Majority of Ohio voters would now rather have Bush back in office instead of Obama

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
21,620
4,675
136
Lol someone who got into hardvard law on merit isn't smart now?

Holy shit.

He got into Harvard Law School using the pull of people he knew Ayers etc... Looking at his grades from Columbia ( No Honors at all ) there is no way even under the affirmative action grade inflation rules that he would be accepted into Harvard.

Get this straight: He was NOT admitted into Harvard Law on Merit. Do some research.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
If Obama was white, he'd have completely buried McCain and the Caribou Barbie, kinda like Johnson buried Goldwater in 1964. He'd likely enjoy more widespread support, as well.

One of those "Values" things...
LMAO! If Obama were white he'd have been just another freshman senator with no notable accomplishments except being a Harvard grad and a reasonably good TelePrompter reader. His signature bill in the Illinois Senate was a bill expanding government health insurance coverage for children (an expansion of a Republican program by the way) and wild claims that he personally shepherded through the Republican-controlled Illinois Senate bills introduced by Republicans, as those of us who did our due diligence in 2008 know. Look it up on the Illinois Senate web site, as opposed to what was said by the Obama campaign and by "reporters" up whose legs Obama sent chills, or just go back to where I posted the links on this forum. He'd have been buried within the first few primaries. Even John Edwards would have stood head and shoulders above a white Obama. The only thing he had going for him, the only attractive quality that made him stand out, was being black, otherwise he would have been such a lightweight you'd have to nail his feet to the stage during debates to keep him from drifting off with the draft.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Incorrect. Guy running for senate in CO had Obama campaign for him and he won ...

I think I heard that Obama on the radio was 1 for 2 and Palin was 12 for 22. Not much difference in results, although it says a lot about the current political climate that so many more people want an endorsement from Palin (not exactly an extremely accomplished person either) while so few want one from the sitting President. I'd have to search to know if those numbers are accurate though, could just be a right wing fever dream. LOL
 

Pens1566

Lifer
Oct 11, 2005
12,256
9,076
136
He got into Harvard Law School using the pull of people he knew Ayers etc... Looking at his grades from Columbia ( No Honors at all ) there is no way even under the affirmative action grade inflation rules that he would be accepted into Harvard.

Get this straight: He was NOT admitted into Harvard Law on Merit. Do some research.

You've seen his columbia transcripts? Thats interesting ...


http://www.wikicu.com/Barack_Obama
 

dainthomas

Lifer
Dec 7, 2004
14,635
3,507
136
Well you do live on the Southern Border of Ohio.


So according to you Cletus if Bush was still President we wouldn't have had the economic meltdown.

No kidding. If McCain had been elected what would be different right now? Nothing. TARP was signed by Bush. That leaves the other various bailouts (which McCain would've been largely forced to do), health care (which is barely even implemented), Iraq/Afghanistan (probably was going to go horribly no matter what).

I honestly think it's an issue of perceived "elitism". The average American now seems to want someone just like them running the country, not some Ivy League educated constitutional law scholar. Now go down to the local supermarket and look at the average American and picture them running the country. That's why things are the way they are right now (still trying to clean up after an "average American" and his mistakes).
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,952
8,007
136
Majority of Ohio voters would now rather have Bush back in office instead of Obama

This is what's wrong with this nation. It's the two party system which has people thinking they must have Bush or Obama. It's freaking criminal that we're all too stupid to come up with something better.
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,153
0
0
He got into Harvard Law School using the pull of people he knew Ayers etc... Looking at his grades from Columbia ( No Honors at all ) there is no way even under the affirmative action grade inflation rules that he would be accepted into Harvard.

Get this straight: He was NOT admitted into Harvard Law on Merit. Do some research.

Show us your evidence please. And while you're at it, explain how he graduated from Harvard Law School magna cum laude (typically top 10%) if he is not smart as you claim.

- wolf
 

Double Trouble

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,270
103
106
It isn't that you must know who delivered the Ghettysburg address to evaluate a current candidate. It's that IF you don't know at least a reasonable amount about basic civics, I assume you are either a) stupid, or b) didn't care enough to learn. And accordingly, I highly doubt you have been either a) intelligent enough to understand, or b) cared enough to learn, about the policies these candidates run on.

