained late in life purely as resume padding.
Hawwwke-Ptooey is not an educated person. He has some instruction, but no education. From your self presentation, the same would appear to apply to you.
> Having degrees is only some evidence of education, but it isn't proof that > you're educated. We all probably know idiots with advanced degrees and > exceptionally well educated people without any. Consider that George Bush > is a graduate of Harvard and Yale, every bit a much as Obama is a graduate > of Columbia and Harvard.
George Bush was not an idiot, he was not brillliant but definitely above average in intelligence.
>> Having degrees is only some evidence of education, but it isn't proof that
>> you're educated. We all probably know idiots with advanced degrees and
>> exceptionally well educated people without any. Consider that George Bush
>> is a graduate of Harvard and Yale, every bit a much as Obama is a graduate
>> of Columbia and Harvard.
> George Bush was not an idiot, he was not brillliant but definitely above
> average in intelligence.
Bush also was one of the most monumentally lazy people ever to become president; Uncurious George.
Obama is brighter than Bush, but he is not markedly more accomplished than Bush, if indeed he is even more accomplished at all. Neither one did anything prior to become president that would make *anyone* think, "Wow! This guy really ought to be president of the US!"
>>> Having degrees is only some evidence of education, but it isn't proof >>> that
>>> you're educated. We all probably know idiots with advanced degrees and
>>> exceptionally well educated people without any. Consider that George >>> Bush
>>> is a graduate of Harvard and Yale, every bit a much as Obama is a >>> graduate
>>> of Columbia and Harvard.
>> George Bush was not an idiot, he was not brillliant but definitely above
>> average in intelligence.
> Bush also was one of the most monumentally lazy people ever to become > president; Uncurious George.
> Obama is brighter than Bush, but he is not markedly more accomplished than > Bush, if indeed he is even more accomplished at all. Neither one did > anything prior to become president that would make *anyone* think, "Wow! > This guy really ought to be president of the US!"
I didn't think he had enough experience to be president. But as far as being accomplished compared to Bush, Bush was a legacy admission, he had every possible advantage going for him. Whatever help Obama had was nothing compared to being the son of George HW Bush. That has to be taken into account.
>>>> Having degrees is only some evidence of education, but it isn't proof
>>>> that
>>>> you're educated. We all probably know idiots with advanced degrees and
>>>> exceptionally well educated people without any. Consider that George
>>>> Bush
>>>> is a graduate of Harvard and Yale, every bit a much as Obama is a
>>>> graduate
>>>> of Columbia and Harvard.
>>> George Bush was not an idiot, he was not brillliant but definitely above
>>> average in intelligence.
>> Bush also was one of the most monumentally lazy people ever to become
>> president; Uncurious George.
>> Obama is brighter than Bush, but he is not markedly more accomplished than
>> Bush, if indeed he is even more accomplished at all. Neither one did
>> anything prior to become president that would make *anyone* think, "Wow!
>> This guy really ought to be president of the US!"
> I didn't think he had enough experience to be president. But as far as being
> accomplished compared to Bush, Bush was a legacy admission,
To Yale, but *not* to Harvard for his MBA.
So, Obama --> affirmative action admit, and Bush --> legacy admit. Neither speaks well of either one of them.
>>>>> No it doesn't it proves us right. Someone that was a failure in high
>>>>> school that goes on to an Ivy League school and does extremely well
>>>>> there obviously was underachieving in high school and had a lot of
>>>>> potential that was not being used.
>>>> I know what you mean. Do to the choatic circumstances of my youth, I
>>>> was a high school dropout with only a GED at 15, working as a machine
>>>> operator in an electronics plant. But now I have several degrees,
>>>> including a doctorate with honors. One's life ought not be
>>>> predetermined by one's childhood or parentage.
>>> I learned the same lesson in life. I was not a high school drop out but
>>> I did exceedingly poorly. I was near the bottom of my class when I
>>> graduated. It took me a long time but I did eventually straighten myself
>>> out and got a couple degrees myself, which only goes to show that you
>>> shouldn't count out the slow starters.
>> You got an AA degree from a community college, which doesn't really
>> count as a degree - it's not required for admission to /any/ bachelor's
>> program anywhere - and you got a worthless bachelor's degree in a
>> worthless field from a shitty backwater university. You never did
>> anything with your bachelor's degree; all you do is brag about it.
> You're ignorant and a blabbermouth. You continuously talk as if you have
> all kinds of information you are not privy to. You don't know jack about
> my education. Yet you pretend you do. Just know that I am better
> educated than you are, meaning I have more degrees than you do.
> Hawwke-ptooey
You need a reminder:
The problem is that you have displayed so little credibility, maturity
and accumulated wisdom in your typical posts that no one takes you
seriously. You come on like a little boy trying to join an adult
conversation, but you just don't have enough depth of insight to be able
to make a useful contribution, plus you're too petty and obnoxious to
even be amusing.
