Stephen Colbert's challenge to Donald Trump

[trotsky]

http://www.examiner.com/article/colbert-responds-to-trump-obama-challenge-with-1-million-tea-bag-challenge


> Colbert responds to Trump 'Obama challenge' with $1 million 'tea bag' challenge

[Rich]

trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote in
news:4PednW95M95fRRTN...@mchsi.com:

> http://www.examiner.com/article/colbert-responds-to-trump-obama-challen

> ge-with-1-million-tea-bag-challenge
>
>
>> Colbert responds to Trump 'Obama challenge' with $1 million 'tea bag'
>> challenge
>

Sad Obama turned-down $5M for a charity because he refuses to release what
any business owner can get when someone applies for a job.

[Dano]

"Rich" wrote in message
news:Ia-dnYmCZobX2xfN...@giganews.com...

===============================================

Bullshit. Donald Trump can donate to any cause he likes. I'd love to see
someone ask The Donald to shave his stupid head for a 5 million dollar
charitable contribution as well. Think he would? Or Mitt for that matter.

Why should Obama even justify this cheap charade? Do you suppose Trump
would eschew the tax deduction for such a donation? His boy Mitt won't even
release his tax returns...something far more relevant. The issue of Obama's
citizenship is so over and done with. No one but drooling idiot right
wingnuts give a rat's ass about any of this.

The Donald was also on Letterman last night. He was asked about his support
for Romney and cited his anti-China stance as his biggest area of agreement.
Then Letterman smoothly and casually brought up his own clothing
line...complimenting his tie...even displaying a couple of his "Donald
Trump" label dress shirts. Then asked him where they were made. Guess
where? Hint...it wasn't Hoboken or Brooklyn. The Donald never noticed what
hit him.

Hypocritical buffoon.

[BTR1701]

In article <k6ebdl$6vt$1...@dont-email.me>, "Dano" <janea...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

> "Rich" wrote in message
> news:Ia-dnYmCZobX2xfN...@giganews.com...
>
> trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote in
> news:4PednW95M95fRRTN...@mchsi.com:
>
> > http://www.examiner.com/article/colbert-responds-to-trump-obama-challen
> > ge-with-1-million-tea-bag-challenge
> >
> >
> >> Colbert responds to Trump 'Obama challenge' with $1 million 'tea bag'
> >> challenge
> >
>
> Sad Obama turned-down $5M for a charity because he refuses to release what
> any business owner can get when someone applies for a job.
>
> ===============================================
>
> Bullshit. Donald Trump can donate to any cause he likes. I'd love to see
> someone ask The Donald to shave his stupid head for a 5 million dollar
> charitable contribution as well. Think he would? Or Mitt for that matter.
>
> Why should Obama even justify this cheap charade?

Because $5 mil can help a lot of kids or cancer patients or whatever,
and if all it takes to help them is show some college records, which
Obama claims don't contain anything damaging, why wouldn't he (or
anyone, for that matter) take the opportunity to give those people that
kind of help, and at the same time make Trump look like a buffoon and
redistribute a little of his wealth?

[Ashton Crusher]

It doesn't take teh college records, it just takes Trump giving them
the check. If Trump REALLY cared about the "charity" he'd be giving
the money regardless of whether any records were released. Lets see
if he does give the money away. It's all Donald's choice, not O'bs

[BTR1701]

In article <u0cm885enjsmqmgaf...@4ax.com>,

I'm not suggesting Trump cares about anyone. Obviously Trump doesn't
care enough to just donate the money on his own. The question is why
Obama won't open up supposedly non-damaging college records to the
public if it means $5 mil could go to a cancer fund or to help pediatric
AIDs or something, and at the same time make a fool out of Trump.

[Obveeus]

It is a scam and Trump would never pay up because he is a scam artist. No
matter what was released, Trump would simply refuse to pay, claiming that
what was released wasn't 'everything'.

[Professor Bubba]

In article <atropos-18ACAF...@news-europe.giganews.com>,

Presuming Obama wanted to cooperate with Trump's backdoor extortion
scheme, it seems likely to me that no set of records would satisfy
Trump or any of the other people who have beaten this horse to death
and beyond. Cf. the ongoing nonsense about Obama's birth certificate.

It hasn't worked, anyway, as the only party that's been embarrassed
here is Trump. His p.r. wasn't running all that well before this. Now
he's a laughingstock.

[BTR1701]

In article <k6fhiv$a60$1...@dont-email.me>, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com>
wrote:

> "BTR1701" <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <k6ebdl$6vt$1...@dont-email.me>, "Dano" <janea...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Why should Obama even justify this cheap charade?
> >
> > Because $5 mil can help a lot of kids or cancer patients or whatever,
> > and if all it takes to help them is show some college records, which
> > Obama claims don't contain anything damaging, why wouldn't he (or
> > anyone, for that matter) take the opportunity to give those people that
> > kind of help, and at the same time make Trump look like a buffoon and
> > redistribute a little of his wealth?
>
> It is a scam and Trump would never pay up because he is a scam artist.

Then let him reap the PR nightmare that would cause.

[Dano]

"Ashton Crusher" wrote in message
news:u0cm885enjsmqmgaf...@4ax.com...

=========================================

Exactly. Doesn't matter WHERE the money goes. It's essentially still
extortion.

[Donald Trump]

BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:

>"Dano" <janea...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>Bullshit. Donald Trump can donate to any cause he likes. I'd love to see
>>someone ask The Donald to shave his stupid head for a 5 million dollar
>>charitable contribution as well. Think he would? Or Mitt for that matter.

>>Why should Obama even justify this cheap charade?

>Because $5 mil can help a lot of kids or cancer patients or whatever,
>and if all it takes to help them is show some college records, which
>Obama claims don't contain anything damaging, why wouldn't he (or
>anyone, for that matter) take the opportunity to give those people that
>kind of help, and at the same time make Trump look like a buffoon and
>redistribute a little of his wealth?

You think Trump needs help?

[Rich]

Ashton Crusher <de...@moore.net> wrote in
news:u0cm885enjsmqmgaf...@4ax.com:

Most donations of size have conditions. A guy gives $10M to a school, it
was likely because he went there and sees it as part of the reason he has
what he does to give away. Someone endows a hospital, they name a wing
after them. Obama has the opportunity to give $5M, yet he won't release
such a minor things as college transcripts, as I said, something that any
business can register for and get whenever anyone applies for a job. It's
not like it's some kind of secret kept by his psychiatrist.

[BTR1701]

In article <k6ft3t$qf7$1...@dont-email.me>, "Dano" <janea...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Tell that to the kids at St. Jude's. I bet it matters to them.

> It's essentially still extortion.

No, it's not. It's making an offer to *spend* money. Extortion is when
you make a demand *for* money.

Extortion would be if Trump already *had* the records, knew there was
something damaging in them, and was asking Obama for $5 mil to keep them
quiet.

[trotsky]

Since you're a teabagger shouldn't you be pushing for Trump dipping his
balls in someone's mouth?

[trotsky]

Excellent point.

[trotsky]

On 10/26/12 10:02 PM, Professor Bubba wrote:
>
> Presuming Obama wanted to cooperate with Trump's backdoor extortion
> scheme, it seems likely to me that no set of records would satisfy
> Trump or any of the other people who have beaten this horse to death
> and beyond. Cf. the ongoing nonsense about Obama's birth certificate.
>
> It hasn't worked, anyway, as the only party that's been embarrassed
> here is Trump. His p.r. wasn't running all that well before this. Now
> he's a laughingstock.

It sure seems like people are having trouble coming up with the moral to
this story: Trump is an attention whore.

[trotsky]

Mentally? Yes.

[Obveeus]

What PR nightmare? If Trump got his way, Trump would be able to claim he is
controlling the President and he would still avoid paying the charity. That
would actually be a much better position than the real PR nightmare he is in
right now where he isn't controlling anyone, isn't giving money to charity,
and only looks good to people that are fools.

[Dano]

"Rich" wrote in message
news:IvedndHf6cYXDRbN...@giganews.com...

================================================

So what? ALL such donations ARE tax deductible no? So what exactly is The
Donald giving up? All this is is another chance to get him some attention.
Really pretty pathetic. He has BILLIONS. His donating 5 mil is akin to me
giving 50 bucks. This guy is a turd. Too bad he couldn't just make the
donation for the sake of doing something good...and not to showboat.

[David Johnston]

On Friday, October 26, 2012 10:57:18 PM UTC-7, Dano wrote:

> the money regardless of whether any records were released. Lets see
>
> if he does give the money away. It's all Donald's choice, not O'bs
>
>
>
> =========================================
>
>
>
> Exactly. Doesn't matter WHERE the money goes. It's essentially still
>
> extortion.

Bribery, not extortion. Essentially, though it's a rich guy holding out a handful of money to get other people to do stupid pet tricks.

[Tom]

On Oct 26, 10:02 pm, Professor Bubba <bu...@nowhere.edu.invalid>
wrote:
> In article <atropos-18ACAF.19333426102...@news-europe.giganews.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> BTR1701 <atro...@mac.com> wrote:
> > In article <u0cm885enjsmqmgaftf799dgfu1tahs...@4ax.com>,
> >  Ashton Crusher <d...@moore.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 17:13:17 -0700, BTR1701 <atro...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > > >In article <k6ebdl$6v...@dont-email.me>, "Dano" <janeandd...@yahoo.com>

> > > >wrote:
>
> > > >> "Rich"  wrote in message
> > > >>news:Ia-dnYmCZobX2xfN...@giganews.com...
>

> > > >> trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote in

And he made himself look worse on Letterman the other night. Go to the
12:30 mark on You Tube...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h70jWkzFjos

The look on Trump's face @ 13:30 is worth 10,000 words. What a
hypocrite.

