Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
GW Bush is smarter than you!
104 views
Skip to first unread message
la...@pivotforpower.com
Apr 25, 2013, 7:12:29 PM4/25/13
to
George W. Bush is smarter than you
24 April 2013 by Keith Hennessey
The new George W. Bush Presidential Center is being dedicated this week. This seems like a good time to bust a longstanding myth about our former President, my former boss.
I teach a class at Stanford Business School titled “Financial Crises in the U.S. and Europe.” During one class session while explaining the events of September 2008, I kept referring to the efforts of the threesome of Hank Paulson, Ben Bernanke, and Tim Geithner, who were joined at the hip in dealing with firm-specific problems as they arose.
One of my students asked “How involved was President Bush with what was going on?” I smiled and responded, “What you really mean is, ‘Was President Bush smart enough to understand what was going on,’ right?”
The class went dead silent. Everyone knew that this was the true meaning of the question. Kudos to that student for asking the hard question and for framing it so politely. I had stripped away that decorum and exposed the raw nerve.
I looked hard at the 60 MBA students and said “President Bush is smarter than almost every one of you.”
More silence.
I could tell they were waiting for me to break the tension, laugh, and admit I was joking.
I did not. A few shifted in their seats, then I launched into a longer answer. While it was a while ago, here is an amalgam of that answer and others I have given in similar contexts.
I am not kidding. You are quite an intelligent group. Don’t take it personally, but President Bush is smarter than almost every one of you. Were he a student here today, he would consistently get “HP” (High Pass) grades without having to work hard, and he’d get an “H” (High, the top grade) in any class where he wanted to put in the effort.
For more than six years it was my job to help educate President Bush about complex economic policy issues and to get decisions from him on impossibly hard policy choices. In meetings and in the briefing materials we gave him in advance we covered issues in far more depth than I have been discussing with you this quarter because we needed to do so for him to make decisions.
President Bush is extremely smart by any traditional standard. He’s highly analytical and was incredibly quick to be able to discern the core question he needed to answer. It was occasionally a little embarrassing when he would jump ahead of one of his Cabinet secretaries in a policy discussion and the advisor would struggle to catch up. He would sometimes force us to accelerate through policy presentations because he so quickly grasped what we were presenting.
I use words like briefing and presentation to describe our policy meetings with him, but those are inaccurate. Every meeting was a dialogue, and you had to be ready at all times to be grilled by him and to defend both your analysis and your recommendation. That was scary.
We treat Presidential speeches as if they are written by speechwriters, then handed to the President for delivery. If I could show you one experience from my time working for President Bush, it would be an editing session in the Oval with him and his speechwriters. You think that me cold-calling you is nerve-wracking? Try defending a sentence you inserted into a draft speech, with President Bush pouncing on the slightest weakness in your argument or your word choice.
In addition to his analytical speed, what most impressed me were his memory and his substantive breadth. We would sometimes have to brief him on an issue that we had last discussed with him weeks or even months before. He would remember small facts and arguments from the prior briefing and get impatient with us when we were rehashing things we had told him long ago.
And while my job involved juggling a lot of balls, I only had to worry about economic issues. In addition to all of those, at any given point in time he was making enormous decisions on Iraq and Afghanistan, on hunting al Qaeda and keeping America safe. He was making choices not just on taxes and spending and trade and energy and climate and health care and agriculture and Social Security and Medicare, but also on education and immigration, on crime and justice issues, on environmental policy and social policy and politics. Being able to handle such substantive breadth and depth, on such huge decisions, in parallel, requires not just enormous strength of character but tremendous intellectual power. President Bush has both.
On one particularly thorny policy issue on which his advisors had strong and deep disagreements, over the course of two weeks we (his senior advisors) held a series of three 90-minute meetings with the President. Shortly after the third meeting we asked for his OK to do a fourth. He said, “How about rather than doing another meeting on this, I instead tell you now what each person will say.” He then ran through half a dozen of his advisors by name and precisely detailed each one’s arguments and pointed out their flaws. (Needless to say there was no fourth meeting.)
Every prominent politician has a public caricature, one drawn initially by late-night comedy joke writers and shaped heavily by the press and one’s political opponents. The caricature of President Bush is that of a good ol’ boy from Texas who is principled and tough, but just not that bright.
That caricature was reinforced by several factors:
•The press and his opponents highlighted President Bush’s occasional stumbles when giving a speech. President Obama’s similar verbal miscues are ignored. Ask yourself: if every public statement you made were recorded and all your verbal fumbles were tweeted, how smart would you sound? Do you ever use the wrong word or phrase, or just botch a sentence for no good reason? I know I do.
•President Bush intentionally aimed his public image at average Americans rather than at Cambridge or Upper East Side elites. Mitt Romney’s campaign was predicated on “I am smart enough to fix a broken economy,” while George W. Bush’s campaigns stressed his values, character, and principles rather than boasting about his intellect. He never talked about graduating from Yale and Harvard Business School, and he liked to lower expectations by pretending he was just an average guy. Example: “My National Security Advisor Condi Rice is a Stanford professor, while I’m a C student. And look who’s President. <laughter>”
•There is a bias in much of the mainstream press and commentariat that people from outside of NY-BOS-WAS-CHI-SEA-SF-LA are less intelligent, or at least well educated. Many public commenters harbor an anti-Texas (and anti-Southern, and anti-Midwestern) intellectual bias. They mistakenly treat John Kerry as smarter than George Bush because John Kerry talks like an Ivy League professor while George Bush talks like a Texan.
•President Bush enjoys interacting with the men and women of our armed forces and with elite athletes. He loves to clear brush on his ranch. He loved interacting with the U.S. Olympic Team. He doesn’t windsurf off Nantucket, he rides a 100K mountain bike ride outside of Waco with wounded warriors. He is an intense, competitive athlete and a “guy’s guy.” His hobbies and habits reinforce a caricature of a [dumb] jock, in contrast to cultural sophisticates who enjoy antiquing and opera. This reinforces the other biases against him.
I assume that some who read this will react automatically with disbelief and sarcasm. They think they know that President Bush is unintelligent because, after all, everyone knows that. They will assume that I am wrong, or blinded by loyalty, or lying. They are certain that they are smarter than George Bush.
I ask you simply to consider the possibility that I’m right, that he is smarter than you.
If you can, find someone who has interacted directly with him outside the public spotlight. Ask that person about President Bush’s intellect. I am confident you will hear what I heard dozens of times from CEOs after they met with him: “Gosh, I had no idea he was that smart.”
At a minimum I hope you will test your own assumptions and thinking about our former President. I offer a few questions to help that process.
•Upon what do you base your view of President Bush’s intellect? How much is it shaped by the conventional wisdom about him? How much by verbal miscues highlighted by the press?
•Do you discount your estimate of his intellect because he’s from Texas or because of his accent? Because he’s an athlete and a ranch owner? Because he never advertises that he went to Yale and Harvard?
•This is a hard one, for liberals only. Do you assume that he is unintelligent because he made policy choices with which you disagree? If so, your logic may be backwards. “I disagree with choice X that President Bush made. No intelligent person could conclude X, therefore President Bush is unintelligent.” Might it be possible that an intelligent, thoughtful conservative with different values and priorities than your own might have reached a different conclusion than you? Do you really think your policy views derive only from your intellect?
And finally, if you base your view of President Bush’s intellect on a public image and caricature shaped by late night comedians, op-ed writers, TV pundits, and Twitter, is that a smart thing for you to do?
24 April 2013 by Keith Hennessey
The new George W. Bush Presidential Center is being dedicated this week. This seems like a good time to bust a longstanding myth about our former President, my former boss.
I teach a class at Stanford Business School titled “Financial Crises in the U.S. and Europe.” During one class session while explaining the events of September 2008, I kept referring to the efforts of the threesome of Hank Paulson, Ben Bernanke, and Tim Geithner, who were joined at the hip in dealing with firm-specific problems as they arose.
One of my students asked “How involved was President Bush with what was going on?” I smiled and responded, “What you really mean is, ‘Was President Bush smart enough to understand what was going on,’ right?”
The class went dead silent. Everyone knew that this was the true meaning of the question. Kudos to that student for asking the hard question and for framing it so politely. I had stripped away that decorum and exposed the raw nerve.
I looked hard at the 60 MBA students and said “President Bush is smarter than almost every one of you.”
More silence.
I could tell they were waiting for me to break the tension, laugh, and admit I was joking.
I did not. A few shifted in their seats, then I launched into a longer answer. While it was a while ago, here is an amalgam of that answer and others I have given in similar contexts.
I am not kidding. You are quite an intelligent group. Don’t take it personally, but President Bush is smarter than almost every one of you. Were he a student here today, he would consistently get “HP” (High Pass) grades without having to work hard, and he’d get an “H” (High, the top grade) in any class where he wanted to put in the effort.
For more than six years it was my job to help educate President Bush about complex economic policy issues and to get decisions from him on impossibly hard policy choices. In meetings and in the briefing materials we gave him in advance we covered issues in far more depth than I have been discussing with you this quarter because we needed to do so for him to make decisions.
President Bush is extremely smart by any traditional standard. He’s highly analytical and was incredibly quick to be able to discern the core question he needed to answer. It was occasionally a little embarrassing when he would jump ahead of one of his Cabinet secretaries in a policy discussion and the advisor would struggle to catch up. He would sometimes force us to accelerate through policy presentations because he so quickly grasped what we were presenting.
I use words like briefing and presentation to describe our policy meetings with him, but those are inaccurate. Every meeting was a dialogue, and you had to be ready at all times to be grilled by him and to defend both your analysis and your recommendation. That was scary.
We treat Presidential speeches as if they are written by speechwriters, then handed to the President for delivery. If I could show you one experience from my time working for President Bush, it would be an editing session in the Oval with him and his speechwriters. You think that me cold-calling you is nerve-wracking? Try defending a sentence you inserted into a draft speech, with President Bush pouncing on the slightest weakness in your argument or your word choice.
In addition to his analytical speed, what most impressed me were his memory and his substantive breadth. We would sometimes have to brief him on an issue that we had last discussed with him weeks or even months before. He would remember small facts and arguments from the prior briefing and get impatient with us when we were rehashing things we had told him long ago.
And while my job involved juggling a lot of balls, I only had to worry about economic issues. In addition to all of those, at any given point in time he was making enormous decisions on Iraq and Afghanistan, on hunting al Qaeda and keeping America safe. He was making choices not just on taxes and spending and trade and energy and climate and health care and agriculture and Social Security and Medicare, but also on education and immigration, on crime and justice issues, on environmental policy and social policy and politics. Being able to handle such substantive breadth and depth, on such huge decisions, in parallel, requires not just enormous strength of character but tremendous intellectual power. President Bush has both.
On one particularly thorny policy issue on which his advisors had strong and deep disagreements, over the course of two weeks we (his senior advisors) held a series of three 90-minute meetings with the President. Shortly after the third meeting we asked for his OK to do a fourth. He said, “How about rather than doing another meeting on this, I instead tell you now what each person will say.” He then ran through half a dozen of his advisors by name and precisely detailed each one’s arguments and pointed out their flaws. (Needless to say there was no fourth meeting.)
Every prominent politician has a public caricature, one drawn initially by late-night comedy joke writers and shaped heavily by the press and one’s political opponents. The caricature of President Bush is that of a good ol’ boy from Texas who is principled and tough, but just not that bright.
That caricature was reinforced by several factors:
•The press and his opponents highlighted President Bush’s occasional stumbles when giving a speech. President Obama’s similar verbal miscues are ignored. Ask yourself: if every public statement you made were recorded and all your verbal fumbles were tweeted, how smart would you sound? Do you ever use the wrong word or phrase, or just botch a sentence for no good reason? I know I do.
•President Bush intentionally aimed his public image at average Americans rather than at Cambridge or Upper East Side elites. Mitt Romney’s campaign was predicated on “I am smart enough to fix a broken economy,” while George W. Bush’s campaigns stressed his values, character, and principles rather than boasting about his intellect. He never talked about graduating from Yale and Harvard Business School, and he liked to lower expectations by pretending he was just an average guy. Example: “My National Security Advisor Condi Rice is a Stanford professor, while I’m a C student. And look who’s President. <laughter>”
•There is a bias in much of the mainstream press and commentariat that people from outside of NY-BOS-WAS-CHI-SEA-SF-LA are less intelligent, or at least well educated. Many public commenters harbor an anti-Texas (and anti-Southern, and anti-Midwestern) intellectual bias. They mistakenly treat John Kerry as smarter than George Bush because John Kerry talks like an Ivy League professor while George Bush talks like a Texan.
•President Bush enjoys interacting with the men and women of our armed forces and with elite athletes. He loves to clear brush on his ranch. He loved interacting with the U.S. Olympic Team. He doesn’t windsurf off Nantucket, he rides a 100K mountain bike ride outside of Waco with wounded warriors. He is an intense, competitive athlete and a “guy’s guy.” His hobbies and habits reinforce a caricature of a [dumb] jock, in contrast to cultural sophisticates who enjoy antiquing and opera. This reinforces the other biases against him.
I assume that some who read this will react automatically with disbelief and sarcasm. They think they know that President Bush is unintelligent because, after all, everyone knows that. They will assume that I am wrong, or blinded by loyalty, or lying. They are certain that they are smarter than George Bush.
I ask you simply to consider the possibility that I’m right, that he is smarter than you.
If you can, find someone who has interacted directly with him outside the public spotlight. Ask that person about President Bush’s intellect. I am confident you will hear what I heard dozens of times from CEOs after they met with him: “Gosh, I had no idea he was that smart.”
At a minimum I hope you will test your own assumptions and thinking about our former President. I offer a few questions to help that process.
•Upon what do you base your view of President Bush’s intellect? How much is it shaped by the conventional wisdom about him? How much by verbal miscues highlighted by the press?
•Do you discount your estimate of his intellect because he’s from Texas or because of his accent? Because he’s an athlete and a ranch owner? Because he never advertises that he went to Yale and Harvard?
•This is a hard one, for liberals only. Do you assume that he is unintelligent because he made policy choices with which you disagree? If so, your logic may be backwards. “I disagree with choice X that President Bush made. No intelligent person could conclude X, therefore President Bush is unintelligent.” Might it be possible that an intelligent, thoughtful conservative with different values and priorities than your own might have reached a different conclusion than you? Do you really think your policy views derive only from your intellect?
And finally, if you base your view of President Bush’s intellect on a public image and caricature shaped by late night comedians, op-ed writers, TV pundits, and Twitter, is that a smart thing for you to do?
Alan Baker
Apr 25, 2013, 7:16:13 PM4/25/13
to
In article <7d1a5bc0-0001-444a...@googlegroups.com>,
Economic Policy and Director of the U.S. National Economic Council. He
was appointed to the position in November 2007 by President George W.
Bush, and served until the end of Bush's second term in office. Mr.
Hennessey served in the White House since August 2002, when he was
appointed to his previous position of Deputy Assistant to the U.S.
President for Economic Policy and Deputy Director of the U.S. National
Economic Council. He is currently a research fellow at Stanford
University's Hoover Institution.
Prior to joining the White House staff, Hennessey worked for Senate
Majority Leader Trent Lott from February 1997 to August 2002."
IOW, a cheerleader, not a disinterested party.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
"la...@pivotforpower.com" <la...@pivotforpower.com> wrote:
> George W. Bush is smarter than you
>
> 24 April 2013 by Keith Hennessey
"Keith Hennessey is the former Assistant to the U.S. President for
> George W. Bush is smarter than you
>
> 24 April 2013 by Keith Hennessey
Economic Policy and Director of the U.S. National Economic Council. He
was appointed to the position in November 2007 by President George W.
Bush, and served until the end of Bush's second term in office. Mr.
Hennessey served in the White House since August 2002, when he was
appointed to his previous position of Deputy Assistant to the U.S.
President for Economic Policy and Deputy Director of the U.S. National
Economic Council. He is currently a research fellow at Stanford
University's Hoover Institution.
Prior to joining the White House staff, Hennessey worked for Senate
Majority Leader Trent Lott from February 1997 to August 2002."
IOW, a cheerleader, not a disinterested party.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
Horva...@net.net
Apr 25, 2013, 7:44:59 PM4/25/13
to
On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 16:12:29 -0700 (PDT), "la...@pivotforpower.com"
<la...@pivotforpower.com> wrote this crap:
>George W. Bush is smarter than you
>
>24 April 2013 by Keith Hennessey
>
Good job, Larry.
