T1B

Posted: **Mon Jun 13, 2005 11:45 am**

Or maybe it's just stupid and uninformed?

"I've never been able to understand his appeal. Maybe his mother loved him, but I've never met anybody who does. He's never won anything, as best I can tell," Cheney said in an interview to be aired Monday on Fox News Channel's "Hannity & Colmes."---- Dick Cheney

I see Dick is as well informed as his boss. That explains why Dick knows dick about Howard Dean. Anybody wanna lay odds that hand wringer Colmes won't call Cheney on his misstatement?

Posted: **Mon Jun 13, 2005 12:48 pm**

Who cares??

The mainstream of your party is abandoning him. The political leaders are abandoning him. The party's state-level fundraisers are abandoning him. And he's falling flat on his face with raising money.

The only people supporting this guy are radical Democrats, people like you who buy into the notion that Republicans don't have honest jobs and are inherently evil people.

Good luck, B, keep sucking this guy off...

Posted: **Mon Jun 13, 2005 1:10 pm**

DrDetroit wrote:Who cares?? The mainstream of your party is abandoning him. The political leaders are abandoning him. The party's state-level fundraisers are abandoning him. And he's falling flat on his face with raising money. The only people supporting this guy are radical Democrats, people like you who buy into the notion that Republicans don't have honest jobs and are inherently evil people.

As you say, WHY MUST YOU LIE???

Dean is trying to build a 50 state organization. That means Dean needs to spend time with people who never even had a sniff in Terry McAuliffe's rolodex. That means some old interests are going to suffer by comparison. I'm willing to take that chance.

Posted: **Mon Jun 13, 2005 1:54 pm**

1) What did I lie about?

2) How can you build a 50-state organization when spend the majority of your time in the blue counties of the blue states? He's only talking to the converted.

Posted: **Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:34 pm**

DrDetroit wrote:1) What did I lie about?

You lie when you say mainstream Dems are abandoning Dean. The truth is there is a debate in regards to strategy going on in the Democratic party. It has been ongoing since 2000.

To put it simply, top elected Democrats would prefer not to attack Republicans with the same kind of language Republicans have been using to attack Democrats. They would prefer to maintain their own power base. On the other hand, the rank and file activists and party workers are getting sick of watching right wing nut jobs attack their values, beliefs and patriotisim. They want someone to take the fight to them. And they want someone to fight in the red states, not just the blue states or the "battleground" states.

2) How can you build a 50-state organization when spend the majority of your time in the blue counties of the blue states? He's only talking to the converted.

You're wrong again. Dean is employing a 50 state strategy. Not only has he spent plenty of time in red states, he's putting money and people on the ground in those states. I know you are a slave to the culture of instant gratification, but just once try to look at the long term picture.

Posted: **Mon Jun 13, 2005 3:03 pm**

You lie when you say mainstream Dems are abandoning Dean. The truth is there is a debate in regards to strategy going on in the Democratic party. It has been ongoing since 2000.

Um, how can you say that "Dean is not the voice of this Party" and "Dean does not speak for me" are merely representative of strategy debates?? The primary state fundraisers from Cali and NY have already bailed. That's was immediately after the DNC's head money-lady also quit. All of this is going on as Democratic leaders are bashing Dean for his comments.

Now that's some serious spinning, B.

To put it simply, top elected Democrats would prefer not to attack Republicans with the same kind of language Republicans have been using to attack Democrats.

You simply cannot be honest can you? Please show us where a Republican leader is calling Democrats evil, stupid, all look alike, don't have honest jobs, can't assemble minorities except as waiters???

Well? And that's just this year, alone.

What about the Democrats constantly berating Bush as stupid, a dummy, an idiot, being a Hitler clone??

Well?

At least make an attempt at being serious, B.

They would prefer to maintain their own power base.

They are and they are losing.

On the other hand, the rank and file activists and party workers are getting sick of watching right wing nut jobs attack their values, beliefs and patriotisim.

Why are you paying attention to the "nut jobs?" And isn't ironic that you will call our GOP party leaders "nut jobs" when, in fact, you're talking about the fringe? Meanwhile, Republicans are talking about your party chair.

They want someone to take the fight to them.