Tom

[BTR1701]

In article <oMKdnbTsI7CDUxbN...@mchsi.com>,

And you get the award for the year's most ironic Usenet statement.

Well done!

[Adam H. Kerman]

So that makes you a troll feeder?

[Adam H. Kerman]

Rich <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:

>Most donations of size have conditions. A guy gives $10M to a school, it
>was likely because he went there and sees it as part of the reason he has
>what he does to give away. Someone endows a hospital, they name a wing
>after them. Obama has the opportunity to give $5M, yet he won't release
>such a minor things as college transcripts, as I said, something that any
>business can register for and get whenever anyone applies for a job. It's
>not like it's some kind of secret kept by his psychiatrist.

I'll bite.

How does any business register for and get a college transcript whenever
anyone applies for a job? I had no idea school records were public in Canada.

btw, your analogy sucks. Yeah, large donations and endowments come with
conditions that may be honored by the second party, but conditions that
must be fulfilled by third parties makes them not donations.

I dunno to what extent it's a charitable contribution in US tax law, as
it's not a gift but a payment for an act to be performed by a third party.

[Adam H. Kerman]

BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>"Dano" <janea...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>"Ashton Crusher" wrote:

>>It doesn't take teh college records, it just takes Trump giving them
>>the check. If Trump REALLY cared about the "charity" he'd be giving
>>the money regardless of whether any records were released. Lets see
>>if he does give the money away. It's all Donald's choice, not O'bs

>>=========================================

>>Exactly. Doesn't matter WHERE the money goes.

>Tell that to the kids at St. Jude's. I bet it matters to them.

Can you identify specific kids that are gonna die? Cool.

>>It's essentially still extortion.

>No, it's not. It's making an offer to *spend* money. Extortion is when
>you make a demand *for* money.

>Extortion would be if Trump already *had* the records, knew there was
>something damaging in them, and was asking Obama for $5 mil to keep them
>quiet.

Uh, that's blackmail.

[Dano]

"David Johnston" wrote in message
news:8dad7d85-80e5-4f20...@googlegroups.com...

====================================================

I think this is much closer to extortion than bribery...though I freely
admit neither might technically fit the exact definition. What other
purpose could be served other than an attempt to embarrass the president?

Sort of like offering 5 million dollars to yank at that preposterous hunk of
whatever that mess is atop Donald's head.

[trotsky]

Anonyshit alert!

[trotsky]

Pretzel logic alert.

[Mason Barge]

It's not extortion, which requires a threat. And extortionists don't
promise to pay money.

[Mason Barge]

Yeah, but I think we all understand that Trump's intention here is not to
help charity, but to embarrass Obama. Trump's an utter buffoon, but he
did manage to embarrass Obama a bit.

[BTR1701]

In article <k6hb08$t4f$8...@news.albasani.net>,

"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:

> BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
> >"Dano" <janea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>"Ashton Crusher" wrote:
>
> >>It doesn't take teh college records, it just takes Trump giving them
> >>the check. If Trump REALLY cared about the "charity" he'd be giving
> >>the money regardless of whether any records were released. Lets see
> >>if he does give the money away. It's all Donald's choice, not O'bs
>
> >>=========================================
>
> >>Exactly. Doesn't matter WHERE the money goes.
>
> >Tell that to the kids at St. Jude's. I bet it matters to them.
>
> Can you identify specific kids that are gonna die? Cool.

Sure I can. Every kid is gonna die. As will you and every other person
on earth, genius.

> >>It's essentially still extortion.
>
> >No, it's not. It's making an offer to *spend* money. Extortion is when
> >you make a demand *for* money.
>
> >Extortion would be if Trump already *had* the records, knew there was
> >something damaging in them, and was asking Obama for $5 mil to keep them
> >quiet.
>
> Uh, that's blackmail.

It's also extortion. Extortion is the legal term, blackmail the general
one.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Missing the obvious point alert.

[Adam H. Kerman]

I find both terms in my state's statutes.

I usually think of the difference as extortion is an attempt to force an
action be taken, and blackmail as cash payoff.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com> wrote:

>It's not extortion, which requires a threat. And extortionists don't
>promise to pay money.

Hehehehehe

An extortionist paying out money may not fully understand the concept.

[Dano]

"Mason Barge" wrote in message
news:p4io88phvtuqcskg8...@4ax.com...

==========================================

While you're technically correct of course...the threat is to WITHHOLD
giving that money to charity. So it essentially IS a threat...a threat to
NOT give to (some) charity...IF the president were to do something no one
has a right to demand. Like asking The Donald to take that mink (or
whatever it is) off his own head.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Yeah, but I think we all understand that Trump's intention here is not to
>help charity, but to embarrass Obama. Trump's an utter buffoon, but he
>did manage to embarrass Obama a bit.

As Obama hasn't bitten the troll, how do you figure that? I haven't heard
him make a single comment on it.

[anim8rFSK]

In article <obio88da8ke1e2g3a...@4ax.com>,

So what's Trump's game? Because simultaneously he's saying that
Michelle Malkin got a gig as a conservative commentator based on the
fact that she's a "dummy"

--
"Every time a Kardashian gets a TV show, an angel dies."

[David Johnston]

On Saturday, October 27, 2012 7:05:29 PM UTC-7, anim8rfsk wrote:

> So what's Trump's game? Because simultaneously he's saying that
>
> Michelle Malkin got a gig as a conservative commentator based on the
>
> fact that she's a "dummy"
>

He wants publicity for the next season of "Apprentice" is all.

[trotsky]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/26/opinion/obeidallah-publicity-whores/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

[Obveeus]

"Mason Barge" <mason...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Yeah, but I think we all understand that Trump's intention here is not to
> help charity, but to embarrass Obama. Trump's an utter buffoon, but he
> did manage to embarrass Obama a bit.

Why would Obama be embarrassed by Trump acting like a fool?

Side note: Trump did not just ask for a copy of Obama's transcript, but
rather copies of all of his college applications and passport applications.
I have to wonder if colleges even bother to keep records like that...and I
wonder even more why individuals would be expected to keep records like
that. Do you have copies of the applications you sent off to colleges a
bazillion years ago? I doubt that very many people keep such things.

[anim8rFSK]

In article <k6i5bb$ksf$1...@dont-email.me>, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com>
wrote:

Passport applications? Who would possibly have that?

[Dano]

"David Johnston" wrote in message

news:cd606ad0-e5aa-4f94...@googlegroups.com...

========================================

A lot of truth in that.

[Mason Barge]

The Department of State. It would be easier for Obama to get than a
college application!

[Mason Barge]

It's a decent strategy. If he doesn't say anything about it, that's one
less time anything about it appears in the press.

[anim8rFSK]

In article <ormq885m5iuoq4t9n...@4ax.com>,

Yeah, I don't even know where'd you'd begin to look for applications to
colleges you didn't attend.

[Obveeus]

Yes, I can believe that the government might store that information for 30+
years. I just highly doubt that many people do. It seems to me that the
day you get the passport is the day when you can reasonably throw away the
application forms (if you had copies of them in the first place). As for
college applications, I doubt that the schools or the students save things
like that. A person might have a copy of the essay they had to write, but
the application to enter the school or the applications for financial aid?
Why would anyone still have that kind of useless clutter after many decades?

[Mason Barge]

Or colleges you did attend. The Donald was just ensuring that he wouldn't
have to pay out the $5 million, IMO.

[JRStern]

On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 19:26:42 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:

>http://www.examiner.com/article/colbert-responds-to-trump-obama-challenge-with-1-million-tea-bag-challenge

>
>
>> Colbert responds to Trump 'Obama challenge' with $1 million 'tea bag' challenge

I'm sure Colbert thinks "there's a joke under there someplace", but I
wonder if he'll still want it if and when he finds it.

J.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Therefore Obama has nothing to be embarrassed about. Agree?

[Obveeus]

True. It would be just like Donald Trump to turn this into a pay-per-view
cable event and follow through.

[anim8rFSK]

In article <au7r88d0m93d8t73b...@4ax.com>,

Like insuring Betty Grabels' legs for a million dollars; I'm sure there
was a clause in there about 'if eaten off by an alligator at the North
Pole"

[Professor Bubba]

In article <k6k1ln$tn8$1...@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com>

I certainly don't have copies of my college admissions forms, and it
would never have occurred to me to make any. I almost certainly would
not have kept the copies on file with me for 43 years. Hell, I don't
even have my undergraduate diploma anymore; I lost it in a move about
twenty-five years ago.

I never would have kept copies of my passport applications, either. I
think I did keep the passports, though -- or most of them, anyway. A
year or three ago, I came across the commemorative one they issued me
during the Bicentennial.

If Obama had claimed Kenyan birth on his passport application, that
"fact" would have been stated on the passport they issued him, wouldn't
it?

[Jim G.]

BTR1701 sent the following on Fri, 26 Oct 2012 19:33:34 -0700:

> The question is why
> Obama won't open up supposedly non-damaging college records to the
> public if it means $5 mil could go to a cancer fund or to help pediatric
> AIDs or something, and at the same time make a fool out of Trump.

And as I've pointed out before, Obama has always been self-promoting and
narcissistic enough that it's practically impossible to imagine him
being modest about a 4.o high school and college GPA, or any such thing.

Quite frankly, the fact that he's not bragging about his academic
achievements (and writing about them in a book) is most likely due to
the fact that his academic record is not impressive.

In any case, I'd like for candidates to be required to release their
transcripts. I'm their employer, after all, and since I require those
transcripts when it comes to other people in my own modest corner of the
professional world, I fail to see why such a thing is not required for
the person who wants to be the most powerful individual on the planet.

--
Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
"I'm really ready for this day to be over." -- Duke Crocker, HAVEN

[Jim G.]

Adam H. Kerman sent the following on Sat, 27 Oct 2012 22:49:05 +0000
(UTC):

> BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
> >
> >It's also extortion. Extortion is the legal term, blackmail the general
> >one.
>
> I find both terms in my state's statutes.

