I agree--and surprisingly enough, Dubya didnt address the other categories that were in Michigan's "point system," like being an athlete, socioeconomic need, residency, or what is known as "legacy." Dubya is an idiot, plain and simple--I cant wait for 2004.Originally posted by Silver
So, if we're going to admit people to university on merit alone, I guess he's going to give back his MBA from Harvard, right?
Admitting people on the basis of their last name is no different than admitting them on basis of race. I can't figure out the angle here....why he would do something like this now.
Maybe one of his daughters wants to go to law school?
That was what I was trying to point out--if you are going to address one, you should address them all.Originally posted by Toshi
ok, legacy is stupid, as is athletic scholarships. what would you all say to eliminating race, legacy, athletics, and the "provost's discretion" from a proposed application? (residency makes perfect sense for state schools.) as an over-represented yet minority asian, i would be ecstatic to see such an application...
I'd be 100% okay with it, IF we could improve that state of our poorest public elementary, middle, and high schools. Then we might actually have equal opportunity.Originally posted by Toshi
ok, legacy is stupid, as is athletic scholarships. what would you all say to eliminating race, legacy, athletics, and the "provost's discretion" from a proposed application? (residency makes perfect sense for state schools.) as an over-represented yet minority asian, i would be ecstatic to see such an application...
but what if it really is a social issue? as in asian parents really are more demanding of their kids, and thus their kids just plain try harder? (the "asian mom" stereotype DOES exist for a reason, believe me )Originally posted by ohio
I'd be 100% okay with it, IF we could improve that state of our poorest public elementary, middle, and high schools. Then we might actually have equal opportunity.
IMO, the fact that we need affirmative action at the college level to even up demographics is a sign that we're F-ing up at the earlier levels. College is too late to decide we're going to "help" the underpriveleged.
edit: I watched Bush's speach on C-SPAN last night. He is a HUGE JACKASS.
I see a lot of people saying this same thing on this board. I could care less about how smart he is, hell he got the presidency so how stupid could he really be. But, a lot of you think he is rich assh@le who only cares about himself, and other rich people, which I agree with. But I see a lot of poeple think it's just him. Give me a break people, no politician, especially any President gives a sh@t about me or you. Unless you are in the "Millionaire's Club" , you just don't matter.Originally posted by LeatherFace
Dubya is an idiot, plain and simple--I cant wait for 2004.
Actually, he won by electoral votes--Gore got the popular vote, and Florida's votes were mysteriously flawed--a state who's governor is Dubya's brother. Hmmmmm, smell something?Originally posted by Jesus
I see a lot of people saying this same thing on this board. I could care less about how smart he is, hell he got the presidency so how stupid could he really be.
Well that doesnt really change the fact that he's the president. I dont think anyone who is "stupid" could make it into the whitehouse. Greedy? yes...Evil?maybe...Stupid?No.Originally posted by LeatherFace
Actually, he won by electoral votes--Gore got the popular vote, and Florida's votes were mysteriously flawed--a state who's governor is Dubya's brother. Hmmmmm, smell something?
I have heard a lot of Democrats come up with this argument before. Seems you want to change the rules in the middle of the game.Originally posted by LeatherFace
Actually, he won by electoral votes--Gore got the popular vote, and Florida's votes were mysteriously flawed--a state who's governor is Dubya's brother. Hmmmmm, smell something?
I've never liked the notion of the electoral college--it was created by our government because the leaders basically thought that the American public were nothing but uneducated dolts that couldnt handle electing the correct person for president. Shame on you for calling me a name when you dont even know how I feel and just assume that I'm changing my tune because something happened I didnt like. I'm a spoiled brat, huh? Well you are a doo doo head :angry:Originally posted by Jesus
I have heard a lot of Democrats come up with this argument before. Seems you want to change the rules in the middle of the game.
I think that the electoral college is out-dated, and we could do a popular vote without too much of a hassle, but why do you want to change the laws when you don't like the outcome?
Sounds like a spoiled brat to me.
nonono, as i learned it the concept was to keep the big states (population-wise) from overrunning the small ones. the electoral college gives the small states a disproportionate voice. which is GOOD, no matter what becomes of it (i don't like bush either).Originally posted by LeatherFace
I've never liked the notion of the electoral college--it was created by our government because the leaders basically thought that the American public were nothing but uneducated dolts that couldnt handle electing the correct person for president. Shame on you for calling me a name when you dont even know how I feel and just assume that I'm changing my tune because something happened I didnt like. I'm a spoiled brat, huh? Well you are a doo doo head :angry:
AAAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAAAAAAHAHAHAhahaaaaaaaaOriginally posted by BurlySurly
I dont think anyone who is "stupid" could make it into the whitehouse.