That's all you have...tired cliches.

And they want someone to fight in the red states, not just the blue states or the "battleground" states.

Hmm, if that is the case, why is Dean absent from those places??

You're wrong again. Dean is employing a 50 state strategy. Not only has he spent plenty of time in red states, he's putting money and people on the ground in those states. I know you are a slave to the culture of instant gratification, but just once try to look at the long term picture.

He might be putting money there, but he is certainly not there and that's what I am talking about.

BTW - McAuliffe undercut Dean as he was walking out the door by providing Schumer and Reid the internal donor lists. And if Dean is to be controlling the $$ why is Schumer running, by himself, the Senate races?

Posted: **Mon Jun 13, 2005 3:03 pm**

mvscal wrote:
BSmack wrote:Dean is trying to build a 50 state organization.
And failing miserably. It's abundantly clear to everyone but you.

Jesus man, Dean just took office like 5 months ago. How the fuck does someone as idiotic and shortsighted as you feed yourself? Do you rip the steak off the grill after 1 minute of cooking and call the grill a miserable failure?

Posted: **Mon Jun 13, 2005 3:14 pm**

BSmack wrote:
mvscal wrote:
BSmack wrote:Dean is trying to build a 50 state organization.
And failing miserably. It's abundantly clear to everyone but you.
Jesus man, Dean just took office like 5 months ago. How the fuck does someone as idiotic and shortsighted as you feed yourself? Do you rip the steak off the grill after 1 minute of cooking and call the grill a miserable failure?

He said the strategy is "failing." Not a "failure."

For people that constantly talk up their "nuance" ...

Posted: **Mon Jun 13, 2005 5:19 pm**

mvscal wrote:He appeals to absolutely nobody except the lunatic fringe of the Democratic party.

Which pretty much explains why BSmack has done everything but ask Dean to the prom.

Posted: **Mon Jun 13, 2005 5:28 pm**

mvscal wrote:
BSmack wrote:Jesus man, Dean just took office like 5 months ago.
And in five short months he has alienated senior Democrats, fund raising is in the toilet and he can't seem to open his piehole without giving Republicans a sound bite to hammer you people with.

Face it. He's a melt a minute assclown who is going to run your shitty party straight onto the rocks. Although in all honestly, he will be marginalized/pushed to the side or outright fired before that can happen.

He appeals to absolutely nobody except the lunatic fringe of the Democratic party.

He appeals to nobody save the "lunatic fringe"? Then do tell me how he was elected not once, but FIVE TIMES in Vermont. The state may have its hippy enclaves, but you still have to appeal to some very moderate people to win a statewide race in Vermont.

I know you so desperately want to paint Dean as a lunatic. So please, keep underestimating him.

Posted: **Mon Jun 13, 2005 5:37 pm**

Dean is supposed to look like an extremist, almost to the point of the absurd.

This way Hillary can waltz in and give the appearance of being reasonable and moderate.

Think retail stores raising the price of items and a few weeks later offering them ON SALE.

Posted: **Mon Jun 13, 2005 5:48 pm**

BSmack wrote:
mvscal wrote:
BSmack wrote:Jesus man, Dean just took office like 5 months ago.
And in five short months he has alienated senior Democrats, fund raising is in the toilet and he can't seem to open his piehole without giving Republicans a sound bite to hammer you people with.

Face it. He's a melt a minute assclown who is going to run your shitty party straight onto the rocks. Although in all honestly, he will be marginalized/pushed to the side or outright fired before that can happen.

He appeals to absolutely nobody except the lunatic fringe of the Democratic party.
He appeals to nobody save the "lunatic fringe"? Then do tell me how he was elected not once, but FIVE TIMES in Vermont. The state may have its hippy enclaves, but you still have to appeal to some very moderate people to win a statewide race in Vermont.

I know you so desperately want to paint Dean as a lunatic. So please, keep underestimating him.

Well, I guess you missed the irony of the former Governor of the nation's whitest state going off on the GOP as mostly white Christian's, eh? :roll:

And are you familiar with Vermont, at all? Moderates there are the lunatic fringe of the left...

Posted: **Mon Jun 13, 2005 5:50 pm**

Tom In VA wrote:This way Hillary can waltz in and give the appearance of being reasonable and moderate.