I'm pretty sure that Chicago alone, being Chicago, has something like
173 terms of its own for the various flavors of the concept.

[Jim G.]

Obveeus sent the following on Sat, 27 Oct 2012 22:30:02 -0400:

>
> "Mason Barge" <mason...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Yeah, but I think we all understand that Trump's intention here is not to
> > help charity, but to embarrass Obama. Trump's an utter buffoon, but he
> > did manage to embarrass Obama a bit.
>
> Why would Obama be embarrassed by Trump acting like a fool?

I agree that Trump is a twit, but this constant reminder of the fact
that Obama is in no hurry to release his academic records is something
that will continue to work against Obama. Again, if he had been a
stellar student, then his records would *already* be out there. Why
*wouldn't* he want people to know that he was a brilliant student if
that had been the case?

I can understand why he wouldn't want to be manipulated by a putz like
Trump, but Trump is only reminding us once again that Obama is being
really secretive on this front. And the only reason for such
secretiveness is the obvious one--unless you want to foolishly argue
that this has been the one area of his life where Obama has always been
modest about his personal accomplishments.

[Obveeus]

"Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:

> In any case, I'd like for candidates to be required to release their
> transcripts. I'm their employer,

Agreed...and complete work history and church memberships and club
memberships and criminal history records and many years worth of tax returns
given the nature of the job.

> after all, and since I require those
> transcripts when it comes to other people in my own modest corner of the
> professional world, I fail to see why such a thing is not required for
> the person who wants to be the most powerful individual on the planet.

The problem is, it only seems to be half the voters that think any
particular bit of info should be required to be released...and the half
depends largely on which side they intend to vote for.

[Obveeus]

"Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
> Obveeus sent the following on Sat, 27 Oct 2012 22:30:02 -0400:
>>
>> "Mason Barge" <mason...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Yeah, but I think we all understand that Trump's intention here is not
>> > to
>> > help charity, but to embarrass Obama. Trump's an utter buffoon, but he
>> > did manage to embarrass Obama a bit.
>>
>> Why would Obama be embarrassed by Trump acting like a fool?
>
> I agree that Trump is a twit, but this constant reminder of the fact
> that Obama is in no hurry to release his academic records

Releasing a grade transcript is reasonable. Asking for the release of all
college applications and etc... is not.

> is something that will continue to work against Obama.

True, but it (30+ year old grades) seems a lot less of an issue than the
last 10 years of tax returns that Romney is refusing to release.
...and didn't Obama agree to release his school records if Romney released
his tax returns?

> Again, if he had been a
> stellar student, then his records would *already* be out there. Why
> *wouldn't* he want people to know that he was a brilliant student if
> that had been the case?

I agree. The flip side of that is that the grades of other recent
Presidents/candidates have already set a really low bar for anything that
could legitimately be called as 'embarassing' in comparison. Obama
graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law School while people like Bush and
Kerry were near the bottom of their class.

[shawn]

On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 15:32:58 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:

>
>"Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>> In any case, I'd like for candidates to be required to release their
>> transcripts. I'm their employer,
>
>Agreed...and complete work history and church memberships and club
>memberships and criminal history records and many years worth of tax returns
>given the nature of the job.

I think giving a number of years (2 is certainly not enough) of tax
returns would be useful once we get down to the actual race between
the parties nominee and out of the silly circus that makes up the race
for nomination by the political parties.

>> after all, and since I require those
>> transcripts when it comes to other people in my own modest corner of the
>> professional world, I fail to see why such a thing is not required for
>> the person who wants to be the most powerful individual on the planet.
>
>The problem is, it only seems to be half the voters that think any
>particular bit of info should be required to be released...and the half
>depends largely on which side they intend to vote for.
>

I think it's a waste of time as by the time someone is running for
President they have long past their time in high school/college. I
thought the same thing was true for President Bush. The only thing
that might have been an issue with President Bush is if someone could
have proven that his grades were given to him but no one could do that
so it became a non-issue.

[Obveeus]

"shawn" <nanof...@gNOTmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 15:32:58 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> In any case, I'd like for candidates to be required to release their
>>> transcripts. I'm their employer,
>>
>>Agreed...and complete work history and church memberships and club
>>memberships and criminal history records and many years worth of tax
>>returns
>>given the nature of the job.
>
> I think giving a number of years (2 is certainly not enough) of tax
> returns would be useful once we get down to the actual race between
> the parties nominee and out of the silly circus that makes up the race
> for nomination by the political parties.

That would still require the disclosure of many years of tax returns during
the primaries. Otherwise, they might end up nominating a candidate that
wouldn't pass basic qualification for the final run.

>>> after all, and since I require those
>>> transcripts when it comes to other people in my own modest corner of the
>>> professional world, I fail to see why such a thing is not required for
>>> the person who wants to be the most powerful individual on the planet.
>>
>>The problem is, it only seems to be half the voters that think any
>>particular bit of info should be required to be released...and the half
>>depends largely on which side they intend to vote for.
>>
> I think it's a waste of time as by the time someone is running for
> President they have long past their time in high school/college.

True, but voters would still want to know if a candidate had been suspended
for cheating or drug use on school grounds or sleeping with a professor or
etc...

> I thought the same thing was true for President Bush. The only thing
> that might have been an issue with President Bush is if someone could
> have proven that his grades were given to him but no one could do that
> so it became a non-issue.

That reminds me of another set of records that should be disclosed:
military records...or convenient lack there of as the case may be.

[Tom]

On Oct 29, 7:53 pm, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
> "shawn" <nanoflo...@gNOTmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 15:32:58 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:

I'd like to see the records of Gov. Romney's handling of of the
Stemberg (Staples) investments.

http://www.salon.com/2012/10/25/october_surprise_romney_may_have_screwed_over_his_friends_ex_wife/?fb_action_ids=4383494477020&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=aggregation&fb_aggregation_id=288381481237582

It looks like, at the very minimum, he fucked another woman and didn't
even kiss her first.

Tom

[trotsky]

Sounds like a Mormon to me!

[Mason Barge]

On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 14:23:10 -0500, Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid>
wrote:

>BTR1701 sent the following on Fri, 26 Oct 2012 19:33:34 -0700:
>> The question is why
>> Obama won't open up supposedly non-damaging college records to the
>> public if it means $5 mil could go to a cancer fund or to help pediatric
>> AIDs or something, and at the same time make a fool out of Trump.
>
>And as I've pointed out before, Obama has always been self-promoting and
>narcissistic enough that it's practically impossible to imagine him
>being modest about a 4.o high school and college GPA, or any such thing.
>
>Quite frankly, the fact that he's not bragging about his academic
>achievements (and writing about them in a book) is most likely due to
>the fact that his academic record is not impressive.
>
>In any case, I'd like for candidates to be required to release their
>transcripts.

You'd need a constitutional amendment. Not that the candidate has a right
to privacy or to run for office so much, as you can't deprive citizens of
the right to vote for whomever they want (other than the qualifications
listed in the Constitution).

Law firms can't force lawyers to sign "do not compete" agreements by the
same backdoor logic -- they would deprive clients of the right to choose
an attorney!

[Mason Barge]

It always amuses me that this was an issue for Bush, but not Kerry. Bush
actually had a higher GPA than Kerry did, at the same college at
practically the same time (Kerry graduated two years before Bush).

[Dano]

"Mason Barge" wrote in message
news:3uvv885eluv8c44fj...@4ax.com...

==============================================

I really think there is too much impingement on the personal lives of ALL
candidates. Resulting in fewer good candidates. I thought it was healthy
that Obama was pretty open and transparent about questionable decisions he
made in his youth. Too bad more won't be. But understandable given the
attacks it has brought him. I don't think many normal humans lead their
lives actually thinking one day this will all be an open book...with every
single little thing under future scrutiny. But tax returns...when such a
big part of their job is about deciding on tax laws for the rest of us...is
certainly a valid thing to ask (if not require) to be seen. As it is...it
is NOT required. But it's certainly valid for all to wonder why the
reluctance and base our voting decision upon that desire for secrecy by the
candidate. I really don't care what the grades were. I Obama's case...I
don't see it being important given his achievements. Anyone that would be
an issue for, would not vote for him even had he graduated at the very top
of his class. He graduated from one of the best universities and perhaps
the most prestigious law school in the world. That ought to be enough for
anyone.

[Jim G.]

Obveeus sent the following on Mon, 29 Oct 2012 15:32:58 -0400:

>
> "Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> > In any case, I'd like for candidates to be required to release their
> > transcripts. I'm their employer,
>
> Agreed...and complete work history and church memberships and club
> memberships and criminal history records and many years worth of tax returns
> given the nature of the job.

Church memberships? Not unless it's relevant for some reason, which
won't be the case for most secular jobs--including the presidency. As
for criminal histories and tax returns, a simple background check can
quickly determine whether a given job candidate is a problem child. I'm
not quite sure why club memberships would be relevant to whether someone
has the intellect to do the job in question.

> > after all, and since I require those
> > transcripts when it comes to other people in my own modest corner of the
> > professional world, I fail to see why such a thing is not required for
> > the person who wants to be the most powerful individual on the planet.
>
> The problem is, it only seems to be half the voters that think any
> particular bit of info should be required to be released...and the half
> depends largely on which side they intend to vote for.

To me, it's irrelevant what "the voters" want. The CinC of the U.S.A.
certainly seems to me to be a job requiring at *least* as much academic
background-checking as any mundane management position.

[Jim G.]

shawn sent the following on Mon, 29 Oct 2012 20:38:26 -0400:

> On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 15:32:58 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> In any case, I'd like for candidates to be required to release their
> >> transcripts. I'm their employer,
> >
> >Agreed...and complete work history and church memberships and club
> >memberships and criminal history records and many years worth of tax returns
> >given the nature of the job.
>
> I think giving a number of years (2 is certainly not enough) of tax
> returns would be useful once we get down to the actual race between
> the parties nominee and out of the silly circus that makes up the race
> for nomination by the political parties.