This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe
<la...@pivotforpower.com> wrote this crap:
>George W. Bush is smarter than you
>
>24 April 2013 by Keith Hennessey
>
This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe
Horva...@net.net
Apr 25, 2013, 7:46:50 PM4/25/13
to
On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 16:16:13 -0700, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
wrote this crap:
>In article <7d1a5bc0-0001-444a...@googlegroups.com>,
> "la...@pivotforpower.com" <la...@pivotforpower.com> wrote:
>
>> George W. Bush is smarter than you
>>
>> 24 April 2013 by Keith Hennessey
>
>"Keith Hennessey is the former Assistant to the U.S. President for
>Economic Policy and Director of the U.S. National Economic Council. He
>was appointed to the position in November 2007 by President George W.
>Bush, and served until the end of Bush's second term in office. Mr.
>Hennessey served in the White House since August 2002, when he was
>appointed to his previous position of Deputy Assistant to the U.S.
>President for Economic Policy and Deputy Director of the U.S. National
>Economic Council. He is currently a research fellow at Stanford
>University's Hoover Institution.
>
>
>Prior to joining the White House staff, Hennessey worked for Senate
>Majority Leader Trent Lott from February 1997 to August 2002."
>
>IOW, a cheerleader, not a disinterested party.
And you are, what? Do you even have a job?
wrote this crap:
>In article <7d1a5bc0-0001-444a...@googlegroups.com>,
> "la...@pivotforpower.com" <la...@pivotforpower.com> wrote:
>
>> George W. Bush is smarter than you
>>
>> 24 April 2013 by Keith Hennessey
>
>"Keith Hennessey is the former Assistant to the U.S. President for
>Economic Policy and Director of the U.S. National Economic Council. He
>was appointed to the position in November 2007 by President George W.
>Bush, and served until the end of Bush's second term in office. Mr.
>Hennessey served in the White House since August 2002, when he was
>appointed to his previous position of Deputy Assistant to the U.S.
>President for Economic Policy and Deputy Director of the U.S. National
>Economic Council. He is currently a research fellow at Stanford
>University's Hoover Institution.
>
>
>Prior to joining the White House staff, Hennessey worked for Senate
>Majority Leader Trent Lott from February 1997 to August 2002."
>
>IOW, a cheerleader, not a disinterested party.
Alan Baker
Apr 25, 2013, 7:55:26 PM4/25/13
to
In article <r1gjn813cl5el4jna...@4ax.com>,
Yup.
I'm doing it right now...
...from home...
...at $66/hr (they get a price break because I'm guaranteed a certain
number of hours each month).
:-)
I'm doing it right now...
...from home...
...at $66/hr (they get a price break because I'm guaranteed a certain
number of hours each month).
:-)
jay birdsong
Apr 25, 2013, 8:12:57 PM4/25/13
to
wrote in message
news:7d1a5bc0-0001-444a...@googlegroups.com...
>George W. Bush is smarter than you
The "smartest" thing that asshole did was fuck the American public.
He started the shit we're in, and the new asshole only compounded it.
War with Iraq? Why? So his buds could line their pockets? Or
because Saddam insulted him and his daddy?
He is one of the dumbest mother fuckers who was ever president, tied
with the dumb mother fucker we have now.
All these scumbags are smart about is fucking the dumb American
public.
jay birdsong
Apr 25, 2013, 8:13:53 PM4/25/13
to
"Alan Baker" wrote in message
news:alangbaker-83866...@news.shawcable.net...
In article <7d1a5bc0-0001-444a...@googlegroups.com>,
"la...@pivotforpower.com" <la...@pivotforpower.com> wrote:
> George W. Bush is smarter than you
Alan Baker
Apr 25, 2013, 8:14:22 PM4/25/13
to
Mr. Joe
Apr 25, 2013, 8:18:53 PM4/25/13
to
In article <alangbaker-83866...@news.shawcable.net>,
alang...@telus.net says...
--
People died, Obama lied
alang...@telus.net says...
>
> In article <7d1a5bc0-0001-444a...@googlegroups.com>,
> "la...@pivotforpower.com" <la...@pivotforpower.com> wrote:
>
> > George W. Bush is smarter than you
> >
> > 24 April 2013 by Keith Hennessey
>
> "Keith Hennessey is the former Assistant to the U.S. President for
> Economic Policy and Director of the U.S. National Economic Council. He
> was appointed to the position in November 2007 by President George W.
> Bush, and served until the end of Bush's second term in office. Mr.
> Hennessey served in the White House since August 2002, when he was
> appointed to his previous position of Deputy Assistant to the U.S.
> President for Economic Policy and Deputy Director of the U.S. National
> Economic Council. He is currently a research fellow at Stanford
> University's Hoover Institution.
>
>
> Prior to joining the White House staff, Hennessey worked for Senate
> Majority Leader Trent Lott from February 1997 to August 2002."
>
> IOW, a cheerleader, not a disinterested party.
IOW, you couldn't attack the message so you attacked the messenger.
> In article <7d1a5bc0-0001-444a...@googlegroups.com>,
> "la...@pivotforpower.com" <la...@pivotforpower.com> wrote:
>
> > George W. Bush is smarter than you
> >
> > 24 April 2013 by Keith Hennessey
>
> "Keith Hennessey is the former Assistant to the U.S. President for
> Economic Policy and Director of the U.S. National Economic Council. He
> was appointed to the position in November 2007 by President George W.
> Bush, and served until the end of Bush's second term in office. Mr.
> Hennessey served in the White House since August 2002, when he was
> appointed to his previous position of Deputy Assistant to the U.S.
> President for Economic Policy and Deputy Director of the U.S. National
> Economic Council. He is currently a research fellow at Stanford
> University's Hoover Institution.
>
>
> Prior to joining the White House staff, Hennessey worked for Senate
> Majority Leader Trent Lott from February 1997 to August 2002."
>
> IOW, a cheerleader, not a disinterested party.
--
People died, Obama lied
la...@pivotforpower.com
Apr 25, 2013, 8:22:11 PM4/25/13
to
But Fox News may buy and expand into the old New York Times building. That rag is dying as advertisers abandon it, because readers are abandoning it, because that newspaper lies and report only their biased version of the news. Only morons like Obama will mourn when the NY Times is gone!
Larry
Alan Baker
Apr 25, 2013, 8:23:51 PM4/25/13
to
In article <7f600968-60fb-472b...@googlegroups.com>,
"la...@pivotforpower.com" <la...@pivotforpower.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, April 25, 2013 5:13:53 PM UTC-7, jay birdsong wrote:
> > "Alan Baker" wrote in message
> >
> > news:alangbaker-83866...@news.shawcable.net...
> >
> >
> >
> > In article <7d1a5bc0-0001-444a...@googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > "la...@pivotforpower.com" <la...@pivotforpower.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > George W. Bush is smarter than you
> >
> >
> >
> > And a pile of dog shit is smarter than you, Loser.
>
> We can always discern the libs. When they lose the intellectual argument,
> they turn to personal attacks, hurling filth at their betters.
So... ...you're really a "lib", then?
> On Thursday, April 25, 2013 5:13:53 PM UTC-7, jay birdsong wrote:
> > "Alan Baker" wrote in message
> >
> > news:alangbaker-83866...@news.shawcable.net...
> >
> >
> >
> > In article <7d1a5bc0-0001-444a...@googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > "la...@pivotforpower.com" <la...@pivotforpower.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > George W. Bush is smarter than you
> >
> >
> >
> > And a pile of dog shit is smarter than you, Loser.
>
> We can always discern the libs. When they lose the intellectual argument,
> they turn to personal attacks, hurling filth at their betters.
Alan Baker
Apr 25, 2013, 8:26:17 PM4/25/13
to
In article <MPG.2be383cd7...@news.easynews.com>,
As you trolls do on a regular basis.
Fact: asking a man who owes his career to someone to characterize that
person is not likely to get you an unbiased account.
Fact: asking a man who owes his career to someone to characterize that
person is not likely to get you an unbiased account.
Mr. Joe
Apr 25, 2013, 8:27:42 PM4/25/13
to
In article <alangbaker-C83EC...@news.shawcable.net>,
alang...@telus.net says...
> > And you are, what? Do you even have a job?
>
> Yup.
>
> I'm doing it right now...
>
> ...from home...
>
> ...at $66/hr (they get a price break because I'm guaranteed a certain
> number of hours each month).
Do they know you're charging them $66/hour while you stalk people in
golf groups? You're a dishonest POS.
alang...@telus.net says...
> > And you are, what? Do you even have a job?
>
> Yup.
>
> I'm doing it right now...
>
> ...from home...
>
> ...at $66/hr (they get a price break because I'm guaranteed a certain
> number of hours each month).
golf groups? You're a dishonest POS.
Alan Baker
Apr 25, 2013, 8:31:06 PM4/25/13
to
In article <MPG.2be385f6a...@news.easynews.com>,
I start and stop the clock when I'm doing more than waiting a couple of
minutes for a process to complete.
minutes for a process to complete.
Mr. Joe
Apr 25, 2013, 8:41:39 PM4/25/13
to
In article <alangbaker-586EF...@news.shawcable.net>,
alang...@telus.net says...
> > Do they know you're charging them $66/hour while you stalk people in
> > golf groups? You're a dishonest POS.
>
> I start and stop the clock when I'm doing more than waiting a couple of
> minutes for a process to complete.
Sure you are. Next you'll be telling us you're a single digit handicap.
alang...@telus.net says...
> > Do they know you're charging them $66/hour while you stalk people in
> > golf groups? You're a dishonest POS.
>
> I start and stop the clock when I'm doing more than waiting a couple of
> minutes for a process to complete.
Alan Baker
Apr 25, 2013, 8:47:09 PM4/25/13
to
In article <MPG.2be3893a9...@news.easynews.com>,
Nope.
I used to be (9.2 was as low as I got, IIRC), but I've been playing less
and had some issues with my back that really hurt my game
(Spondylolisthesis: you don't want one, trust me.)
And unlike Larry, I've played with people who post to this group who
will attest that the swing and the game they saw matches the scores that
I post.
:-)
I used to be (9.2 was as low as I got, IIRC), but I've been playing less
and had some issues with my back that really hurt my game
(Spondylolisthesis: you don't want one, trust me.)
And unlike Larry, I've played with people who post to this group who
will attest that the swing and the game they saw matches the scores that
I post.
:-)
jay birdsong
Apr 25, 2013, 9:14:22 PM4/25/13
to
"Mr. Joe" wrote in message
news:MPG.2be3893a9...@news.easynews.com...
For any business to charge $66 an hour when the going rate is $150
plus must tell you something. Especially in Vancouver.
Alan Baker
Apr 25, 2013, 9:15:22 PM4/25/13
to
In article <klck7f$e1j$1...@dont-email.me>,
>
> For any business to charge $66 an hour when the going rate is $150
> plus must tell you something. Especially in Vancouver.
LOL
"jay birdsong" <jaybi...@aol.com> wrote:
> "Mr. Joe" wrote in message
> news:MPG.2be3893a9...@news.easynews.com...
>
> In article <alangbaker-586EF...@news.shawcable.net>,
> alang...@telus.net says...
>
> > > Do they know you're charging them $66/hour while you stalk people
> > > in
> > > golf groups? You're a dishonest POS.
> >
> > I start and stop the clock when I'm doing more than waiting a couple
> > of
> > minutes for a process to complete.
>
> >Sure you are. Next you'll be telling us you're a single digit
> >handicap.
>
> He sets up iPads at night.
I do?
> "Mr. Joe" wrote in message
> news:MPG.2be3893a9...@news.easynews.com...
>
> In article <alangbaker-586EF...@news.shawcable.net>,
> alang...@telus.net says...
>
> > > Do they know you're charging them $66/hour while you stalk people
> > > in
> > > golf groups? You're a dishonest POS.
> >
> > I start and stop the clock when I'm doing more than waiting a couple
> > of
> > minutes for a process to complete.
>
> >Sure you are. Next you'll be telling us you're a single digit
> >handicap.
>
> He sets up iPads at night.
>
> For any business to charge $66 an hour when the going rate is $150
> plus must tell you something. Especially in Vancouver.
KenPitts
Apr 25, 2013, 9:38:29 PM4/25/13
to
On Thursday, April 25, 2013 8:14:22 PM UTC-5, jay birdsong wrote:
>
>
>
> He sets up iPads at night.
>
>
>
> For any business to charge $66 an hour when the going rate is $150
>
> plus must tell you something. Especially in Vancouver.
If the client finds out he is goofing off with RSG and other groups instead of working, he will be sacked.
>
>
>
> He sets up iPads at night.
>
>
>
> For any business to charge $66 an hour when the going rate is $150
>
> plus must tell you something. Especially in Vancouver.
I learned a valuable lesson with a former client. Several years ago I was looking for a car for me and my wife. I did some looking at autotrader.com while at the office. My mistake was that I left the browser open at autotrader.com all afternoon. I ended up on an abuse of resources list. Fortunately, my situation with this client was good after two years of good service. But, I still had to appear before client management and my management to explain. With a lesser reputation, I could have been shown the door.
What goes around comes around.
Ken
Alan Baker
Apr 25, 2013, 9:40:40 PM4/25/13
to
In article <ab8ba8aa-d6c0-4c79...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> I learned a valuable lesson with a former client. Several years ago I was
> looking for a car for me and my wife. I did some looking at autotrader.com
> while at the office. My mistake was that I left the browser open at
> autotrader.com all afternoon. I ended up on an abuse of resources list.
> Fortunately, my situation with this client was good after two years of good
> service. But, I still had to appear before client management and my
> management to explain. With a lesser reputation, I could have been shown the
> door.
>
> What goes around comes around.
I've given my clients no cause for complaint. I'm using my computer at
my home and accessing their servers and systems remotely. While waiting
for various things to complete, I amuse myself on Usenet.
:-)
KenPitts <ken....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, April 25, 2013 8:14:22 PM UTC-5, jay birdsong wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > He sets up iPads at night.
> >
> >
> >
> > For any business to charge $66 an hour when the going rate is $150
> >
> > plus must tell you something. Especially in Vancouver.
>
> If the client finds out he is goofing off with RSG and other groups instead
> of working, he will be sacked.
Only if I charge for the time I'm posting on RSG, Ken...
> On Thursday, April 25, 2013 8:14:22 PM UTC-5, jay birdsong wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > He sets up iPads at night.
> >
> >
> >
> > For any business to charge $66 an hour when the going rate is $150
> >
> > plus must tell you something. Especially in Vancouver.
>
> If the client finds out he is goofing off with RSG and other groups instead
> of working, he will be sacked.
>
> I learned a valuable lesson with a former client. Several years ago I was
> looking for a car for me and my wife. I did some looking at autotrader.com
> while at the office. My mistake was that I left the browser open at
> autotrader.com all afternoon. I ended up on an abuse of resources list.
> Fortunately, my situation with this client was good after two years of good
> service. But, I still had to appear before client management and my
> management to explain. With a lesser reputation, I could have been shown the
> door.
>
> What goes around comes around.
my home and accessing their servers and systems remotely. While waiting
for various things to complete, I amuse myself on Usenet.
:-)
Moderate
Apr 25, 2013, 9:46:35 PM4/25/13
to
Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:
print drivers while she pays your rent and sends you to driving
school.
$66 dollars an hour. LOL.
--
> In article <ab8ba8aa-d6c0-4c79...@googlegroups.com>,
> KenPitts <ken....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, April 25, 2013 8:14:22 PM UTC-5, jay birdsong wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > He sets up iPads at night.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > For any business to charge $66 an hour when the going rate is $150
>> >
>> > plus must tell you something. Especially in Vancouver.
>>
>> If the client finds out he is goofing off with RSG and other groups instead
>> of working, he will be sacked.
>
> Only if I charge for the time I'm posting on RSG, Ken...
>
>>
>> I learned a valuable lesson with a former client. Several years ago I was
>> looking for a car for me and my wife. I did some looking at autotrader.com
>> while at the office. My mistake was that I left the browser open at
>> autotrader.com all afternoon. I ended up on an abuse of resources list.