Or, you omit option c) you are smart and you simply don't care about any of that crap and slimy politics makes you sick. You're not a poly-sci nerd. You can still evaluate information when the time comes around to vote and make an informed decision.

So far as evaluating "character," that is something which voters will base on very superficial factors.

What you call superficial may be perfectly fine, not to mention that it might be correct. Who's to determine what the "correct" way is to decide what you think about someone?

Insofar as this being true everywhere as you allege, I doubt it is equally true everywhere. I've been to Israel twice, for example, and the people there are very well informed about their history, as well as the candidates and the ins and outs of policy. While that pertains to only one alternative culture, it does tend to support the notion that collective ignorance is NOT inevitable.

I've never lived there so I don't know what people there are like, perhaps they waste more of their time on politics, but they end up with the same scum we do, so it's not helping them one bit.

At any rate, even assuming that what you are saying is correct on the whole, I would remind you that the topic at hand was Craig and his supposed "elitism." If the TRUTH is that the typical American voter is astoundingly uninformed and/or stupid, then it doesn't really matter if this is true in other cultures.

The point is that even if the average voter is stupid (a faulty premise if you start by defining stupidity as not being informed about politics), it does not give someone else the divine right to make decisions for you as to what leaders are the ones to elect. That's why everyone gets one vote, not some number of votes based on your level of political knowledge.

Speaking the truth does not make you an "elitist," and even if it does, then "elitism" would seem to be the proper frame of mind. Broadening this beyond Craig, the real issue is that the right tends to accuse the left of elitism, claiming that they are out of touch with the common man. Not only is this allegation cheap populism meant to pander for votes, but they are attacking liberals for basically speaking the truth about the mental state of the greater part of the electorate.

Hey, if the shoe fits, gotta wear it. You've made it clear you think pretty much all voters are stupid, and that you know better than all of them who should (or should not) be elected. That's called elitism, pure and simple. Democrats are often accused of this because it's true. It's not a matter of speaking truth (neither side does that very much), it's a matter of looking down your nose at people and assuming that you know better than they do what's good for them.

Bottom line, the people of Ohio by a wide margin would prefer to have Bush back over Obama. There are two ways to interpret that fact: 1) "lots of things going into it, bad economy etc etc", or 2) (the elitist way) look down your nose and proclaim them all to be stupid because they don't share your views. Guess which one most dems (including those in this thread) went with?
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Bottom line, the people of Ohio by a wide margin would prefer to have Bush back over Obama. There are two ways to interpret that fact: 1) "lots of things going into it, bad economy etc etc", or 2) (the elitist way) look down your nose and proclaim them all to be stupid because they don't share your views. Guess which one most dems (including those in this thread) went with?

It would be interesting to see what the poll results would be going back several presidents. Clinton v Obama, Bush I v Obama, Clinton v Bush II, Clinton v Bush I, etc.

That would tell us whether they were just angry Republicans who would be happy with anybody in office other than a Democrat, or whether it actually is based off of the perception of the economy during a particular administration.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Show us your evidence please. And while you're at it, explain how he graduated from Harvard Law School magna cum laude (typically top 10%) if he is not smart as you claim.

- wolf

He won't show you any evidence because there isn't any.

Obama was also editor of the Harvard Law Review- Skin color won't get you that, unless it's white...
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,153
0
0
Or, you omit option c) you are smart and you simply don't care about any of that crap and slimy politics makes you sick. You're not a poly-sci nerd. You can still evaluate information when the time comes around to vote and make an informed decision.



What you call superficial may be perfectly fine, not to mention that it might be correct. Who's to determine what the "correct" way is to decide what you think about someone?



I've never lived there so I don't know what people there are like, perhaps they waste more of their time on politics, but they end up with the same scum we do, so it's not helping them one bit.



The point is that even if the average voter is stupid (a faulty premise if you start by defining stupidity as not being informed about politics), it does not give someone else the divine right to make decisions for you as to what leaders are the ones to elect. That's why everyone gets one vote, not some number of votes based on your level of political knowledge.



Hey, if the shoe fits, gotta wear it. You've made it clear you think pretty much all voters are stupid, and that you know better than all of them who should (or should not) be elected. That's called elitism, pure and simple. Democrats are often accused of this because it's true. It's not a matter of speaking truth (neither side does that very much), it's a matter of looking down your nose at people and assuming that you know better than they do what's good for them.