IMO, and on the tax front, all anyone needs to know is that the person
is in good standing with the IRS. How much money someone has made in the
past is not indicative of how well s/he will do as president, but
whether that person actually has a degree (and what his/her grades were)
will always be important to me for a position of this type.

> >> after all, and since I require those
> >> transcripts when it comes to other people in my own modest corner of the
> >> professional world, I fail to see why such a thing is not required for
> >> the person who wants to be the most powerful individual on the planet.
> >
> >The problem is, it only seems to be half the voters that think any
> >particular bit of info should be required to be released...and the half
> >depends largely on which side they intend to vote for.
> >
> I think it's a waste of time as by the time someone is running for
> President they have long past their time in high school/college.

People in the private sector are routinely limited in their job options
if they don't have that diploma, even if they have decades of solid work
experience. I really don't think that the standards should be *lower*
for the most powerful person on the planet.

> I
> thought the same thing was true for President Bush. The only thing
> that might have been an issue with President Bush is if someone could
> have proven that his grades were given to him but no one could do that
> so it became a non-issue.

I don't think that anything will "prove" that grades were "earned" as
opposed to being given unfairly. But requiring transcripts would make it
possible to track down specific professors and the like, which would
make it possible to *maybe* ferret out the candidates who benefited
unfairly in one way or another.

[Jim G.]

Mason Barge sent the following on Tue, 30 Oct 2012 12:30:07 -0400:

> On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 14:23:10 -0500, Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> >BTR1701 sent the following on Fri, 26 Oct 2012 19:33:34 -0700:
> >> The question is why
> >> Obama won't open up supposedly non-damaging college records to the
> >> public if it means $5 mil could go to a cancer fund or to help pediatric
> >> AIDs or something, and at the same time make a fool out of Trump.
> >
> >And as I've pointed out before, Obama has always been self-promoting and
> >narcissistic enough that it's practically impossible to imagine him
> >being modest about a 4.o high school and college GPA, or any such thing.
> >
> >Quite frankly, the fact that he's not bragging about his academic
> >achievements (and writing about them in a book) is most likely due to
> >the fact that his academic record is not impressive.
> >
> >In any case, I'd like for candidates to be required to release their
> >transcripts.
>
> You'd need a constitutional amendment.

Why? I'm not suggesting that the job requirements be altered, after all.
Someone without a college degree could still run for president, but in
my ideal system, no one would be able to artificially inflate his or her
academic achievements in the process.

> Not that the candidate has a right
> to privacy or to run for office so much, as you can't deprive citizens of
> the right to vote for whomever they want (other than the qualifications
> listed in the Constitution).
>
> Law firms can't force lawyers to sign "do not compete" agreements by the
> same backdoor logic -- they would deprive clients of the right to choose
> an attorney!

Lawyers are often too much like Congress in that the laws and/or rules
and/or standards that they apply to others are not always imposed on
themselves.

[Jim G.]

Obveeus sent the following on Mon, 29 Oct 2012 15:41:25 -0400:

>
> "Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
> > Obveeus sent the following on Sat, 27 Oct 2012 22:30:02 -0400:
> >>
> >> "Mason Barge" <mason...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Yeah, but I think we all understand that Trump's intention here is not
> >> > to
> >> > help charity, but to embarrass Obama. Trump's an utter buffoon, but he
> >> > did manage to embarrass Obama a bit.
> >>
> >> Why would Obama be embarrassed by Trump acting like a fool?
> >
> > I agree that Trump is a twit, but this constant reminder of the fact
> > that Obama is in no hurry to release his academic records
>
> Releasing a grade transcript is reasonable. Asking for the release of all
> college applications and etc... is not.

I agree, given that I'm interested in ensuring that the person has the
smarts to do the job, and applications tell me almost nothing in that
regard.

> > is something that will continue to work against Obama.
>
> True, but it (30+ year old grades) seems a lot less of an issue than the
> last 10 years of tax returns that Romney is refusing to release.

I just think that the president should be held to the same standards as
anyone else applying for a remotely comparable job. We're not talking
about hiring stockers at Walmart here, after all.

As for the IRS stuff, all I want is assurances from the IRS that the
person in question is in good standing with them and has no unresolved
issues with them.

> ...and didn't Obama agree to release his school records if Romney released
> his tax returns?

I have no idea and couldn't care less--beyond the fact that Obama seems
perfectly willing to play the Trump game himself, if it's true.

> > Again, if he had been a
> > stellar student, then his records would *already* be out there. Why
> > *wouldn't* he want people to know that he was a brilliant student if
> > that had been the case?
>
> I agree. The flip side of that is that the grades of other recent
> Presidents/candidates have already set a really low bar for anything that
> could legitimately be called as 'embarassing' in comparison. Obama
> graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law School while people like Bush and
> Kerry were near the bottom of their class.

It does raise questions, though, of how someone who presumably just
squeaked by as an undergrad managed to do so well in a premier law
school. To me, it certainly suggests that at least one of these is true:
(a) Obama got special treatment or (b) obtaining a law degree from
Harvard is far from the achievement that I've always considered it to be
in the past.

[Obveeus]

"Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:

> shawn sent the following on Mon, 29 Oct 2012 20:38:26 -0400:

>> I think giving a number of years (2 is certainly not enough) of tax
>> returns would be useful once we get down to the actual race between
>> the parties nominee and out of the silly circus that makes up the race
>> for nomination by the political parties.
>
> IMO, and on the tax front, all anyone needs to know is that the person
> is in good standing with the IRS. How much money someone has made in the
> past is not indicative of how well s/he will do as president,

IMO, not just how much they made, but what their job actually was would be
very important when deciding if they should be given the reins to the
country.

> but whether that person actually has a degree (and what his/her grades
> were)
> will always be important to me for a position of this type.

I'm not quite sure why given that 'straight As' is so frequently a sign of
high academia and severely lacking social skills. The President of the USA
probably needs more social skills that raw intellect. The President can
(and every one of them does) hire people to help figure out the intellectual
stuff. The President just has to have enough intelligence and good social
skills so that he/she can accurately determine which people should be
listened to and then convey the ideas/concepts/proposals to the
House/Senate/population in a way that gets things done.

> I don't think that anything will "prove" that grades were "earned" as
> opposed to being given unfairly. But requiring transcripts would make it
> possible to track down specific professors and the like, which would
> make it possible to *maybe* ferret out the candidates who benefited
> unfairly in one way or another.

The big problem there might be that some professors would have reasons of
their own to slant history. Maybe to support their current political party
or exact some measure of revenge on their former employer or etc...

If this question of academic achievement is bothering you now, why were you
not screaming from the rafters over the same issue with George Bush? If
ever there was an indication that someone was passed along without merit, he
was it.

[Obveeus]

"Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:

> Obveeus sent the following on Mon, 29 Oct 2012 15:32:58 -0400:
>>
>> "Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> > In any case, I'd like for candidates to be required to release their
>> > transcripts. I'm their employer,
>>
>> Agreed...and complete work history and church memberships and club
>> memberships and criminal history records and many years worth of tax
>> returns
>> given the nature of the job.
>
> Church memberships? Not unless it's relevant for some reason,

You don't think a person's beliefs are relevant to whether or not they
should be put in charge of this country? So, if Obama (or Romney or
whomever) were a leader in the Church of Scientology, you don't think
America has a right to know that before entering the voting booth?

> I'm
> not quite sure why club memberships would be relevant to whether someone
> has the intellect to do the job in question.

The President of the US is not being hired only for his intellect. His
actual beliefs and practices are important to most voters. If the candidate
is a member of the NRA, people want to know (some so they will vote for him,
some so they will vote against him). If a candidate is a former Grand
Wizard in the KKK, voters want to know. If the candidate is a member of AA
or NA, voters want to know. If the candidate is a member of a nudist wife
swapping resort in Florida, voters want to know that as well. I don't
think any of those examples could be dismissed as 'personal information that
voters should not care about'.

> To me, it's irrelevant what "the voters" want. The CinC of the U.S.A.
> certainly seems to me to be a job requiring at *least* as much academic
> background-checking as any mundane management position.

Which is why people want to know 'everything' so they can make the most
informed decision possible.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>"Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>Obveeus sent the following on Mon, 29 Oct 2012 15:32:58 -0400:
>>>"Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:

>>>>In any case, I'd like for candidates to be required to release their
>>>>transcripts. I'm their employer,

>>>Agreed...and complete work history and church memberships and club
>>>memberships and criminal history records and many years worth of tax
>>>returns
>>>given the nature of the job.

>>Church memberships? Not unless it's relevant for some reason,

>You don't think a person's beliefs are relevant to whether or not they
>should be put in charge of this country? So, if Obama (or Romney or
>whomever) were a leader in the Church of Scientology, you don't think
>America has a right to know that before entering the voting booth?

Excellent point. If a candidate were Catholic, it would be extremely
important for me to know that he believes in transubstantiation of the
eucharist taking place during Mass, and therefore it's cannibalistic
and to judge him accordingly.

Yes, indeed. Church membership tells me all I want to know about a candidate.

Romney was a leader in the Mormon church. I know something about what
Mormons believe and that his friends said when he first became a bishop,
that he parrotted the party line when counseling.

Thanks to that, I have no reason to hear about his economic theories,
nor understand what kind of governor or businessman he'd been.

[Obveeus]

"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:

> Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:

>>"Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>Church memberships? Not unless it's relevant for some reason,
>
>>You don't think a person's beliefs are relevant to whether or not they
>>should be put in charge of this country? So, if Obama (or Romney or
>>whomever) were a leader in the Church of Scientology, you don't think
>>America has a right to know that before entering the voting booth?