>> Fortunately, my situation with this client was good after two years of good
>> service. But, I still had to appear before client management and my
>> management to explain. With a lesser reputation, I could have been shown the
>> door.
>>
>> What goes around comes around.
>
> I've given my clients no cause for complaint. I'm using my computer at
> my home and accessing their servers and systems remotely. While waiting
> for various things to complete, I amuse myself on Usenet.
>
> :-)
>
At best you run a browser clean up for your mom and update her
> KenPitts <ken....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, April 25, 2013 8:14:22 PM UTC-5, jay birdsong wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > He sets up iPads at night.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > For any business to charge $66 an hour when the going rate is $150
>> >
>> > plus must tell you something. Especially in Vancouver.
>>
>> If the client finds out he is goofing off with RSG and other groups instead
>> of working, he will be sacked.
>
> Only if I charge for the time I'm posting on RSG, Ken...
>
>>
>> I learned a valuable lesson with a former client. Several years ago I was
>> looking for a car for me and my wife. I did some looking at autotrader.com
>> while at the office. My mistake was that I left the browser open at
>> autotrader.com all afternoon. I ended up on an abuse of resources list.
>> Fortunately, my situation with this client was good after two years of good
>> service. But, I still had to appear before client management and my
>> management to explain. With a lesser reputation, I could have been shown the
>> door.
>>
>> What goes around comes around.
>
> I've given my clients no cause for complaint. I'm using my computer at
> my home and accessing their servers and systems remotely. While waiting
> for various things to complete, I amuse myself on Usenet.
>
> :-)
>
print drivers while she pays your rent and sends you to driving
school.
$66 dollars an hour. LOL.
--
Alan Baker
Apr 25, 2013, 9:51:13 PM4/25/13
to
In article <klcm9l$62p$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,
My mother is a lifetime programmer/analyst/manager. She doesn't need my
help very much.
:-)
> $66 dollars an hour. LOL.
> --
For a block of hours every month, yes.
Regular clients pay $90.
help very much.
:-)
> $66 dollars an hour. LOL.
> --
Regular clients pay $90.
Moderate
Apr 25, 2013, 9:58:42 PM4/25/13
to
Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:
> In article <klcm9l$62p$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,
> Moderate <no_spam@no_mail.com> wrote:
>>
>> At best you run a browser clean up for your mom and update her
>> print drivers while she pays your rent and sends you to driving
>> school.
>
> My mother is a lifetime programmer/analyst/manager. She doesn't need my
> help very much.
>
> :-)
>
>> $66 dollars an hour. LOL.
>> --
>
> For a block of hours every month, yes.
>
> Regular clients pay $90.
>
> :-)
>
But you can't survive without her help. :-)
> In article <klcm9l$62p$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,
> Moderate <no_spam@no_mail.com> wrote:
>>
>> At best you run a browser clean up for your mom and update her
>> print drivers while she pays your rent and sends you to driving
>> school.
>
> My mother is a lifetime programmer/analyst/manager. She doesn't need my
> help very much.
>
> :-)
>
>> $66 dollars an hour. LOL.
>> --
>
> For a block of hours every month, yes.
>
> Regular clients pay $90.
>
> :-)
>
A decent system analyst costs $150 - $200.
--
Alan Baker
Apr 25, 2013, 10:07:44 PM4/25/13
to
In article <klcn0b$78p$2...@speranza.aioe.org>,
I can't? This will come as news to her... ...and to me.
:-)
>
> A decent system analyst costs $150 - $200.
And?
I have a job I like doing that easily pays for a very fun life.
I realize that people such as yourself have a hard time understanding
this, but it isn't all about how much money you earn.
:-)
>
> A decent system analyst costs $150 - $200.
I have a job I like doing that easily pays for a very fun life.
I realize that people such as yourself have a hard time understanding
this, but it isn't all about how much money you earn.
KenPitts
Apr 25, 2013, 10:17:41 PM4/25/13
to
Ken
Alan Baker
Apr 25, 2013, 10:18:51 PM4/25/13
to
In article <93d05e76-34f7-44e1...@googlegroups.com>,
What?????
Moderate might have been talking through his hat?
LOL
Moderate might have been talking through his hat?
LOL
Hollis2
Apr 26, 2013, 4:03:30 AM4/26/13
to
before the 2000 elections. I assume they obtained them illegally. Using
those scores to estimate his IQ shows Bush's to be somewhere in the upper
ranges of superior to the lower ranges of very superior. That represents
a score between 127 and 132. He's not quite Mensa material, but close.
patmp...@gmail.com
Apr 26, 2013, 5:33:08 AM4/26/13
to
On Friday, April 26, 2013 7:12:29 AM UTC+8, la...@pivotforpower.com wrote:
>
SAT Verbal Score
566 (of 800)
SAT Math Score
640 (of 800)
But this stuff has very little meaning in the real world. Who cares about vocabulary and algebra?
I have mixed feelings about him. His "stupidity" was largely a clever act. Surely that Texas accent was a choice: his daddy sure don't talk like that. It worked, so all this cover was smart.
Bill Clinton cites W as quite a clever politician, which I would believe. He was quite good at that, and had charm. No genius, but not dumb. I could never do what he did.
On the negative side, corrupt and partisan as hell, and the civilian side of the Iraq invasion was botched so bad you can't believe it. A real fiasco, worse than I can remember under any other President. I can give details if you like, but the short story is that they really believed the Iraqis would shower them with love and enthusiastically build a liberal capitalist democracy. They all seemed to believe that. It's dumb to believe your own propaganda.
>
SAT Verbal Score
566 (of 800)
SAT Math Score
640 (of 800)
But this stuff has very little meaning in the real world. Who cares about vocabulary and algebra?
I have mixed feelings about him. His "stupidity" was largely a clever act. Surely that Texas accent was a choice: his daddy sure don't talk like that. It worked, so all this cover was smart.
Bill Clinton cites W as quite a clever politician, which I would believe. He was quite good at that, and had charm. No genius, but not dumb. I could never do what he did.
On the negative side, corrupt and partisan as hell, and the civilian side of the Iraq invasion was botched so bad you can't believe it. A real fiasco, worse than I can remember under any other President. I can give details if you like, but the short story is that they really believed the Iraqis would shower them with love and enthusiastically build a liberal capitalist democracy. They all seemed to believe that. It's dumb to believe your own propaganda.
Moderate
Apr 26, 2013, 6:58:46 AM4/26/13
to
Income
seems to be very important to you. Your claim appears to be
fabricated. Do you have a web presence other than usenet? You
know, like a system analyst would?
--
Horva...@net.net
Apr 26, 2013, 8:11:10 AM4/26/13
to
On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 17:22:11 -0700 (PDT), "la...@pivotforpower.com"
<la...@pivotforpower.com> wrote this crap:
What will I use when I'm cleaning fish?
This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe
<la...@pivotforpower.com> wrote this crap:
This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe
golfbum18
Apr 26, 2013, 8:18:13 AM4/26/13
to
On Apr 25, 7:12 pm, "la...@pivotforpower.com"
>
> I teach a class at Stanford Business School titled “Financial Crises in the U.S. and Europe.” During one class session while explaining the events of September 2008, I kept referring to the efforts of the threesome of Hank Paulson, Ben Bernanke, and Tim Geithner, who were joined at the hip in dealing with firm-specific problems as they arose.
>
> One of my students asked “How involved was President Bush with what was going on?” I smiled and responded, “What you really mean is, ‘Was President Bush smart enough to understand what was going on,’ right?”
>
> The class went dead silent. Everyone knew that this was the true meaning of the question. Kudos to that student for asking the hard question and for framing it so politely. I had stripped away that decorum and exposed the raw nerve.
>
> I looked hard at the 60 MBA students and said “President Bush is smarter than almost every one of you.”
>
> More silence.
>
> I could tell they were waiting for me to break the tension, laugh, and admit I was joking.
>
> I did not. A few shifted in their seats, then I launched into a longer answer. While it was a while ago, here is an amalgam of that answer and others I have given in similar contexts.
>
> I am not kidding. You are quite an intelligent group. Don’t take it personally, but President Bush is smarter than almost every one of you. Were he a student here today, he would consistently get “HP” (High Pass) grades without having to work hard, and he’d get an “H” (High, the top grade) in any class where he wanted to put in the effort.
>
> For more than six years it was my job to help educate President Bush about complex economic policy issues and to get decisions from him on impossibly hard policy choices. In meetings and in the briefing materials we gave him in advance we covered issues in far more depth than I have been discussing with you this quarter because we needed to do so for him to make decisions.
>
> President Bush is extremely smart by any traditional standard. He’s highly analytical and was incredibly quick to be able to discern the core question he needed to answer. It was occasionally a little embarrassing when he would jump ahead of one of his Cabinet secretaries in a policy discussion and the advisor would struggle to catch up. He would sometimes force us to accelerate through policy presentations because he so quickly grasped what we were presenting.
>
> I use words like briefing and presentation to describe our policy meetings with him, but those are inaccurate. Every meeting was a dialogue, and you had to be ready at all times to be grilled by him and to defend both your analysis and your recommendation. That was scary.
>
> We treat Presidential speeches as if they are written by speechwriters, then handed to the President for delivery. If I could show you one experience from my time working for President Bush, it would be an editing session in the Oval with him and his speechwriters. You think that me cold-calling you is nerve-wracking? Try defending a sentence you inserted into a draft speech, with President Bush pouncing on the slightest weakness in your argument or your word choice.
>
> In addition to his analytical speed, what most impressed me were his memory and his substantive breadth. We would sometimes have to brief him on an issue that we had last discussed with him weeks or even months before. He would remember small facts and arguments from the prior briefing and get impatient with us when we were rehashing things we had told him long ago.
>
> And while my job involved juggling a lot of balls, I only had to worry about economic issues. In addition to all of those, at any given point in time he was making enormous decisions on Iraq and Afghanistan, on hunting al Qaeda and keeping America safe. He was making choices not just on taxes and spending and trade and energy and climate and health care and agriculture and Social Security and Medicare, but also on education and immigration, on crime and justice issues, on environmental policy and social policy and politics. Being able to handle such substantive breadth and depth, on such huge decisions, in parallel, requires not just enormous strength of character but tremendous intellectual power. President Bush has both.
>
> On one particularly thorny policy issue on which his advisors had strong and deep disagreements, over the course of two weeks we (his senior advisors) held a series of three 90-minute meetings with the President. Shortly after the third meeting we asked for his OK to do a fourth. He said, “How about rather than doing another meeting on this, I instead tell you now what each person will say.” He then ran through half a dozen of his advisors by name and precisely detailed each one’s arguments and pointed out their flaws. (Needless to say there was no fourth meeting.)
>
> Every prominent politician has a public caricature, one drawn initially by late-night comedy joke writers and shaped heavily by the press and one’s political opponents. The caricature of President Bush is that of a good ol’ boy from Texas who is principled and tough, but just not that bright.
>
> That caricature was reinforced by several factors:
> •The press and his opponents highlighted President Bush’s occasional stumbles when giving a speech. President Obama’s similar verbal miscues are ignored. Ask yourself: if every public statement you made were recorded and all your verbal fumbles were tweeted, how smart would you sound? Do you ever use the wrong word or phrase, or just botch a sentence for no good reason? I know I do.
> •President Bush intentionally aimed his public image at average Americans rather than at Cambridge or Upper East Side elites. Mitt Romney’s campaign was predicated on “I am smart enough to fix a broken economy,” while George W. Bush’s campaigns stressed his values, character, and principles rather than boasting about his intellect. He never talked about graduating from Yale and Harvard Business School, and he liked to lower expectations by pretending he was just an average guy. Example: “My National Security Advisor Condi Rice is a Stanford professor, while I’m a C student. And look who’s President. <laughter>”
> •There is a bias in much of the mainstream press and commentariat that people from outside of NY-BOS-WAS-CHI-SEA-SF-LA are less intelligent, or at least well educated. Many public commenters harbor an anti-Texas (and anti-Southern, and anti-Midwestern) intellectual bias. They mistakenly treat John Kerry as smarter than George Bush because John Kerry talks like an Ivy League professor while George Bush talks like a Texan.
> •President Bush enjoys interacting with the men and women of our armed forces and with elite athletes. He loves to clear brush on his ranch. He loved interacting with the U.S. Olympic Team. He doesn’t windsurf off Nantucket, he rides a 100K mountain bike ride outside of Waco with wounded warriors. He is an intense, competitive athlete and a “guy’s guy.” His hobbies and habits reinforce a caricature of a [dumb] jock, in contrast to cultural sophisticates who enjoy antiquing and opera. This reinforces the other biases against him.
>
> I assume that some who read this will react automatically with disbelief and sarcasm. They think they know that President Bush is unintelligent because, after all, everyone knows that. They will assume that I am wrong, or blinded by loyalty, or lying. They are certain that they are smarter than George Bush.
>
> I ask you simply to consider the possibility that I’m right, that he is smarter than you.
>
> If you can, find someone who has interacted directly with him outside the public spotlight. Ask that person about President Bush’s intellect. I am confident you will hear what I heard dozens of times from CEOs after they met with him: “Gosh, I had no idea he was that smart.”
>
> At a minimum I hope you will test your own assumptions and thinking about our former President. I offer a few questions to help that process.
> •Upon what do you base your view of President Bush’s intellect? How much is it shaped by the conventional wisdom about him? How much by verbal miscues highlighted by the press?
> •Do you discount your estimate of his intellect because he’s from Texas or because of his accent? Because he’s an athlete and a ranch owner? Because he never advertises that he went to Yale and Harvard?
> •This is a hard one, for liberals only. Do you assume that he is unintelligent because he made policy choices with which you disagree? If so, your logic may be backwards. “I disagree with choice X that President Bush made. No intelligent person could conclude X, therefore President Bush is unintelligent.” Might it be possible that an intelligent, thoughtful conservative with different values and priorities than your own might have reached a different conclusion than you? Do you really think your policy views derive only from your intellect?
>
> And finally, if you base your view of President Bush’s intellect on a public image and caricature shaped by late night comedians, op-ed writers, TV pundits, and Twitter, is that a smart thing for you to do?
geez lar was your assignment a thousand word essay for today?
> 24 April 2013 by Keith Hennessey
>
> The new George W. Bush Presidential Center is being dedicated this week. This seems like a good time to bust a longstanding myth about our former President, my former boss.
>
>
> I teach a class at Stanford Business School titled “Financial Crises in the U.S. and Europe.” During one class session while explaining the events of September 2008, I kept referring to the efforts of the threesome of Hank Paulson, Ben Bernanke, and Tim Geithner, who were joined at the hip in dealing with firm-specific problems as they arose.
>
> One of my students asked “How involved was President Bush with what was going on?” I smiled and responded, “What you really mean is, ‘Was President Bush smart enough to understand what was going on,’ right?”
>
> The class went dead silent. Everyone knew that this was the true meaning of the question. Kudos to that student for asking the hard question and for framing it so politely. I had stripped away that decorum and exposed the raw nerve.
>
> I looked hard at the 60 MBA students and said “President Bush is smarter than almost every one of you.”
>
> More silence.
>
> I could tell they were waiting for me to break the tension, laugh, and admit I was joking.
>
> I did not. A few shifted in their seats, then I launched into a longer answer. While it was a while ago, here is an amalgam of that answer and others I have given in similar contexts.
>
> I am not kidding. You are quite an intelligent group. Don’t take it personally, but President Bush is smarter than almost every one of you. Were he a student here today, he would consistently get “HP” (High Pass) grades without having to work hard, and he’d get an “H” (High, the top grade) in any class where he wanted to put in the effort.
>
> For more than six years it was my job to help educate President Bush about complex economic policy issues and to get decisions from him on impossibly hard policy choices. In meetings and in the briefing materials we gave him in advance we covered issues in far more depth than I have been discussing with you this quarter because we needed to do so for him to make decisions.
>
> President Bush is extremely smart by any traditional standard. He’s highly analytical and was incredibly quick to be able to discern the core question he needed to answer. It was occasionally a little embarrassing when he would jump ahead of one of his Cabinet secretaries in a policy discussion and the advisor would struggle to catch up. He would sometimes force us to accelerate through policy presentations because he so quickly grasped what we were presenting.
>
> I use words like briefing and presentation to describe our policy meetings with him, but those are inaccurate. Every meeting was a dialogue, and you had to be ready at all times to be grilled by him and to defend both your analysis and your recommendation. That was scary.
