From Frank J. How to deal with angry conservatives:
Call them racists: If we shout “Racist!” every time they say something, maybe they’ll finally reflect on the racism that motivates them against a black president and give up whatever silly cause they think they’re pushing. If they dispute the racism accusation, point out how sensitive they are about the charge and how that further proves it’s true (people who really aren’t racist shouldn’t have any problem with being called racist). If further evidence is needed, point out to them that the president is black and they are white and that it’s obvious to everyone that a white person saying bad things about an underprivileged black person is quite racist. If the conservative isn’t white, though, this can be confusing. Make sure to give that person a pamphlet describing the political views he is supposed to have based on his race. If the person doesn’t read the pamphlet, you might have to try using a racial slur. It’s okay, if the person deserves it.
Point out how much smarter Obama is than they are: Obama is obviously very smart (obviously!), but somehow conservatives are overlooking that simple fact. Maybe they’ll be less angry if we keep emphasizing how Obama and his staff are much, much smarter than they are, and in fact they are very stupid compared to Obama and other liberals. Then conservatives will realize that Obama, being smarter than them, probably knows what he’s doing, so there is nothing to fear and be angry about unless you’re a really stupid person.
It’s great advice. Let’s hope they keep taking it.
Maybe they’ll be less angry if we keep emphasizing how Obama and his staff are much, much smarter than they are, and in fact they are very stupid compared to Obama and other liberals.
Hey! That does make me less angry. What do you know?
Make sure to give that person a pamphlet describing the political views he is supposed to have based on his race. If the person doesn’t read the pamphlet, you might have to try using a racial slur. It’s okay, if the person deserves it.
Reminds me of how the left treats Justice Thomas.
When the president makes public his academic records, test scores, etc., we can determine if he’s smart or not. Until then all we know is that he, like his missus, are affirmative action hires and yes those who voted for him are racists. It’s no less racist to vote for someone because of his race than to vote against someone because of it.
When the president makes public his academic records, test scores, etc., we can determine if he’s smart or not.
Harvard Law School has confirmed that he graduated Magna Cum Laude (“with high honors”, reserved for the top 10% of students, by GPA). I don’t think you need his SAT scores to know whether he’s smart.
reserved for the top 10% of students, by GPA
Wrong again, Jim. Limiting magna cum laude to the top 10% of the graduating class was a policy Harvard instituted for the class of 1999, because the earlier policy — which covered Obama — had resulted in 75% or more of the graduating class graduating “with honors.”
Here’s the source.
http://articles.latimes.com/1999/jun/10/news/mn-46135
On the substantive point, I think only a silly person thinks that Obama is not smarter than average (although how much smarter is easily open to debate). But so undoubtably were Joe Stalin and John Wayne Gacy. So what? Smart is merely a tool, and hardly a guarantee that you’re a good man or good leader. If you were smart, too, you’d understand that Frank J. is mocking the worship of pure intelligence (over, say, character and judgment) found on the New Left today.
Harvard Law School has confirmed that he graduated Magna Cum Laude
It’s not just the GPA score, but how He got there. Did He earn the honor by taking hard courses, or did He take the bare minimum and just barely get over the line? (And don’t give the Party line about privacy, until you acknowledge that for decades that your side has abused the privacy of anyone in their way. You run for public office, you lose your so-called “privacy” because we, the people, need to know if you are fit for the office you seek.)
the earlier policy — which covered Obama — had resulted in 75% or more of the graduating class graduating “with honors.”
Thanks for the correction. Still, assuming that most of the honors graduates got “cum laude”, that would put Obama in the top third of his class.
It’s not just the GPA score, but how He got there.
If you do the work better than most of your peers, why does it matter how you got there?
Did He earn the honor by taking hard courses, or did He take the bare minimum and just barely get over the line?
If magna cum laude on a Harvard Law School diploma isn’t enough to convince you, nothing will.
I’m confident that it’s quite possible to graduate from Harvard Law magna cum laude (or even summa cum laude) and know nothing of economics, business, math or science, history, or management. Certainly the president has demonstrated his ignorance of these subjects on multiple occasions. Hell, he (and his speech writers) can’t even count to eight, because he thinks he’s been in office for nine months, according to his UN speech. We have too many lawyers running the country, who know nothing but the law, and how to game it to their advantage, while they run it into the ground.
If you do the work better than most of your peers, why does it matter how you got there?
How do we know he did the work better than his peers? Grades aren’t necessarily a good indicator, because those can be subject to affirmative action as well, particularly in a fuzzy academic regime like law school. Charisma can often sway professors as well as voters. If he had a cum laude in hard sciences, where answers are objectively correct or incorrect, I’d take it more seriously.
We still await soaring prose from the president’s pen other than a book that he may have had help with.
True, true.
“Mike Griffin” for president!
Seven degrees, mostly hard sciences, and working on his eighth!
Seven degrees, mostly hard sciences, and working on his eighth!
Ummmmm…no.
With all his degrees, he seems to have never learned basic accounting principles…
Agree with Jim and McGehee.
“…people who really aren’t racist shouldn’t have any problem with being called racist…”
Does he really believe that? Can he be so naive?
