response 80 of 133:

Jun 10 20:50 UTC 2002

3.8 is an A/A- average, not a B+. I was saying, "He got a C average in a
fairly easy field at a fancy college, I got an A average in a fairly difficult
field at a local college, I'd say those are at least comparable." I attacked
your critical reading skills because you failed to comprehend that, and you
continue to fail to comprehend what I said.
 
Interesting that you would try to shift the focus onto the criminal admission,
especially when you and Jamie must be among the only Grex veterans claiming
ignorance of it. Most Grexers knew about it at the time, and I imagine most
of the "Brighn! You're a pervert!" worked out of their system long ago.
 
My only points -- in case you actually want to shift this back to something
other than a futile attempt at a flamewar -- were:

(1) I'm not really all that impressed with Bush's education. A C average in
History, regardless of where it was acquired, is not evidence of intelligence.
It's especially unconvincing when a rich kid gets a C average at an Ivy League
school, which are notorious for making it very very hard to get an A but, if
your wallet is fat enough, very easy to get a C. MBAs likewise have the
reputation of being something that people who want MAs get because they can't
get anything else.
 
(2) I'm not impressed with the argument, "Don't criticize Bush for drug use
two decades ago! It's unfair to criticize him for something done so long ago!"
followed by, "I know he's smart... after all, he graduated from the Ivies
decades ago!" A new point: Drugs cause brain damage and loss of intelligence.
If your demonstration of his intelligence is what he did *before* he abused
alcohol (and, allegedly, other drugs), then a fair counterargument is that
he messed up what smarts he did have by drinking (and snorting) them away.
 
(3) I'm not impressed with the argument, "Bush must be smart because he's
president and you're not!" For one thing, I'm not in politics because, even
if I wanted to be, most moral values are so incongruous with most of modern
America's that I wouldn't survive the media gauntlet. New point: Carter is
often considered to be one of the brightest presidents of the last 50 years
or so, but he was a terrible president. Being a good president doesn't go
hand-in-hand with being intelligent. Bush could be as dumb as a tractor and
still be a good president, and I'm not sure I'd've trusted President Albert
Einstein.
 
That said, George Bush, of 2002, is either a blooming idiot, or he's one of
the most conniving bastards ever to grace the White House since, well, Bill
Clinton.

response 82 of 133:

Jun 10 21:23 UTC 2002

4.0 is an A average. 3.8 is an A-. I was off by .2 points. Sue me.

Even after your clarification of what you were saying, I still think you're
comparing apples to oranges. 

Honestly, I wouldn't consider myself a "Grex Veteran" per se. I've dropped
by on-and-off since about 1994, but rarely for more than a month or two out
of a year. Anymore, I don't pay all that much attention to M-Net scandal, much
less what passes for scandal here on Grex. 

But anyway...

(1) All you're really doing here is being childish. I have no idea what sort
of financial background you come from, but from the looks of it, you're
bordering on jealous that the Bush family has more money than yours. I'm not
going to deny for a moment that money was probably quite influential when it
came to his admission to Yale and Harvard, but to imply that he "bought" a
C average smacks of sour grapes.

(2) I'm not saying "Don't criticize Bush!". I'm saying "If you're going to
criticize him, you had better take a look at the big picture." and "If you're
educated enough to question his intelligence, you're educated enough to
conjure up something better than 'He's so dumb.'" If you're going to chastise
Bush for drinking or snorting his brain cells away, why not take a few shots
at any Kennedy? I think you'd be hard pressed to find any politician who
didn't drink, or experiment with drugs. By virtue of your logic, there are
very few politicians who could possibly have all of their brain cells in tact.

(3) It's not meant to "impress" you, per se. It's just a simple fact. For
whatever cop-out you'd like to use, nothing will change the fact that you
could never become President, and he could, and did. Nothing will change the
fact that on some level, you do need above-average intelligence to become the
President.

