On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 06:59:01 -0700, John B. wrote:
> On Jul 18, 10:56 pm, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 19:26:05 -0600, Howard Brazee wrote:
>>> On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 20:59:56 -0400, William Clark
>>> <cl...@nospammatsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>>>> Actually, the question is whether Romney is a law breaker. If he is
>>>> not releasing these tax returns (and note, he has not released a
>>>> full return, even for 2010, since the return on his UBS Swiss bank
>>>> account, while it has to be filed with the IRS, has not been
>>>> released to the public), then it may well be because he benefitted
>>>> from an IRS Tax Amnesty program that allowed citizens to own up to
>>>> and pay owed taxes and penalties on such accounts anonymously.
>>>> Someone who has been the recipient of such an amnesty for a serious
>>>> crime would be disqualified from running for POTUS.
>>> I suspect he didn't break the law - he can afford top tax lawyers
>>> and has been in politics for long enough to not want to take that
>>> risk. I suspect though that he doesn't want the public to know on
>>> how he used the law to avoid paying taxes, which companies were
>>> paying him money, and where his money was invested.
>> Agree. There is effectively a different set of (legal) tax laws for
>> the very wealthy. Romney is a smart guy so he took advantage of every
>> possible loophole. He is right to be scared. All the (legal) crap he
>> pulled will be very damaging once it is disclosed and will feed into
>> Obama's policy of restoring higher rates of taxation for the rich.
> Romney obviously has made a calculation that releasing his tax returns
> would harm his campaign more than not releasing them would. That would
> lead any reasonable person to wonder if he's hiding something. Haley
> Barbour and other prominent Republicans have called on him to release
> his returns for the past 10 years.
Unless his tax returns reveal actual felonies, his calculation is wrong.
He is going to get pumped in the ass over this from now until election
day. Best to just get it over with.
>> Romney obviously has made a calculation that releasing his tax
>> returns would harm his campaign more than not releasing them would.
>> That would lead any reasonable person to wonder if he's hiding
>> something. Haley Barbour and other prominent Republicans have called
>> on him to release his returns for the past 10 years.
> Yet it is unreasonable to reach a similar conclusion of someone who
> won't release academic records. Got it.
It seems you're unaware that Harvard University refers to Obama as a
Magna Cum Laude graduate of Harvard Law. You can learn that generally
means graduating in the top 10% or so here: http://goo.gl/VasBM
Wasn't that easy? Now you're slightly less ignorant than you were before.
On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 18:24:45 -0400, BAR wrote:
> In article <17b1f818-f729-4861-99b8-bd5b3a0e89e9
> @i11g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>, johnb...@gmail.com says...
>> On Jul 19, 10:11 am, MNMikeW <mnmiik...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> Carbon wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 00:50:10 +0000, Moderate wrote:
>>>>> William Clark <cl...@nospammatsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>>>>>> In article
>>>>>> <1200295276364345411.290595nospam-nomail....@news.aioe.org>,
>>>>>>> Hahaha, academic records anyone? How many job applicants are
>>>>>>> hired who refuse to release their academic transcripts? How many
>>>>>>> employers ask for tax records?
>>>>>>> Obama should be fired :-)
>>>>>> Er, there is no legal requirement for anyone to "file" their
>>>>>> academic records with the Federal Government, or to pay any duty
>>>>>> on them. There clearly is for taxes - a difference you
>>>>>> apparently cannot grasp. Quelle surprise.
>>>>> OK, let's see Barry Soetoro's tax records. Don't bother to explain
>>>>> why the President needs an alias, just release the records.
>>>> You're the loon with this wild-assed theory. Let's see some
>>>> evidence.
>>>> What? You don't have any? Now there's a shock.
>>> Sheriff Joe already proved his birth cert. is fake. ;-) One
>>> disturbing thing that did come up in that "investigation" is that in
>>> Hawaii, you dont even have to be born there to get a Hawaii birt
>>> cert. Very odd law they have there.
>> Sheriff Joe's thugs went to Hawaii and the state birth certificate
>> agency refused to give Obama's BC to them.
> You didn't read the rest of the article.