Originally posted by LeatherFace
I've never liked the notion of the electoral college--it was created by our government because the leaders basically thought that the American public were nothing but uneducated dolts that couldnt handle electing the correct person for president.:angry:
Yup. If everyone's beloved Clinton had his way, he would have sold us to China by now. At least Bush has the balls to do something about the terrorists attacks. He may be too agressive to a degree, but Damn!!! Clinton didn't do sh!t. As far as I'm concerned, Clinton set up 9/11. U.S.S. Cole is attacked. At this point he declared Iraq was responsible, and that he would do something about it. He was given congressional authority to take care of the situation. He did nothing about it! He vowed to find the perpatraters and bring them to justice.... He did nothing! also an American embassy was attacked. Again he vowed to find out who did it and bring them to justice. Did he? Of course not! All this did was send a message to the terrorists that America was weak and they could do what ever thay wanted to us. Hence 9/11. There's much more. Nuff said. :angry: Daschel was one of the biggest senetors to give Clinton the go ahead for handling Iraq, yet he didn't. Now Daschel is opposing Bush! Go figure????Originally posted by Jesus
You think Clinton was better? Give me a break, they are all evil, greedy, and kniving
Wake up damnit!
Sold the US to China, yeh okOriginally posted by zibbler
Yup. If everyone's beloved Clinton had his way, he would have sold us to China by now. At least Bush has the balls to do something about the terrorists attacks. He may be too agressive to a degree, but Damn!!! Clinton didn't do sh!t. As far as I'm concerned, Clinton set up 9/11. U.S.S. Cole is attacked. At this point he declared Iraq was responsible, and that he would do something about it. He was given congressional authority to take care of the situation. He did nothing about it! He vowed to find the perpatraters and bring them to justice.... He did nothing! also an American embassy was attacked. Again he vowed to find out who did it and bring them to justice. Did he? Of course not! All this did was send a message to the terrorists that America was weak and they could do what ever thay wanted to us. Hence 9/11. There's much more. Nuff said. :angry: Daschel was one of the biggest senetors to give Clinton the go ahead for handling Iraq, yet he didn't. Now Daschel is opposing Bush! Go figure????
Strange coincidence that the whole Monica Lewinski stuff was going on. Great chance for a coverup. What a putz. You guys scare me if you think Clinton had our best interests in mind. That dude is warped.
Originally posted by ohio
Anyway, back to the issue. Toshi, your scenario is fine with me. Demanding parents with performing kids should be rewarded. I think we'd find, however, that if traditionally poor-performing demographics had access to decent developmental schooling, they would become much more demanding of themselves, and much beter performing, within a generation or so. Why would you demand your kids work hard in a system you have no respect for, or even a hatred of?
Spoiled Brat!Originally posted by LeatherFace
I've never liked the notion of the electoral college--it was created by our government because the leaders basically thought that the American public were nothing but uneducated dolts that couldnt handle electing the correct person for president. Shame on you for calling me a name when you dont even know how I feel and just assume that I'm changing my tune because something happened I didnt like. I'm a spoiled brat, huh? Well you are a doo doo head :angry:
It was a state soveignty issue more than anything...when the system was implimented, you'll recall that the country hadn't really forged itself yet...people still looked upon a union of states as a sketchy thing. The idea of the USA as we know it now wasn't around back then.Originally posted by LeatherFace
I've never liked the notion of the electoral college--it was created by our government because the leaders basically thought that the American public were nothing but uneducated dolts that couldnt handle electing the correct person for president. Shame on you for calling me a name when you dont even know how I feel and just assume that I'm changing my tune because something happened I didnt like. I'm a spoiled brat, huh? Well you are a doo doo head :angry:
How would there be more dead American's if Gore won??? Reason:???Originally posted by Broken
Ok considering the options of who we could have actually put into the White House ole george is a hell of a lot better than Gore. If Gore had actually won the presidential election there would probably be alot more innocent american civilians dead from terrorist attacks but the evil from rock and roll music would be exorcised
Originally posted by Broken
Because Gore is a puss! He would have not even attempted to go after terrorists or interupt their flow of money. So they would be able to bomb more buildings, crash more planes and generally create an even more ****ty world than the one I am living in now.