I don't know anything first-hand about Carter, because I'm too young to have
remembered him. From what I've read, his failed presidency had more to do with
Americans having an ultra-low morale, high inflation, and a shortage of oil.
All of these things were basically plopped on Carter's lap by his predecessor,
and the finality of the Vietnam Conflict. The same thing happened in 1992,
when Bush Sr. was left with an economy in the toilet just before elections.
Americans are (on average) too ignorant, or too lazy, or too delusional to
realize that socio-economic changes that happen shortly after a new President
are the end-results of the previous administration. 

Honestly, you'd have to be a vegetable to *not* have been re-elected in 1996,
or even 2000 (proof-positive that Gore was a vegetable). When Americans go
to the voting booths in November, they don't recount the past four years. They
ask themselves "Do I have a job? Do I have more money than I used to? Do I
have nicer things than I used to? Can I afford a new Land Rover now?" If the
answers are overwhelmingly "yes!", the person gets re-elected. That's really
the extent of American politics, in a presidential race. 

Hell, look at either of Reagan's victories. In 1980, gas was still really
expensive, Americans were being held hostage overseas, unemployment was
rampant. Nobody went to the polls thinking "Gee...the past four years have
sucked, but I'm sure ol' Jimmy can pull us out!". No, they were saying "Good
lord, ANYBODY can do better. My life sucks."

By 1984, things got better, Reagan was telling Americans everything they
wanted to hear about national defense, and a stronger economy, and he had
years of recovery to show for it. Of course he got re-elected. It had far more
to do with emotion and sentiment, than anything else. 

response 84 of 133:

Jun 11 00:44 UTC 2002

Are we going to throw prestigious colleges around?  I'll have you know the
college I went to cost more than UM does. Does that make me smarter?  Even
with my C average? Keep in mind I got that C while taking 15 hours and working
48 hours a week.  Am I smarter than you?

Hell if I know.  But having a college degree from a very expensive or even
well thought of college means little to me.  I know people who went to harvard
and got straight A's that are complete idiots.  I also know some people who
went to community college that are smarter than the lot of us combined.

College only takes you so far.  Status only takes you so far.  You take you
the rest of the way.

response 86 of 133:

Jun 11 02:16 UTC 2002

The economy was in the toilet in 1992???

response 88 of 133:

Jun 11 03:23 UTC 2002

It was in the papers recently, in articles about Sonny's recession (which,
to be fair, he *did* inherit from Clittin').

response 90 of 133:

Jun 11 10:35 UTC 2002

resp:68  Hey!  I have a bachelor's in a liberal arts field.. you 
calling me easy?

(Honestly, would you say that about the music field?  It's *not* easy, 
and I did get good grades.)

response 92 of 133:

Jun 11 13:53 UTC 2002

I disagree. I majored in math and physics, but still can't manage to play the
piano too well. 

response 94 of 133:

Jun 11 15:02 UTC 2002

Well, I guess I don't have to say anything about the education.  But I 
will register my agreement with one thing.  Bush's educational 
background isn't impressive at all.  I know plenty of people that have 
gone to Ivy League schools and fared much better than he did.  And lest 
you assume that you get a superior education at the Ivy League 
institutions, it is the same in any school: it all depends on the 
individual program in which you enroll.

As for the Harvard MBA program:  You're not paying for the education.  
You're paying for the opporunity to engage in 3 years of prime 
networking, and the same classes you can get at the other top schools.  
That's it, period.

response 96 of 133:

Jun 11 15:10 UTC 2002

You're so dumb, jp2!

Bhelliom is not impressed with Yale, so you shouldn't be, either. She knows
plenty of people who...hmm...doesn't that sound awfully similar to the White
Man's Lie? ("I have LOTS of black friends!")

Anyway, she went to Harvard for her MBA, and presumably Yale, as well. After
all, there's no other way she would be able to speak on the quality of their
education with such authority. So take it from bhelliom: you're a fool.