Ah, guess I should have actually clicked the link before posting. Sigh.
“I’m confident that it’s quite possible to graduate from Harvard Law magna cum laude (or even summa cum laude) and know nothing of economics, business, math or science, history, or management. Certainly the president has demonstrated his ignorance of these subjects on multiple occasions.”
I was wondering primarily about the economics. Not sure what Obama’s strong suit is, other than sounding good reading from a teleprompter and doing crunches, but economics ain’t it. If his top-secret academic record is ever revealed, it would be interesting to see what he scored in Economics 101. Of course, things being what they are in Academia, when asked to define, say, the Law of Supply and Demand, young Barry could have responded, “A myth created by the exploiting capitalist class to keep the worker oppressed,” and the professor might very well have responded: “Correct! You get an A for the semester! (Psst . . . I knew your Uncle Frank in the Party.).”
I’ve been in and around the ivy league for many years, and don’t believe any propaganda they put out especially in a hot button case like this. Let’s see his Harvard transcripts and his Columbia and his Occidental college transcripts as well. He sure didn’t graduate with honors from those schools, so are we to believe Harvard Law is less difficult than an undergraduate program at those schools.
Why did Obama spend over one mil on lawyers to make sure nothing about his past is made public. That’s all the proof I need to know he’s hiding something and it sure ain’t his brilliance.
BTW – now that all you Obama supporters have seen him in action for nine months, please point out an example of his great intellect on display.
How do we know he did the work better than his peers? Grades aren’t necessarily a good indicator…
So why do you want to see his transcripts?
So why do you want to see his transcripts?
For the same reason I want to see his birth certificate — because he doesn’t want to show them to me. I wonder what else he’s hiding, and why.
For the same reason I want to see his birth certificate — because he doesn’t want to show them to me.
Only being interested in information you can’t have sounds like a formula for disappointment.
Only being interested in information you can’t have sounds like a formula for disappointment.
I suppose it might be, if one were so stupid as to so misinterpret what I wrote. But on this planet, I didn’t say it was the only information in which I had an interest.
For the same reason I want to see his birth certificate — because he doesn’t want to show them to me. I wonder what else he’s hiding, and why.
Indeed, you would think that a President that is proposing a nationwide database to track the health records of every American could at least be open to providing his very first health record to the American people.
But hey, why argue on the merits when you can call people “racist birthers”?
Obama doesn’t want us to see his academic record because it will be so superior to everyone else’s on the planet that it will because widespread inferiority complexes and acute depression, accompanied by an epidemic of suicides. So for our own good, it’s being stored in a sealed container in a triple padlocked crate in that big warehouse at the end of RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK. Open it, and the consequences will be dire.
Indeed, you would think that a President that is proposing a nationwide database to track the health records of every American could at least be open to providing his very first health record to the American people.
No one is proposing making the health records of every American public.
if one were so stupid as to so misinterpret what I wrote
Ah, so now Rand thinks that adding an “only” (or “just”) changes a statement’s meaning! Thanks for that clarification :).
I wrote: No one is proposing making the health records of every American public.
A better comment: Obama is proposing to keep health records in databases. His own birth certificate is already held in such a database (the State of Hawaii used that database to generate the certificate of live birth that was made public). He is not proposing anything in this regard for others that he’s unwilling to accept for himself.
Few world currencies are as devalued as the word “racist.”
“Obama is proposing to keep health records in databases. His own birth certificate is already held in such a database”
Obfuscating again, I see. It’s nationwide databases accessible by multiple FEDERAL agencies that’s the problem. Databases worked out well for Joe the Plumber. Yes, I know 2 people got fired. Some small consolation when information you don’t want in public is leaked for partisan political purposes.
Databases worked out well for Joe the Plumber.
Those were state databases, the same sort that hold Obama’s birth information.
What Bill Maron wrote is my thought as well.
Apparently Jim has no problem with Joe’s records being made public.
Also, let me admit my mistake in not reading the entirety of the ARRA, not that Congress gave much time for that. The President is not proposing a nationwide database of electronic health records. It is already funded by the ARRA.
Apparently Jim has no problem with Joe’s records being made public.
That wasn’t me.
That wasn’t me.
I can’t say one way or another. I’ll give credit that the name isn’t exactly the same, but the views seem common. And I note the Mr. Harris no longer trolls this blog, and about the time he disappeared, you showed up. So please pardon my confusion.
Last I checked, Quebec was spending close to 2 billion a year on its childcare program. Taking that national would cost about 10 billion a year, to a first approximation. What irritated me about the Paul Martin plan was the ‘three card Monte’ aspect of it. If you listened to the Liberals back in 05/06, you’d think that there was going to be a public daycare on every block, but they were doing it for $1billion a year. Something didn’t add up. The choice confronting voters was not $100 a month vs heavily subsidized universal care for all. Maybe you liked one better than the other, but (surprise) the politicians weren’t accurately representing the choice that we faced.
Moving to today’s policy announcement, I think the Liberals ought to be clear what they mean by a ‘national program.’ Are they ponying up $10 billion a year? Or a few more spots in a few more provinces?