>
> We treat Presidential speeches as if they are written by speechwriters, then handed to the President for delivery. If I could show you one experience from my time working for President Bush, it would be an editing session in the Oval with him and his speechwriters. You think that me cold-calling you is nerve-wracking? Try defending a sentence you inserted into a draft speech, with President Bush pouncing on the slightest weakness in your argument or your word choice.
>
> In addition to his analytical speed, what most impressed me were his memory and his substantive breadth. We would sometimes have to brief him on an issue that we had last discussed with him weeks or even months before. He would remember small facts and arguments from the prior briefing and get impatient with us when we were rehashing things we had told him long ago.
>
> And while my job involved juggling a lot of balls, I only had to worry about economic issues. In addition to all of those, at any given point in time he was making enormous decisions on Iraq and Afghanistan, on hunting al Qaeda and keeping America safe. He was making choices not just on taxes and spending and trade and energy and climate and health care and agriculture and Social Security and Medicare, but also on education and immigration, on crime and justice issues, on environmental policy and social policy and politics. Being able to handle such substantive breadth and depth, on such huge decisions, in parallel, requires not just enormous strength of character but tremendous intellectual power. President Bush has both.
>
> On one particularly thorny policy issue on which his advisors had strong and deep disagreements, over the course of two weeks we (his senior advisors) held a series of three 90-minute meetings with the President. Shortly after the third meeting we asked for his OK to do a fourth. He said, “How about rather than doing another meeting on this, I instead tell you now what each person will say.” He then ran through half a dozen of his advisors by name and precisely detailed each one’s arguments and pointed out their flaws. (Needless to say there was no fourth meeting.)
>
> Every prominent politician has a public caricature, one drawn initially by late-night comedy joke writers and shaped heavily by the press and one’s political opponents. The caricature of President Bush is that of a good ol’ boy from Texas who is principled and tough, but just not that bright.
>
> That caricature was reinforced by several factors:
> •The press and his opponents highlighted President Bush’s occasional stumbles when giving a speech. President Obama’s similar verbal miscues are ignored. Ask yourself: if every public statement you made were recorded and all your verbal fumbles were tweeted, how smart would you sound? Do you ever use the wrong word or phrase, or just botch a sentence for no good reason? I know I do.
> •President Bush intentionally aimed his public image at average Americans rather than at Cambridge or Upper East Side elites. Mitt Romney’s campaign was predicated on “I am smart enough to fix a broken economy,” while George W. Bush’s campaigns stressed his values, character, and principles rather than boasting about his intellect. He never talked about graduating from Yale and Harvard Business School, and he liked to lower expectations by pretending he was just an average guy. Example: “My National Security Advisor Condi Rice is a Stanford professor, while I’m a C student. And look who’s President. <laughter>”
> •There is a bias in much of the mainstream press and commentariat that people from outside of NY-BOS-WAS-CHI-SEA-SF-LA are less intelligent, or at least well educated. Many public commenters harbor an anti-Texas (and anti-Southern, and anti-Midwestern) intellectual bias. They mistakenly treat John Kerry as smarter than George Bush because John Kerry talks like an Ivy League professor while George Bush talks like a Texan.
> •President Bush enjoys interacting with the men and women of our armed forces and with elite athletes. He loves to clear brush on his ranch. He loved interacting with the U.S. Olympic Team. He doesn’t windsurf off Nantucket, he rides a 100K mountain bike ride outside of Waco with wounded warriors. He is an intense, competitive athlete and a “guy’s guy.” His hobbies and habits reinforce a caricature of a [dumb] jock, in contrast to cultural sophisticates who enjoy antiquing and opera. This reinforces the other biases against him.
>
> I assume that some who read this will react automatically with disbelief and sarcasm. They think they know that President Bush is unintelligent because, after all, everyone knows that. They will assume that I am wrong, or blinded by loyalty, or lying. They are certain that they are smarter than George Bush.
>
> I ask you simply to consider the possibility that I’m right, that he is smarter than you.
>
> If you can, find someone who has interacted directly with him outside the public spotlight. Ask that person about President Bush’s intellect. I am confident you will hear what I heard dozens of times from CEOs after they met with him: “Gosh, I had no idea he was that smart.”
>
> At a minimum I hope you will test your own assumptions and thinking about our former President. I offer a few questions to help that process.
> •Upon what do you base your view of President Bush’s intellect? How much is it shaped by the conventional wisdom about him? How much by verbal miscues highlighted by the press?
> •Do you discount your estimate of his intellect because he’s from Texas or because of his accent? Because he’s an athlete and a ranch owner? Because he never advertises that he went to Yale and Harvard?
> •This is a hard one, for liberals only. Do you assume that he is unintelligent because he made policy choices with which you disagree? If so, your logic may be backwards. “I disagree with choice X that President Bush made. No intelligent person could conclude X, therefore President Bush is unintelligent.” Might it be possible that an intelligent, thoughtful conservative with different values and priorities than your own might have reached a different conclusion than you? Do you really think your policy views derive only from your intellect?
>
> And finally, if you base your view of President Bush’s intellect on a public image and caricature shaped by late night comedians, op-ed writers, TV pundits, and Twitter, is that a smart thing for you to do?
geez lar was your assignment a thousand word essay for today?
golfbum18
Apr 26, 2013, 8:20:33 AM4/26/13
to
On Apr 25, 7:44 pm, Horvath1...@net.net wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 16:12:29 -0700 (PDT), "la...@pivotforpower.com"
> <la...@pivotforpower.com> wrote this crap:
>
thing the lar needed to make his blatherings even more blatering.
> On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 16:12:29 -0700 (PDT), "la...@pivotforpower.com"
> <la...@pivotforpower.com> wrote this crap:
>
> >George W. Bush is smarter than you
>
> >24 April 2013 by Keith Hennessey
>
> Good job, Larry.
>
> >24 April 2013 by Keith Hennessey
>
>
> This signature is now the ultimate
> power in the universe
A vote of confidence from you whore vat is a killer for sure. The last
> This signature is now the ultimate
> power in the universe
thing the lar needed to make his blatherings even more blatering.
golfbum18
Apr 26, 2013, 8:22:59 AM4/26/13
to
On Apr 25, 8:18 pm, "Mr. Joe" <Mr...@home.com> wrote:
> In article <alangbaker-838666.16161325042...@news.shawcable.net>,
> alangba...@telus.net says...
Oh we could attack the message but since it's just a fairy tale, why
bother. Plan B then says go after the dope that posted it and Plan C
is to chuckle at the dope that supports THAT dope. They used to call
that "guilt by association." It was a big deal decades ago but still
seems relevant.
> In article <alangbaker-838666.16161325042...@news.shawcable.net>,
> alangba...@telus.net says...
bother. Plan B then says go after the dope that posted it and Plan C
is to chuckle at the dope that supports THAT dope. They used to call
that "guilt by association." It was a big deal decades ago but still
seems relevant.
MNMikeW
Apr 26, 2013, 10:39:28 AM4/26/13
to
esteem issue again.
Alan Baker
Apr 26, 2013, 10:54:21 AM4/26/13
to
jay birdsong
Apr 26, 2013, 10:55:01 AM4/26/13
to
"Hollis2" wrote in message news:ivop4ax...@news.ezprovider.com...
book I’m sure, but the way he ran a country and a war was abysmal.
Alan Baker
Apr 26, 2013, 10:55:43 AM4/26/13
to
In article <kldmku$j70$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,
A system analyst would have a web presence? Really?
I posted a claim in direct response to a direct question.
I posted a claim in direct response to a direct question.
Alan Baker
Apr 26, 2013, 10:56:00 AM4/26/13
to
golfbum18
Apr 26, 2013, 11:09:28 AM4/26/13
to
On Apr 26, 10:55 am, "jay birdsong" <jaybirds...@aol.com> wrote:
> "Hollis2" wrote in messagenews:ivop4ax...@news.ezprovider.com...
But he was a great cheerleader at Yale.
http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/D/f/bush_college_cheerleader.jpg
> "Hollis2" wrote in messagenews:ivop4ax...@news.ezprovider.com...
http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/D/f/bush_college_cheerleader.jpg
Horva...@net.net
Apr 26, 2013, 11:11:52 AM4/26/13
to
On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 07:54:21 -0700, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
wrote this crap:
>In article <ivop4ax...@news.ezprovider.com>,
> "Hollis2" <a3a...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Apr 25 2013 8:13 PM, jay birdsong wrote:
>>
>> > "Alan Baker" wrote in message
>> > news:alangbaker-83866...@news.shawcable.net...
>> >
>> > In article <7d1a5bc0-0001-444a...@googlegroups.com>,
>> > "la...@pivotforpower.com" <la...@pivotforpower.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > George W. Bush is smarter than you
>> >
>> > And a pile of dog shit is smarter than you, Loser.
>>
>> GWB's SAT scores and college transcript were published by Vanity Fair
>> before the 2000 elections. I assume they obtained them illegally. Using
>> those scores to estimate his IQ shows Bush's to be somewhere in the upper
>> ranges of superior to the lower ranges of very superior. That represents
>> a score between 127 and 132. He's not quite Mensa material, but close.
>
>Or he cheated...
Now that is low. Accusing an ex-president of cheating. His scores
were public knowledge unlike the current resident.
wrote this crap:
>In article <ivop4ax...@news.ezprovider.com>,
> "Hollis2" <a3a...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Apr 25 2013 8:13 PM, jay birdsong wrote:
>>
>> > "Alan Baker" wrote in message
>> > news:alangbaker-83866...@news.shawcable.net...
>> >
>> > In article <7d1a5bc0-0001-444a...@googlegroups.com>,
>> > "la...@pivotforpower.com" <la...@pivotforpower.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > George W. Bush is smarter than you
>> >
>> > And a pile of dog shit is smarter than you, Loser.
>>
>> GWB's SAT scores and college transcript were published by Vanity Fair
>> before the 2000 elections. I assume they obtained them illegally. Using
>> those scores to estimate his IQ shows Bush's to be somewhere in the upper
>> ranges of superior to the lower ranges of very superior. That represents
>> a score between 127 and 132. He's not quite Mensa material, but close.
>
>Or he cheated...
were public knowledge unlike the current resident.
Hollis2
Apr 26, 2013, 12:54:43 PM4/26/13
to
On Apr 26 2013 10:54 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
> In article <ivop4ax...@news.ezprovider.com>,
> "Hollis2" <a3a...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 25 2013 8:13 PM, jay birdsong wrote:
> >
> > > "Alan Baker" wrote in message
> > > news:alangbaker-83866...@news.shawcable.net...
> > >
> > > In article <7d1a5bc0-0001-444a...@googlegroups.com>,
> > > "la...@pivotforpower.com" <la...@pivotforpower.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > George W. Bush is smarter than you
> > >
> > > And a pile of dog shit is smarter than you, Loser.
> >
> > GWB's SAT scores and college transcript were published by Vanity Fair
> > before the 2000 elections. I assume they obtained them illegally. Using
> > those scores to estimate his IQ shows Bush's to be somewhere in the upper
> > ranges of superior to the lower ranges of very superior. That represents
> > a score between 127 and 132. He's not quite Mensa material, but close.
>
> Or he cheated...
Then he must have had the same guy take the Air Force Officer Qualifying
> In article <ivop4ax...@news.ezprovider.com>,
> "Hollis2" <a3a...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 25 2013 8:13 PM, jay birdsong wrote:
> >
> > > "Alan Baker" wrote in message
> > > news:alangbaker-83866...@news.shawcable.net...
> > >
> > > In article <7d1a5bc0-0001-444a...@googlegroups.com>,
> > > "la...@pivotforpower.com" <la...@pivotforpower.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > George W. Bush is smarter than you
> > >
> > > And a pile of dog shit is smarter than you, Loser.
> >
> > GWB's SAT scores and college transcript were published by Vanity Fair
> > before the 2000 elections. I assume they obtained them illegally. Using
> > those scores to estimate his IQ shows Bush's to be somewhere in the upper
> > ranges of superior to the lower ranges of very superior. That represents
> > a score between 127 and 132. He's not quite Mensa material, but close.
>
> Or he cheated...
Test for him because using that data his IQ is estimated to be in the mid
120's. That's a bit lower than what you get from his SAT scores, but it
still puts him in the middle of the superior range. The SAT data is more
reliable because the relationship between IQ and SAT has been extensively
studied.
la...@pivotforpower.com
Apr 26, 2013, 1:49:31 PM4/26/13
to
So I believe that history will place GW Bush on a par with Lincoln and our very best. Just look at his lonely decision to make the "surge" in Iraq that won the war. EVERYONE and every media including the JCS was against it. But he persisted. That is "courage of his convictions" and a rare attribute that neither Clinton nor Obama has. They both had to know what the public would think before every decision. That is not what a leader does.
Larry
Alan Baker
Apr 26, 2013, 2:22:28 PM4/26/13
to
Horva...@net.net
Apr 26, 2013, 2:56:31 PM4/26/13
to
bkn...@conramp.net
Apr 26, 2013, 3:51:22 PM4/26/13
to
On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 09:54:43 -0700, "Hollis2"
themselves. That score has to be at or above the 98th percentile of
the general population taking such a standard test.
<a3a...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>On Apr 26 2013 10:54 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> In article <ivop4ax...@news.ezprovider.com>,
>> "Hollis2" <a3a...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> > On Apr 25 2013 8:13 PM, jay birdsong wrote:
>> >
>> > > "Alan Baker" wrote in message
>> > > news:alangbaker-83866...@news.shawcable.net...
>> > >
>> > > In article <7d1a5bc0-0001-444a...@googlegroups.com>,
>> > > "la...@pivotforpower.com" <la...@pivotforpower.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > George W. Bush is smarter than you
>> > >
>> > > And a pile of dog shit is smarter than you, Loser.
>> >
>> > GWB's SAT scores and college transcript were published by Vanity Fair
>> > before the 2000 elections. I assume they obtained them illegally. Using
>> > those scores to estimate his IQ shows Bush's to be somewhere in the upper
>> > ranges of superior to the lower ranges of very superior. That represents
>> > a score between 127 and 132. He's not quite Mensa material, but close.
>>
>> Or he cheated...
>
>Then he must have had the same guy take the Air Force Officer Qualifying
>Test for him because using that data his IQ is estimated to be in the mid
>120's. That's a bit lower than what you get from his SAT scores, but it
>still puts him in the middle of the superior range. The SAT data is more
>reliable because the relationship between IQ and SAT has been extensively
>studied.
>
Mensa was mentioned. They don't go by IQ but a test that they give
>On Apr 26 2013 10:54 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> In article <ivop4ax...@news.ezprovider.com>,
>> "Hollis2" <a3a...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> > On Apr 25 2013 8:13 PM, jay birdsong wrote:
>> >
>> > > "Alan Baker" wrote in message
>> > > news:alangbaker-83866...@news.shawcable.net...
>> > >
>> > > In article <7d1a5bc0-0001-444a...@googlegroups.com>,
>> > > "la...@pivotforpower.com" <la...@pivotforpower.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > George W. Bush is smarter than you
>> > >
>> > > And a pile of dog shit is smarter than you, Loser.
>> >
>> > GWB's SAT scores and college transcript were published by Vanity Fair
>> > before the 2000 elections. I assume they obtained them illegally. Using
>> > those scores to estimate his IQ shows Bush's to be somewhere in the upper
>> > ranges of superior to the lower ranges of very superior. That represents
>> > a score between 127 and 132. He's not quite Mensa material, but close.
>>
>> Or he cheated...
>
>Then he must have had the same guy take the Air Force Officer Qualifying
>Test for him because using that data his IQ is estimated to be in the mid
>120's. That's a bit lower than what you get from his SAT scores, but it
>still puts him in the middle of the superior range. The SAT data is more
>reliable because the relationship between IQ and SAT has been extensively
>studied.
>
themselves. That score has to be at or above the 98th percentile of
the general population taking such a standard test.
Alan Baker
Apr 26, 2013, 4:13:46 PM4/26/13
to
In article <ddjln852a0hsqgvit...@4ax.com>,
No, I didn't.
I offered an alternate explanation of how someone's SAT score might be
high regardless of his or her IQ.
I offered an alternate explanation of how someone's SAT score might be
high regardless of his or her IQ.