> I have no reason

Ok, but what has that got to do with the subject at hand?

[Adam H. Kerman]

The subject at hand that you're an asshole?

Lemme know when you and Jim stop sucking each other off and this
newsgroup can return to normal. Or you two perverts take it behind
closed doors.

[shawn]

On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 17:19:11 -0500, Jim G.
<jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:

>shawn sent the following on Mon, 29 Oct 2012 20:38:26 -0400:
>> On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 15:32:58 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>> >
>> >> In any case, I'd like for candidates to be required to release their
>> >> transcripts. I'm their employer,
>> >
>> >Agreed...and complete work history and church memberships and club
>> >memberships and criminal history records and many years worth of tax returns
>> >given the nature of the job.
>>
>> I think giving a number of years (2 is certainly not enough) of tax
>> returns would be useful once we get down to the actual race between
>> the parties nominee and out of the silly circus that makes up the race
>> for nomination by the political parties.
>
>IMO, and on the tax front, all anyone needs to know is that the person
>is in good standing with the IRS. How much money someone has made in the
>past is not indicative of how well s/he will do as president, but
>whether that person actually has a degree (and what his/her grades were)
>will always be important to me for a position of this type.

No, but it is something that the press can use to investigate the past
of the nominees. (This applies to everyone including any
Libertarian/Green/Tea Party nominees.) I don't know that I'm worried
about the grades twenty years after graduation but knowing that a
person graduated would be nice to know. Of course we ALWAYS know
whether a person has graduated from college because they will have
used that in their past campaigns.

>> >> after all, and since I require those
>> >> transcripts when it comes to other people in my own modest corner of the
>> >> professional world, I fail to see why such a thing is not required for
>> >> the person who wants to be the most powerful individual on the planet.
>> >
>> >The problem is, it only seems to be half the voters that think any
>> >particular bit of info should be required to be released...and the half
>> >depends largely on which side they intend to vote for.
>> >
>> I think it's a waste of time as by the time someone is running for
>> President they have long past their time in high school/college.
>
>People in the private sector are routinely limited in their job options
>if they don't have that diploma, even if they have decades of solid work
>experience. I really don't think that the standards should be *lower*
>for the most powerful person on the planet.

But many companies don't care whether you have a diploma or not IFF
you can do the job. Especially if you are better at it than many
others with a degree. A degree is a sign that you can fulfill certain
requirements and may have gained certain knowledge that a person may
not have gained otherwise. That doesn't mean someone that hasn't
gained a degree can't complete a complex task or gained the same sort
of knowledge. It's just much harder to do that without attending
college. Though with the costs going up every year it may become more
of an issue going forward as we are reaching a point where lower
income individuals may find it impossible to attend college of any
kind, let alone the better regarded schools.

[shawn]

On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 17:19:11 -0500, Jim G.

Or for whatever reason he wasn't as focused during his undergrad
years. Many students don't dedicate themselves until they finally
figure out what they want out of college. Also issues outside of
college can interfere with how someone does. I don't know if either of
those apply to either Romney or President Obama but I'm sure it has
applied to at least of the Presidential candidates over the years
since the USA was founded.

[Obveeus]

"shawn" <nanof...@gNOTmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 17:19:11 -0500, Jim G.
> <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>People in the private sector are routinely limited in their job options
>>if they don't have that diploma, even if they have decades of solid work
>>experience. I really don't think that the standards should be *lower*
>>for the most powerful person on the planet.
>
> But many companies don't care whether you have a diploma or not IFF
> you can do the job. Especially if you are better at it than many
> others with a degree.

I disagree. Jim is correct. A person without the degree won't even get an
interview for most high level jobs because the background prerequisites will
include an advanced degree, not just work experience. The only way around
that is if your family owns the company.

> It's just much harder to do that without attending
> college. Though with the costs going up every year it may become more
> of an issue going forward as we are reaching a point where lower
> income individuals may find it impossible to attend college of any
> kind, let alone the better regarded schools.

True, but the even bigger problem, IMO, is that college is getting so
expensive that attending is making people poor. People can look at the
statistics about how much more college graduates make over their lifetime
than non-college graduates, but those statistics all look at the past.
Meanwhile, college tuition has been outpacing inflation by a wide margin for
years, so debt levels for college graduates are becoming more and more of a
long term burden. At some point, the scale is going to tip the other way
and people that join the workforce 4+ years sooner (and don't accumulate the
tuition debt) are going to have a lifelong financial advantage.

[Jim G.]

shawn sent the following on Wed, 31 Oct 2012 09:12:58 -0400:

> On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 17:19:11 -0500, Jim G.
> <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> >shawn sent the following on Mon, 29 Oct 2012 20:38:26 -0400:
> >> On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 15:32:58 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> In any case, I'd like for candidates to be required to release their
> >> >> transcripts. I'm their employer,
> >> >
> >> >Agreed...and complete work history and church memberships and club
> >> >memberships and criminal history records and many years worth of tax returns
> >> >given the nature of the job.
> >>
> >> I think giving a number of years (2 is certainly not enough) of tax
> >> returns would be useful once we get down to the actual race between
> >> the parties nominee and out of the silly circus that makes up the race
> >> for nomination by the political parties.
> >
> >IMO, and on the tax front, all anyone needs to know is that the person
> >is in good standing with the IRS. How much money someone has made in the
> >past is not indicative of how well s/he will do as president, but
> >whether that person actually has a degree (and what his/her grades were)
> >will always be important to me for a position of this type.
>
> No, but it is something that the press can use to investigate the past
> of the nominees. (This applies to everyone including any
> Libertarian/Green/Tea Party nominees.)

But if a candidate is in good standing with the IRS, then what is there
to investigate about that person in terms of his taxes? I'm obviously
missing something here.

> I don't know that I'm worried
> about the grades twenty years after graduation but knowing that a
> person graduated would be nice to know.

Right. Especially if they claim more than is true.

> Of course we ALWAYS know
> whether a person has graduated from college because they will have
> used that in their past campaigns.

Yeah, but you'd be surprised how often hearsay becomes "proof." A lot of
people exaggerate or outright lie about their past accomplishments, and
it's not as if the academic background checks are always all that
thorough for a low-level municipal candidate of one type or another. And
while you'd think that the person wouldn't push his or her luck on that
front, you'd be surprised. Heck, there was an ND football coach who
lasted all of several days for just that sort of problem; he listed an
academic achievement that he just didn't have, and it slipped past
everyone prior to ND doing its due diligence (if a bit late with said
diligence).

> >> >> after all, and since I require those
> >> >> transcripts when it comes to other people in my own modest corner of the
> >> >> professional world, I fail to see why such a thing is not required for
> >> >> the person who wants to be the most powerful individual on the planet.
> >> >
> >> >The problem is, it only seems to be half the voters that think any
> >> >particular bit of info should be required to be released...and the half
> >> >depends largely on which side they intend to vote for.
> >> >
> >> I think it's a waste of time as by the time someone is running for
> >> President they have long past their time in high school/college.

For better or worse, it's considered *eternally* relevant in the rest of
the professional world if you're changing jobs, so I don't know why it
should be less so for the person seeking to be the most powerful person
on the planet.

> >People in the private sector are routinely limited in their job options
> >if they don't have that diploma, even if they have decades of solid work
> >experience. I really don't think that the standards should be *lower*
> >for the most powerful person on the planet.
>
> But many companies don't care whether you have a diploma or not IFF
> you can do the job. Especially if you are better at it than many
> others with a degree.

That's simply not true. It *should* be, IMO, but it's not. Many, many
companies will instantly put your résumé in the garbage pile if they
have a degree requirement and you don't have that degree. And many will
require you to bring transcripts to the interview, in fact. No
transcripts, no interview.

> A degree is a sign that you can fulfill certain
> requirements and may have gained certain knowledge that a person may
> not have gained otherwise. That doesn't mean someone that hasn't
> gained a degree can't complete a complex task or gained the same sort
> of knowledge. It's just much harder to do that without attending
> college. Though with the costs going up every year it may become more
> of an issue going forward as we are reaching a point where lower
> income individuals may find it impossible to attend college of any
> kind, let alone the better regarded schools.

Again, for better or worse, it's how it's done. That degree (or lack
thereof) is one of the first filters for *any* professional position.

[Jim G.]

Obveeus sent the following on Wed, 31 Oct 2012 09:39:08 -0400:

For most professional career paths, a Bachelor's degree is today's
equivalent of the high school diploma of, say, a generation ago. And
with so many college graduates to choose from these days, most companies
are filtering things even more in terms of seeking advanced degrees
and/or certifications. Add in the grade inflation that we *all* know has
been going on for decades and you're left with a Bachelor's degree that
is losing its value day by day even as the cost of obtaining it
continues to rise. Before long, a Master's is gonna be a basic
requirement for many things, replacing the Bachelor's that previously
replaced the high school diploma, and on and on...

The way things are going, it's gonna require a Ph.D. to get a job in a
typing pool by the time 2050 rolls around.

[Jim G.]

Obveeus sent the following on Tue, 30 Oct 2012 19:30:00 -0400:

>
> "Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Obveeus sent the following on Mon, 29 Oct 2012 15:32:58 -0400:
> >>
> >> "Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> >> > In any case, I'd like for candidates to be required to release their
> >> > transcripts. I'm their employer,
> >>
> >> Agreed...and complete work history and church memberships and club
> >> memberships and criminal history records and many years worth of tax
> >> returns
> >> given the nature of the job.
> >
> > Church memberships? Not unless it's relevant for some reason,
>
> You don't think a person's beliefs are relevant to whether or not they
> should be put in charge of this country? So, if Obama (or Romney or
> whomever) were a leader in the Church of Scientology, you don't think
> America has a right to know that before entering the voting booth?