It's probably worth pointing out here that everytime the foreign supply of oil (from Saudi Arabia and South America mostly) pinches (due to diplomatic/political issues, not actual supply problems) the value of oil (including Texan and Alaskan oil) shoots up... pumping that much more cash for each barrel into the pockets of Bush's family and former business partners.Originally posted by patconnole
Yes, praise Bush for his brave interruption of terrorist money. It probably was difficult for him to go against his oil interests and allow the FBI to investigate the Bin Laden family--- A brave act indeed.
Well, doesnt that just destroy your little theories about Bush invading iraq for oil?Originally posted by ohio
It's probably worth pointing out here that everytime the foreign supply of oil (from Saudi Arabia and South America mostly) pinches (due to diplomatic/political issues, not actual supply problems) the value of oil (including Texan and Alaskan oil) shoots up... pumping that much more cash for each barrel into the pockets of Bush's family and former business partners.
Nope. All the US oil companies make money by IMPORTING oil also.Originally posted by BurlySurly
Well, doesnt that just destroy your little theories about Bush invading iraq for oil?
You talk about coverup but did you ever wonder about the timing of the beginning of the latest Iraq "crisis". Here was the Enron tidal wave bearing down on the Bush administration and all of a sudden Iraq becomes an issue again. I'm not saying that Bush's call to attack Iraq is strictly a slight of hand to distract the American public from the growing number of corporate accounting scandals and an economy that couldn't have ground down quicker from Clinton to Bush. But at minimum, the looming war with Iraq presents the opportunity for Bush to duck the corporate scandals and reframe the national debate. If you think I'm full of it try and find the last time, Bush, Chenney, or any of the main administration officials said the word Enron.Originally posted by zibbler
Strange coincidence that the whole Monica Lewinski stuff was going on. Great chance for a coverup. What a putz. You guys scare me if you think Clinton had our best interests in mind. That dude is warped.
That's about as clear as someone can make it.Most people ARE idiots, incapable of seeing beyond the prow of their own interests long enough to consider the greater good. Single issue voting, trend chasing, political party membership, voting coalitions, etc. all strive to dull the thoughtful evaluation of candidates in favor of an ordered lemming march.
What is funny is that folks forget that George W. Bush supported the removal all conditions on most favored nation status for China and its admission to the World Trade Organization.Originally posted by Joe Pozer
It's so funny how Democrats love to make Clinton out to be such an angel. He was Chinas bitch:
Quote from Clinton when he was a candidate:
Bill Clinton, The candidate:
``We should not reward China with improved trade status when it has failed to make sufficient progress on human rights since the Tiananmen Square.
As President he delinks "most favored nation" trade status from human rights.
I guess it was all those millions he was pocketing from the Chinese. I wonder how many room in the White House they got to use for that kind of money?
N8, you currently hail from Louisiana and you think that my statements are based on a bong hit??? Louisana political history is filled with examples of politicians suriving thru and profiting from monsterous scandals by redirecting the publics' attention to other "more important" matters.Originally posted by N8
Dude... put the bong dowwwwn!
Not really cos once Bush and the government have control of the oil in iraq then it's gonna be easier for them to up the oil prices across the board. If they merly upppd the texan oil then no ones gonna buy it, but if they up it all , then everyone wins, well not the consumer but the powers that be will.Originally posted by BurlySurly
Well, doesnt that just destroy your little theories about Bush invading iraq for oil?
Originally posted by SlackBoy
Not really cos once Bush and the government have control of the oil in iraq then it's gonna be easier for them to up the oil prices across the board. If they merly upppd the texan oil then no ones gonna buy it, but if they up it all , then everyone wins, well not the consumer but the powers that be will.
Oh I hate it when people don't check their facts before they spout off.Originally posted by BurlySurly
Ok, this ranks as the most retarded reply of the week on my list.
Why does everyone assume that if the US invades Iraq, we will take control of their oil? Ever heard of something called OPEC? Iraq will become an OPEC nation, we dont just get the oil when we invade. The only way Bush himself could profit...even modestly, is if some company in which he has a vested interest contracts to drill it and clean it, they;ll never own it unless they buy it.
When more oil is put into the hands of OPEC, prices may decrease or not change at all, because they regulate the prices themselves. The prices surely though, will not rise with the liberation if iraqi oil, and hence, will not help Bushes interests with American oil.
Quit assuming such nonsense.