Horva...@net.net
Apr 26, 2013, 4:27:09 PM4/26/13
to
On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 13:13:46 -0700, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
wrote this crap:
>> >> >> GWB's SAT scores and college transcript were published by Vanity Fair
>> >> >> before the 2000 elections. I assume they obtained them illegally.
>> >> >> Using
>> >> >> those scores to estimate his IQ shows Bush's to be somewhere in the
>> >> >> upper
>> >> >> ranges of superior to the lower ranges of very superior. That
>> >> >> represents
>> >> >> a score between 127 and 132. He's not quite Mensa material, but close.
>> >> >
>> >> >Or he cheated...
>> >>
>> >> Now that is low. Accusing an ex-president of cheating. His scores
>> >> were public knowledge unlike the current resident.
>> >>
wrote this crap:
>> >> >> GWB's SAT scores and college transcript were published by Vanity Fair
>> >> >> before the 2000 elections. I assume they obtained them illegally.
>> >> >> Using
>> >> >> those scores to estimate his IQ shows Bush's to be somewhere in the
>> >> >> upper
>> >> >> ranges of superior to the lower ranges of very superior. That
>> >> >> represents
>> >> >> a score between 127 and 132. He's not quite Mensa material, but close.
>> >> >
>> >> >Or he cheated...
>> >>
>> >> Now that is low. Accusing an ex-president of cheating. His scores
>> >> were public knowledge unlike the current resident.
>> >>
>> >I didn't accuse anyone of anything, Steve.
>>
>> Yes you did. And I'm not Steve.
>>
>
>>
>> Yes you did. And I'm not Steve.
>>
>
>No, I didn't.
>
>I offered an alternate explanation of how someone's SAT score might be
>high regardless of his or her IQ.
By accusing him of cheating.
>
>I offered an alternate explanation of how someone's SAT score might be
>high regardless of his or her IQ.
Alan Baker
Apr 26, 2013, 4:33:42 PM4/26/13
to
In article <lnoln8dicsqskdjrm...@4ax.com>,
Nope.
If it had been an accusation, the word "or" would not have been in my
reply.
If it had been an accusation, the word "or" would not have been in my
reply.
Carbon
Apr 26, 2013, 8:47:14 PM4/26/13
to
On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 13:33:42 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
> In article <lnoln8dicsqskdjrm...@4ax.com>,
> Horva...@net.net wrote:
>> On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 13:13:46 -0700, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
>> wrote this crap:
>>
>>>>>>>> GWB's SAT scores and college transcript were published by Vanity
>>>>>>>> Fair before the 2000 elections. I assume they obtained them
>>>>>>>> illegally. Using those scores to estimate his IQ shows Bush's to
>>>>>>>> be somewhere in the upper ranges of superior to the lower ranges
>>>>>>>> of very superior. That represents a score between 127 and 132.
>>>>>>>> He's not quite Mensa material, but close.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Or he cheated...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now that is low. Accusing an ex-president of cheating. His scores
>>>>>> were public knowledge unlike the current resident.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I didn't accuse anyone of anything, Steve.
>>>>
>>>> Yes you did. And I'm not Steve.
>>>
>>> No, I didn't.
>>>
>>> I offered an alternate explanation of how someone's SAT score might be
>>> high regardless of his or her IQ.
>>
>> By accusing him of cheating.
>
> Nope.
>
> If it had been an accusation, the word "or" would not have been in my
> reply.
I don't think it was that uncommon a practice back in the day.
> In article <lnoln8dicsqskdjrm...@4ax.com>,
> Horva...@net.net wrote:
>> On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 13:13:46 -0700, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
>> wrote this crap:
>>
>>>>>>>> GWB's SAT scores and college transcript were published by Vanity
>>>>>>>> Fair before the 2000 elections. I assume they obtained them
>>>>>>>> illegally. Using those scores to estimate his IQ shows Bush's to
>>>>>>>> be somewhere in the upper ranges of superior to the lower ranges
>>>>>>>> of very superior. That represents a score between 127 and 132.
>>>>>>>> He's not quite Mensa material, but close.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Or he cheated...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now that is low. Accusing an ex-president of cheating. His scores
>>>>>> were public knowledge unlike the current resident.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I didn't accuse anyone of anything, Steve.
>>>>
>>>> Yes you did. And I'm not Steve.
>>>
>>> No, I didn't.
>>>
>>> I offered an alternate explanation of how someone's SAT score might be
>>> high regardless of his or her IQ.
>>
>> By accusing him of cheating.
>
> Nope.
>
> If it had been an accusation, the word "or" would not have been in my
> reply.
Alan Baker
Apr 26, 2013, 8:51:17 PM4/26/13
to
In article <pan.2013.04...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>,
I honestly don't know.
I'm just pointing out that having a high IQ isn't the only way to get a
good SAT score.
I'm just pointing out that having a high IQ isn't the only way to get a
good SAT score.
la...@pivotforpower.com
Apr 26, 2013, 8:58:17 PM4/26/13
to
Larry
la...@pivotforpower.com
Apr 26, 2013, 9:02:08 PM4/26/13
to
Larry
Hollis2
Apr 26, 2013, 10:25:39 PM4/26/13
to
Included are the GRE and LSAT.
Horva...@net.net
Apr 26, 2013, 10:41:33 PM4/26/13
to
On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 19:25:39 -0700, "Hollis2"
<a3a...@webnntp.invalid> wrote this crap:
>> >
>> Mensa was mentioned. They don't go by IQ but a test that they give
>> themselves. That score has to be at or above the 98th percentile of
>> the general population taking such a standard test.
>
>Actually, Mensa will accept a number of standardized tests for membership.
> Included are the GRE and LSAT.
The Mensa test is available online if you want to try.
<a3a...@webnntp.invalid> wrote this crap:
>> >
>> Mensa was mentioned. They don't go by IQ but a test that they give
>> themselves. That score has to be at or above the 98th percentile of
>> the general population taking such a standard test.
>
>Actually, Mensa will accept a number of standardized tests for membership.
> Included are the GRE and LSAT.
Alan Baker
Apr 27, 2013, 1:10:08 AM4/27/13
to
Alan Baker
Apr 27, 2013, 1:10:31 AM4/27/13
to
Horva...@net.net
Apr 27, 2013, 7:51:24 AM4/27/13
to
On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 22:10:08 -0700, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
wrote this crap:
>> >
wrote this crap:
>> >
>> > Mensa was mentioned. They don't go by IQ but a test that they give
>> >
>> > themselves. That score has to be at or above the 98th percentile of
>> >
>> > the general population taking such a standard test.
>>
>> BS. I am Mensa by virtue of my military GCT. I tested high enough to
>> qualify.
>>
>> Larry
>
>LOL!
The test is available online. Take it and post your score.
>> >
>> > themselves. That score has to be at or above the 98th percentile of
>> >
>> > the general population taking such a standard test.
>>
>> BS. I am Mensa by virtue of my military GCT. I tested high enough to
>> qualify.
>>
>> Larry
>
>LOL!
golfbum18
Apr 27, 2013, 9:01:14 AM4/27/13
to
On Apr 27, 7:51 am, Horvath1...@net.net wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 22:10:08 -0700, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net>
Most intelligent people, Mensa included (although you know the
correlation between IQ and smarts is very vague) should not have to
TELL us, but instead show us. Since we haven't been "shown," we have
only to go on what we read.....and that hasn't changed with these
mopes for years.
> On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 22:10:08 -0700, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net>
correlation between IQ and smarts is very vague) should not have to
TELL us, but instead show us. Since we haven't been "shown," we have
only to go on what we read.....and that hasn't changed with these
mopes for years.
golfbum18
Apr 27, 2013, 9:02:46 AM4/27/13
to
On Apr 27, 7:51 am, Horvath1...@net.net wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 22:10:08 -0700, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net>
like this.
Horva...@net.net
Apr 27, 2013, 9:27:10 AM4/27/13
to
On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 06:01:14 -0700 (PDT), golfbum18
<golf...@gmail.com> wrote this crap:
>> >LOL!
>>
>> The test is available online. �Take it and post your score.
>>
>
<golf...@gmail.com> wrote this crap:
>> >LOL!
>>
>> The test is available online. �Take it and post your score.
>>
>
>Most intelligent people, Mensa included (although you know the
>correlation between IQ and smarts is very vague) should not have to
>TELL us, but instead show us. Since we haven't been "shown," we have
>only to go on what we read.....and that hasn't changed with these
>mopes for years.
You can shorten your response to, "I can't pass it."
>correlation between IQ and smarts is very vague) should not have to
>TELL us, but instead show us. Since we haven't been "shown," we have
>only to go on what we read.....and that hasn't changed with these
>mopes for years.
Lloyd
Apr 27, 2013, 9:45:18 AM4/27/13
to
In article <alangbaker-6F835...@news.shawcable.net>,
Why 'LOL'?
The military GCT score was an accepted test until 1980.
The military GCT score was an accepted test until 1980.
la...@pivotforpower.com
Apr 27, 2013, 12:50:29 PM4/27/13
to
I went to one meeting, realized those were not my type, so never went back and never paid dues. I think I still have the membership card somewhere, however. Nobody was impressed, in fact the opposite. So I never bothered to tell anyone I qualified. Now that I am nearly 72, who cares?
I would rather show my pilot license, ha. Or maybe I will keep developing my game until I can pass the PAT and become a PGA pro.
larry
Alan Baker
Apr 27, 2013, 12:59:32 PM4/27/13
to
In article
<lloydparsons-0517...@news.eternal-september.org>,
I'm sure it was, but that wasn't what I was laughing at.
:-)
<lloydparsons-0517...@news.eternal-september.org>,
:-)
Dene
Apr 27, 2013, 2:34:52 PM4/27/13
to
On Apr 27, 9:50 am, "la...@pivotforpower.com"
> > In article <alangbaker-6F835D.22100826042...@news.shawcable.net>,
LOL.
Greg
> > In article <alangbaker-6F835D.22100826042...@news.shawcable.net>,
>
> > Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
>
> > > In article <9eb71b40-0e6a-454e...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > "la...@pivotforpower.com" <la...@pivotforpower.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Friday, April 26, 2013 12:51:22 PM UTC-7, bkn...@conramp.net wrote:
>
> > > > > On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 09:54:43 -0700, "Hollis2"
>
> > Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
>
> > > In article <9eb71b40-0e6a-454e...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > "la...@pivotforpower.com" <la...@pivotforpower.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Friday, April 26, 2013 12:51:22 PM UTC-7, bkn...@conramp.net wrote:
>
> > > > > On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 09:54:43 -0700, "Hollis2"
>
> > > > > <a3a8...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > > > >On Apr 26 2013 10:54 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
>
> > > > > >> In article <ivop4axsj2....@news.ezprovider.com>,
>
> > > > > >On Apr 26 2013 10:54 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
>
Greg
Alan Baker
Apr 27, 2013, 2:39:20 PM4/27/13
to
In article
<fb895563-3f58-4fc1...@l5g2000pbp.googlegroups.com>,
"I could teach STC" --Larry
<https://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.golf/msg/fc41ee83a835ceac>
<fb895563-3f58-4fc1...@l5g2000pbp.googlegroups.com>,
<https://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.golf/msg/fc41ee83a835ceac>
William Clark
Apr 27, 2013, 4:49:59 PM4/27/13
to
In article <ivop4ax...@news.ezprovider.com>,
"Hollis2" <a3a...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> On Apr 25 2013 8:13 PM, jay birdsong wrote:
>
> > "Alan Baker" wrote in message
> > news:alangbaker-83866...@news.shawcable.net...
> >
> > In article <7d1a5bc0-0001-444a...@googlegroups.com>,
> > "la...@pivotforpower.com" <la...@pivotforpower.com> wrote:
> >
> > > George W. Bush is smarter than you
> >
> > And a pile of dog shit is smarter than you, Loser.
>
> GWB's SAT scores and college transcript were published by Vanity Fair
> before the 2000 elections. I assume they obtained them illegally. Using
> those scores to estimate his IQ shows Bush's to be somewhere in the upper
> ranges of superior to the lower ranges of very superior. That represents
> a score between 127 and 132. He's not quite Mensa material, but close.
BS. 1250 is lower than my daughter's at 16.
> On Apr 25 2013 8:13 PM, jay birdsong wrote:
>
> > "Alan Baker" wrote in message
> > news:alangbaker-83866...@news.shawcable.net...
> >
> > In article <7d1a5bc0-0001-444a...@googlegroups.com>,
> > "la...@pivotforpower.com" <la...@pivotforpower.com> wrote:
> >
> > > George W. Bush is smarter than you
> >
> > And a pile of dog shit is smarter than you, Loser.
>
> GWB's SAT scores and college transcript were published by Vanity Fair
> before the 2000 elections. I assume they obtained them illegally. Using
> those scores to estimate his IQ shows Bush's to be somewhere in the upper
> ranges of superior to the lower ranges of very superior. That represents
> a score between 127 and 132. He's not quite Mensa material, but close.
William Clark
Apr 27, 2013, 4:51:46 PM4/27/13
to
In article <j3oq4ax...@news.ezprovider.com>,
peddling this crap for years now, when it is patently obvious by
everything he does that Dubya is of mediocre intellkigence, at best.
"Hollis2" <a3a...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> On Apr 26 2013 10:54 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
>
> On Apr 26 2013 10:54 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
>
> > Or he cheated...
>
> Then he must have had the same guy take the Air Force Officer Qualifying
> Test for him because using that data his IQ is estimated to be in the mid
> 120's. That's a bit lower than what you get from his SAT scores, but it
> still puts him in the middle of the superior range. The SAT data is more
> reliable because the relationship between IQ and SAT has been extensively
> studied.
>
>
> Then he must have had the same guy take the Air Force Officer Qualifying
> Test for him because using that data his IQ is estimated to be in the mid
> 120's. That's a bit lower than what you get from his SAT scores, but it
> still puts him in the middle of the superior range. The SAT data is more
> reliable because the relationship between IQ and SAT has been extensively
> studied.
>
> > Alan Baker
> > Vancouver, British Columbia
> > "If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
> > to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
> > sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
Geez, give up the "Dubya was a genius" efforts, will you? You have been
> > Vancouver, British Columbia
> > "If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
> > to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
> > sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
peddling this crap for years now, when it is patently obvious by
everything he does that Dubya is of mediocre intellkigence, at best.
Horva...@net.net
Apr 27, 2013, 5:11:31 PM4/27/13
to
On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 16:51:46 -0400, William Clark
<cl...@nospammatsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote this crap:
>
>Geez, give up the "Dubya was a genius" efforts, will you? You have been
>peddling this crap for years now, when it is patently obvious by
>everything he does that Dubya is of mediocre intellkigence, at best.
I'll believe you when you show me your Yale degree or your Harvard
degree, and a pilot's licence.
<cl...@nospammatsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote this crap:
>
>Geez, give up the "Dubya was a genius" efforts, will you? You have been
>peddling this crap for years now, when it is patently obvious by
>everything he does that Dubya is of mediocre intellkigence, at best.
degree, and a pilot's licence.
Hollis2
Apr 27, 2013, 5:11:42 PM4/27/13
to
to be a member.
KenPitts
Apr 27, 2013, 5:30:54 PM4/27/13
to
On Saturday, April 27, 2013 4:11:31 PM UTC-5, Horva...@net.net wrote:
>
>
>
> I'll believe you when you show me your Yale degree or your Harvard
>
> degree, and a pilot's licence.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> This signature is now the ultimate
>
> power in the universe
Not only a pilot's license, but qualified as a fighter pilot in the US military. Clark did attend Oxford and that is comparable.
>
>
>
> I'll believe you when you show me your Yale degree or your Harvard
>
> degree, and a pilot's licence.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> This signature is now the ultimate
>
> power in the universe
BTW, W's GPA at Yale was higher than Lurch's.
Ken
Carbon
Apr 27, 2013, 8:23:50 PM4/27/13
to
On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 14:30:54 -0700, KenPitts wrote:
> On Saturday, April 27, 2013 4:11:31 PM UTC-5, Horva...@net.net wrote:
>
>> I'll believe you when you show me your Yale degree or your Harvard
>> degree, and a pilot's licence.