Sheriff Joe has done very well in life for a retarded person.
On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 19:06:28 -0400, BAR wrote:
> In article <clark-7ECDA4.14261420072...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> cl...@nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu says...
>> In article <a6t941Fts...@mid.individual.net>, MNMikeW
>> <mnmiik...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> William Clark wrote:
>>>> In article <MPG.2a730b6cb660d61c...@news.giganews.com>, BAR
>>>> <sc...@you.com> wrote:
>>>>> In article
>>>>> <2112211426364473213.230920nospam-nomail....@news.aioe.org>,
>>>>> nos...@nomail.com says...
>>>>>> Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 20:52:45 -0400, BAR wrote:
>>>>>>>> When everyone is a 4.0 then it is difficult to distinguish the
>>>>>>>> differences between them. Some may have earned their grades and
>>>>>>>> others were given their grades.
>>>>>>> I know you like being an idiot and everything, but you're
>>>>>>> embarrassing yourself even more than usual with this one. The
>>>>>>> MCL and CL awards are for percentile rank. It doesn't matter if
>>>>>>> everyone gets an A, Romney was in the top 40% of his class at
>>>>>>> Harvard Law and Obama was in the top 10%.
>>>>>> 40 and 10% of what? Made up rankings?
>>>>> Inflated grades?
>>>> "Grades" v. "rankings". This about it for a minute, and if your
>>>> head stops hurting you might even see the difference.
>>> Are these rankings not determined by, um, grades?
>> They are RELATIVE. The actual grade means nothing in this context
>> (except to nutters like you) - magna cum laude says that Obama was
>> simply better than at least 90% of his class at Harvard Law.
> When I was managing a group there was a distribution of rankings. You
> could have 10% ranked in the top, 40% ranked next to the top, 40% in
> the next rank, next to the bottom and the bottom 10% were schedule for
> termination.
Ok, so we're all patiently waiting for that little 40-watt bulb over
your head to light up. By your rankings Obama would be in the top and
Romney would be ranked next to the top. Hellooo... anyone home...?
On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 16:41:40 +0000, Moderate wrote:
> Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 07:30:41 -0400, BAR wrote:
>>> In article
>>> <2112211426364473213.230920nospam-nomail....@news.aioe.org>,
>>> nos...@nomail.com says...
>>>> 40 and 10% of what? Made up rankings?
>>> Inflated grades?
>> Dear idiots. These are percentile rankings. It does not matter if
>> grades are inflated or anything else. Romney graduated in the top 40%
>> of his class and Obama graduated in the top 10%. It does not matter
>> if the grades they got were A's, B's, or heirloom tomatoes.
> Dear idiot, if my grade of 3.5 is inflated to a 4.0 and your grade of
> 3.5 is inflated to 3.9, what difference does the ranking percent of
> inflation matter?
> It doesn't. It is a percentage ranking of fictitious numbers.
I have to give you credit. No matter how confused you get, you continue
plowing on. Good for you!
On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 19:07:49 -0400, BAR wrote:
> In article <pan.2012.07.20.12.25...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>,
> nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...
>> On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 07:30:41 -0400, BAR wrote:
>>> In article
>>> <2112211426364473213.230920nospam-nomail....@news.aioe.org>,
>>> nos...@nomail.com says...
>>>> Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 20:52:45 -0400, BAR wrote:
>>>>>> When everyone is a 4.0 then it is difficult to distinguish the
>>>>>> differences between them. Some may have earned their grades and
>>>>>> others were given their grades.
>>>>> I know you like being an idiot and everything, but you're
>>>>> embarrassing yourself even more than usual with this one. The MCL
>>>>> and CL awards are for percentile rank. It doesn't matter if
>>>>> everyone gets an A, Romney was in the top 40% of his class at
>>>>> Harvard Law and Obama was in the top 10%.
>>>> 40 and 10% of what? Made up rankings?
>>> Inflated grades?
>> Dear idiots. These are percentile rankings. It does not matter if
>> grades are inflated or anything else. Romney graduated in the top 40%
>> of his class and Obama graduated in the top 10%. It does not matter
>> if the grades they got were A's, B's, or heirloom tomatoes.