If you're right, I will come out to the East Coast and kick your ass.

Fuck it. We'll just have a few beers and toast to the end of civilization.

Btw, I'd vote for the lunatic (Dean) 100 out of 100 times over Shillery, given only those two options.

Posted: **Mon Jun 13, 2005 6:03 pm**

mvscal wrote:
BSmack wrote:Jesus man, Dean just took office like 5 months ago.
And in five short months he has alienated senior Democrats, fund raising is in the toilet and he can't seem to open his piehole without giving Republicans a sound bite to hammer you people with.

Face it. He's a melt a minute assclown who is going to run your shitty party straight onto the rocks. Although in all honestly, he will be marginalized/pushed to the side or outright fired before that can happen.

He appeals to absolutely nobody except the lunatic fringe of the Democratic party.

The collapse started way before dean took over. The democratic party has not had anything resembling solid leadership for a long time. Even last year during the democrtic primaries no one candidate had broad based appeal, and they haven't improved things from that point forward. Kerrys an empty suit and always will be, Edwards is way too regional and way too much of a soft spoken pretty boy to appeal to everyone, Dean is too extreme. Who else do they really have that stands out? No one.

They have 2-3 years to get it together, but unless they figure out a way to develop leadership people want to stand behind, they're going to be hard pressed to make significant progress.

Posted: **Mon Jun 13, 2005 6:10 pm**

Kerry didn't have broad-based appeal? 49,000,000 is rather braod, ain't it? Just because he lost doesn't mean he didn't appeal to a broad cross-section of the nation.

Kerry's an empty suit? You weren't singing that tune when you wanted him as President.

Your guys' problem is not with leadership. It's not a problem of communication. You've communicated your ideas well. That's why you lost. Thge people like the GOP's ideas better.

You don't better leadership or someone to stand up for you...those are tired cliches.

You need new ideas.

Posted: **Mon Jun 13, 2005 6:55 pm**

DrDetroit wrote:Kerry didn't have broad-based appeal? 49,000,000 is rather braod, ain't it? Just because he lost doesn't mean he didn't appeal to a broad cross-section of the nation.

It's not like we had a lot of choices. It was Bush or Kerry. And Kerry was the best the dems could do? Sorry but the guy had nothing but empty words re: what he would do for the economy ("create jobs"), how he would deal with the war("end it as soon as possible"), I mean come on! There ws so little substance there.

Kerry's an empty suit? You weren't singing that tune when you wanted him as President.

For the I think 20th time, I didn't vote for him, didn't want him as president.

Your guys' problem is not with leadership. It's not a problem of communication. You've communicated your ideas well. That's why you lost. Thge people like the GOP's ideas better. You don't better leadership or someone to stand up for you...those are tired cliches.

You need new ideas.[

Your problem is this lumping you do. You've got the "if you're not with us your against us" mentality down so locked into your brain you can't see that there just might be people out there who dislike both parties, so you lump everyone who disagrees with you into the dem party.

I challenge you to find a post of mine here that says I support the democratic party. You can't, because it does not exist.

So enough with this crap. Are you that dim witted that you can't remember?

Posted: **Mon Jun 13, 2005 7:08 pm**

It's not like we had a lot of choices. It was Bush or Kerry. And Kerry was the best the dems could do? Sorry but the guy had nothing but empty words re: what he would do for the economy ("create jobs"), how he would deal with the war("end it as soon as possible"), I mean come on! There ws so little substance there.

Yet you call Bush a buffoon and a puppet...but I never saw you calling Kerry the same.

Who did you vote for?

Your problem is this lumping you do. You've got the "if you're not with us your against us" mentality down so locked into your brain you can't see that there just might be people out there who dislike both parties, so you lump everyone who disagrees with you into the dem party.

Dude, you're a lefty, period.

And, yes, unlike limp-wristed bitches like you, I can and do believe in right and wrong whereas you idiots talk about nuance.

I challenge you to find a post of mine here that says I support the democratic party. You can't, because it does not exist.

Well, then for someone whose positions on issues is clearly aligned with the Democratic Party, that's a surprise to see...

The larger point is that you're an idiot.

Posted: **Mon Jun 13, 2005 7:26 pm**

DrDetroit wrote:
It's not like we had a lot of choices. It was Bush or Kerry. And Kerry was the best the dems could do? Sorry but the guy had nothing but empty words re: what he would do for the economy ("create jobs"), how he would deal with the war("end it as soon as possible"), I mean come on! There ws so little substance there.
Yet you call Bush a buffoon and a puppet...but I never saw you calling Kerry the same.

Bush is a puppet, and a buffoon. Kerry is an empty suit, but he's not a puppet, nor a buffoon. He has little to offer, but he didn't have someone with their hand up his back feeding him all his lines, nor does he get that "deer in the headlights" look bush does when someone broaches a topic he hasn't been briefed on, or a multi syllable word he doesn't know the definition of.

Who did you vote for?

Badnarik.

Your problem is this lumping you do. You've got the "if you're not with us your against us" mentality down so locked into your brain you can't see that there just might be people out there who dislike both parties, so you lump everyone who disagrees with you into the dem party.
Dude, you're a lefty, period.

Wrong. That's just your perception because I'm not a republican.

And, yes, unlike limp-wristed bitches like you, I can and do believe in right and wrong whereas you idiots talk about nuance.

You are a party line puppet, nothing more.

I challenge you to find a post of mine here that says I support the democratic party. You can't, because it does not exist.
Well, then for someone whose positions on issues is clearly aligned with the Democratic Party, that's a surprise to see...

Wrong again. I find very little about the democrats lack of a stance and less in their current leadership that is worth supporting. It's your myopic viewpoint that just wants to lump everyone who is not a conservative right wing republican a "Lefty"

I represent a different point of view than you, period.

Posted: **Mon Jun 13, 2005 7:41 pm**

Bush is a puppet, and a buffoon.

Not that you have any evidence of this.

Kerry is an empty suit, but he's not a puppet, nor a buffoon.

Yeah, his constant flip-flopping was not indicative of his strings being pulled, right? Puhlease.

He has little to offer, but he didn't have someone with their hand up his back feeding him all his lines, nor does he get that "deer in the headlights" look bush does when someone broaches a topic he hasn't been briefed on, or a multi syllable word he doesn't know the definition of.

You know, it's hilarious how you people slander Bush. You make more of the speaking gaffes, which have no impact on anything anyway, than you do substantive criticisms of what he actually says.

And you cannot tell us that Kerry didn't have a pro writing for him...he was an empty suit because he had no ideas of his own, only what his handlers put in front of him. And I feel very confortable saying he had no ideas of his own because his 20 year record in the Senate is a clean slate.

Badnarik.

Exactly...sums you up nicely.

Wrong. That's just your perception because I'm not a republican.

No, this is based on your positng here.

You are a party line puppet, nothing more.

Party line, eh?? LOL!!

You see, you go to this line of reasoning every time you cannot substantively respond to me.

Wrong again. I find very little about the democrats lack of a stance and less in their current leadership that is worth supporting. It's your myopic viewpoint that just wants to lump everyone who is not a conservative right wing republican a "Lefty"

I didn't say you "supported" the Democrats.

I did say that you views and posting here reveals a strong alignment with the Democrats.

Two different things that a simpleton like you regularly confuses.

BTW - you different point of view is also generally the wrong point of view.

Posted: **Mon Jun 13, 2005 7:58 pm**

DrDetroit wrote:Well, I guess you missed the irony of the former Governor of the nation's whitest state going off on the GOP as mostly white Christian's, eh? :roll:

And are you familiar with Vermont, at all? Moderates there are the lunatic fringe of the left...

I'm a hell of a lot more familiar with Vermont than you. Like I said, you have some hippy enclaves. But there's a whole lot of moderates and conservatives up in the Green Mountains. But go ahead, keep thinking Burlington is all there is of Vermont.

Posted: **Mon Jun 13, 2005 8:00 pm**

If you say so...I need only look at Dean's record in Vermont.

Posted: **Mon Jun 13, 2005 8:28 pm**

DrDetroit wrote:
Bush is a puppet, and a buffoon.
Not that you have any evidence of this.

Puppet - compare his first and second debates.

Buffoon. Listen to the audio tape of him defining "sovereign"
or,
Here are a few notable Bush quotes:

It's in our country's interests to find those who would do harm to us and get them out of harm's way." —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., April 28, 2005

"We expect the states to show us whether or not we're achieving simple objectives — like literacy, literacy in math, the ability to read and write." —George W. Bush, on federal education requirements, Washington, D.C., April 28, 2005

"I want to thank you for the importance that you've shown for education and literacy." —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., April 13, 2005

"It seemed like to me they based some of their decisions on the word of — and the allegations — by people who were held in detention, people who hate America, people that had been trained in some instances to disassemble — that means not tell the truth." —George W. Bush, on an Amnesty International report on prisoner abuse at Guantanamo Bay, Washington, D.C., May 31, 200

How many more would you like? There's a library of this shit out there!

Kerry is an empty suit, but he's not a puppet, nor a buffoon.
Yeah, his constant flip-flopping was not indicative of his strings being pulled, right? Puhlease.

No it was a case of him trying to pander to everyone. If he had someone pulling his strings, they sucked at it.

He has little to offer, but he didn't have someone with their hand up his back feeding him all his lines, nor does he get that "deer in the headlights" look bush does when someone broaches a topic he hasn't been briefed on, or a multi syllable word he doesn't know the definition of.
You know, it's hilarious how you people slander Bush. You make more of the speaking gaffes, which have no impact on anything anyway, than you do substantive criticisms of what he actually says.

In many cases, it's damn hard to see where he's going:

"This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous. And having said that, all options are on the table." —George W. Bush, Brussels, Belgium, Feb. 22, 2005

And you cannot tell us that Kerry didn't have a pro writing for him...he was an empty suit because he had no ideas of his own, only what his handlers put in front of him. And I feel very confortable saying he had no ideas of his own because his 20 year record in the Senate is a clean slate.

They all have pros wriing for them, but when put on the spot he tended not to puppet his lines as much as pander to his audience.

Badnarik.
Exactly...sums you up nicely.

Indeed. A dissatisfied voter who chose a candidate who didn't have a chance in hell of winning because the other choices sucked too much.

Wrong. That's just your perception because I'm not a republican.
No, this is based on your positng here.

You have the same line for everyone who doesn't agree with you. It's not based on what I post as much as the fact I disagree with you.

You are a party line puppet, nothing more.
Party line, eh?? LOL!!

You see, you go to this line of reasoning every time you cannot substantively respond to me.

Ha. Good one. You staunchly defend Bush, and support every aspect of his administration. You spew GOP.
I know its hard to admit.

Wrong again. I find very little about the democrats lack of a stance and less in their current leadership that is worth supporting. It's your myopic viewpoint that just wants to lump everyone who is not a conservative right wing republican a "Lefty"
I didn't say you "supported" the Democrats.

I did say that you views and posting here reveals a strong alignment with the Democrats.

What the frig is the difference? There are certain aspects of the republican platform I agree with, but I disagree with the implementation. You are clouded by the fact you can't see past the fact I disagree with you.

Two different things that a simpleton like you regularly confuses.

A prime example why you have so little regard around here.

BTW - you different point of view is also generally the wrong point of view.

A classic example of why discussing anything with you is absolutely useless. You refuse to see that others can have a different opinion from yours and not be wrong.

Posted: **Mon Jun 13, 2005 8:37 pm**

DrDetroit wrote:If you say so...I need only look at Dean's record in Vermont.

You mean the record that got him endorsed by the NRA? That record?

Or was it his record of balancing budgets?

Or his support of the death penalty?

Well?

Posted: **Mon Jun 13, 2005 8:44 pm**

The last Bush quote. No problem with it. "To disassemble".

The detainees had been trained to lie and do whatever they could to divide and conquor. Misinformation, i.e. lies, i.e. "that means not tell the truth". They could have been served IHOP or breakfast in bed and given expensive rugs so they could face Mecca and pray, and you still would have had allegations of abuse.

The scond quote. One can be illiterate in math.

Main Entry: lit·er·ate
Pronunciation: 'li-t&-r&t also 'li-tr&t
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English literat, from Latin litteratus marked with letters, literate, from litterae letters, literature, from plural of littera
1 a : EDUCATED, CULTURED b : able to read and write
2 a : versed in literature or creative writing : LITERARY b : LUCID, POLISHED <a literate essay> c : having knowledge or competence <computer-literate> <politically literate>
- lit·er·ate·ly adverb
- lit·er·ate·ness noun

Posted: **Mon Jun 13, 2005 8:57 pm**

Come now, Tom. That is a pretty broad brush you're using. You don't actually think Dubya followed those lines of logic, do you? I think he clearly is letting his mouth run while his brain struggles to catch up.

"We thought we were protected forever from trade policy or terrorist attacks because oceans protected us." —George W. Bush, speaking to business leaders at APEC Summit, Santiago, Chile, Nov. 20, 2004

"Too many good docs are getting out of the business. Too many OB-GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country." —George W. Bush, Poplar Bluff, Mo., Sept. 6, 2004

Seriously, some of this is funny shit.

"I hope you leave here and walk out and say, 'What did he say?'" —George W. Bush, Beaverton, Oregon, Aug. 13, 2004

Ain't it the truth? :)

Posted: **Mon Jun 13, 2005 9:16 pm**

Granted he isn't blessed with the gift of gab like many of our other Presidents.

But, the "gift of gab" in most circles is a euphism and actually means "Full of Shit".

Clinton was far better at that than Bush is.

Of course that all depends on what your definition of is, is.

Posted: **Mon Jun 13, 2005 9:55 pm**

Tom In VA wrote:Granted he isn't blessed with the gift of gab like many of our other Presidents.

But, the "gift of gab" in most circles is a euphism and actually means "Full of Shit".

Clinton was far better at that than Bush is.

Of course that all depends on what your definition of is, is.

True, although I really have to wonder sometimes if someone who's brain works that way is as capable as he needs to be in the job that he has.
Not like there are options.

and here's one more for the road. This is one of my favorites:

"I'm honored to shake the hand of a brave Iraqi citizen who had his hand cut off by Saddam Hussein." —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., May 25, 2004

:)

Posted: **Mon Jun 13, 2005 10:16 pm**

yeah, but it's funny anyway. :)

Posted: **Tue Jun 14, 2005 3:02 am**

There are many people that are highly intelligent and yet fall flat when it comes to their speaking ability.

Don't get me wrong, they're funny as hell, and lampooning our President is a cherished right and tradition in this country no matter who is in office.

But the guy had a C average at one of the most prestigious universities in the country. I think he must have some smarts about him.

Posted: **Tue Jun 14, 2005 10:37 am**

Tom In VA wrote:There are many people that are highly intelligent and yet fall flat when it comes to their speaking ability.

Don't get me wrong, they're funny as hell, and lampooning our President is a cherished right and tradition in this country no matter who is in office.

But the guy had a C average at one of the most prestigious universities in the country. I think he must have some smarts about him.

Damn right. He was smart enough to be a legacy.

You know, like Flounder.

Posted: **Tue Jun 14, 2005 12:49 pm**

It's funny that you rely on damning a major American educational instutition just to run your game re: Bush being a dummy.

I'm sure that Yale just hands out passing grades to total dumbfucks, right??

'Bode Bush!

Posted: **Tue Jun 14, 2005 1:05 pm**

DrDetroit wrote:It's funny that you rely on damning a major American educational instutition just to run your game re: Bush being a dummy.

I'm sure that Yale just hands out passing grades to total dumbfucks, right??

'Bode Bush!

Make up your own mind.

http://www.yalealumnimagazine.com/issue ... 1/q_a.html

Y: Most of the country would take issue with you, though. A recent poll showed that three-fourths of Americans think legacy preference should be ended. A City University of New York official said, "This is a policy that is manifestly unfair." A Berkeley historian called it "indefensible."

L: I can see that argument from the standpoint of a public institution, where the taxpayer is supporting a significant portion of the cost of education. But private institutions are different. Private institutions depend on resources provided by their alumni. Thirty-five per cent of the total revenue of the university comes from past and present alumni in the form of current gifts and endowment income.

Y: So part of it is straightforward financial self-interest. And what about the alumni who were legacies themselves? Are they better donors than the non-legacies?

L: Absolutely. No doubt about it. Legacy students, when they become adults, are on average significantly more generous donors. People develop an allegiance to the institution that strengthens over generations. Look at the people active as volunteers -- many are legacies.

Y: What about the children of the biggest donors? Do the admissions officers know the financial status of applicants' parents?

L: For the most part, no. We admit applicants need-blind. The admissions applications are kept separate from the financial statements. But we do advise the admissions office about applications coming from the children or grandchildren of significant donors and of alumni who have given significant volunteer service. People in the admissions world call these "institutional cases." Which doesn't mean they're automatically admitted! Many of our generous donors and active volunteers are disappointed every year, but most understand how high the standard of admission is, and most would not want it any other way.

I'm sure that, if anything, Yale was even more prejudiced in favor of old Eastern money back in the mid 60s.

Posted: **Tue Jun 14, 2005 1:43 pm**

So Yale just handed out passing grades, eh?

That's your argument? I mean I've heard of grade inflation, but I was unaware it was happening in the 60s.

I can't believe that you have to bash an institution like Yale in order to slander Bush.

Many of our generous donors and active volunteers are disappointed every year, but most understand how high the standard of admission is, and most would not want it any other way.

Sorry, but legacy admissions are not the equivalent of race-based discrinatory admissions policies.

STFU, it is none of your business.

Posted: **Tue Jun 14, 2005 1:50 pm**

DrDetroit wrote:So Yale just handed out passing grades, eh? That's your argument? I mean I've heard of grade inflation, but I was unaware it was happening in the 60s. I can't believe that you have to bash an institution like Yale in order to slander Bush. Sorry, but legacy admissions are not the equivalent of race-based discrinatory admissions policies.

The evidence is pretty clear when said "C" student insists on having all of his material read to him by aides.

STFU, it is none of your business.

This comming from the chimp who can't resist commenting on how the Chair of the DNC does his business?

Hypocrisy much?

Posted: **Tue Jun 14, 2005 1:56 pm**

B, please, at least attempt to prepare a reasonable argument.

And, btw, when your chair says I've never had an honest job...well, yeah, it's my business.

No hypocrisy there, at all.

Posted: **Tue Jun 14, 2005 1:59 pm**

DrDetroit wrote:B, please, at least attempt to prepare a reasonable argument.

And, btw, when your chair says I've never had an honest job...well, yeah, it's my business. No hypocrisy there, at all.

You're an HR guy. Dean was right.

Posted: **Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:03 pm**

Human resources is not an honest job??

And there you go, again, kicking your own ass.

Posted: **Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:20 pm**

DrDetroit wrote:Human resources is not an honest job??

No it isn't. The very name "human resources" is a pile of PC claptrap.

Posted: **Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:30 pm**

Human resources is PC claptrap??

How so??

Human capital is not conceptually similar to financial capital? Are these not resources with which organizations utilize to operate their business?

Human resources is the management of a business resource.

How is that PC?

We could still call it "Personnel," however that's a much narrower view of the employee as a cog in the wheel. The personnel approach is merely hiring it, paying it, and then separating it from the firm at some future point. Personnel is a process concept.

Meanwhile, human resources has a much broader view and it's an organizational development concept. It's something different than merely moving the employee through their employment life in the organization.

So, uh, yeah, it is an "honest living."

Your boy is doing well alientating significant parts of the electorate.

And you guys have the audacity to tell us that Bush is divisive??

I don't Bush slandering tens of millions of Americans for having the same faith as he, calling them evil, telling them they don't do honest work, etc.

Posted: **Tue Jun 14, 2005 3:14 pm**

Well getting a degree from an Ivy League college either counts or it doesn't.

The fact is, you can't proclaim person A as a genius for getting a 4.0 at Yale and claiming it better than a 4.0 elsewhere, while at the same time saying a 2.0 at Yale is meaningless.

I mean, of course you CAN do that, but it really makes the person making that claim look dumber than a pile of rocks outside a community college.

As for Human Resources. They provide vital support and service. To say it's not an honest living, is not an honest statement.

T1B

Hate and rage?

Hate and rage?