>
> On Saturday, April 27, 2013 4:11:31 PM UTC-5, Horva...@net.net wrote:
>
>> I'll believe you when you show me your Yale degree or your Harvard
>> degree, and a pilot's licence.
>
> Not only a pilot's license, but qualified as a fighter pilot in the US
> military. Clark did attend Oxford and that is comparable.
IIRC W got the lowest possible acceptable score to get accepted for flight
> military. Clark did attend Oxford and that is comparable.
training in the TANG. As it was he slipped past hundreds if not thousands
of more qualified applicants whose daddies sadly were not congressmen.
OTOH I am willing to believe he wasn't a worse pilot than McCain, who only
got into flight training because daddy was an admiral.
Kind of a pattern there...
KenPitts
Apr 27, 2013, 9:09:21 PM4/27/13
to
On Saturday, April 27, 2013 7:23:50 PM UTC-5, Carbon wrote:
It doesn't work that way, if you are not qualified your don't get in the program. If you don't pass training, you don't get your wings. Period. Doesn't matter who your daddy is. Just like W getting into Harvard Business School. His legacy from GHW Bush was at Yale.
BTW, McCain was on hot-ready with ordanance when the disaster on the USS Forrestal broke out. One of the worst accidents in the history of our Navy. I disagree with a lot of what he does now, but his service in the Navy was honorable and with distinction. Especially when he was brutalized at the hands of sadistic Communists.
Ken
It doesn't work that way, if you are not qualified your don't get in the program. If you don't pass training, you don't get your wings. Period. Doesn't matter who your daddy is. Just like W getting into Harvard Business School. His legacy from GHW Bush was at Yale.
BTW, McCain was on hot-ready with ordanance when the disaster on the USS Forrestal broke out. One of the worst accidents in the history of our Navy. I disagree with a lot of what he does now, but his service in the Navy was honorable and with distinction. Especially when he was brutalized at the hands of sadistic Communists.
Ken
Carbon
Apr 27, 2013, 9:33:50 PM4/27/13
to
On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 18:09:21 -0700, KenPitts wrote:
> On Saturday, April 27, 2013 7:23:50 PM UTC-5, Carbon wrote:
>
> It doesn't work that way, if you are not qualified your don't get in the
> program. If you don't pass training, you don't get your wings. Period.
> Doesn't matter who your daddy is. Just like W getting into Harvard
> Business School. His legacy from GHW Bush was at Yale.
It's daddy's connections that get you in the door, ahead of the hundreds
> On Saturday, April 27, 2013 7:23:50 PM UTC-5, Carbon wrote:
>
> It doesn't work that way, if you are not qualified your don't get in the
> program. If you don't pass training, you don't get your wings. Period.
> Doesn't matter who your daddy is. Just like W getting into Harvard
> Business School. His legacy from GHW Bush was at Yale.
or thousands of more talented but less connected kids.
KenPitts
Apr 27, 2013, 9:42:33 PM4/27/13
to
W still had to pass the training. So did McCain.
I notice you are bitching about two Republicans. How did Kennedy get his command or Lurch?
Ken
Alan Baker
Apr 27, 2013, 11:41:06 PM4/27/13
to
In article <a8e011d2-e440-4459...@googlegroups.com>,
Ken,
Qualifying as a fighter pilot takes many things...
...but particularly high intelligence isn't one of them.
--
Qualifying as a fighter pilot takes many things...
...but particularly high intelligence isn't one of them.
--
Carbon
Apr 27, 2013, 11:40:25 PM4/27/13
to
On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 18:42:33 -0700, KenPitts wrote:
> On Saturday, April 27, 2013 8:33:50 PM UTC-5, Carbon wrote:
>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 18:09:21 -0700, KenPitts wrote:
>>
>>> It doesn't work that way, if you are not qualified your don't get in
>>> the program. If you don't pass training, you don't get your wings.
>>> Period. Doesn't matter who your daddy is. Just like W getting into
>>> Harvard Business School. His legacy from GHW Bush was at Yale.
>>
>> It's daddy's connections that get you in the door, ahead of the
>> hundreds or thousands of more talented but less connected kids.
>
> Cite.
Good one! W got into the TARP with the lowest possible passing score. How
> On Saturday, April 27, 2013 8:33:50 PM UTC-5, Carbon wrote:
>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 18:09:21 -0700, KenPitts wrote:
>>
>>> It doesn't work that way, if you are not qualified your don't get in
>>> the program. If you don't pass training, you don't get your wings.
>>> Period. Doesn't matter who your daddy is. Just like W getting into
>>> Harvard Business School. His legacy from GHW Bush was at Yale.
>>
>> It's daddy's connections that get you in the door, ahead of the
>> hundreds or thousands of more talented but less connected kids.
>
> Cite.
did he get this amazing opportunity to avoid service in Vietnam when so
many other kids with higher scores did not get admitted? W's grandfather,
the convicted Nazi collaborator Prescott Bush, was at one time the
chancellor of Yale. Coming from such a powerful, wealthy family certainly
did not hurt hurt his chances at Harvard either. Without them, W would not
have had the opportunity to slouch his way through any of these programs.
> W still had to pass the training. So did McCain.
recall, graduated from West Point something like 905 out of 909 in his
class. Would this fine military scholar have even graduated if Daddy
wasn't an admiral? Who knows. You sure don't.
Carbon
Apr 27, 2013, 11:44:46 PM4/27/13
to
On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 20:41:06 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
> In article <a8e011d2-e440-4459...@googlegroups.com>,
> KenPitts <ken....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Saturday, April 27, 2013 4:11:31 PM UTC-5, Horva...@net.net wrote:
>>
>>> I'll believe you when you show me your Yale degree or your Harvard
>>> degree, and a pilot's licence.
>>
> In article <a8e011d2-e440-4459...@googlegroups.com>,
> KenPitts <ken....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Saturday, April 27, 2013 4:11:31 PM UTC-5, Horva...@net.net wrote:
>>
>>> I'll believe you when you show me your Yale degree or your Harvard
>>> degree, and a pilot's licence.
>>
>> Not only a pilot's license, but qualified as a fighter pilot in the US
>> military. Clark did attend Oxford and that is comparable.
>>
>> BTW, W's GPA at Yale was higher than Lurch's.
>
>> military. Clark did attend Oxford and that is comparable.
>>
>> BTW, W's GPA at Yale was higher than Lurch's.
>
> Ken,
>
> Qualifying as a fighter pilot takes many things...
>
> ...but particularly high intelligence isn't one of them.
Certainly less so than having an admiral or a congressman for a daddy...
>
> Qualifying as a fighter pilot takes many things...
>
> ...but particularly high intelligence isn't one of them.
Horva...@net.net
Apr 28, 2013, 1:53:03 AM4/28/13
to
On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 03:40:25 +0000 (UTC), Carbon
<nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote this crap:
>On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 18:42:33 -0700, KenPitts wrote:
>> On Saturday, April 27, 2013 8:33:50 PM UTC-5, Carbon wrote:
>>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 18:09:21 -0700, KenPitts wrote:
>>>
>>>> It doesn't work that way, if you are not qualified your don't get in
>>>> the program. If you don't pass training, you don't get your wings.
>>>> Period. Doesn't matter who your daddy is. Just like W getting into
>>>> Harvard Business School. His legacy from GHW Bush was at Yale.
>>>
>>> It's daddy's connections that get you in the door, ahead of the
>>> hundreds or thousands of more talented but less connected kids.
>>
>> Cite.
>
>Good one! W got into the TARP with the lowest possible passing score. How
>did he get this amazing opportunity to avoid service in Vietnam when so
>many other kids with higher scores did not get admitted? W's grandfather,
>the convicted Nazi collaborator Prescott Bush, was at one time the
>chancellor of Yale. Coming from such a powerful, wealthy family certainly
>did not hurt hurt his chances at Harvard either. Without them, W would not
>have had the opportunity to slouch his way through any of these programs.
I thought you said you dealt with facts and honesty. Where are you
facts and honesty here? This is mostly emotion and wild conjecture.
>> W still had to pass the training. So did McCain.
>
>Unless you're braindead, the real battle is getting in. McCain, if I
>recall, graduated from West Point something like 905 out of 909 in his
>class. Would this fine military scholar have even graduated if Daddy
>wasn't an admiral? Who knows. You sure don't.
West Point is the Army's University. McCain went to Annapolis, the
Navy's University. You again fail to check your facts.
<nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote this crap:
>On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 18:42:33 -0700, KenPitts wrote:
>> On Saturday, April 27, 2013 8:33:50 PM UTC-5, Carbon wrote:
>>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 18:09:21 -0700, KenPitts wrote:
>>>
>>>> It doesn't work that way, if you are not qualified your don't get in
>>>> the program. If you don't pass training, you don't get your wings.
>>>> Period. Doesn't matter who your daddy is. Just like W getting into
>>>> Harvard Business School. His legacy from GHW Bush was at Yale.
>>>
>>> It's daddy's connections that get you in the door, ahead of the
>>> hundreds or thousands of more talented but less connected kids.
>>
>> Cite.
>
>Good one! W got into the TARP with the lowest possible passing score. How
>did he get this amazing opportunity to avoid service in Vietnam when so
>many other kids with higher scores did not get admitted? W's grandfather,
>the convicted Nazi collaborator Prescott Bush, was at one time the
>chancellor of Yale. Coming from such a powerful, wealthy family certainly
>did not hurt hurt his chances at Harvard either. Without them, W would not
>have had the opportunity to slouch his way through any of these programs.
facts and honesty here? This is mostly emotion and wild conjecture.
>> W still had to pass the training. So did McCain.
>
>Unless you're braindead, the real battle is getting in. McCain, if I
>recall, graduated from West Point something like 905 out of 909 in his
>class. Would this fine military scholar have even graduated if Daddy
>wasn't an admiral? Who knows. You sure don't.
Navy's University. You again fail to check your facts.
KenPitts
Apr 28, 2013, 9:06:38 AM4/28/13
to
You think being a Bush got W into Harvard Business School? No, graduating from Yale did and having acceptable score on the GRE did. A Yale legacy means nothing at Harvard and Bush41 was just a short term Congressman, UN Ambassador and Chairman of the RNC in 1973 when W started at Harvard. I would bet W's being a commissioned officer meant a whole lot more in the admissions process.
Acccusations of avoiding service again? I enlisted in the Navy (72-76) because I was not interested in losing my life over the lame involvement of our country in the shit hole that is/was VietNam. But, here is how the military works, once you are in you go where you are ordered. W and his squadron could have been deployed over there easily. So could I. W was a commissioned officer and earned his wings. He served. So did I. Clearly carbon did not.
Avoiding service? That is what Slick did with his shell game about signing up for the ROTC at U of Arkansas and then ending up at Oxford for a second year instead. Carbon bleats about the influece that W and McCain took advantage of. But, nothing about Slick having Senator J William Fulbright pulling strings to help him actually avoid service? Goose, gander etc. Oh, I forgot. The Clintons are liberal icons so a different set of standards are used.
Lot of interesting stuff here. Like the current president, Slick should not have been able to be elected doc catcher because of the things he did as a young man.
http://www.1stcavmedic.com/bill-clinton-draft.htm
Piloting a modern fighter plane is a highly complex job requiring the ability to make snap decisions with the pilot's life literally on the line, especially being carrier based as McCain was. A quick look shows the pilot might have to endure forces of 9-12 g's. All the while evaluating tactical situations, listening to orders and preparing to deploy weapons systems. It is laughable how carbon dismisses the fighter pilot as a glorified bus driver.
http://work.chron.com/air-force-fighter-pilot-qualifications-8456.html
Ken
KenPitts
Apr 28, 2013, 9:08:29 AM4/28/13
to
You don't know either, but you sure act arrogant about all of it.
Ken
Howard Brazee
Apr 28, 2013, 9:26:53 AM4/28/13
to
On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 18:42:33 -0700 (PDT), KenPitts
<ken....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> It's daddy's connections that get you in the door, ahead of the hundreds
>>
>> or thousands of more talented but less connected kids.
>
>Cite.
>
>W still had to pass the training. So did McCain.
>
>I notice you are bitching about two Republicans. How did Kennedy get his command or Lurch?
History shows that there have always been elite using contacts to get
<ken....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> It's daddy's connections that get you in the door, ahead of the hundreds
>>
>> or thousands of more talented but less connected kids.
>
>Cite.
>
>W still had to pass the training. So did McCain.
>
>I notice you are bitching about two Republicans. How did Kennedy get his command or Lurch?
what they wanted. At one time commissions were bought and sold.
When this happens, using the fact that someone has such an assignment
is not a valid indicator of ability to run the country.
And Kennedy certainly was guilty as charged.
--
Anybody who agrees with one side all of the time or disagrees with the
other side all of the time is equally guilty of letting others do
their thinking for them.
Horva...@net.net
Apr 28, 2013, 10:12:25 AM4/28/13
to
On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 06:06:38 -0700 (PDT), KenPitts
<ken....@gmail.com> wrote this crap:
>
>If I had called the Naval Academy West Point lik carbon did,
> I would never hear the end of it. Regarding 905 out of 909,
>our service academies take only the best and brightest. Mc Cain
> was a partier of some note. I'm sure that degraded his
> academic performance.
>
>You think being a Bush got W into Harvard Business School?
> No, graduating from Yale did and having acceptable score
> on the GRE did. A Yale legacy means nothing at Harvard and
> Bush41 was just a short term Congressman, UN Ambassador
> and Chairman of the RNC in 1973 when W started at Harvard.
> I would bet W's being a commissioned officer meant a whole
> lot more in the admissions process.
I find it amazing that just a few days ago Carbon claimed he was all
about facts and honesty. But just now he acted as all liberals do.
His opinion was based on emotion, conjecture, and wild assumptions.
The only facts he presented was that he hated President George W. Bush
and he was envious of him.
>Acccusations of avoiding service again? I enlisted in the Navy (72-76)
> because I was not interested in losing my life over the lame
> involvement of our country in the shit hole that is/was VietNam.
> But, here is how the military works, once you are in you go where
> you are ordered. W and his squadron could have been deployed
> over there easily. So could I. W was a commissioned officer and
> earned his wings. He served. So did I. Clearly carbon did not.
>
>Avoiding service? That is what Slick did with his shell game about
> signing up for the ROTC at U of Arkansas and then ending up at
>Oxford for a second year instead. Carbon bleats about the
> influece that W and McCain took advantage of. But, nothing
>about Slick having Senator J William Fulbright pulling strings to
> help him actually avoid service? Goose, gander etc. Oh,
> I forgot. The Clintons are liberal icons so a different set
> of standards are used.
Let's talk about avoiding service, especially Deserter John Kerry.
Deserter Kerry is fond of boasting that he served two tours in
Vietnam. However let's look at the facts. Deserter Kerry spent six
months of his first tour stateside in OCS. His second six months were
spent on a hospital ship that never got close to Vietnam. He wouldn't
have got that job if not for his father's influence.
For his next tour, we all know the story. He signed up for swift
boats because he was told they weren't being used in Vietnam. When he
got there he used all his father's influence to get out. He gave
himself three Purple Hearts and then deserted.
Leaving a battlefield is desertion, pure and simple. Deserter Kerry
went back home and never wore a uniform again. Desertion is hard to
prove. Desertion means leaving the military never intending to
return. It's hard to prove someone's intentions. One way is if they
throw away their uniform. Deserter Kerry was photographed tossing his
medals over the White House wall. That is proof of desertion. He was
never prosecuted because of his father's influence.
One more point. When he was running for President, Deserter Kerry
posted his discharge papers on his website. I quickly noticed that it
was a DD-215 and not a DD-214 and it was dated 10 years after he left
service. A DD-215 is a modified discharge. Clearly Deserter Kerry
never posted a DD-214.
This is lower than anything Clinton ever did. Clinton didn't serve and
admitted it. Kerry deserted from Vietnam, then used his father's
influence to cover it up and have his DD-214 altered. Now he claims
to be a war hero with three Purple Hearts and two tours of Vietnam.
<ken....@gmail.com> wrote this crap:
>
>If I had called the Naval Academy West Point lik carbon did,
> I would never hear the end of it. Regarding 905 out of 909,
>our service academies take only the best and brightest. Mc Cain
> was a partier of some note. I'm sure that degraded his
> academic performance.
>
>You think being a Bush got W into Harvard Business School?