> What criteria was used that put Obama in the top 10%?
Bert, you hopeless fucking moron. Even you aren't this stupid.
On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 19:01:57 -0400, BAR wrote:
> In article <clark-92C6C3.08195820072...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> cl...@nospammatsceng.ohio-state.edu says...
>> In article <MPG.2a7275ec701dd91e...@news.giganews.com>, BAR
>> <sc...@you.com> wrote:
>>> In article <clark-789AF8.20073019072...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>> cl...@nospammatsceng.ohio-state.edu says...
>>>> In article <MPG.2a72600b9537d68c...@news.giganews.com>, BAR
>>>> <sc...@you.com> wrote:
>>>>> In article
>>>>> <clark-AD1960.14274119072...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>>>> cl...@nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu says...
>>>>>> In article <MPG.2a71c328f2c054ed...@news.giganews.com>, BAR
>>>>>> <sc...@you.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <pan.2012.07.19.02.50...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>,
>>>>>>> nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 23:10:09 +0000, Moderate wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>>> <d000f860-d13d-43d7-a750-d44ad603354a@googlegroups.com>,
>>>>>>>>>> "la...@pivotforpower.com" <la...@pivotforpower.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 'Buyers Remorse' Leaves Obama Campaign Struggling for
>>>>>>>>>>> Campaign Funds Wednesday, July 18, 2012 07:02 AM
>>>>>>>>>>> Barack Obama was the first presidential candidate to raise
>>>>>>>>>>> more than $100 million in a month and in 2008 was the first
>>>>>>>>>>> to forgo public money for his campaign. Now, he faces the
>>>>>>>>>>> very real threat of being the first president to be outspent
>>>>>>>>>>> by a challenger.
>>>>>>>>>>> Chicago gotta be in panic mode now! Romney is ahead and
>>>>>>>>>>> raising DOUBLE the money Obama is! Wall street and other
>>>>>>>>>>> rich sources for Obama in 2008 are donating to Romney now!
>>>>>>>>>>> Apparently they have heard all that wealth creation
>>>>>>>>>>> bashing...
>>>>>>>>>>> Gonna be fun to watch. I hope he loses 48 states
>>>>>>>>>> And if it were the Democratic nominee who'd only released two
>>>>>>>>>> years of tax returns, you'd be screaming:
>>>>>>>>>> "WHAT IS HE HIDING?!?!?!?!?!?!?"
>>>>>>>>>> :-)
>>>>>>>>> Hahaha, academic records anyone? How many job applicants are
>>>>>>>>> hired who refuse to release their academic transcripts? How
>>>>>>>>> many employers ask for tax records?
>>>>>>>>> Obama should be fired :-)
>>>>>>>> It seems you're unaware that Harvard University refers to Obama
>>>>>>>> as a Magna Cum Laude graduate of Harvard Law. You can learn
>>>>>>>> that generally means graduating in the top 10% or so here:
>>>>>>>> http://goo.gl/VasBM
>>>>>>>> Wasn't that easy? Now you're slightly less ignorant than you
>>>>>>>> were before.
>>>>>>> Harvard has had a history of grade inflation and is most likely
>>>>>>> not above granting Obama an honor he did not earn.
>>>>>> BS. Magna cum laude, for the hard of thinking, means TOP 10%. It
>>>>>> is not, therefore, adjustable by any kind of "grade inflation",
>>>>>> since it is a relative measure of all those in the class.
>>>>>> If Harvard's grades are so easy, how come you never made it
>>>>>> through there - or anywhere?
>>>>> Be sure to read the box "Who makes the grade?" with data from the
>>>>> AAA&S. I will go ahead and put it into this message so you don'
>>>>> have to click the link.
>>>>> Evidence of grade inflation at Ivy League schools:
>>>>> In 1966, 22% of Harvard undergraduate students earned A's. By
>>>>> 1996, that figure rose to 46%. That same year, 82% of Harvard
>>>>> seniors graduated with honors. In 1973, 31% of all grades at
>>>>> Princeton were A's. By 1997 that rose to 43%. In 1997, only
>>>>> 12% of all grades given at Princeton were below the B range.