I guess I'm just not seeing how someone could keep their church
affiliation hidden for years and years, so the whole idea just seemed
irrelevant. And I'm not seeing how someone with a really unorthodox
affiliation would ever rise to the level of being a serious candidate in
the first place. And I say that as someone who enjoys Dan Brown just as
much as the next thriller reader.

> > I'm
> > not quite sure why club memberships would be relevant to whether someone
> > has the intellect to do the job in question.
>
> The President of the US is not being hired only for his intellect. His
> actual beliefs and practices are important to most voters. If the candidate
> is a member of the NRA, people want to know (some so they will vote for him,
> some so they will vote against him). If a candidate is a former Grand
> Wizard in the KKK, voters want to know. If the candidate is a member of AA
> or NA, voters want to know.

We have to separate "need to know" from, as you point out here, "want to
know." And you'll note that I didn't question your inclusion of club
memberships above, as those are often easier to keep under the radar
than church membership.

> If the candidate is a member of a nudist wife
> swapping resort in Florida, voters want to know that as well. I don't
> think any of those examples could be dismissed as 'personal information that
> voters should not care about'.

Unless there's a valid reason for why/how something could impact the
candidate's ability to perform his or her duties as president, I think
that there are lines that can be drawn with regard to personal
information.

> > To me, it's irrelevant what "the voters" want. The CinC of the U.S.A.
> > certainly seems to me to be a job requiring at *least* as much academic
> > background-checking as any mundane management position.
>
> Which is why people want to know 'everything' so they can make the most
> informed decision possible.

I think we both know that it often (usually?) has little to do with them
wanting to make an informed decision and much more to do with them
wanting to butt into someone's personal life because they have little
else to entertain them. I always get a kick out of a person who wants to
know every last private detail about a candidate while not even being
able to, say, list the three branches of government.

[Jim G.]

shawn sent the following on Wed, 31 Oct 2012 09:16:44 -0400:

I find it really hard to believe that there are people out there who can
blow off high school, blow off college, develop no good study habits
during that time, and then turn around and graduate with honors from
*any* law school, let along Harvard. Unless, of course, Harvard has
become the joke that many claim it has become.

> Many students don't dedicate themselves until they finally
> figure out what they want out of college.

But their grades are at least good enough to get them *into* college in
the first place. Again, Obama's own books admit that he had little or no
academic discipline at the college or high school level, and that he
spent plenty of time in a drug-induced haze. All of which raises the
question of how he qualified for Harvard Law in the first place. Yes, I
can understand how a person could be late to determine what he wants to
study and specialize in, but when someone spends his high school years
as Obama did, he rarely gets a shot at a good college. And when someone
does as poorly as an undergrad as Obama presumably did, he rarely gets a
shot at a good law school, let alone Harvard Law.

There are simply lots and lots of unanswered questions here, which (to
me) explain why Obama is in no hurry to release his transcripts.

> Also issues outside of
> college can interfere with how someone does.

True. But colleges don't usually care--especially colleges that can pick
and choose from an overabundance of candidates. For them, it's sink or
swim, baby. If you can't handle it, then there are 20 other kids who
want your dorm room so that they can prove that they *can* handle it.

Heck, I went to Illinois, which is hardly Princeton or MIT, and the
pressures were intense. As such, my college experience was vastly
different than the experience that friends had at, say, Illinois State
or St. Ambrose. And I can say without a doubt that I would not have had
a shot at Illinois if my high school record and priorities had mirrored
Obama's.

[Obveeus]

"Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:

> And I can say without a doubt that I would not have had
> a shot at Illinois if my high school record and priorities had mirrored
> Obama's.

You say this as if you have some actual knowledge of his grades and test
scores. Keep in mind that when some people remark 'I was not a disciplined
student' they mean that they once got a B+ in a class instead of an A...or
even all B's while they went on to score a 1450 on the SATs or a 175 on the
LSATs.

Meanwhile, I think it is already well known that Harvard, like many/most/all
other colleges, reaches a little lower to find qualified minority
candidates...which, BTW, are still more qualified to get in than the legacy
candidates at the Ivy league schools. Trump isn't trying to prove that
Obama's grades/test scores were not good enough to qualify him for admission
without favoritism. Trump is trying to prove 'birther' issues by uncovering
proof that Obama made some claim of foreign heritage in an effort to get
special admission treatment.

[Obveeus]

"Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
> But if a candidate is in good standing with the IRS, then what is there
> to investigate about that person in terms of his taxes? I'm obviously
> missing something here.

It would probably take more than just the tax returns to determine the true
financial 'games' that most rich people play. Still, a tax return might
show where they repatriated a bunch of income that had been hidden overseas
until the more recent crackdown/amesty period. It might also show what kind
of charitable donations they were making (and yes, some people would look at
a donation to the Leukemia Foundation much differently than a donation to
build a new megachurch an indoor basketball facility). Past tax returns
could even uncover other forms of income for candidates that were working
for multiple firms/cabals/whatnot, but only disclosing the less
controversial job to the public...imagine, for example, a lawyer that worked
for a charity that tried to preserve wetlands, but also worked for a coal
company that was trying to get out of their black lung payments and evade
worker testing for safety requirements. You can guess which job the
candidate would claim when running for public office.

>> I don't know that I'm worried
>> about the grades twenty years after graduation but knowing that a
>> person graduated would be nice to know.
>
> Right. Especially if they claim more than is true.

Is there anyone that believes Obama is lying about graduating high school,
Columbia, Harvard?

>> >> I think it's a waste of time as by the time someone is running for
>> >> President they have long past their time in high school/college.
>
> For better or worse, it's considered *eternally* relevant in the rest of
> the professional world if you're changing jobs, so I don't know why it
> should be less so for the person seeking to be the most powerful person
> on the planet.

I agree, but then again, so is every other past job you held throughout your
life. It may be ok for the average joe to discard unsuccessful/undesireable
positions from their resume, but when it comes to President, people have a
right to know about all their past employment, IMO.

[anim8rFSK]

In article <eoe598phprljpct2i...@4ax.com>,

Every time Natalie Portman releases a statement about how smart she is,
it pretty much proves Harvard is either a joke or is at the very least
handing out free Affirmative Action degrees.

--
"Every time a Kardashian gets a TV show, an angel dies."

[trotsky]

On 11/1/12 6:53 PM, anim8rFSK wrote:

> Every time Natalie Portman releases a statement about how smart she is,
> it pretty much proves Harvard is either a joke or is at the very least
> handing out free Affirmative Action degrees.

More whining about women from a closet homosexual.

[Jim G.]

Obveeus sent the following on Thu, 1 Nov 2012 15:40:13 -0400:

>
> "Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
> > But if a candidate is in good standing with the IRS, then what is there
> > to investigate about that person in terms of his taxes? I'm obviously
> > missing something here.
>
> It would probably take more than just the tax returns to determine the true
> financial 'games' that most rich people play.

Unless they get caught playing an illegal "game," I couldn't care less
what they do in their efforts to hold onto their own money.

> Still, a tax return might
> show where they repatriated a bunch of income that had been hidden overseas
> until the more recent crackdown/amesty period. It might also show what kind
> of charitable donations they were making (and yes, some people would look at
> a donation to the Leukemia Foundation much differently than a donation to
> build a new megachurch an indoor basketball facility). Past tax returns
> could even uncover other forms of income for candidates that were working
> for multiple firms/cabals/whatnot, but only disclosing the less
> controversial job to the public...imagine, for example, a lawyer that worked
> for a charity that tried to preserve wetlands, but also worked for a coal
> company that was trying to get out of their black lung payments and evade
> worker testing for safety requirements. You can guess which job the
> candidate would claim when running for public office.
>
> >> I don't know that I'm worried
> >> about the grades twenty years after graduation but knowing that a
> >> person graduated would be nice to know.
> >
> > Right. Especially if they claim more than is true.
>
> Is there anyone that believes Obama is lying about graduating high school,
> Columbia, Harvard?

I don't know. I would guess that there are some people, though. Me, I
continue to wonder (first and foremost) how a high school stoner could
ever end up getting into Harvard Law.

> >> >> I think it's a waste of time as by the time someone is running for
> >> >> President they have long past their time in high school/college.
> >
> > For better or worse, it's considered *eternally* relevant in the rest of
> > the professional world if you're changing jobs, so I don't know why it
> > should be less so for the person seeking to be the most powerful person
> > on the planet.
>
> I agree, but then again, so is every other past job you held throughout your
> life. It may be ok for the average joe to discard unsuccessful/undesireable
> positions from their resume, but when it comes to President, people have a
> right to know about all their past employment, IMO.

Right. Anything that's routine procedure when hiring a manager for a
Fortune 500 company should also apply to the person who wants to be
president.

[Jim G.]

Obveeus sent the following on Thu, 1 Nov 2012 15:26:07 -0400:

>
> "Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> > And I can say without a doubt that I would not have had
> > a shot at Illinois if my high school record and priorities had mirrored
> > Obama's.
>
> You say this as if you have some actual knowledge of his grades and test
> scores. Keep in mind that when some people remark 'I was not a disciplined
> student' they mean that they once got a B+ in a class instead of an A...or
> even all B's while they went on to score a 1450 on the SATs or a 175 on the
> LSATs.

From what I can gather, he was a high school stoner. And I don't know of
any other high school stoners who have gone on to Harvard Law. Mainly
because they can't even get into a halfway decent college in order to
earn a Bachelor's degree of some sort.

> Meanwhile, I think it is already well known that Harvard, like many/most/all
> other colleges, reaches a little lower to find qualified minority
> candidates...

And as long as we put diversity concerns before competency ones in *any*
field, we ensure that we will never be our best as a society. We end up
with less than the best [fill in career path of your choice here]
because some good ones never get a chance because they were bumped by
someone with less talent.

> which, BTW, are still more qualified to get in than the legacy
> candidates at the Ivy league schools.

You won't see me supporting legacy candidates, either.