You make big noises about your alleged poli sci degree, but all that you
show us is that left = good, right(as in, anyone who points out your
errors)= bad. You can't even recognize that there are valid political
stances other than left/right or that there are people like me far to
the left of you who see you for the shallow poseur that you are.
>>Then, please explain to us, why he steadfastly refuses to disclose his >>records.
>Theory 1: He realizes that trying to appease conspiracy theorists
>and other purveyors of derp is a waste of time and serves only
>give them credibility.
>Theory 2: He hopes to keep them raving about stupid shit, thus
>causing them to expose themselves as the crazies they are to the
>rest of the populace.
>Theory 3: He's waiting for the derp frenzy to peak, then release
>his transcripts, thus generating the maximum humiliation. This
>seems to have been his strategy with the second birth certificate
>and it worked quite well.
>Out of curiosity, what's *your* theory?
Theory? Not counting the two absolute lies he spoke when releasing two
forged birth certs as valid?
The fact is..he is a liar. The facts appear to be that he doesnt want anyone to know where he was
born. Now why that would be..is a serious question.
The possiblity that Frank Marshall Davis was his actual father..would
make him an actual "natural born" citizen, but would show him to be an
illegitmate bastard child of a early porn star.
But thats better than being an illegally elected US president..isnt it?
And it would make him 50% black, 50% white, rather than 50% white, 44%
middle eastern, and only 6% black.
Gunner
--
"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry
capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency.
It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense
and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have
such a man for their? president.. Blaming the prince of the
fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince".
>On 6/18/2012 4:16 PM, pyotr filipivich wrote:
>> "Something Smells" <did-he-...@barackobama.com> on 18 Jun 2012
>> 08:44:28 -0000 typed in misc.survivalism the following:
>>> Feynman, of Feynman diagrams fame, wasn't accepted at Columbia -
>>> so he went to MIT, then Princeton.
>>> Obama is far dumber than Feynman.
>>> How exactly did Barack Obama get into Columbia?
>> When Feynman went to college (circa 1935) it took smarts to get
>> in, especially to major in Physics. And did Feynman ever have smarts,
>> particularly when it came to math.
>It also usually took a lot of money, influence, white skin. In >Feynman's case, as with many others in that era, being either Jewish or >having a "Jewish-sounding" name couldn't have helped.
>Liberals have done much to make a college education more accessible for >more people, even though Right-wingers have always opposed and continue >to oppose the "snobs" who think a college education, even for the sons >and daughters of the unprivileged working class, is a good thing.
So are you saying that Obama got into Occidental in the 1980's
because he wasn't white?
>> Things were different in 1981 when Obama is suppose to have
>> transferred to Columbia. And sad to say, by '81, "Political
>> Science" was not exactly a rigorous discipline, even at Columbia.
>> Slightly more rigorous than Post Colonial Studies or Literary
>> Deconstruction, but still much less than Physics in 1935. Or even
>> Physics in 1981.
>Just because political science keeps proving so much of core right-wing >dogma and perhaps many of your own most cherished political beliefs to >be false, distorted or based on nothing more substantial than wishful >thinking, outright lies, spin and propaganda,
Says the guy obviously part of the Reality Based Party. The party
which just knows, that a government large enough to provide all your
needs can bring a country into prosperity, but only if the Government
is run by progressive thinkers like them.
Say, when is Harry Reid going to give the other Democrats in the
Senate a chance to vote on passing a budget for 2009? Or answer the
questions about his pederasty?
>does NOT mean that there >is anything wrong with either how political science is taught in >universities or how it is practiced by professionals and academics.
Didn't say there was. I'm just saying that unlike physics, it is
very hard to perform a scientifically rigorous experiment in the
"social sciences". There is no "do over / repeat" in political
science.
"Sociology: Estimate the sociological problems which might
accompany the end of the world. Construct an experiment to test your
theory."
Political Science: "There is a red phone on the desk beside you.
Start World War III. Report at length on its sociopolitical effects,
if any.
The Laws of History were not established by laboratory
experiments, as were the laws of physics. They're recognized in
retrospect by those who "survived".
tschus
pyotr
--
pyotr filipivich
Obi-wan once observed"The Force can have a strong influence on the weak-minded."
Who knew Dubya was a Jedi Knight?
> Jeff M <NoS...@NoThanks.Org> on Mon, 18 Jun 2012 16:38:13 -0500 typed
> in misc.survivalism the following:
>> On 6/18/2012 4:16 PM, pyotr filipivich wrote:
>>> "Something Smells" <did-he-...@barackobama.com> on 18 Jun 2012
>>> 08:44:28 -0000 typed in misc.survivalism the following:
>>>> Feynman, of Feynman diagrams fame, wasn't accepted at Columbia -
>>>> so he went to MIT, then Princeton.
>>>> Obama is far dumber than Feynman.
>>>> How exactly did Barack Obama get into Columbia?
>>> When Feynman went to college (circa 1935) it took smarts to get
>>> in, especially to major in Physics. And did Feynman ever have smarts,
>>> particularly when it came to math.
>> It also usually took a lot of money, influence, white skin. In
>> Feynman's case, as with many others in that era, being either Jewish or
>> having a "Jewish-sounding" name couldn't have helped.
>> Liberals have done much to make a college education more accessible for
>> more people, even though Right-wingers have always opposed and continue
>> to oppose the "snobs" who think a college education, even for the sons
>> and daughters of the unprivileged working class, is a good thing.
> So are you saying that Obama got into Occidental in the 1980's
> because he wasn't white?
Whenever one of you numbskulls starts out with "so you are saying," "in other words," "translation" or something like them, we can be sure of two things: you failed to understand what was said, and you are about to twist, distort or simply fabricate beyond all recognition.
>>> Things were different in 1981 when Obama is suppose to have
>>> transferred to Columbia. And sad to say, by '81, "Political
>>> Science" was not exactly a rigorous discipline, even at Columbia.
>>> Slightly more rigorous than Post Colonial Studies or Literary
>>> Deconstruction, but still much less than Physics in 1935. Or even
>>> Physics in 1981.
>> Just because political science keeps proving so much of core right-wing
>> dogma and perhaps many of your own most cherished political beliefs to
>> be false, distorted or based on nothing more substantial than wishful
>> thinking, outright lies, spin and propaganda,
> Says the guy obviously part of the Reality Based Party. The party
> which just knows, that a government large enough to provide all your
> needs can bring a country into prosperity, but only if the Government
> is run by progressive thinkers like them.
Says the guy obviously part of the Fantasy Based Party. It's the party that just knows that Wall Street Banksters can be trusted to regulate themselves and always act in the best interests of the country and its economy by bringing about steady growth, broadly based prosperity and economic stability, but only if there is no government to stand in its way. It's the party that promises cutting or eliminating taxes on the extremely wealthy and transferring ever more of the overall tax burden to middle and lower class wage earners will magically cause those middle and lower class wage earners to suddenly become more prosperous. It's the party that started two rather large and completely optional wars on phony intelligence, refused to even put the trillions of dollars on the books and cut taxes, mainly for the wealthy, at the same time, and swore the war would pay for itself while we would be greeted as liberators. The list is endless. Only complete morons and gullible fools think incompetents and crooks like them should run the government.
> Say, when is Harry Reid going to give the other Democrats in the
> Senate a chance to vote on passing a budget for 2009? Or answer the
> questions about his pederasty?
Say, when is Boehner going to help give the country a chance to recover from this latest Republican recession by voting making Republicans in Congress do their jobs? When is Willard the Rat Romney gonna show us those tax returns, or is he too cowardly to admit to the American voters that he paid tax at a lower rate than most of them do, or perhaps paid no taxes at all?
>> does NOT mean that there
>> is anything wrong with either how political science is taught in
>> universities or how it is practiced by professionals and academics.
> Didn't say there was. I'm just saying that unlike physics, it is
> very hard to perform a scientifically rigorous experiment in the
> "social sciences".
Yes. Political science research can be very hard. So?
> There is no "do over / repeat" in political
> science.
Nope. You're just ignorant of the subject, so your opinions amount to nothing.
> "Sociology: Estimate the sociological problems which might
> accompany the end of the world. Construct an experiment to test your
> theory."
> Political Science: "There is a red phone on the desk beside you.
> Start World War III. Report at length on its sociopolitical effects,
> if any.
> The Laws of History were not established by laboratory
> experiments, as were the laws of physics. They're recognized in
> retrospect by those who "survived".
> tschus
> pyotr
> --
> pyotr filipivich
> Obi-wan once observed"The Force can have a strong influence on the weak-minded."
> Who knew Dubya was a Jedi Knight?
> On 8/2/2012 8:26 AM, Jeff M wrote:
>> [snip left-wing boilerplate]
> "The corporatists, banksters and many other one percenters..." -- jeffy m
> You fucking idiot far-left fruitcake.
My, my, what an intelligent, insightful and convincing rebuttal you've offered. I'm truly devastated and humbled by your shining brilliance and rapier wit. But since you are obviously quite stupid, I feel compelled to explain for your benefit that the foregoing was sarcasm. Look it up.
When, in the highly unlikely event you have something to offer more coherent than the angry, confused grunts we might expect from a Neanderthal suddenly transported to the modern world, please let us know. You may now return to your comic books, Fox News and Cheetos. Thank you.
> On 8/2/2012 9:54 AM, Jeff M wrote:
>> On 8/2/2012 11:29 AM, james g. keegan jr. wrote:
>>> On 8/2/2012 8:26 AM, Jeff M wrote:
>>>> [snip left-wing boilerplate]
>>> "The corporatists, banksters and many other one percenters..." --
>>> jeffy m
>>> You fucking idiot far-left fruitcake.
>> My, my, what an intelligent, insightful and convincing rebuttal you've
>> offered. [snarky leftist's narcissism snipped]
> I wasn't trying to "rebut" anything, o far-left fruitcake.
So you just wanted to offer further evidence of stupid you are, and how unable you are to contribute anything worthwhile? Good job, then. But it was totally unnecessary; we already know that.
> On 8/2/2012 11:58 AM, james g. keegan jr. wrote:
>> On 8/2/2012 9:54 AM, Jeff M wrote:
>>> On 8/2/2012 11:29 AM, james g. keegan jr. wrote:
>>>> On 8/2/2012 8:26 AM, Jeff M wrote:
>>>>> [snip left-wing boilerplate]
>>>> "The corporatists, banksters and many other one percenters..." --
>>>> jeffy m
>>>> You fucking idiot far-left fruitcake.
>>> My, my, what an intelligent, insightful and convincing rebuttal you've
>>> offered. [snarky leftist's narcissism snipped]
>> I wasn't trying to "rebut" anything, o far-left fruitcake.
> So you just wanted to offer further evidence of
...what a stupid, doctrinaire far-left fruitcake you are? Yes, exactly, jeffy m.
You're not a "centrist", jeffy - you're far to the left of the center.
On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 10:26:30 -0500, Jeff M <NoS...@NoThanks.Org> wrote:
>On 8/2/2012 1:33 AM, pyotr filipivich wrote:
>> Jeff M <NoS...@NoThanks.Org> on Mon, 18 Jun 2012 16:38:13 -0500 typed
>> in misc.survivalism the following:
>>> On 6/18/2012 4:16 PM, pyotr filipivich wrote:
>>>> "Something Smells" <did-he-...@barackobama.com> on 18 Jun 2012
>>>> 08:44:28 -0000 typed in misc.survivalism the following:
>>>>> Feynman, of Feynman diagrams fame, wasn't accepted at Columbia -
>>>>> so he went to MIT, then Princeton.
>>>>> Obama is far dumber than Feynman.
>>>>> How exactly did Barack Obama get into Columbia?
>>>> When Feynman went to college (circa 1935) it took smarts to get
>>>> in, especially to major in Physics. And did Feynman ever have smarts,
>>>> particularly when it came to math.
>>> It also usually took a lot of money, influence, white skin. In
>>> Feynman's case, as with many others in that era, being either Jewish or
>>> having a "Jewish-sounding" name couldn't have helped.
>>> Liberals have done much to make a college education more accessible for
>>> more people, even though Right-wingers have always opposed and continue
>>> to oppose the "snobs" who think a college education, even for the sons
>>> and daughters of the unprivileged working class, is a good thing.
>> So are you saying that Obama got into Occidental in the 1980's
>> because he wasn't white?
>Whenever one of you numbskulls starts out with "so you are saying," "in >other words," "translation" or something like them, we can be sure of >two things: you failed to understand what was said, and you are about >to twist, distort or simply fabricate beyond all recognition.
I don't think so, if somebody says "so you are saying",
that is just a nice way to say, "that doesn't make sense'.
>>>> Things were different in 1981 when Obama is suppose to have
>>>> transferred to Columbia. And sad to say, by '81, "Political
>>>> Science" was not exactly a rigorous discipline, even at Columbia.
>>>> Slightly more rigorous than Post Colonial Studies or Literary
>>>> Deconstruction, but still much less than Physics in 1935. Or even
>>>> Physics in 1981.
>>> Just because political science keeps proving so much of core right-wing
>>> dogma and perhaps many of your own most cherished political beliefs to
>>> be false, distorted or based on nothing more substantial than wishful
>>> thinking, outright lies, spin and propaganda,
>> Says the guy obviously part of the Reality Based Party. The party
>> which just knows, that a government large enough to provide all your
>> needs can bring a country into prosperity, but only if the Government
>> is run by progressive thinkers like them.
>Says the guy obviously part of the Fantasy Based Party.
Says the leftist guy that claims to be center,
or on the fence unable to make up his mind.
>It's the party >that just knows that Wall Street Banksters can be trusted to regulate >themselves and always act in the best interests of the country and its >economy by bringing about steady growth, broadly based prosperity and >economic stability, but only if there is no government to stand in its >way.
There are rules and laws, those that don't
follow them are supposed to be punished.
>It's the party that promises cutting or eliminating taxes on the >extremely wealthy and transferring ever more of the overall tax burden >to middle and lower class wage earners will magically cause those middle >and lower class wage earners to suddenly become more prosperous.
What you and all leftists need to learn is
that you don't get cooperation by lectures and
higher taxes.
>It's >the party that started two rather large and completely optional wars on >phony intelligence, refused to even put the trillions of dollars on the >books and cut taxes, mainly for the wealthy, at the same time, and swore >the war would pay for itself while we would be greeted as liberators. >The list is endless. Only complete morons and gullible fools think >incompetents and crooks like them should run the government.
Hindsight for the most part.
>> Say, when is Harry Reid going to give the other Democrats in the
>> Senate a chance to vote on passing a budget for 2009? Or answer the
>> questions about his pederasty?
>Say, when is Boehner going to help give the country a chance to recover >from this latest Republican recession by voting making Republicans in >Congress do their jobs? When is Willard the Rat Romney gonna show us >those tax returns, or is he too cowardly to admit to the American voters >that he paid tax at a lower rate than most of them do, or perhaps paid >no taxes at all?
Nice words from a guy "on the fence".
>>> does NOT mean that there
>>> is anything wrong with either how political science is taught in
>>> universities or how it is practiced by professionals and academics.
>> Didn't say there was. I'm just saying that unlike physics, it is
>> very hard to perform a scientifically rigorous experiment in the
>> "social sciences".
>Yes. Political science research can be very hard. So?
About as useful as a crystal ball.
>> There is no "do over / repeat" in political
>> science.
>Nope. You're just ignorant of the subject, so your opinions amount to >nothing.
Of course, only leftists "know" what is best.
You sound more bitter than usual, is it
because of drifting farther left, or just seeing
the seriousness of the situation?
> On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 10:26:30 -0500, Jeff M <NoS...@NoThanks.Org> wrote:
>> On 8/2/2012 1:33 AM, pyotr filipivich wrote:
>>> Jeff M <NoS...@NoThanks.Org> on Mon, 18 Jun 2012 16:38:13 -0500 typed
>>> in misc.survivalism the following:
>>>> On 6/18/2012 4:16 PM, pyotr filipivich wrote:
>>>>> "Something Smells" <did-he-...@barackobama.com> on 18 Jun 2012
>>>>> 08:44:28 -0000 typed in misc.survivalism the following:
>>>>>> Feynman, of Feynman diagrams fame, wasn't accepted at Columbia -
>>>>>> so he went to MIT, then Princeton.
>>>>>> Obama is far dumber than Feynman.
>>>>>> How exactly did Barack Obama get into Columbia?
>>>>> When Feynman went to college (circa 1935) it took smarts to get
>>>>> in, especially to major in Physics. And did Feynman ever have smarts,
>>>>> particularly when it came to math.
>>>> It also usually took a lot of money, influence, white skin. In
>>>> Feynman's case, as with many others in that era, being either Jewish or
>>>> having a "Jewish-sounding" name couldn't have helped.
>>>> Liberals have done much to make a college education more accessible for
>>>> more people, even though Right-wingers have always opposed and continue
>>>> to oppose the "snobs" who think a college education, even for the sons
>>>> and daughters of the unprivileged working class, is a good thing.
>>> So are you saying that Obama got into Occidental in the 1980's
>>> because he wasn't white?
>> Whenever one of you numbskulls starts out with "so you are saying," "in
>> other words," "translation" or something like them, we can be sure of
>> two things: you failed to understand what was said, and you are about
>> to twist, distort or simply fabricate beyond all recognition.
> I don't think so, if somebody says "so you are saying",
> that is just a nice way to say, "that doesn't make sense'.
Perhaps, when normal people say that. But extensive experience right here shows that extremist rightard regressives almost always use it to lie about or to hideously distort what others have to say into something that truly "doesn't make sense," and there's nothing "nice" about that.
>>>>> Things were different in 1981 when Obama is suppose to have
>>>>> transferred to Columbia. And sad to say, by '81, "Political
>>>>> Science" was not exactly a rigorous discipline, even at Columbia.
>>>>> Slightly more rigorous than Post Colonial Studies or Literary
>>>>> Deconstruction, but still much less than Physics in 1935. Or even
>>>>> Physics in 1981.
>>>> Just because political science keeps proving so much of core right-wing
>>>> dogma and perhaps many of your own most cherished political beliefs to
>>>> be false, distorted or based on nothing more substantial than wishful
>>>> thinking, outright lies, spin and propaganda,
>>> Says the guy obviously part of the Reality Based Party. The party
>>> which just knows, that a government large enough to provide all your
>>> needs can bring a country into prosperity, but only if the Government
>>> is run by progressive thinkers like them.
>> Says the guy obviously part of the Fantasy Based Party.
> Says the leftist guy that claims to be center,
> or on the fence unable to make up his mind.
Of course, you can provide a cite for that, right? Of course, the unstated assumption of rightards is they are in the middle of the conservative camp, when nothing could be farther from the truth. They're regressive extremists, way out on the outer edge, where insanity is the order of the day.
>> It's the party
>> that just knows that Wall Street Banksters can be trusted to regulate
>> themselves and always act in the best interests of the country and its
>> economy by bringing about steady growth, broadly based prosperity and
>> economic stability, but only if there is no government to stand in its
>> way.
> There are rules and laws, those that don't
> follow them are supposed to be punished.
That's the point. They don't there to be any rules or laws, at least not for themselves.
>> It's the party that promises cutting or eliminating taxes on the
>> extremely wealthy and transferring ever more of the overall tax burden
>> to middle and lower class wage earners will magically cause those middle
>> and lower class wage earners to suddenly become more prosperous.
> What you and all leftists need to learn is
> that you don't get cooperation by lectures and
> higher taxes.
It's no more of a lecture than what I was replying to, and we already know that the Republican Party and right-wing extremists will continue to refuse any cooperation as long as Obama is President, not for the good of the country, and not even to have their own ideas and proposals implemented. As for taxes, maybe you should ask Romney and the Republicans why they propose to raise taxes on about 95% of us, while cutting taxes for people like Romney and other very high income types.
>> It's
>> the party that started two rather large and completely optional wars on
>> phony intelligence, refused to even put the trillions of dollars on the
>> books and cut taxes, mainly for the wealthy, at the same time, and swore
>> the war would pay for itself while we would be greeted as liberators.
>> The list is endless. Only complete morons and gullible fools think
>> incompetents and crooks like them should run the government.
> Hindsight for the most part.
How many times must the country endure massive and hugely expensive right-wing screw-ups before they develop the least bit of foresight, or at least start listening to non-partisan experts, even if it conflicts with their preconceived notions and partisan dogma?
>>> Say, when is Harry Reid going to give the other Democrats in the
>>> Senate a chance to vote on passing a budget for 2009? Or answer the
>>> questions about his pederasty?
>> Say, when is Boehner going to help give the country a chance to recover
>>from this latest Republican recession by voting making Republicans in
>> Congress do their jobs? When is Willard the Rat Romney gonna show us
>> those tax returns, or is he too cowardly to admit to the American voters
>> that he paid tax at a lower rate than most of them do, or perhaps paid
>> no taxes at all?
> Nice words from a guy "on the fence".
Cite? I doubt you have much understanding of what political labels mean, and don't mean, nor of my actual personal opinions on a wide variety of political issues. Your kind operates mostly on propaganda, groundless accusations, stereotypes, and received political dogma, not actual facts or valid information, and are very prone to making all sorts of unjustified conclusions about people and politics.
Take, for example, the large number of your kind who assert Obama is a "Marxist." I'd bet not one in fifty of those could even begin to accurately describe what an actual Marxist is or believes. Look at how many of you are still in denial that Obama is a natural-born American citizen, now one of the most thoroughly proved and unquestionably established facts in modern American politics. They believe it simply because they were told to, wanted to, and because the lie is an important part of extreme rightard dogma. They keep pushing it down your throats, and you keep eagerly swallowing. But in doing so, you've closed your eyes to the facts, and closed your minds to reality, all because of your hate, gullibility and unwilling to learn or think for yourselves.
>>>> does NOT mean that there
>>>> is anything wrong with either how political science is taught in
>>>> universities or how it is practiced by professionals and academics.
>>> Didn't say there was. I'm just saying that unlike physics, it is
>>> very hard to perform a scientifically rigorous experiment in the
>>> "social sciences".
>> Yes. Political science research can be very hard. So?
> About as useful as a crystal ball.
To unthinking twits who are willfully ignorant or in denial as to what's going on, yes, any knowledge, science or research isn't useful at all.
>>> There is no "do over / repeat" in political
>>> science.
>> Nope. You're just ignorant of the subject, so your opinions amount to
>> nothing.
> Of course, only leftists "know" what is best.
If you say so. But not all political scientists are your "leftist" boogeymen.
> You sound more bitter than usual, is it
> because of drifting farther left, or just seeing
> the seriousness of the situation?
As the Rightard extremist regressives push the Republican Party further and further toward the right edge of insanity and beyond, normal people are forced to deal with the consequences. This includes meeting the useful idiots of the Right, so abundant here, on equal terms, and in some of the same ways they use, which is about all they seem to be able to understand. When they push, they get pushed back. It's called "politics."
> On 8/2/2012 4:43 PM, emoneyjoe wrote:
>> On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 10:26:30 -0500, Jeff M <NoS...@NoThanks.Org> wrote:
>>> On 8/2/2012 1:33 AM, pyotr filipivich wrote:
>>>> Jeff M <NoS...@NoThanks.Org> on Mon, 18 Jun 2012 16:38:13 -0500 typed
>>>> in misc.survivalism the following:
>>>>> On 6/18/2012 4:16 PM, pyotr filipivich wrote:
>>>>>> "Something Smells" <did-he-...@barackobama.com> on 18 Jun 2012
>>>>>> 08:44:28 -0000 typed in misc.survivalism the following:
>>>>>>> Feynman, of Feynman diagrams fame, wasn't accepted at Columbia -
>>>>>>> so he went to MIT, then Princeton.
>>>>>>> Obama is far dumber than Feynman.
>>>>>>> How exactly did Barack Obama get into Columbia?
>>>>>> When Feynman went to college (circa 1935) it took smarts to get
>>>>>> in, especially to major in Physics. And did Feynman ever have
>>>>>> smarts,
>>>>>> particularly when it came to math.
>>>>> It also usually took a lot of money, influence, white skin. In
>>>>> Feynman's case, as with many others in that era, being either
>>>>> Jewish or
>>>>> having a "Jewish-sounding" name couldn't have helped.
>>>>> Liberals have done much to make a college education more accessible
>>>>> for
>>>>> more people, even though Right-wingers have always opposed and
>>>>> continue
>>>>> to oppose the "snobs" who think a college education, even for the sons
>>>>> and daughters of the unprivileged working class, is a good thing.
>>>> So are you saying that Obama got into Occidental in the 1980's
>>>> because he wasn't white?
>>> Whenever one of you numbskulls starts out with "so you are saying," "in
>>> other words," "translation" or something like them, we can be sure of
>>> two things: you failed to understand what was said, and you are about
>>> to twist, distort or simply fabricate beyond all recognition.
>> I don't think so, if somebody says "so you are saying",
>> that is just a nice way to say, "that doesn't make sense'.
> Perhaps, when normal people say that. But extensive experience right
> here shows that extremist rightard regressives
Not the language of a centrist, jeffy m. Your inflammatory hate speech gives you away as a far-left extremist.
On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 17:32:49 -0500, Jeff M <NoS...@NoThanks.Org> wrote:
>On 8/2/2012 4:43 PM, emoneyjoe wrote:
>> On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 10:26:30 -0500, Jeff M <NoS...@NoThanks.Org> wrote:
>>> On 8/2/2012 1:33 AM, pyotr filipivich wrote:
>>>> Jeff M <NoS...@NoThanks.Org> on Mon, 18 Jun 2012 16:38:13 -0500 typed
>>>> in misc.survivalism the following:
>>>>> On 6/18/2012 4:16 PM, pyotr filipivich wrote:
>>>>>> "Something Smells" <did-he-...@barackobama.com> on 18 Jun 2012
>>>>>> 08:44:28 -0000 typed in misc.survivalism the following:
>>>>>>> Feynman, of Feynman diagrams fame, wasn't accepted at Columbia -
>>>>>>> so he went to MIT, then Princeton.
>>>>>>> Obama is far dumber than Feynman.
>>>>>>> How exactly did Barack Obama get into Columbia?
>>>>>> When Feynman went to college (circa 1935) it took smarts to get
>>>>>> in, especially to major in Physics. And did Feynman ever have smarts,
>>>>>> particularly when it came to math.
>>>>> It also usually took a lot of money, influence, white skin. In
>>>>> Feynman's case, as with many others in that era, being either Jewish or
>>>>> having a "Jewish-sounding" name couldn't have helped.
>>>>> Liberals have done much to make a college education more accessible for
>>>>> more people, even though Right-wingers have always opposed and continue
>>>>> to oppose the "snobs" who think a college education, even for the sons
>>>>> and daughters of the unprivileged working class, is a good thing.
>>>> So are you saying that Obama got into Occidental in the 1980's
>>>> because he wasn't white?
>>> Whenever one of you numbskulls starts out with "so you are saying," "in
>>> other words," "translation" or something like them, we can be sure of
>>> two things: you failed to understand what was said, and you are about
>>> to twist, distort or simply fabricate beyond all recognition.
>> I don't think so, if somebody says "so you are saying",
>> that is just a nice way to say, "that doesn't make sense'.
>Perhaps, when normal people say that. But extensive experience right >here shows that extremist rightard regressives almost always use it to >lie about or to hideously distort what others have to say into something >that truly "doesn't make sense," and there's nothing "nice" about that.
>>>>>> Things were different in 1981 when Obama is suppose to have
>>>>>> transferred to Columbia. And sad to say, by '81, "Political
>>>>>> Science" was not exactly a rigorous discipline, even at Columbia.
>>>>>> Slightly more rigorous than Post Colonial Studies or Literary
>>>>>> Deconstruction, but still much less than Physics in 1935. Or even
>>>>>> Physics in 1981.
>>>>> Just because political science keeps proving so much of core right-wing
>>>>> dogma and perhaps many of your own most cherished political beliefs to
>>>>> be false, distorted or based on nothing more substantial than wishful
>>>>> thinking, outright lies, spin and propaganda,
>>>> Says the guy obviously part of the Reality Based Party. The party
>>>> which just knows, that a government large enough to provide all your
>>>> needs can bring a country into prosperity, but only if the Government
>>>> is run by progressive thinkers like them.
>>> Says the guy obviously part of the Fantasy Based Party.
>> Says the leftist guy that claims to be center,
>> or on the fence unable to make up his mind.
>Of course, you can provide a cite for that, right? Of course, the >unstated assumption of rightards is they are in the middle of the >conservative camp, when nothing could be farther from the truth. >They're regressive extremists, way out on the outer edge, where insanity >is the order of the day.
>>> It's the party
>>> that just knows that Wall Street Banksters can be trusted to regulate
>>> themselves and always act in the best interests of the country and its
>>> economy by bringing about steady growth, broadly based prosperity and
>>> economic stability, but only if there is no government to stand in its
>>> way.
>> There are rules and laws, those that don't
>> follow them are supposed to be punished.
>That's the point. They don't there to be any rules or laws, at least >not for themselves.
>>> It's the party that promises cutting or eliminating taxes on the
>>> extremely wealthy and transferring ever more of the overall tax burden
>>> to middle and lower class wage earners will magically cause those middle
>>> and lower class wage earners to suddenly become more prosperous.
>> What you and all leftists need to learn is
>> that you don't get cooperation by lectures and
>> higher taxes.
>It's no more of a lecture than what I was replying to, and we already >know that the Republican Party and right-wing extremists will continue >to refuse any cooperation as long as Obama is President, not for the >good of the country, and not even to have their own ideas and proposals >implemented. As for taxes, maybe you should ask Romney and the >Republicans why they propose to raise taxes on about 95% of us, while >cutting taxes for people like Romney and other very high income types.
>>> It's
>>> the party that started two rather large and completely optional wars on
>>> phony intelligence, refused to even put the trillions of dollars on the
>>> books and cut taxes, mainly for the wealthy, at the same time, and swore
>>> the war would pay for itself while we would be greeted as liberators.
>>> The list is endless. Only complete morons and gullible fools think
>>> incompetents and crooks like them should run the government.
>> Hindsight for the most part.
>How many times must the country endure massive and hugely expensive >right-wing screw-ups before they develop the least bit of foresight, or >at least start listening to non-partisan experts, even if it conflicts >with their preconceived notions and partisan dogma?
>>>> Say, when is Harry Reid going to give the other Democrats in the
>>>> Senate a chance to vote on passing a budget for 2009? Or answer the
>>>> questions about his pederasty?
>>> Say, when is Boehner going to help give the country a chance to recover
>>>from this latest Republican recession by voting making Republicans in
>>> Congress do their jobs? When is Willard the Rat Romney gonna show us
>>> those tax returns, or is he too cowardly to admit to the American voters
>>> that he paid tax at a lower rate than most of them do, or perhaps paid
>>> no taxes at all?
>I doubt you have much understanding of what political labels >mean, and don't mean, nor of my actual personal opinions on a wide >variety of political issues. Your kind operates mostly on propaganda, >groundless accusations, stereotypes, and received political dogma, not >actual facts or valid information, and are very prone to making all >sorts of unjustified conclusions about people and politics.
>Take, for example, the large number of your kind who assert Obama is a >"Marxist." I'd bet not one in fifty of those could even begin to >accurately describe what an actual Marxist is or believes. Look at how >many of you are still in denial that Obama is a natural-born American >citizen, now one of the most thoroughly proved and unquestionably >established facts in modern American politics. They believe it simply >because they were told to, wanted to, and because the lie is an >important part of extreme rightard dogma. They keep pushing it down >your throats, and you keep eagerly swallowing. But in doing so, you've >closed your eyes to the facts, and closed your minds to reality, all >because of your hate, gullibility and unwilling to learn or think for >yourselves.
>>>>> does NOT mean that there
>>>>> is anything wrong with either how political science is taught in
>>>>> universities or how it is practiced by professionals and academics.
>>>> Didn't say there was. I'm just saying that unlike physics, it is
>>>> very hard to perform a scientifically rigorous experiment in the
>>>> "social sciences".
>>> Yes. Political science research can be very hard. So?
>> About as useful as a crystal ball.
>To unthinking twits who are willfully ignorant or in denial as to what's >going on, yes, any knowledge, science or research isn't useful at all.
>>>> There is no "do over / repeat" in political
>>>> science.
>>> Nope. You're just ignorant of the subject, so your opinions amount to
>>> nothing.
>> Of course, only leftists "know" what is best.
>If you say so. But not all political scientists are your "leftist" >boogeymen.
>> You sound more bitter than usual, is it
>> because of drifting farther left, or just seeing
>> the seriousness of the situation?
>As the Rightard extremist regressives push the Republican Party further >and further toward the right edge of insanity and beyond, normal people >are forced to deal with the consequences. This includes meeting the >useful idiots of the Right, so abundant here, on equal terms, and in >some of the same ways they use, which is about all they seem to be able >to understand. When they push, they get pushed back. It's called >"politics."
I do have some respect for honest self-labeling,
it is those who claim they are something they are not
that is troubling.
Please tell me if the guy that posted the below,
is you before you made a left turn, and why you
posted it.