Bottom line, the people of Ohio by a wide margin would prefer to have Bush back over Obama. There are two ways to interpret that fact: 1) "lots of things going into it, bad economy etc etc", or 2) (the elitist way) look down your nose and proclaim them all to be stupid because they don't share your views. Guess which one most dems (including those in this thread) went with?

So basic civics, i.e. how our government is structured and operates, American history, and basic economics are all a bunch of useless "poly sci crap?" All you are doing is expressing the attitude that leads to a populace unable to make informed decisions. Don't get me wrong, I believe in one man, one vote. I even believe people should be free to make stupid decisions. That doesn't make them not stupid, and it doesn't mean it is wrong to point out the stupidity.

You're right about one thing. People do not care to learn much of anything in this culture. Contrary to popular belief, it isn't really a failing of the school system because you can't teach people who don't want to learn. Righties like to point out that black people have a poor attitude about learning because in that culture, learning means "acting white." But they're over-looking the caucasion version - that learning makes you a dork and a social outcast. Our children do not pick this attitude up out of a vacuum. It is endemic to a highly materialistic culture which constantly conveys the message that it is how you look and who you associate with, not what you know, that is important. Heck, even our genetically "smart" students, the ones who make decent grades, only learn enough to pass the test and then it flies out of their heads because they just don't care. And your response - that it is useless anyway.

Congratulations, you're a product of the very same anti-intellectual culture that produces people who vote for candidates because they say "you betcha" and that gives them a warm fuzzy because it means they are "ordinary people" just like you and me. Nevermind that the candidate's knowledge of foreign and domestic policy couldn't fill a thimble. She talks like me!

- wolf
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
He won't show you any evidence because there isn't any.

Obama was also editor of the Harvard Law Review- Skin color won't get you that, unless it's white...

Actually non-white skin will get you that job, as it was revealed several months ago that an unknown number of affirmative action slots exist for that position and others within the Harvard Law School. I have no idea if Obama was such a hire, of course. As far as Obama's reticence in releasing transcripts from Columbia and Occidental, absence of evidence of brilliance does not prove brilliance - or necessarily the reverse, of course. It is however evidence of the press's double standard, continually poking fun of Bush's 'C' average but perfectly willing to accept on faith that Democrat candidates were better students.

Wolf, I've never seen even the tiniest indication that learning makes one a dork or social outcast among whites. I have seen scorn of pseudo-intellectuals who trumpet their superiority while professing some of the dumbest things imaginable and insisting that anyone disagreeing simply "doesn't get it" or is an idiot. That's not even close to being the same thing.
 
Last edited:

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,153
0
0
Actually non-white skin will get you that job, as it was revealed several months ago that an unknown number of affirmative action slots exist for that position and others within the Harvard Law School. I have no idea if Obama was such a hire, of course. As far as Obama's reticence in releasing transcripts from Columbia and Occidental, absence of evidence of brilliance does not prove brilliance - or necessarily the reverse, of course. It is however evidence of the press's double standard, continually poking fun of Bush's 'C' average but perfectly willing to accept on faith that Democrat candidates were better students.

Whether or not something like affirmative action will make you editor of the Harvard Law Review, we need not assume that this was the case in Obama's situation. Since he graduated in the top 10% of his Harvard Law class, his academics made him well qualified for the position. If he got in on affirmative action, at best he got a preference against someone about equally well qualified.

To put this in perspective, getting into Harvard Law School requires an LSAT score of around the top 1% (median), and grades at about a 4.00. This "top 1%" is a sampling of college graduates, which itself is a sampling of the higher end of the intelligence spectrum in the U.S. Even if Obama got into the shcool on affirmative action, to score in the top 10% on the grading curve in a population of students who already are in the top fraction of a percent of the general populace suggests that we are dealing with a highly intelligent individual, probably at least a 1%,er and possibly a triple niner.

None of that makes him a great POTUS or even a good one, but quesioning the man's intelligence is about as weak an attack as can be made against him.

- wolf
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,153
0
0
Wolf, I've never seen even the tiniest indication that learning makes one a dork or social outcast among whites. I have seen scorn of pseudo-intellectuals who trumpet their superiority while professing some of the dumbest things imaginable and insisting that anyone disagreeing simply "doesn't get it" or is an idiot. That's not even close to being the same thing.