> Trump isn't trying to prove that
> Obama's grades/test scores were not good enough to qualify him for admission
> without favoritism. Trump is trying to prove 'birther' issues by uncovering
> proof that Obama made some claim of foreign heritage in an effort to get
> special admission treatment.

I have no idea what Trump's game is, as I don't pay particular attention
to attention whores.

[Obveeus]

"Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:

> Obveeus sent the following on Thu, 1 Nov 2012 15:26:07 -0400:
>>
>> "Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> > And I can say without a doubt that I would not have had
>> > a shot at Illinois if my high school record and priorities had mirrored
>> > Obama's.
>>
>> You say this as if you have some actual knowledge of his grades and test
>> scores. Keep in mind that when some people remark 'I was not a
>> disciplined
>> student' they mean that they once got a B+ in a class instead of an
>> A...or
>> even all B's while they went on to score a 1450 on the SATs or a 175 on
>> the
>> LSATs.
>
> From what I can gather, he was a high school stoner. And I don't know of
> any other high school stoners who have gone on to Harvard Law. Mainly
> because they can't even get into a halfway decent college in order to
> earn a Bachelor's degree of some sort.

By your logic, George W. Bush was an alcoholic and a cocaine addict, so how
did he manage at Yale and Harvard? Well, yes, we know he was in the bottom
20% or so of his class rather than Magna Cum Laude (like Obama), so maybe
that reflects the level of drug use that was done between the two?

[Obveeus]

"Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
> Obveeus sent the following on Thu, 1 Nov 2012 15:40:13 -0400:
>>
>> "Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>> > But if a candidate is in good standing with the IRS, then what is there
>> > to investigate about that person in terms of his taxes? I'm obviously
>> > missing something here.
>>
>> It would probably take more than just the tax returns to determine the
>> true
>> financial 'games' that most rich people play.
>
> Unless they get caught playing an illegal "game," I couldn't care less
> what they do in their efforts to hold onto their own money.

Most people have more concern with the financial dealing of someone they are
going to hand ove rthe ibggest economy in the world to.

It seems odd that you think a person's finances do not matter to their
ability to lead the country, but their grade in Freshman English does.

>> Is there anyone that believes Obama is lying about graduating high
>> school,
>> Columbia, Harvard?
>
> I don't know. I would guess that there are some people, though. Me, I
> continue to wonder (first and foremost) how a high school stoner could
> ever end up getting into Harvard Law.

I don't know why that surprises you at all. I knew a number of people in
high school that used drugs regularly and they got into places like
Stanford, Berkley, and MIT. Grass use is not any more dangerous to mental
success than alcohol use.

>> I agree, but then again, so is every other past job you held throughout
>> your
>> life. It may be ok for the average joe to discard
>> unsuccessful/undesireable
>> positions from their resume, but when it comes to President, people have
>> a
>> right to know about all their past employment, IMO.
>
> Right. Anything that's routine procedure when hiring a manager for a
> Fortune 500 company should also apply to the person who wants to be
> president.

...and more since it is a much more important job.

[shawn]

On Fri, 02 Nov 2012 14:41:06 -0500, Jim G.
<jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:

>Obveeus sent the following on Thu, 1 Nov 2012 15:26:07 -0400:
>>
>> "Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> > And I can say without a doubt that I would not have had
>> > a shot at Illinois if my high school record and priorities had mirrored
>> > Obama's.
>>
>> You say this as if you have some actual knowledge of his grades and test
>> scores. Keep in mind that when some people remark 'I was not a disciplined
>> student' they mean that they once got a B+ in a class instead of an A...or
>> even all B's while they went on to score a 1450 on the SATs or a 175 on the
>> LSATs.
>
>From what I can gather, he was a high school stoner. And I don't know of
>any other high school stoners who have gone on to Harvard Law. Mainly
>because they can't even get into a halfway decent college in order to
>earn a Bachelor's degree of some sort.

Which means he probably wasn't a stoner. More like someone who just
enjoyed the occasional toke. Much like many kids like to drink on the
weekends. That's enough to make it count in his mind but not enough to
stop him for getting into college. Based on his performances as
President it's clear that he has a capable mind.

>> Meanwhile, I think it is already well known that Harvard, like many/most/all
>> other colleges, reaches a little lower to find qualified minority
>> candidates...
>
>And as long as we put diversity concerns before competency ones in *any*
>field, we ensure that we will never be our best as a society. We end up
>with less than the best [fill in career path of your choice here]
>because some good ones never get a chance because they were bumped by
>someone with less talent.

It's a choice being made to make up for the lack of opportunity that
some groups of had in the past. You can disagree with the policy but
it's a choice that our elected leaders have made over the years
directly and by who they nominate for other offices (such as judges.)

>> which, BTW, are still more qualified to get in than the legacy
>> candidates at the Ivy league schools.
>
>You won't see me supporting legacy candidates, either.

I assume most legacy candidates get picked because they get more
donations. Don't think that's a good idea but I can understand it.

>> Trump isn't trying to prove that
>> Obama's grades/test scores were not good enough to qualify him for admission
>> without favoritism. Trump is trying to prove 'birther' issues by uncovering
>> proof that Obama made some claim of foreign heritage in an effort to get
>> special admission treatment.
>
>I have no idea what Trump's game is, as I don't pay particular attention
>to attention whores.

Trump is out to keep his name in the press. Everything else is
secondary to that.

[erilar]

In article <ikq898dj1mq9ussdc...@4ax.com>,

shawn <nanof...@gNOTmail.com> wrote:

> Trump is out to keep his name in the press. Everything else is
> secondary to that.

It's really hard to believe someone as stupid as Trump made all that
money.

--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist

[Dano]

"erilar" wrote in message
news:drache-71B9AD....@news.eternal-september.org...

In article <ikq898dj1mq9ussdc...@4ax.com>,
shawn <nanof...@gNOTmail.com> wrote:

> Trump is out to keep his name in the press. Everything else is
> secondary to that.

It's really hard to believe someone as stupid as Trump made all that
money.

===========================================

Helps when you win the daddy lottery at birth.

[Dano]

"erilar" wrote in message
news:drache-71B9AD....@news.eternal-september.org...

In article <ikq898dj1mq9ussdc...@4ax.com>,
shawn <nanof...@gNOTmail.com> wrote:

> Trump is out to keep his name in the press. Everything else is
> secondary to that.

It's really hard to believe someone as stupid as Trump made all that
money.

[Mason Barge]

On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 17:19:11 -0500, Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid>
wrote:

>Mason Barge sent the following on Tue, 30 Oct 2012 12:30:07 -0400:
>> On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 14:23:10 -0500, Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >BTR1701 sent the following on Fri, 26 Oct 2012 19:33:34 -0700:
>> >> The question is why
>> >> Obama won't open up supposedly non-damaging college records to the
>> >> public if it means $5 mil could go to a cancer fund or to help pediatric
>> >> AIDs or something, and at the same time make a fool out of Trump.
>> >
>> >And as I've pointed out before, Obama has always been self-promoting and
>> >narcissistic enough that it's practically impossible to imagine him
>> >being modest about a 4.o high school and college GPA, or any such thing.
>> >
>> >Quite frankly, the fact that he's not bragging about his academic
>> >achievements (and writing about them in a book) is most likely due to
>> >the fact that his academic record is not impressive.

>> >
>> >In any case, I'd like for candidates to be required to release their
>> >transcripts.
>>

>> You'd need a constitutional amendment.
>
>Why? I'm not suggesting that the job requirements be altered, after all.
>Someone without a college degree could still run for president, but in
>my ideal system, no one would be able to artificially inflate his or her
>academic achievements in the process.
>
>> Not that the candidate has a right
>> to privacy or to run for office so much, as you can't deprive citizens of
>> the right to vote for whomever they want (other than the qualifications
>> listed in the Constitution).
>>
>> Law firms can't force lawyers to sign "do not compete" agreements by the
>> same backdoor logic -- they would deprive clients of the right to choose
>> an attorney!
>
>Lawyers are often too much like Congress in that the laws and/or rules
>and/or standards that they apply to others are not always imposed on
>themselves.

Actually, it's pretty much the other way around in this case. The big
powers in the legal world would love to have enforceable non-compete
agreements.

A lot of people would be surprised about how often intellectual honesty
prevails over personal bias among federal judges. I think the media
encourage this by reporting Supreme Ct. decisions as if they were entirely
political (which they often are) because that's what people can
understand.

Notice the complete absence of discussion of the nature and limits of
taxation in the discussion of the Obamacare decision. The media didn't
want to bore everyone. CJ Roberts was just a black box who voted against
his "conservative" politics.

[Mason Barge]

On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 16:11:17 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:

>In article <au7r88d0m93d8t73b...@4ax.com>,
> Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 12:22:33 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <ormq885m5iuoq4t9n...@4ax.com>,
>> > Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 23:06:13 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >In article <k6i5bb$ksf$1...@dont-email.me>, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com>
>> >> >wrote:

>> >> >
>> >> >> "Mason Barge" <mason...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Yeah, but I think we all understand that Trump's intention here is
>> >> >> > not
>> >> >> > to
>> >> >> > help charity, but to embarrass Obama. Trump's an utter buffoon, but
>> >> >> > he
>> >> >> > did manage to embarrass Obama a bit.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Why would Obama be embarrassed by Trump acting like a fool?
>> >> >>

>> >> >> Side note: Trump did not just ask for a copy of Obama's transcript,
>> >> >> but
>> >> >> rather copies of all of his college applications and passport
>> >> >> applications.
>> >> >> I have to wonder if colleges even bother to keep records like
>> >> >> that...and I
>> >> >> wonder even more why individuals would be expected to keep records like
>> >> >> that. Do you have copies of the applications you sent off to colleges
>> >> >> a
>> >> >> bazillion years ago? I doubt that very many people keep such things.
>> >> >
>> >> >Passport applications? Who would possibly have that?
>> >>
>> >> The Department of State. It would be easier for Obama to get than a
>> >> college application!
>> >
>> >Yeah, I don't even know where'd you'd begin to look for applications to
>> >colleges you didn't attend.
>>
>> Or colleges you did attend. The Donald was just ensuring that he wouldn't
>> have to pay out the $5 million, IMO.
>
>Like insuring Betty Grabels' legs for a million dollars; I'm sure there
>was a clause in there about 'if eaten off by an alligator at the North
>Pole"

There was probably an "act of God" exclusion. She wasn't Canadian, was
she?