>>>>> Source: American Academy of Arts & Sciences
>>>> None of which, of course, has anything to do with RELATIVE measures
>>>> of performance among a class, such as magna cum laude defines. They
>>>> could all be given A's, but Obama, get this into your thick head,
>>>> was in the top 10% of that group. Only 10% get magna cum laude,
>>>> regardless of how many get A's, honors, or anything else. Just 10%.
>>>> And you?
>>> When everyone is a 4.0 then it is difficult to distinguish the
>>> differences between them. Some may have earned their grades and
>>> others were given their grades.
>> But some are in the top 10%, and the other 90% are not. Period.
>> I would drop this line of idiocy if I were you.
> My daughter's high school class had about 74% of the students on the
> honor roll. When your school is made up of high achievers the
> distinctions between someone with a 3.9 and 4.0 is meaningless.
> Especially when 75 out of 250 have a 4.0.
> The problem is that the elite institutions have succumbed to the if
> they kids are smart when they arrive and their parents are paying a
> bunch of money to send them here we should give them A's. When you get
> a high school valedictorian who is attending Harvard and you give him
> C's he and his mommy and daddy are going to complain.
OMG. Have one of your kids, or if they're not up to it, one of their
teachers, explain percentile rankings to you.
> >> My stock options are managed by a Swiss Bank.
> >Personally, I don't see anything wrong with using every legal means to
> >avoid taxes.
> There's nothing at all wrong with it. Except...when the middle class
> sees the income of the very wealthy and the percentage of tax they
> pay...it tends to make them feel that they don't have understanding of
> their financial problems.
It's not that hard to understand that earned income is taxed at a
different rate than investment income. There's are a couple of good
reasons for this. The first is that investments are risky. Some
investments lose money. Even more important is that investment feeds
capital into the economy and creates jobs. You certainly don't want to do
anything to discourage people from investing their money in the US.
On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 10:50:39 -0700, la...@pivotforpower.com wrote:
> Romney's transcripts are public records. He allowed Harvard to
> release them. Everyone has seen his sterling school records.
Almost sterling. Romney was CL at Harvard Law, but of course Obama was
MCL. Still pretty good in the big scheme of things, but it's not like he
can brag about it.
Obama has released his tax returns for the past 10 years. Romney is too
scared to do the same. What is he hiding?
On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 10:54:03 -0700, la...@pivotforpower.com wrote:
> Romney was a 4.0 student in high school and again at Harvard. He got
> a law and MBA degree simultaneously. Try that!!!
Um. No. He did a combined degree. Three years of law, one in business.
Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 07:04:47 -0700, John B. wrote:
>> Romney has admitted he has bank accounts in Switzerland, the Caymans
>> and the Bahamas. He says he doesn't know what's in them.
> Which is fucking hilarious. Of course he knows. Just like he knows how
> damaging it will be to his campaign if all his tax dodges see the light
> of day. I guarantee you that guy is shitting bricks, right now.
<bkni...@conramp.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 01:06:47 +0000 (UTC), Moderate <nos...@nomail.com>
> wrote:
>> You are a very small person, a liar and a whiner and a crybaby. You can't
>> handle the truth.
> LOL. You're a trip. Who's been doing the whining here? Not I. Like
> I suggested, grow some.
Whining is all you ever do. You ate a whiny child.
"Boo hoo, Moderate is smarter than me and he won't keep reposting sources,
because I am too stupid to keep up with history or current events."
On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 02:50:26 +0000, Moderate wrote:
> Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 07:04:47 -0700, John B. wrote:
>>> Romney has admitted he has bank accounts in Switzerland, the Caymans
>>> and the Bahamas. He says he doesn't know what's in them.
>> Which is fucking hilarious. Of course he knows. Just like he knows
>> how damaging it will be to his campaign if all his tax dodges see the
>> light of day. I guarantee you that guy is shitting bricks, right now.
> Academic records.
It seems you're unaware that Harvard University refers to Obama as a
Magna Cum Laude graduate of Harvard Law. You can learn that generally
means graduating in the top 10% or so here: http://goo.gl/VasBM
Wasn't that easy? Now you're slightly less ignorant than you were before.
