College Sophomore stumps Bush..

[charrison]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Condor

Oh, have you paid back your loan?

I've paid back my loans in full, and, to answer another of your challenges, I'm happy to compare my GPA to GWB's. Hell, I went to a public law school, much like the one that turned him down (he went to Harvard Business School only after he couldn't get into the Univ of Texas law school, where his family ties didn't weigh as heavily as at a private school).

If you're going to rationalize the Bush administration's cutting student loans on the basis of defaulting borrowers, at least produce some data to indicate that the actual rates of default are on the rise.

You may legitimately feel it's appropriate to reduce student loans, but President Bush can't have it both ways. He claims to support education, yet cuts educational spending. Which is it?

And you cant have it both ways either. Education spending is up significantly since he came into office, so you cant claim he does not support education either.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: charrison
And you cant have it both ways either. Education spending is up significantly since he came into office, so you cant claim he does not support education either.

That's a liberal for ya. Always trying to have it both ways, no matter the subject.

They'll mutter the same nonsense about Bush's supposed lack of funding for the poor, ignoring the facts.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: charrison
And you cant have it both ways either. Education spending is up significantly since he came into office, so you cant claim he does not support education either.

That's a liberal for ya. Always trying to have it both ways, no matter the subject.

They'll mutter the same nonsense about Bush's supposed lack of funding for the poor, ignoring the facts.

That's a conservative for ya. Always going with the simpleminded approach, no matter the subject.

If you'll listen carefull (ha!), you'll notice that most objections to Bush's schemes aren't in the form of "he's not doing anything", it's "he's doing something ineffective". In the case of education, the spending that has indeed gone up is not being spent very well, while spending in crucial areas like money for dramatically increasing college tuition has gone way down.

 

[Uhtrinity]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: charrison
And you cant have it both ways either. Education spending is up significantly since he came into office, so you cant claim he does not support education either.

That's a liberal for ya. Always trying to have it both ways, no matter the subject.

They'll mutter the same nonsense about Bush's supposed lack of funding for the poor, ignoring the facts.

Well then why didn't Bush just answer the damned question. He signed the bill, you telling me he doesn't even read them (wouldn't surprise me). The guy is a bumbling fool who is supposed to be President of the United States. There was a time when only the most qualified made it to office, now your average 'rich' C student can aspire to the oval office. Funny this thread switched to what is wrong with the education system and you can look at the president to see the result.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Uhtrinity
Well then why didn't Bush just answer the damned question. He signed the bill, you telling me he doesn't even read them (wouldn't surprise me). The guy is a bumbling fool who is supposed to be President of the United States. There was a time when only the most qualified made it to office, now your average 'rich' C student can aspire to the oval office. Funny this thread switched to what is wrong with the education system and you can look at the president to see the result.

It's the old "Bush is stupid" argument, eh?

I'd put some money on his IQ being higher than most on this forum.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: charrison
And you cant have it both ways either. Education spending is up significantly since he came into office, so you cant claim he does not support education either.

That's a liberal for ya. Always trying to have it both ways, no matter the subject.

They'll mutter the same nonsense about Bush's supposed lack of funding for the poor, ignoring the facts.

That's a conservative for ya. Always going with the simpleminded approach, no matter the subject.

If you'll listen carefull (ha!), you'll notice that most objections to Bush's schemes aren't in the form of "he's not doing anything", it's "he's doing something ineffective". In the case of education, the spending that has indeed gone up is not being spent very well, while spending in crucial areas like money for dramatically increasing college tuition has gone way down.

Actually colledge funding has gone way up since he came to office. This budget appears to only a small increase compared to large previous year increases.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: charrison
And you cant have it both ways either. Education spending is up significantly since he came into office, so you cant claim he does not support education either.

That's a liberal for ya. Always trying to have it both ways, no matter the subject.

They'll mutter the same nonsense about Bush's supposed lack of funding for the poor, ignoring the facts.

That's a conservative for ya. Always going with the simpleminded approach, no matter the subject.

If you'll listen carefull (ha!), you'll notice that most objections to Bush's schemes aren't in the form of "he's not doing anything", it's "he's doing something ineffective". In the case of education, the spending that has indeed gone up is not being spent very well, while spending in crucial areas like money for dramatically increasing college tuition has gone way down.

Actually colledge funding has gone way up since he came to office. This budget appears to only a small increase compared to large previous year increases.

And I will have to agree most federal spending is inneffective, no matter what party is in power.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: charrison
And you cant have it both ways either. Education spending is up significantly since he came into office, so you cant claim he does not support education either.

That's a liberal for ya. Always trying to have it both ways, no matter the subject.

They'll mutter the same nonsense about Bush's supposed lack of funding for the poor, ignoring the facts.

Facts and reality defeat them! They must avoid both.

 

[Uhtrinity]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Uhtrinity
Well then why didn't Bush just answer the damned question. He signed the bill, you telling me he doesn't even read them (wouldn't surprise me). The guy is a bumbling fool who is supposed to be President of the United States. There was a time when only the most qualified made it to office, now your average 'rich' C student can aspire to the oval office. Funny this thread switched to what is wrong with the education system and you can look at the president to see the result.

It's the old "Bush is stupid" argument, eh?

I'd put some money on his IQ being higher than most on this forum.

I'd put good money on most members of this forum being able to out debate him 🙂

Did you see the clip? I'm not sure if I would describe it as shock or pure cluelesness. The guy was literally stumped / oblivious to any cuts in education, and it had to be explained to him by the student. Not like this is old or minor news. Really I see no excuse for this and don't understand how someone can try and defend it. After all he is supposed to represent the best and brightest America has to offer.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Condor
Responses only from past students who have actually paid back their loans in full please!

<-- right here.

Now you tell me, why is Bush such a lying, snivelling little worm? Doesn't he have the the balls to get up there and defend his policies?

He had just done that for 45 minutes to an hour before that question was raised. You didn't watch, did you? If you had, you could have posted something factual.

Oh, have you paid back your loan?

Yes, a rather large lump sum paid a few days after I got a letter asking me for my first payment.

Now lets get back on topic, so you can help me understand Bush..
Are you saying he's so stupid that he can't answer a few questions about his policies without forgetting what they are? Or is that he isn't aware of what he is signing into law to begin with? Or is it that he's a lying coward who cuts funding one day, then tells a student the next day that he didn't cut anything?

If I thought yopu had any desire to understand Bush, I would be more than glad to help. I know that attack, not understand, is your goal. A few questions? You really are uninformed aren't you. Students are lucky to get the funding in the first place and to whine about the conditions is beyond understanding!

Why do I have to ask you the same thing three times before I get an answer? If I'm wrong, and you're right, then tell me why Bush did what he did. Surely you can answer such a simple question without inquiring about my finances and other such nonsense distractions?

Look at the way you addressed our President. Apologise for that. Then we may talk. I didn't like Clinton, but I did not refer to him in those terms.

I will refer to him in the same terms I use to refer to everyone else, becuause I do not worship or defer to positions of power the way you (and sadly, a significant portion of americans) do. I find the whole concept absolutely repulsive.

Now why don't you defend your demi-god? This is the 4th time I've asked you this very simple thing and yet you continue with your digressions...

I don't have to defend him. He does a damx good job of doing it himself. Remember, after dozens of attacks and millions spent - Democrats and libs 0, Bush dozens. The way the Democratic party is bleeding money, they should hold until they have something real. They may go the way of the CRT TV.

 

[Uhtrinity]

Originally posted by: Condor
I don't have to defend him. He does a damx good job of doing it himself. Remember, after dozens of attacks and millions spent - Democrats and libs 0, Bush dozens. The way the Democratic party is bleeding money, they should hold until they have something real. They may go the way of the CRT TV.

First respect is earned, no matter the title, he had his chance after 911 and blew it.

Second, doesn't hurt to have the Senate and Congress stocked with your supporters who will toe the party line (though that is fading)..

Third, so he won against a terrible candidate, or won due to alot of people coming out to vote on hot topic's (gay marriage). Reguardless of how he won there is no excuse to lower the standards so much that fumbling in front of a prescreened audience should be excused. It's not even like this is the first time, you can usually count on it happening everytime he makes a public appearance.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Uhtrinity
"Reguardless of how he won there is no excuse to lower the standards..."

Irony :laugh:

And my previous comment still stands 😀

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: Uhtrinity

Originally posted by: Condor
I don't have to defend him. He does a damx good job of doing it himself. Remember, after dozens of attacks and millions spent - Democrats and libs 0, Bush dozens. The way the Democratic party is bleeding money, they should hold until they have something real. They may go the way of the CRT TV.

First respect is earned, no matter the title, he had his chance after 911 and blew it.

Second, doesn't hurt to have the Senate and Congress stocked with your supporters who will toe the party line (though that is fading)..

Third, so he won against a terrible candidate, or won due to alot of people coming out to vote on hot topic's (gay marriage). Reguardless of how he won there is no excuse to lower the standards so much that fumbling in front of a prescreened audience should be excused. It's not even like this is the first time, you can usually count on it happening everytime he makes a public appearance.

He is not the junior college debate team captain. Get over it. He is the President of the United States and actions still speak when words, regardless of quantity, lay silent.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Condor
I don't have to defend him. He does a damx good job of doing it himself.

Yes, look at him valiantly defending his policies by lying.

So after asking you the same question 4 times, all I get is discussions around my finances and attitude towards authority.

You really know how stick to the subject and to argue effectively :roll:

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: Uhtrinity

Originally posted by: Condor
I don't have to defend him. He does a damx good job of doing it himself. Remember, after dozens of attacks and millions spent - Democrats and libs 0, Bush dozens. The way the Democratic party is bleeding money, they should hold until they have something real. They may go the way of the CRT TV.

First respect is earned, no matter the title, he had his chance after 911 and blew it.

Second, doesn't hurt to have the Senate and Congress stocked with your supporters who will toe the party line (though that is fading)..

Third, so he won against a terrible candidate, or won due to alot of people coming out to vote on hot topic's (gay marriage). Reguardless of how he won there is no excuse to lower the standards so much that fumbling in front of a prescreened audience should be excused. It's not even like this is the first time, you can usually count on it happening everytime he makes a public appearance.

He is not the junior college debate team captain. Get over it. He is the President of the United States and actions still speak when words, regardless of quantity, lay silent.

Yeah, his actions suck too.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Condor
I don't have to defend him. He does a damx good job of doing it himself.

Yes, look at him valiantly defending his policies by lying.

So after asking you the same question 4 times, all I get is discussions around my finances and attitude towards authority.

You really know how stick to the subject and to argue effectively :roll:

I would give you the respect of arguing with you? Why? it would be a waste of time. I have witnessed your stubborn stance against solid logic and truth many times on this forum and you never give an inch. Why would I participate in that?

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: Uhtrinity

Originally posted by: Condor
I don't have to defend him. He does a damx good job of doing it himself. Remember, after dozens of attacks and millions spent - Democrats and libs 0, Bush dozens. The way the Democratic party is bleeding money, they should hold until they have something real. They may go the way of the CRT TV.

First respect is earned, no matter the title, he had his chance after 911 and blew it.

Second, doesn't hurt to have the Senate and Congress stocked with your supporters who will toe the party line (though that is fading)..

Third, so he won against a terrible candidate, or won due to alot of people coming out to vote on hot topic's (gay marriage). Reguardless of how he won there is no excuse to lower the standards so much that fumbling in front of a prescreened audience should be excused. It's not even like this is the first time, you can usually count on it happening everytime he makes a public appearance.

He is not the junior college debate team captain. Get over it. He is the President of the United States and actions still speak when words, regardless of quantity, lay silent.

Yeah, his actions suck too.

History, not you, will decide that.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: conjur
Why don't you answer the question? How does raising standards in lieu of cutting grants and loans help students get into college?

Show the board that you have the ability to think. Or, are you a prime example of why higher standards might be required?


And, btw, there's a "leadership race" thread that's been requesting your presence for some time.

The purpose is not merely to get into college, its to ensure they have a worthwhile experience there and that they remain in college.

How many times are you going to avoid the question?

How does instituting higher standards enable more students to enter college instead of providing grants and loans?

I've answered the question, several times. People can seek alternative sources of funding if they choose.

Several times? Are you insane?

ANSWER THE QUESTON:

How does raising standards in lieu of cutting grants and loans help students get into college?

????

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Uhtrinity

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: charrison
And you cant have it both ways either. Education spending is up significantly since he came into office, so you cant claim he does not support education either.

That's a liberal for ya. Always trying to have it both ways, no matter the subject.

They'll mutter the same nonsense about Bush's supposed lack of funding for the poor, ignoring the facts.

Well then why didn't Bush just answer the damned question. He signed the bill, you telling me he doesn't even read them (wouldn't surprise me). The guy is a bumbling fool who is supposed to be President of the United States. There was a time when only the most qualified made it to office, now your average 'rich' C student can aspire to the oval office. Funny this thread switched to what is wrong with the education system and you can look at the president to see the result.

How many bills has Bush signed into office? Should he memorize all of them? What about the Senators voting for the bills?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Uhtrinity

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: charrison
And you cant have it both ways either. Education spending is up significantly since he came into office, so you cant claim he does not support education either.

That's a liberal for ya. Always trying to have it both ways, no matter the subject.

They'll mutter the same nonsense about Bush's supposed lack of funding for the poor, ignoring the facts.

Well then why didn't Bush just answer the damned question. He signed the bill, you telling me he doesn't even read them (wouldn't surprise me). The guy is a bumbling fool who is supposed to be President of the United States. There was a time when only the most qualified made it to office, now your average 'rich' C student can aspire to the oval office. Funny this thread switched to what is wrong with the education system and you can look at the president to see the result.

How many bills has Bush signed into office? Should he memorize all of them? What about the Senators voting for the bills?

On Dec. 21, 2005, the Senate passed $12.7 billion in cuts to education programs

Can't remember major legislation from a month ago??

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Condor
I don't have to defend him. He does a damx good job of doing it himself.

Yes, look at him valiantly defending his policies by lying.

So after asking you the same question 4 times, all I get is discussions around my finances and attitude towards authority.

You really know how stick to the subject and to argue effectively :roll:

I would give you the respect of arguing with you? Why? it would be a waste of time. I have witnessed your stubborn stance against solid logic and truth many times on this forum and you never give an inch. Why would I participate in that?

Because you're widely regarded as the open minded moderate centrist, right? :laugh:

If you were to actually enforce your "I won't argue with you because you won't change your mind" rule, then you'd have to stop posting in P&N.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Uhtrinity

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: charrison
And you cant have it both ways either. Education spending is up significantly since he came into office, so you cant claim he does not support education either.

That's a liberal for ya. Always trying to have it both ways, no matter the subject.

They'll mutter the same nonsense about Bush's supposed lack of funding for the poor, ignoring the facts.

Well then why didn't Bush just answer the damned question. He signed the bill, you telling me he doesn't even read them (wouldn't surprise me). The guy is a bumbling fool who is supposed to be President of the United States. There was a time when only the most qualified made it to office, now your average 'rich' C student can aspire to the oval office. Funny this thread switched to what is wrong with the education system and you can look at the president to see the result.

How many bills has Bush signed into office? Should he memorize all of them? What about the Senators voting for the bills?

On Dec. 21, 2005, the Senate passed $12.7 billion in cuts to education programs

Can't remember major legislation from a month ago??

Do you read the newspaper? What was the headline on page 2 from that date? Any newspaper is fine.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Uhtrinity

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: charrison
And you cant have it both ways either. Education spending is up significantly since he came into office, so you cant claim he does not support education either.

That's a liberal for ya. Always trying to have it both ways, no matter the subject.

They'll mutter the same nonsense about Bush's supposed lack of funding for the poor, ignoring the facts.

Well then why didn't Bush just answer the damned question. He signed the bill, you telling me he doesn't even read them (wouldn't surprise me). The guy is a bumbling fool who is supposed to be President of the United States. There was a time when only the most qualified made it to office, now your average 'rich' C student can aspire to the oval office. Funny this thread switched to what is wrong with the education system and you can look at the president to see the result.

How many bills has Bush signed into office? Should he memorize all of them? What about the Senators voting for the bills?

On Dec. 21, 2005, the Senate passed $12.7 billion in cuts to education programs

Can't remember major legislation from a month ago??

Do you read the newspaper? What was the headline on page 2 from that date? Any newspaper is fine.

I think there's a slight difference in a random headline from a newspaper and a major piece of legislation affecting students across the nation.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: zendari
How many bills has Bush signed into office? Should he memorize all of them? What about the Senators voting for the bills?

On Dec. 21, 2005, the Senate passed $12.7 billion in cuts to education programs

Can't remember major legislation from a month ago??

Do you read the newspaper? What was the headline on page 2 from that date? Any newspaper is fine.

:roll:


Maybe if you'd asked me, if I were a newspaper editor, what the top headline was on Dec. 21....


:roll:




Anyway, here's video from last night's The Daily Show showing the Propagandist in his fine, fine form:
http://www.canofun.com/blog/videos/2006/TDSBushSpeechManhattan.asx

:laugh:

:laugh:

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Condor

Several threads in the last day or two have had questions of a legal nature in them. When those threads are active, I notice your asbsence. Being that as you area of expertise, I would think you would be eager to chime in. I don't remember you ever answering a single legal query on any of the threads. I know you must have, but not many is my guess. Why that avoidance of your area?

What are you implying? Do you think I read every thread here? Feel free to link to them and I'll see if I have anything to contribute. Otherwise, keep your cheap innuendo to yourself.