[Mason Barge]

On Sat, 03 Nov 2012 17:26:03 -0500, erilar <dra...@chibardun.net.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <ikq898dj1mq9ussdc...@4ax.com>,
> shawn <nanof...@gNOTmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Trump is out to keep his name in the press. Everything else is
>> secondary to that.
>
>It's really hard to believe someone as stupid as Trump made all that
>money.

Haha. Kim Kardashian is a multi-multi-milllionaire.

The corrolation of intelligence to income is statistically significant,
but not even close to determinative.

[Dano]

"Mason Barge" wrote in message
news:cp9d98d9qcmmifvch...@4ax.com...

========================================

Accidents of birth are pretty "determinative" no? Another who chose her
parents well.

[anim8rFSK]

In article <6o9d98106f64aqpn4...@4ax.com>,

Hah! Nope, St. Louis gal.

[Jim G.]

Obveeus sent the following on Fri, 2 Nov 2012 16:21:12 -0400:

>
> "Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
> > Obveeus sent the following on Thu, 1 Nov 2012 15:40:13 -0400:
> >>
> >> "Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
> >> > But if a candidate is in good standing with the IRS, then what is there
> >> > to investigate about that person in terms of his taxes? I'm obviously
> >> > missing something here.
> >>
> >> It would probably take more than just the tax returns to determine the
> >> true
> >> financial 'games' that most rich people play.
> >
> > Unless they get caught playing an illegal "game," I couldn't care less
> > what they do in their efforts to hold onto their own money.
>
> Most people have more concern with the financial dealing of someone they are
> going to hand ove rthe ibggest economy in the world to.

Most people need hobbies and are just plain nosy. IMO, all they need to
know about a candidate's *personal* past in this regard is that s/he
hasn't broken any financial or tax laws. Beyond that, their interest
should be in what the candidate plans to do in the *future*.

> It seems odd that you think a person's finances do not matter to their
> ability to lead the country, but their grade in Freshman English does.

I'm a libertarian with a small L. IMO, the only thing that the president
should be "doing" for the economy is to avoid acting as a roadblock. The
more people think that a president could/should have a major impact on
the economy, the more those people are acknowledging that they're really
not free market advocates, regardless of what they might claim.

> >> Is there anyone that believes Obama is lying about graduating high
> >> school,
> >> Columbia, Harvard?
> >
> > I don't know. I would guess that there are some people, though. Me, I
> > continue to wonder (first and foremost) how a high school stoner could
> > ever end up getting into Harvard Law.
>
> I don't know why that surprises you at all. I knew a number of people in
> high school that used drugs regularly and they got into places like
> Stanford, Berkley, and MIT. Grass use is not any more dangerous to mental
> success than alcohol use.

Again, I don't follow any politician's personal life very closely, and
that includes Obama. But from what I've gathered, his drug use was more
than just a casual thing. And in terms of the extracurriculars that also
play a large role in a kid's chances to get into the school of his or
her choice, it's hard to do much when you're stoned half the time.

As for the stoners that *I* knew of back in my own high school days,
*none* of them got into Illinois, let alone an Ivy.

> >> I agree, but then again, so is every other past job you held throughout
> >> your
> >> life. It may be ok for the average joe to discard
> >> unsuccessful/undesireable
> >> positions from their resume, but when it comes to President, people have
> >> a
> >> right to know about all their past employment, IMO.
> >
> > Right. Anything that's routine procedure when hiring a manager for a
> > Fortune 500 company should also apply to the person who wants to be
> > president.
>
> ...and more since it is a much more important job.

Yep. But there's no "more" required in terms of personal finances beyond
the "no laws have been broken," IMO. As for a candidate's past beyond
that, I just want some assurances that he or she is up the task at hand,
and that begins with having the mental skills and mental discipline
required for success.

[Jim G.]

Obveeus sent the following on Fri, 2 Nov 2012 16:16:28 -0400:

>
> "Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Obveeus sent the following on Thu, 1 Nov 2012 15:26:07 -0400:
> >>
> >> "Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> >> > And I can say without a doubt that I would not have had
> >> > a shot at Illinois if my high school record and priorities had mirrored
> >> > Obama's.
> >>
> >> You say this as if you have some actual knowledge of his grades and test
> >> scores. Keep in mind that when some people remark 'I was not a
> >> disciplined
> >> student' they mean that they once got a B+ in a class instead of an
> >> A...or
> >> even all B's while they went on to score a 1450 on the SATs or a 175 on
> >> the
> >> LSATs.
> >
> > From what I can gather, he was a high school stoner. And I don't know of
> > any other high school stoners who have gone on to Harvard Law. Mainly
> > because they can't even get into a halfway decent college in order to
> > earn a Bachelor's degree of some sort.
>
> By your logic, George W. Bush was an alcoholic and a cocaine addict,

Yes, although I don't know when it started.

> so how
> did he manage at Yale and Harvard?

Not too well, apparently. Are you suggesting that a "but they all did
it" argument is gonna work well here? Or are you assuming that I believe
that Bush was *ever* the best candidate for the job himself, or that he
didn't receive unfair advantages of his own?

> Well, yes, we know he was in the bottom
> 20% or so of his class rather than Magna Cum Laude (like Obama), so maybe
> that reflects the level of drug use that was done between the two?

Once again, I'm more interested in how Obama got a chance for Cum Laude
status in the first place. In my own case, I've known many bright and
motivated and straight-as-an-arrow kids in the top 5% of their high
school classes with sports and/or other extracurriculars on their
résumés who don't even get a sniff at an Ivy, but here's stoner Obama
(and his academic record that he's clearly not proud of) somehow
managing to do it. Odd, that.

[Jim G.]

shawn sent the following on Fri, 02 Nov 2012 20:58:01 -0400:

> On Fri, 02 Nov 2012 14:41:06 -0500, Jim G.
> <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> >Obveeus sent the following on Thu, 1 Nov 2012 15:26:07 -0400:
> >>
> >> "Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> >> > And I can say without a doubt that I would not have had
> >> > a shot at Illinois if my high school record and priorities had mirrored
> >> > Obama's.
> >>
> >> You say this as if you have some actual knowledge of his grades and test
> >> scores. Keep in mind that when some people remark 'I was not a disciplined
> >> student' they mean that they once got a B+ in a class instead of an A...or
> >> even all B's while they went on to score a 1450 on the SATs or a 175 on the
> >> LSATs.
> >
> >From what I can gather, he was a high school stoner. And I don't know of
> >any other high school stoners who have gone on to Harvard Law. Mainly
> >because they can't even get into a halfway decent college in order to
> >earn a Bachelor's degree of some sort.
>
> Which means he probably wasn't a stoner.

He did a lot of drugs (unless he was exaggerating in his memoirs) and
he's clearly not proud of his academic record from those days. If it
walks like a duck, etc.

> More like someone who just
> enjoyed the occasional toke. Much like many kids like to drink on the
> weekends. That's enough to make it count in his mind but not enough to
> stop him for getting into college.

Given his ego and lack of modesty, there is only one reason I can think
of for why he didn't release his academic records long ago. And that's
because he's embarrassed by them.

> Based on his performances as
> President it's clear that he has a capable mind.

Take away his TelePrompTer and he sounds no less stupid and unimpressive
to me than George Bush did.

> >> Meanwhile, I think it is already well known that Harvard, like many/most/all
> >> other colleges, reaches a little lower to find qualified minority
> >> candidates...
> >
> >And as long as we put diversity concerns before competency ones in *any*
> >field, we ensure that we will never be our best as a society. We end up
> >with less than the best [fill in career path of your choice here]
> >because some good ones never get a chance because they were bumped by
> >someone with less talent.
>
> It's a choice being made to make up for the lack of opportunity that
> some groups of had in the past.

Screwing over a kid today because a different kid was screwed over in
the past is not justice or fairness to me. In fact, it's twisted. And
unlike the advocates of this approach, I actually *learned* the adage
about two wrongs not making a right.

> You can disagree with the policy but
> it's a choice that our elected leaders have made over the years
> directly and by who they nominate for other offices (such as judges.)

I want the best possible odds that the person doing surgery on me is
well qualified. That the person representing me in government is well
qualified. That the person working on my car knows what he or she is
doing. And when you start playing subjective games and give those games
priorities over objective measurements, you're reducing my odds of
getting the best surgeon/politician/mechanic.

> >> which, BTW, are still more qualified to get in than the legacy
> >> candidates at the Ivy league schools.
> >
> >You won't see me supporting legacy candidates, either.
>
> I assume most legacy candidates get picked because they get more
> donations. Don't think that's a good idea but I can understand it.

Yep. Heck, there are many things that I *understand* even as I believe
that those things are dead wrong.

> >> Trump isn't trying to prove that
> >> Obama's grades/test scores were not good enough to qualify him for admission
> >> without favoritism. Trump is trying to prove 'birther' issues by uncovering
> >> proof that Obama made some claim of foreign heritage in an effort to get
> >> special admission treatment.
> >
> >I have no idea what Trump's game is, as I don't pay particular attention
> >to attention whores.
>
> Trump is out to keep his name in the press. Everything else is
> secondary to that.

Yep. Worst case scenario for him: he gets another five minutes' worth of
attention. Best case scenario for him: he gets those minutes *and* hurts
Obama at the same time.