>> >> My stock options are managed by a Swiss Bank.
>> >Personally, I don't see anything wrong with using every legal means to
>> >avoid taxes.
>> There's nothing at all wrong with it. Except...when the middle class
>> sees the income of the very wealthy and the percentage of tax they
>> pay...it tends to make them feel that they don't have understanding of
>> their financial problems.
>It's not that hard to understand that earned income is taxed at a
>different rate than investment income. There's are a couple of good
>reasons for this. The first is that investments are risky. Some
>investments lose money. Even more important is that investment feeds
>capital into the economy and creates jobs. You certainly don't want to do
>anything to discourage people from investing their money in the US.
Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 02:50:26 +0000, Moderate wrote:
>> Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 07:04:47 -0700, John B. wrote:
>>>> Romney has admitted he has bank accounts in Switzerland, the Caymans
>>>> and the Bahamas. He says he doesn't know what's in them.
>>> Which is fucking hilarious. Of course he knows. Just like he knows
>>> how damaging it will be to his campaign if all his tax dodges see the
>>> light of day. I guarantee you that guy is shitting bricks, right now.
>> Academic records.
> It seems you're unaware that Harvard University refers to Obama as a
> Magna Cum Laude graduate of Harvard Law. You can learn that generally
> means graduating in the top 10% or so here: http://goo.gl/VasBM
> Wasn't that easy? Now you're slightly less ignorant than you were before.
It seems you are unaware the the group of transfer students Obama was in
had a pretty low aggregate SAT score. It is likely Obama had a lower SAT
score than President Bush.
On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 02:56:40 +0000, Moderate wrote:
> Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 02:50:26 +0000, Moderate wrote:
>>> Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 07:04:47 -0700, John B. wrote:
>>>>> Romney has admitted he has bank accounts in Switzerland, the
>>>>> Caymans and the Bahamas. He says he doesn't know what's in them.
>>>> Which is fucking hilarious. Of course he knows. Just like he knows
>>>> how damaging it will be to his campaign if all his tax dodges see
>>>> the light of day. I guarantee you that guy is shitting bricks,
>>>> right now.
>>> Academic records.
>> It seems you're unaware that Harvard University refers to Obama as a
>> Magna Cum Laude graduate of Harvard Law. You can learn that generally
>> means graduating in the top 10% or so here: http://goo.gl/VasBM
>> Wasn't that easy? Now you're slightly less ignorant than you were
>> before.
> It seems you are unaware the the group of transfer students Obama was
> in had a pretty low aggregate SAT score. It is likely Obama had a
> lower SAT score than President Bush.
>>> You are a very small person, a liar and a whiner and a crybaby. You can't
>>> handle the truth.
>> LOL. You're a trip. Who's been doing the whining here? Not I. Like
>> I suggested, grow some.
>Whining is all you ever do. You ate a whiny child.
> "Boo hoo, Moderate is smarter than me and he won't keep reposting sources,
>because I am too stupid to keep up with history or current events."
LOL. At one time I thought you were sorta bright, but you've shown
that you and Bert are about the same. I wasn't asking you to cite for
me numbskull...but to show that you got off your lazy IT ass and
looked something up.
>> It's not that hard to understand that earned income is taxed at a
>> different rate than investment income. There's are a couple of good
>> reasons for this. The first is that investments are risky. Some
>> investments lose money. Even more important is that investment feeds
>> capital into the economy and creates jobs. You certainly don't want to do
>> anything to discourage people from investing their money in the US.
>> Whining is all you ever do. You ate a whiny child.
>> "Boo hoo, Moderate is smarter than me and he won't keep reposting sources,
>> because I am too stupid to keep up with history or current events."
> LOL. At one time I thought you were sorta bright, but you've shown
> that you and Bert are about the same. I wasn't asking you to cite for
> me numbskull...but to show that you got off your lazy IT ass and
> looked something up.