> No, graduating from Yale did and having acceptable score
> on the GRE did. A Yale legacy means nothing at Harvard and
> Bush41 was just a short term Congressman, UN Ambassador
> and Chairman of the RNC in 1973 when W started at Harvard.
> I would bet W's being a commissioned officer meant a whole
> lot more in the admissions process.
about facts and honesty. But just now he acted as all liberals do.
His opinion was based on emotion, conjecture, and wild assumptions.
The only facts he presented was that he hated President George W. Bush
and he was envious of him.
>Acccusations of avoiding service again? I enlisted in the Navy (72-76)
> because I was not interested in losing my life over the lame
> involvement of our country in the shit hole that is/was VietNam.
> But, here is how the military works, once you are in you go where
> you are ordered. W and his squadron could have been deployed
> over there easily. So could I. W was a commissioned officer and
> earned his wings. He served. So did I. Clearly carbon did not.
>
>Avoiding service? That is what Slick did with his shell game about
> signing up for the ROTC at U of Arkansas and then ending up at
>Oxford for a second year instead. Carbon bleats about the
> influece that W and McCain took advantage of. But, nothing
>about Slick having Senator J William Fulbright pulling strings to
> help him actually avoid service? Goose, gander etc. Oh,
> I forgot. The Clintons are liberal icons so a different set
> of standards are used.
Deserter Kerry is fond of boasting that he served two tours in
Vietnam. However let's look at the facts. Deserter Kerry spent six
months of his first tour stateside in OCS. His second six months were
spent on a hospital ship that never got close to Vietnam. He wouldn't
have got that job if not for his father's influence.
For his next tour, we all know the story. He signed up for swift
boats because he was told they weren't being used in Vietnam. When he
got there he used all his father's influence to get out. He gave
himself three Purple Hearts and then deserted.
Leaving a battlefield is desertion, pure and simple. Deserter Kerry
went back home and never wore a uniform again. Desertion is hard to
prove. Desertion means leaving the military never intending to
return. It's hard to prove someone's intentions. One way is if they
throw away their uniform. Deserter Kerry was photographed tossing his
medals over the White House wall. That is proof of desertion. He was
never prosecuted because of his father's influence.
One more point. When he was running for President, Deserter Kerry
posted his discharge papers on his website. I quickly noticed that it
was a DD-215 and not a DD-214 and it was dated 10 years after he left
service. A DD-215 is a modified discharge. Clearly Deserter Kerry
never posted a DD-214.
This is lower than anything Clinton ever did. Clinton didn't serve and
admitted it. Kerry deserted from Vietnam, then used his father's
influence to cover it up and have his DD-214 altered. Now he claims
to be a war hero with three Purple Hearts and two tours of Vietnam.
KenPitts
Apr 28, 2013, 11:27:31 AM4/28/13
to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Soldier
It is beyond me how this guy can hold any office, especially US Senator or Secretary of State.
Ken
Alan Baker
Apr 28, 2013, 1:10:18 PM4/28/13
to
In article <cfda8b44-1aff-41dd...@googlegroups.com>,
Bush joined the TANG and learned how to fly a pure bomber interceptor.
The chances of his having to fly in Vietnam were slim at best.
--
The chances of his having to fly in Vietnam were slim at best.
--
Carbon
Apr 28, 2013, 2:28:15 PM4/28/13
to
On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 01:53:03 -0400, Horvath1758 wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 03:40:25 +0000 (UTC), Carbon
> <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote this crap:
>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 18:42:33 -0700, KenPitts wrote:
>>> On Saturday, April 27, 2013 8:33:50 PM UTC-5, Carbon wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 18:09:21 -0700, KenPitts wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It doesn't work that way, if you are not qualified your don't get in
>>>>> the program. If you don't pass training, you don't get your wings.
>>>>> Period. Doesn't matter who your daddy is. Just like W getting into
>>>>> Harvard Business School. His legacy from GHW Bush was at Yale.
>>>>
>>>> It's daddy's connections that get you in the door, ahead of the
>>>> hundreds or thousands of more talented but less connected kids.
>>>
>>> Cite.
>>
>> Good one! W got into the TARP with the lowest possible passing score.
>> How did he get this amazing opportunity to avoid service in Vietnam
>> when so many other kids with higher scores did not get admitted? W's
>> grandfather, the convicted Nazi collaborator Prescott Bush, was at one
>> time the chancellor of Yale. Coming from such a powerful, wealthy
>> family certainly did not hurt hurt his chances at Harvard either.
>> Without them, W would not have had the opportunity to slouch his way
>> through any of these programs.
>
> I thought you said you dealt with facts and honesty. Where are you
> facts and honesty here? This is mostly emotion and wild conjecture.
W scored 25% on the pilot entrance aptitude test, the absolute minimum
> On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 03:40:25 +0000 (UTC), Carbon
> <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote this crap:
>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 18:42:33 -0700, KenPitts wrote:
>>> On Saturday, April 27, 2013 8:33:50 PM UTC-5, Carbon wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 18:09:21 -0700, KenPitts wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It doesn't work that way, if you are not qualified your don't get in
>>>>> the program. If you don't pass training, you don't get your wings.
>>>>> Period. Doesn't matter who your daddy is. Just like W getting into
>>>>> Harvard Business School. His legacy from GHW Bush was at Yale.
>>>>
>>>> It's daddy's connections that get you in the door, ahead of the
>>>> hundreds or thousands of more talented but less connected kids.
>>>
>>> Cite.
>>
>> Good one! W got into the TARP with the lowest possible passing score.
>> How did he get this amazing opportunity to avoid service in Vietnam
>> when so many other kids with higher scores did not get admitted? W's
>> grandfather, the convicted Nazi collaborator Prescott Bush, was at one
>> time the chancellor of Yale. Coming from such a powerful, wealthy
>> family certainly did not hurt hurt his chances at Harvard either.
>> Without them, W would not have had the opportunity to slouch his way
>> through any of these programs.
>
> I thought you said you dealt with facts and honesty. Where are you
> facts and honesty here? This is mostly emotion and wild conjecture.
acceptable score. How was it that he managed to get into such a coveted
program with a waiting list hundreds deep with such miserable grades? Ben
Barnes, Texas House Speaker at the time, admitted under oath that he gave
preferential treatment to W and to other kids from connected families
during the Vietnam war.
http://goo.gl/gWf32
>>> W still had to pass the training. So did McCain.
>>
>> Unless you're braindead, the real battle is getting in. McCain, if I
>> recall, graduated from West Point something like 905 out of 909 in his
>> class. Would this fine military scholar have even graduated if Daddy
>> wasn't an admiral? Who knows. You sure don't.
>
> West Point is the Army's University. McCain went to Annapolis, the
> Navy's University. You again fail to check your facts.
better 905/909.
Carbon
Apr 28, 2013, 2:48:32 PM4/28/13
to
On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 06:06:38 -0700, KenPitts wrote:
> On Sunday, April 28, 2013 12:53:03 AM UTC-5, Horva...@net.net wrote:
>> On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 03:40:25 +0000 (UTC), Carbon
>> <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote this crap:
>>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 18:42:33 -0700, KenPitts wrote:
>>>
>>>> W still had to pass the training. So did McCain.
>>>
>>> Unless you're braindead, the real battle is getting in. McCain, if I
>>> recall, graduated from West Point something like 905 out of 909 in his
>>> class. Would this fine military scholar have even graduated if Daddy
>>> wasn't an admiral? Who knows. You sure don't.
>>
>> West Point is the Army's University. McCain went to Annapolis, the
>> Navy's University. You again fail to check your facts.
>
> On Sunday, April 28, 2013 12:53:03 AM UTC-5, Horva...@net.net wrote:
>> On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 03:40:25 +0000 (UTC), Carbon
>> <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote this crap:
>>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 18:42:33 -0700, KenPitts wrote:
>>>
>>>> W still had to pass the training. So did McCain.
>>>
>>> Unless you're braindead, the real battle is getting in. McCain, if I
>>> recall, graduated from West Point something like 905 out of 909 in his
>>> class. Would this fine military scholar have even graduated if Daddy
>>> wasn't an admiral? Who knows. You sure don't.
>>
>> West Point is the Army's University. McCain went to Annapolis, the
>> Navy's University. You again fail to check your facts.
>
> If I had called the Naval Academy West Point lik carbon did, I would
> never hear the end of it. Regarding 905 out of 909, our service
> academies take only the best and brightest. Mc Cain was a partier of
> some note. I'm sure that degraded his academic performance.
So it was nice to know that as the son and grandson of admirals he was
> never hear the end of it. Regarding 905 out of 909, our service
> academies take only the best and brightest. Mc Cain was a partier of
> some note. I'm sure that degraded his academic performance.
very unlikely to get kicked out.
> You think being a Bush got W into Harvard Business School?
teaching a required environmental analysis course at the time:
Tsurumi—now a professor of international business at Baruch College in the
City University of New York—said he remembers the future president as
scoring in the bottom 10 percent of students in the class.
“[George W. Bush] didn’t stand out as the most promising student, but...he
made it sure we understood how well he was connected,” Tsurumi said. “He
wasn’t bashful about how he was being pushed upward by Dad’s connections.”
Tsurumi said that the younger Bush boasted that his father’s political
string-pulling had gotten him to the top of the waiting list for the Texas
National Guard instead of serving in Vietnam.
http://goo.gl/vfaWy
Carbon
Apr 28, 2013, 3:14:35 PM4/28/13
to
On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 10:12:25 -0400, Horvath1758 wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 06:06:38 -0700 (PDT), KenPitts <ken....@gmail.com>
> wrote this crap:
>
>> If I had called the Naval Academy West Point lik carbon did, I would
>> never hear the end of it. Regarding 905 out of 909, our service
>> academies take only the best and brightest. Mc Cain was a partier of
>> some note. I'm sure that degraded his academic performance.
>>
>> You think being a Bush got W into Harvard Business School? No,
>> graduating from Yale did and having acceptable score on the GRE did. A
>> Yale legacy means nothing at Harvard and Bush41 was just a short term
>> Congressman, UN Ambassador and Chairman of the RNC in 1973 when W
>> started at Harvard. I would bet W's being a commissioned officer meant
>> a whole lot more in the admissions process.
>
> I find it amazing that just a few days ago Carbon claimed he was all
> about facts and honesty. But just now he acted as all liberals do. His
> opinion was based on emotion, conjecture, and wild assumptions. The only
> facts he presented was that he hated President George W. Bush and he was
> envious of him.
I don't hate W. Where did you ever get such a notion? In fact I kind of
> On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 06:06:38 -0700 (PDT), KenPitts <ken....@gmail.com>
> wrote this crap:
>
>> If I had called the Naval Academy West Point lik carbon did, I would
>> never hear the end of it. Regarding 905 out of 909, our service
>> academies take only the best and brightest. Mc Cain was a partier of
>> some note. I'm sure that degraded his academic performance.
>>
>> You think being a Bush got W into Harvard Business School? No,
>> graduating from Yale did and having acceptable score on the GRE did. A
>> Yale legacy means nothing at Harvard and Bush41 was just a short term
>> Congressman, UN Ambassador and Chairman of the RNC in 1973 when W
>> started at Harvard. I would bet W's being a commissioned officer meant
>> a whole lot more in the admissions process.
>
> I find it amazing that just a few days ago Carbon claimed he was all
> about facts and honesty. But just now he acted as all liberals do. His
> opinion was based on emotion, conjecture, and wild assumptions. The only
> facts he presented was that he hated President George W. Bush and he was
> envious of him.
feel sorry for him.
Regarding the claims I made about Bush and the TANG: In one cite the
former speaker of the Texas House of Representatives admitted under oath
greasing the wheels to get W to the top of the TANG waiting list. In the
other, while cruising along at the bottom 10% of his class at HBS W
bragged to one of his professors about using his daddy's connections to
get into the TANG.
I am confident that even you might have the integrity to admit that that
is pretty conclusive evidence.
Horva...@net.net
Apr 28, 2013, 3:31:19 PM4/28/13
to
On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 10:10:18 -0700, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
wrote this crap:
>
>Bush joined the TANG and learned how to fly a pure bomber interceptor.
>
>The chances of his having to fly in Vietnam were slim at best.
So what? If you were a fighter pilot in the Texas Air National Guard
and that is what they had to fly, then that was what he was assigned
to fly. You can't walk in and say, "Hey man, I wanna fly one of them
there F-22 raptors." If his unit would have had F-4 Phantoms then
that was what he would have been assigned to. Most Air National Guard
units didn't get F-4s until long after Vietnam was over.
wrote this crap:
>
>Bush joined the TANG and learned how to fly a pure bomber interceptor.
>
>The chances of his having to fly in Vietnam were slim at best.
and that is what they had to fly, then that was what he was assigned
to fly. You can't walk in and say, "Hey man, I wanna fly one of them
there F-22 raptors." If his unit would have had F-4 Phantoms then
that was what he would have been assigned to. Most Air National Guard
units didn't get F-4s until long after Vietnam was over.
Horva...@net.net
Apr 28, 2013, 3:33:56 PM4/28/13
to
On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 18:28:15 +0000 (UTC), Carbon
<nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote this crap:
>> I thought you said you dealt with facts and honesty. Where are you
>> facts and honesty here? This is mostly emotion and wild conjecture.
>
>W scored 25% on the pilot entrance aptitude test, the absolute minimum
>acceptable score. How was it that he managed to get into such a coveted
>program with a waiting list hundreds deep with such miserable grades? Ben
>Barnes, Texas House Speaker at the time, admitted under oath that he gave
>preferential treatment to W and to other kids from connected families
>during the Vietnam war.
So what? It happens all the time. Look up, "Nepotism."
There's no need to fear if Trunky is near.
<nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote this crap:
>> I thought you said you dealt with facts and honesty. Where are you
>> facts and honesty here? This is mostly emotion and wild conjecture.
>
>W scored 25% on the pilot entrance aptitude test, the absolute minimum
>acceptable score. How was it that he managed to get into such a coveted
>program with a waiting list hundreds deep with such miserable grades? Ben
>Barnes, Texas House Speaker at the time, admitted under oath that he gave
>preferential treatment to W and to other kids from connected families
>during the Vietnam war.
There's no need to fear if Trunky is near.
Carbon
Apr 28, 2013, 5:10:38 PM4/28/13
to
On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 15:31:19 -0400, Horvath1758 wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 10:10:18 -0700, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
> wrote this crap:
>
>> Bush joined the TANG and learned how to fly a pure bomber interceptor.
>>
>> The chances of his having to fly in Vietnam were slim at best.
>
> So what? If you were a fighter pilot in the Texas Air National Guard
> and that is what they had to fly, then that was what he was assigned to
> fly.
An obsolete aircraft with no chance of seeing action. No wonder the
> On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 10:10:18 -0700, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
> wrote this crap:
>
>> Bush joined the TANG and learned how to fly a pure bomber interceptor.
>>
>> The chances of his having to fly in Vietnam were slim at best.
>
> So what? If you were a fighter pilot in the Texas Air National Guard
> and that is what they had to fly, then that was what he was assigned to
> fly.
waiting list was so long.
Horva...@net.net
Apr 28, 2013, 5:17:16 PM4/28/13
to
On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 19:14:35 +0000 (UTC), Carbon
<nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote this crap:
>On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 10:12:25 -0400, Horvath1758 wrote:
>> On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 06:06:38 -0700 (PDT), KenPitts <ken....@gmail.com>
>> wrote this crap:
>>
>>> If I had called the Naval Academy West Point lik carbon did, I would
>>> never hear the end of it. Regarding 905 out of 909, our service
>>> academies take only the best and brightest. Mc Cain was a partier of
>>> some note. I'm sure that degraded his academic performance.
>>>
>>> You think being a Bush got W into Harvard Business School? No,
>>> graduating from Yale did and having acceptable score on the GRE did. A
>>> Yale legacy means nothing at Harvard and Bush41 was just a short term
>>> Congressman, UN Ambassador and Chairman of the RNC in 1973 when W
>>> started at Harvard. I would bet W's being a commissioned officer meant
>>> a whole lot more in the admissions process.
>>
>> I find it amazing that just a few days ago Carbon claimed he was all
>> about facts and honesty. But just now he acted as all liberals do. His
>> opinion was based on emotion, conjecture, and wild assumptions. The only
>> facts he presented was that he hated President George W. Bush and he was
>> envious of him.