You've never seen the tiniest indication that learning makes one a "dork" in high school culture? How old are you if you don't mind me asking? I wonder if that attitude is a more recent phenomena. It was definately present when I went to high school in the early 1980's, and was even worse when my daughter went to high school (she graduated in 2007). It was OK to make good grades because that is understood to be necessary to making good money later. But you better not give a damn about what you're learning or there is definitely something wrong with you. Only geeks, nerds and social retards actually care about what they're being taught in class.

- wolf
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
You've never seen the tiniest indication that learning makes one a "dork" in high school culture? How old are you if you don't mind me asking? I wonder if that attitude is a more recent phenomena. It was definately present when I went to high school in the early 1980's, and was even worse when my daughter went to high school (she graduated in 2007). It was OK to make good grades because that is understood to be necessary to making good money later. But you better not give a damn about what you're learning or there is definitely something wrong with you. Only geeks, nerds and social retards actually care about what they're being taught in class.

- wolf

Fifty.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Actually non-white skin will get you that job, as it was revealed several months ago that an unknown number of affirmative action slots exist for that position and others within the Harvard Law School.

Exquisitely vague, kinda like the references to Obama's grades at Columbia... Obviously, you'll offer up a credible source for that, right?
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Whether or not something like affirmative action will make you editor of the Harvard Law Review, we need not assume that this was the case in Obama's situation. Since he graduated in the top 10% of his Harvard Law class, his academics made him well qualified for the position. If he got in on affirmative action, at best he got a preference against someone about equally well qualified.

To put this in perspective, getting into Harvard Law School requires an LSAT score of around the top 1% (median), and grades at about a 4.00. This "top 1%" is a sampling of college graduates, which itself is a sampling of the higher end of the intelligence spectrum in the U.S. Even if Obama got into the shcool on affirmative action, to score in the top 10% on the grading curve in a population of students who already are in the top fraction of a percent of the general populace suggests that we are dealing with a highly intelligent individual, probably at least a 1%,er and possibly a triple niner.

None of that makes him a great POTUS or even a good one, but quesioning the man's intelligence is about as weak an attack as can be made against him.

- wolf

Again, this connects with Obama's reticence in releasing his records. It should be fairly obvious that affirmative action means a lowering of standards. If he did not get into Harvard Law School on his own merits but rather on affirmative action, then his grades in Harvard Law School are also suspect, for just as minorities must be granted entrance they must also be graduated for the program to work. Again, I have no particular belief that this is the case, nor do I care, for the man's every action is available for scrutiny. But when he acts less than intelligent, quoting his performance at Harvard Law School is not going to convince me that he is actually intelligent. If that is to be his defense, then he should be very interested in documenting every part of his educational experience to bolster his credibility, but in any case I don't think many people will accept his educational qualifications above his actual actions in evaluating the man.
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,153
0
0
Again, this connects with Obama's reticence in releasing his records. It should be fairly obvious that affirmative action means a lowering of standards. If he did not get into Harvard Law School on his own merits but rather on affirmative action, then his grades in Harvard Law School are also suspect, for just as minorities must be granted entrance they must also be graduated for the program to work. Again, I have no particular belief that this is the case, nor do I care, for the man's every action is available for scrutiny. But when he acts less than intelligent, quoting his performance at Harvard Law School is not going to convince me that he is actually intelligent. If that is to be his defense, then he should be very interested in documenting every part of his educational experience to bolster his credibility, but in any case I don't think many people will accept his educational qualifications above his actual actions in evaluating the man.

Grading is done anonymously in law schools and probably just about every graduate and professional program. You're basically stating that his professors phonied up his grades because he's black. Very lame. Insofar as evaluating his behavior, I haven't seen any evidence that he is unintelligent as PC Geek has claimed here. This isn't about whether you agree with what he does. Because you are ideologically opposed to someone does not make that person stupid. For example, I disagree with Sarah Palin and John McCain about 3/4's of the issues, but I only think one of them is unintelliegent.

- wolf
 

dainthomas

Lifer
Dec 7, 2004
14,635
3,507
136
What you call superficial may be perfectly fine, not to mention that it might be correct. Who's to determine what the "correct" way is to decide what you think about someone?

So many horrible arguments, but this one jumped out at me. If I vote for Sarah Palin for president for the sole reason that I think she's pretty, that would be very superficial and undoubtedly the "incorrect" way to choose to give someone access to the nuclear launch codes. Sorry if I believe intelligence, knowledge of the various issues, and an even temperament are the best qualities to look for in a potential leader. And I believe that anyone NOT looking for those qualities (among others), are coming to their decision improperly. Sorry if that's "elitist".
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
That would mean you went through HS in the early to middle 1970's more than likely. Are you saying that there was no attitude of "acting smart" being equated with nerdiness when you went to school?

- wolf
Maybe it's a country thing, but nerdiness was associated not with education or intelligence but with a lack of social graces. The people we called nerds were in no way the more intelligent or bookish students, but were rather the clumsy, those who dressed funny, and those who couldn't speak to the opposite sex without hyperventilating. Sometimes those two categories cross, but more often they didn't. For instance, the most beautiful girl in my graduating class, Susan Liebig, was also the co-valedictorian, and mo' debinitely not a nerd (she dated college guys.)

Exquisitely vague, kinda like the references to Obama's grades at Columbia... Obviously, you'll offer up a credible source for that, right?

It was an exquisitely vague story on the radio. And no, I won't be offering up any sources for that. Feel free to look for them (or proof of the converse) if you wish. As far as Obama's grades at Columbia, from Wolf's post we know they were no doubt superlative, else he wouldn't have been able to get into Harvard Law School, right? So no doubt the only reason he won't release his transcripts is to avoid embarrassing the rest of us with a GPA higher than the rest of us can even count.

Somewhere in there a smart person would be wondering at a man who claims among his major qualifications his record in academia yet refuses to release those records. Feel free to think of him as super-humanly brilliant, just please don't expect the rest of the country to accept that conclusion without seeing evidence of his superhuman intelligence.
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,153
0
0
Maybe it's a country thing, but nerdiness was associated not with education or intelligence but with a lack of social graces. The people we called nerds were in no way the more intelligent or bookish students, but were rather the clumsy, those who dressed funny, and those who couldn't speak to the opposite sex without hyperventilating. Sometimes those two categories cross, but more often they didn't. For instance, the most beautiful girl in my graduating class, Susan Liebig, was also the co-valedictorian, and mo' debinitely not a nerd (she dated college guys.)

Fair enough. It may have changed over time, or it may vary regionally. Yet the stereotype of the "egghead" nerd is a very common one in society. I really don't see how anyone can pretend it doesn't exist.

- wolf
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
It was an exquisitely vague story on the radio. And no, I won't be offering up any sources for that. Feel free to look for them (or proof of the converse) if you wish.

It was *your* contention, therefore you carry the burden of proof. Given that you don't have any, we can set it aside as *false* until such is provided.

Well, unless you need to represent second hand innuendo as fact to make your point, such as it is.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Grading is done anonymously in law schools and probably just about every graduate and professional program. You're basically stating that his professors phonied up his grades because he's black. Very lame. Insofar as evaluating his behavior, I haven't seen any evidence that he is unintelligent as PC Geek has claimed here. This isn't about whether you agree with what he does. Because you are ideologically opposed to someone does not make that person stupid. For example, I disagree with Sarah Palin and John McCain about 3/4's of the issues, but I only think one of them is unintelliegent.

- wolf

I am definitely NOT stating that his professors phonied up his grades, for any reason, nor am I saying that he got into Harvard Law School through his connections or through affirmative action. I am definitely NOT stating that he is unintelligent. I did point out that if he got into Harvard Law School by connections or skin color, then his grades would be equally suspect, and that by releasing his transcripts he could prove or disprove that particular question.

I AM stating two things: First, that his record at Harvard Law School does not impress me. Academic achievement does impress me when one is newly graduated, but five or ten or twenty years out one should have accomplishments or deeds to demonstrate one's intelligence, as excellence in school does not necessarily translate into high intelligence. Second, that Obama's behavior in office has not impressed me with any great level of intelligence above that normal in Washington, as national-level politicians tend to be smarter than your average bear as a group. Again, to be perfectly clear I am not calling him unintelligent, merely stating that I have seen no evidence that he is particularly intelligent. I don't know how to make that any more clear.

Perhaps it would help if you shared some examples of Obama demonstrating his high intelligence.