I have always known you were a whiny child. Too lazy and stupid to do your
own research
> > > >> 'Buyers Remorse' Leaves Obama Campaign Struggling for Campaign Funds > > > >> Wednesday, July 18, 2012 07:02 AM
> > > >> Barack Obama was the first presidential candidate to raise more than
$100 > > > >> million in a month and in 2008 was the first to forgo public money for
> > his > > > >> campaign. Now, he faces the very real threat of being the first
president
> > to > > > >> be outspent by a challenger.
> > > >> Chicago gotta be in panic mode now! Romney is ahead and raising
DOUBLE
> > the > > > >> money Obama is! Wall street and other rich sources for Obama in 2008
> > are > > > >> donating to Romney now! Apparently they have heard all that wealth
> > creation > > > >> bashing...
> > > >> Gonna be fun to watch. I hope he loses 48 states
> > > >> Larry
> > > > And if it were the Democratic nominee who'd only released two years of > > > > tax returns, you'd be screaming:
> > > > "WHAT IS HE HIDING?!?!?!?!?!?!?"
> > > > :-)
> > > Hahaha, academic records anyone? How many job applicants are hired who
> > > refuse to release their academic transcripts? How many employers ask for
> > > tax records?
> > > Obama should be fired :-)
> > I've never seen Romney's college transcripts. Romney's people have never
> > brought the issue up. Obviously, Romney could only do so if he were
> > willing to release his transcripts. He either doesn't want to, or he's
> > waiting until a more opportune time. I do know one thing, Obama had
> > better grades at Harvard Law than Romney. Personally, I would like to see
> > both of their SAT and LSAT scores. There's nothing like a good old
> > standardized test.
> Romney's transcripts are public records. He allowed Harvard to release
> > >>>>> On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 21:09:31 -0400, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>> He had better pick his running mate very carefully indeed.
> > >>>>>> Obama is an admitted law breaker. He has committed several felonies
and
> > >>>>>> numerous misdemeanors by his own admission.
> > >>>>> More unverified rumors from a dickhead. Let's see those felonies
with
> > >>>>> proof.
> > >>>>> Not happening.
> > >>>> They are admissions he wrote in his books and he repeated them on the
> > >>>> audio version of the books. He has also admitted inhaling.
> > >>>> The eveidence is not in your favor on this one.
> > >>> Now you nutbag, how about the felonies?
> > >> Well, he did admit to cocaine use, which is a felony, is his book. But
> > >> as we are finding out, most of his book was BS so who knows.
> > > He later referred to that as the action of a mixed-up teenager. Hell,
> > > it might not even have been cocaine.
> > Mixed up or not, it's still a felony.
> Maybe so, but at least he had the guts to admit it. GW Bush said "I
> don't recall" if he ever used coke. That's obviously a lie.
Bush never said anything of the sort. He was asked a number of time if he
had ever used coke. He never admitted that he did, but he also never
denied that he did. His stock answer was that when he was young and
irresponsible, he was young and irresponsible. I think that any
reasonable person would infer from that that he did use coke. I also
think that a reasonable person would also understand why a public figure
would not want to admit to committing a felony.
>Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 02:50:26 +0000, Moderate wrote:
>>> Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 07:04:47 -0700, John B. wrote:
>>>>> Romney has admitted he has bank accounts in Switzerland, the Caymans
>>>>> and the Bahamas. He says he doesn't know what's in them.
>>>> Which is fucking hilarious. Of course he knows. Just like he knows
>>>> how damaging it will be to his campaign if all his tax dodges see the
>>>> light of day. I guarantee you that guy is shitting bricks, right now.
>>> Academic records.
>> It seems you're unaware that Harvard University refers to Obama as a
>> Magna Cum Laude graduate of Harvard Law. You can learn that generally
>> means graduating in the top 10% or so here: http://goo.gl/VasBM
>> Wasn't that easy? Now you're slightly less ignorant than you were before.
>It seems you are unaware the the group of transfer students Obama was in
>had a pretty low aggregate SAT score. It is likely Obama had a lower SAT
>score than President Bush.
Moving from undergraduate level to graduate school is not a
"transfer." There is a recruiting/vetting stage. Aren't SATs part of
the entrance exams for high school students aiming for college? I
assume college grads are taking the LSAT for law school entrance, or
maybe the GRE.
-- Don Kirkman
dons...@charter.net
>> > >>> I suspect he didn't break the law - he can afford top tax lawyers and
>> > >>> has been in politics for long enough to not want to take that risk. I
>> > >>> suspect though that he doesn't want the public to know on how he used
>> > >>> the law to avoid paying taxes, which companies were paying him money,
>> > >>> and where his money was invested.
>> > >> What is your theory on why Obama has an alias and has not released tax
>> > >> records or transcripts?
>> > > My theory is that his alias is a birther fantasy, he has released tax
>> > > records (but he didn't run on his business record), and even if he ran
>> > > based upon his academic credentials, these belong to his colleges.
>> > > Romney ran on his business record. Obama is campaigning against
>> > > Romney's business record. Both candidates agree that Romney's
>> > > business record is an important issue.
>> > It's important because Romney HAS business experience, where it has
>> > become painfully obvious Obama does not.
>> GW Bush had business experience. Lot of good that did.
>Things turned to shit when the Democrats took over Congress.
Newt Gingrich on Twitter.
-- Don Kirkman
dons...@charter.net
>On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 19:07:49 -0400, BAR wrote:
>> In article <pan.2012.07.20.12.25...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>,
>> nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...
>>> On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 07:30:41 -0400, BAR wrote:
>>>> In article
>>>> <2112211426364473213.230920nospam-nomail....@news.aioe.org>,
>>>> nos...@nomail.com says...
>>>>> Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 20:52:45 -0400, BAR wrote:
>>>>>>> When everyone is a 4.0 then it is difficult to distinguish the
>>>>>>> differences between them. Some may have earned their grades and
>>>>>>> others were given their grades.
>>>>>> I know you like being an idiot and everything, but you're
>>>>>> embarrassing yourself even more than usual with this one. The MCL
>>>>>> and CL awards are for percentile rank. It doesn't matter if
>>>>>> everyone gets an A, Romney was in the top 40% of his class at
>>>>>> Harvard Law and Obama was in the top 10%.
>>>>> 40 and 10% of what? Made up rankings?
>>>> Inflated grades?
>>> Dear idiots. These are percentile rankings. It does not matter if
>>> grades are inflated or anything else. Romney graduated in the top 40%
>>> of his class and Obama graduated in the top 10%. It does not matter
>>> if the grades they got were A's, B's, or heirloom tomatoes.
>> What criteria was used that put Obama in the top 10%?
>Bert, you hopeless fucking moron. Even you aren't this stupid.
What criteria *were* used; criterion is the singular.
-- Don Kirkman
dons...@charter.net
> > > >>> Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> > > >>>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 20:52:45 -0400, BAR wrote:
> > > >>>>> When everyone is a 4.0 then it is difficult to distinguish the
> > > >>>>> differences between them. Some may have earned their grades and > > > >>>>> others
> > > >>>>> were given their grades.
> > > >>>> I know you like being an idiot and everything, but you're > > > >>>> embarrassing
> > > >>>> yourself even more than usual with this one. The MCL and CL awards > > > >>>> are
> > > >>>> for percentile rank. It doesn't matter if everyone gets an A, Romney > > > >>>> was
> > > >>>> in the top 40% of his class at Harvard Law and Obama was in the top > > > >>>> 10%.
> > > >>> 40 and 10% of what? Made up rankings?
> > > >> Inflated grades?
> > > > "Grades" v. "rankings". This about it for a minute, and if your head
> > > > stops hurting you might even see the difference.
> > > Are these rankings not determined by, um, grades?
> > They are RELATIVE. The actual grade means nothing in this context > > (except to nutters like you) - magna cum laude says that Obama was > > simply better than at least 90% of his class at Harvard Law.
> When I was managing a group there was a distribution of rankings. You > could have 10% ranked in the top, 40% ranked next to the top, 40% in the > next rank, next to the bottom and the bottom 10% were schedule for > termination.
But the top 10% were the best 10%, right? Now perhaps you can grasp what magna cum laude means. Perhaps.