>
>I don't hate W. Where did you ever get such a notion? In fact I kind of
>feel sorry for him.
You feel sorry for yourself. You hate President George W. Bush are
envious of him. You liberals use class envy like other people use
salt. You sprinkle it everywhere you consume large amounts and you
constantly spit it out.
<nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote this crap:
>On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 10:12:25 -0400, Horvath1758 wrote:
>> On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 06:06:38 -0700 (PDT), KenPitts <ken....@gmail.com>
>> wrote this crap:
>>
>>> If I had called the Naval Academy West Point lik carbon did, I would
>>> never hear the end of it. Regarding 905 out of 909, our service
>>> academies take only the best and brightest. Mc Cain was a partier of
>>> some note. I'm sure that degraded his academic performance.
>>>
>>> You think being a Bush got W into Harvard Business School? No,
>>> graduating from Yale did and having acceptable score on the GRE did. A
>>> Yale legacy means nothing at Harvard and Bush41 was just a short term
>>> Congressman, UN Ambassador and Chairman of the RNC in 1973 when W
>>> started at Harvard. I would bet W's being a commissioned officer meant
>>> a whole lot more in the admissions process.
>>
>> I find it amazing that just a few days ago Carbon claimed he was all
>> about facts and honesty. But just now he acted as all liberals do. His
>> opinion was based on emotion, conjecture, and wild assumptions. The only
>> facts he presented was that he hated President George W. Bush and he was
>> envious of him.
>
>I don't hate W. Where did you ever get such a notion? In fact I kind of
>feel sorry for him.
envious of him. You liberals use class envy like other people use
salt. You sprinkle it everywhere you consume large amounts and you
constantly spit it out.
Carbon
Apr 28, 2013, 5:14:06 PM4/28/13
to
That's what.
Carbon
Apr 28, 2013, 5:31:06 PM4/28/13
to
the evidence showing that Bush did indeed use his powerful family
connections to get into the TANG. Oh wait, you accidentally snipped it.
Well, here it is again! Good luck with this moral struggle.
Horva...@net.net
Apr 28, 2013, 7:17:15 PM4/28/13
to
On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 21:31:06 +0000 (UTC), Carbon
I say, "So what?" Most successful people have a mentor or someone
helping them along the way. It's quite common. Another way of being
successful is to be born in a successful family. That's what I did.
That's what Donald Trump and Bill Gates did. Another way is to marry
into a successful family. Put one or more of these together with
someone who has drive and ambition and you will get a successful
person. OTOH if that person has no ambition all his gifts are wasted.
helping them along the way. It's quite common. Another way of being
successful is to be born in a successful family. That's what I did.
That's what Donald Trump and Bill Gates did. Another way is to marry
into a successful family. Put one or more of these together with
someone who has drive and ambition and you will get a successful
person. OTOH if that person has no ambition all his gifts are wasted.
KenPitts
Apr 28, 2013, 7:23:48 PM4/28/13
to
What's the problem with that? It is true.
This is some leftist professor with an agenda. Your citation of this means nothing.
It was not hard at all to serve your country and avoid going to that shit hole that was VietNam. Enlist in the Navy as I did. Enlist in the Coast Guard or the Air Force. Just do not go into the Army or the Marine Corps and you are OK.
Tell us about the nature of your service carbon.
I am a veteran and I think W did nothing wrong. He met his obligation. He met the minimum number of flight hours. W mustered out with an honorable discharge right on time. More than Kerry can say. The F102 was being decommisioned. He was done. End of story. Kenn Smith served, he gets to have an opinion.
Still waiting on your comments about Slick using Senator Fullbright to grease the wheels of him avoiding service altogether. Or Algore using his senator father to get a billet in the rear with the gear. Oh, no problem there since these two are liberal Democrats.
I get it. Same old double standard.
Ken
Alan Baker
Apr 28, 2013, 10:41:31 PM4/28/13
to
In article <f20118d2-8548-41e8...@googlegroups.com>,
I'm always delighted when a jerk gets to prove it again.
>
> This is some leftist professor with an agenda. Your citation of this means
> nothing.
>
> It was not hard at all to serve your country and avoid going to that shit
> hole that was VietNam. Enlist in the Navy as I did. Enlist in the Coast Guard
> or the Air Force. Just do not go into the Army or the Marine Corps and you
> are OK.
>
> Tell us about the nature of your service carbon.
>
> I am a veteran and I think W did nothing wrong. He met his obligation. He met
> the minimum number of flight hours. W mustered out with an honorable
> discharge right on time. More than Kerry can say. The F102 was being
> decommisioned. He was done. End of story. Kenn Smith served, he gets to have
> an opinion.
>
> Still waiting on your comments about Slick using Senator Fullbright to grease
> the wheels of him avoiding service altogether. Or Algore using his senator
> father to get a billet in the rear with the gear. Oh, no problem there since
> these two are liberal Democrats.
>
> I get it. Same old double standard.
>
> Ken
>
> This is some leftist professor with an agenda. Your citation of this means
> nothing.
>
> It was not hard at all to serve your country and avoid going to that shit
> hole that was VietNam. Enlist in the Navy as I did. Enlist in the Coast Guard
> or the Air Force. Just do not go into the Army or the Marine Corps and you
> are OK.
>
> Tell us about the nature of your service carbon.
>
> I am a veteran and I think W did nothing wrong. He met his obligation. He met
> the minimum number of flight hours. W mustered out with an honorable
> discharge right on time. More than Kerry can say. The F102 was being
> decommisioned. He was done. End of story. Kenn Smith served, he gets to have
> an opinion.
>
> Still waiting on your comments about Slick using Senator Fullbright to grease
> the wheels of him avoiding service altogether. Or Algore using his senator
> father to get a billet in the rear with the gear. Oh, no problem there since
> these two are liberal Democrats.
>
> I get it. Same old double standard.
>
> Ken
Carbon
Apr 28, 2013, 11:17:59 PM4/28/13
to
Pitts have been disputing this whole time. That's what.
Plus your new argument is wrong anyway. If your family is really powerful
you can be totally untalented, a directionless ten percentile bottom
feeder, and still end up with a fancy job. As examples I give you John
Sidney McCain III and George Walker Bush.
Carbon
Apr 28, 2013, 11:36:20 PM4/28/13
to
On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 16:23:48 -0700, KenPitts wrote:
> On Sunday, April 28, 2013 1:48:32 PM UTC-5, Carbon wrote:
>> On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 06:06:38 -0700, KenPitts wrote:
>>
>>> You think being a Bush got W into Harvard Business School?
>>
>> Yes, yes I do. In fact he bragged about it to Yoshi Tsurumi, who was
>> teaching a required environmental analysis course at the time:
>>
>> Tsurumi—now a professor of international business at Baruch College in
>> the City University of New York—said he remembers the future president
>> as scoring in the bottom 10 percent of students in the class.
>>
>> “[George W. Bush] didn’t stand out as the most promising student,
>> but...he made it sure we understood how well he was connected,” Tsurumi
>> said. “He wasn’t bashful about how he was being pushed upward by Dad’s
>> connections.” Tsurumi said that the younger Bush boasted that his
>> father’s political string-pulling had gotten him to the top of the
>> waiting list for the Texas National Guard instead of serving in
>> Vietnam.
>>
>> http://goo.gl/vfaWy
>
> "“I vividly remember that he made a comment saying that people are poor
> because they’re lazy,” Tsurumi said."
>
> What's the problem with that? It is true.
>
> This is some leftist professor with an agenda. Your citation of this
> means nothing.
And what about Ben Barnes, former Texas house speaker, who testified under
> On Sunday, April 28, 2013 1:48:32 PM UTC-5, Carbon wrote:
>> On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 06:06:38 -0700, KenPitts wrote:
>>
>>> You think being a Bush got W into Harvard Business School?
>>
>> Yes, yes I do. In fact he bragged about it to Yoshi Tsurumi, who was
>> teaching a required environmental analysis course at the time:
>>
>> Tsurumi—now a professor of international business at Baruch College in
>> the City University of New York—said he remembers the future president
>> as scoring in the bottom 10 percent of students in the class.
>>
>> “[George W. Bush] didn’t stand out as the most promising student,
>> but...he made it sure we understood how well he was connected,” Tsurumi
>> said. “He wasn’t bashful about how he was being pushed upward by Dad’s
>> connections.” Tsurumi said that the younger Bush boasted that his
>> father’s political string-pulling had gotten him to the top of the
>> waiting list for the Texas National Guard instead of serving in
>> Vietnam.
>>
>> http://goo.gl/vfaWy
>
> "“I vividly remember that he made a comment saying that people are poor
> because they’re lazy,” Tsurumi said."
>
> What's the problem with that? It is true.
>
> This is some leftist professor with an agenda. Your citation of this
> means nothing.
oath that he greased the wheels to get W pushed to the top of the TANG
waiting list? Or are you still trying to claim that W magically jumped 500
places on the strength of the dismal 25% he got on the pilot entrance
aptitude test?
http://goo.gl/MI0at
BAR
Apr 29, 2013, 7:23:38 AM4/29/13
to
In article <clark-EB1607....@newsfeed.aioe.org>, cl...@nospammatsceng.ohio-
state.edu says...
>
> In article <ivop4ax...@news.ezprovider.com>,
> "Hollis2" <a3a...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 25 2013 8:13 PM, jay birdsong wrote:
> >
> > > "Alan Baker" wrote in message
> > > news:alangbaker-83866...@news.shawcable.net...
> > >
> > > In article <7d1a5bc0-0001-444a...@googlegroups.com>,
> > > "la...@pivotforpower.com" <la...@pivotforpower.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > George W. Bush is smarter than you
> > >
> > > And a pile of dog shit is smarter than you, Loser.
> >
> > GWB's SAT scores and college transcript were published by Vanity Fair
> > before the 2000 elections. I assume they obtained them illegally. Using
> > those scores to estimate his IQ shows Bush's to be somewhere in the upper
> > ranges of superior to the lower ranges of very superior. That represents
> > a score between 127 and 132. He's not quite Mensa material, but close.
>
> BS. 1250 is lower than my daughter's at 16.
Was that before or after the 100 point bump several years ago to improve SAT scores with the
stroke of a pen? Or isi that here combined score on the 2400 point scale?
state.edu says...
>
> In article <ivop4ax...@news.ezprovider.com>,
> "Hollis2" <a3a...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 25 2013 8:13 PM, jay birdsong wrote:
> >
> > > "Alan Baker" wrote in message
> > > news:alangbaker-83866...@news.shawcable.net...
> > >
> > > In article <7d1a5bc0-0001-444a...@googlegroups.com>,
> > > "la...@pivotforpower.com" <la...@pivotforpower.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > George W. Bush is smarter than you
> > >
> > > And a pile of dog shit is smarter than you, Loser.
> >
> > GWB's SAT scores and college transcript were published by Vanity Fair
> > before the 2000 elections. I assume they obtained them illegally. Using
> > those scores to estimate his IQ shows Bush's to be somewhere in the upper
> > ranges of superior to the lower ranges of very superior. That represents
> > a score between 127 and 132. He's not quite Mensa material, but close.
>
> BS. 1250 is lower than my daughter's at 16.
Was that before or after the 100 point bump several years ago to improve SAT scores with the
stroke of a pen? Or isi that here combined score on the 2400 point scale?
BAR
Apr 29, 2013, 7:40:25 AM4/29/13
to
In article <9eb71b40-0e6a-454e...@googlegroups.com>, la...@pivotforpower.com
says...
>
> On Friday, April 26, 2013 12:51:22 PM UTC-7, bkn...@conramp.net wrote:
> > On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 09:54:43 -0700, "Hollis2"
> >
> > >
> >
> > >Then he must have had the same guy take the Air Force Officer Qualifying
> >
> > >Test for him because using that data his IQ is estimated to be in the mid
> >
> > >120's. That's a bit lower than what you get from his SAT scores, but it
> >
> > >still puts him in the middle of the superior range. The SAT data is more
> >
> > >reliable because the relationship between IQ and SAT has been extensively
> >
> > >studied.
> >
> > >
> >
> > Mensa was mentioned. They don't go by IQ but a test that they give
> >
> > themselves. That score has to be at or above the 98th percentile of
> >
> > the general population taking such a standard test.
>
> BS. I am Mensa by virtue of my military GCT. I tested high enough to qualify.
>
> Larry
What was your GT score? Mine was 128 when taken in boot camp. The score they actually use to
decide where the government wants you to serve. There was only one other guys with a higher
GT score in my platoon and his was 143. It turns out he was a cigarette smoker, dope smoker,
druggie and an alcoholic at the ripe old age of 18.
says...
>
> On Friday, April 26, 2013 12:51:22 PM UTC-7, bkn...@conramp.net wrote:
> > On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 09:54:43 -0700, "Hollis2"
> >
> > <a3a...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > >On Apr 26 2013 10:54 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
> >
> > >
> >
> > >> In article <ivop4ax...@news.ezprovider.com>,
> >
> > >> "Hollis2" <a3a...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > >>
> >
> > >> > On Apr 25 2013 8:13 PM, jay birdsong wrote:
> >
> > >> >
> >
> > >> > > "Alan Baker" wrote in message
> >
> > >> > > news:alangbaker-83866...@news.shawcable.net...
> >
> > >> > >
> >
> > >> > > In article <7d1a5bc0-0001-444a...@googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > >> > > "la...@pivotforpower.com" <la...@pivotforpower.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> > >
> >
> > >> > > > George W. Bush is smarter than you
> >
> > >> > >
> >
> > >> > > And a pile of dog shit is smarter than you, Loser.
> >
> > >> >
> >
> > >> > GWB's SAT scores and college transcript were published by Vanity Fair
> >
> > >> > before the 2000 elections. I assume they obtained them illegally. Using
> >
> > >> > those scores to estimate his IQ shows Bush's to be somewhere in the upper
> >
> > >> > ranges of superior to the lower ranges of very superior. That represents
> >
> > >> > a score between 127 and 132. He's not quite Mensa material, but close.
> >
> > >>
> >
> > >> Or he cheated...
> > <a3a...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > >On Apr 26 2013 10:54 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
> >
> > >
> >
> > >> In article <ivop4ax...@news.ezprovider.com>,
> >
> > >> "Hollis2" <a3a...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > >>
> >
> > >> > On Apr 25 2013 8:13 PM, jay birdsong wrote:
> >
> > >> >
> >
> > >> > > "Alan Baker" wrote in message
> >
> > >> > > news:alangbaker-83866...@news.shawcable.net...
> >
> > >> > >
> >
> > >> > > In article <7d1a5bc0-0001-444a...@googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > >> > > "la...@pivotforpower.com" <la...@pivotforpower.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> > >
> >
> > >> > > > George W. Bush is smarter than you
> >
> > >> > >
> >
> > >> > > And a pile of dog shit is smarter than you, Loser.
> >
> > >> >
> >
> > >> > GWB's SAT scores and college transcript were published by Vanity Fair
> >
> > >> > before the 2000 elections. I assume they obtained them illegally. Using
> >
> > >> > those scores to estimate his IQ shows Bush's to be somewhere in the upper
> >
> > >> > ranges of superior to the lower ranges of very superior. That represents
> >
> > >> > a score between 127 and 132. He's not quite Mensa material, but close.
> >
> > >>
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >Then he must have had the same guy take the Air Force Officer Qualifying
> >
> > >Test for him because using that data his IQ is estimated to be in the mid
> >
> > >120's. That's a bit lower than what you get from his SAT scores, but it
> >
> > >still puts him in the middle of the superior range. The SAT data is more
> >
> > >reliable because the relationship between IQ and SAT has been extensively
> >
> > >studied.
> >
> > >
> >
> > Mensa was mentioned. They don't go by IQ but a test that they give
> >
> > themselves. That score has to be at or above the 98th percentile of
> >
> > the general population taking such a standard test.
>
> BS. I am Mensa by virtue of my military GCT. I tested high enough to qualify.
>
> Larry
What was your GT score? Mine was 128 when taken in boot camp. The score they actually use to
decide where the government wants you to serve. There was only one other guys with a higher
GT score in my platoon and his was 143. It turns out he was a cigarette smoker, dope smoker,
druggie and an alcoholic at the ripe old age of 18.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages