Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If he had above a 3.00, I would be satisfied. At least that would show-
1. he is not a moron
2. although admitted to Harvard as a quota, that his admission was not outrageous
Now why in the world would he not release his transcripts? Certainly if he was as "smart" () as liberals say, he would have an outstanding GPA and we would all agree that he is, in fact, intelligent. If, on the other hand, he had a lousy GPA (which he probably did- even his classmates said he was not a great student), it confirms that he is probably an idiot and just a product of affirmative action.
Remember when everyone said John Kerry was so "smart" and that Bush was an idiot? Kerry had an IQ of 115 and Bush had an IQ of 118, yet Bush was "an idiot"!
Liberals manifest the Dunning-Kruger effect, in which intellectual mediocrity convinces one that they are a genius. Pulling a "D" lever in a voting booth does not make one an intellectual, although all liberals believe otherwise.
Why didn't Romney release his transcripts? Or his birth certificate?
I'm simply pointing out the facts. Not my problem if that hurts you.
No, you are demonstrating your hypocrisy. You critcize the GOP for doing precisely what you applaud from the Democrats. But that is okay, everyone has come to expect liberal freaks to be two-faced these days, please do not think that you are an exception by any means.
And it cost $87 million for IC Walsh's investigation into Iran/Contra. At least Clinton's investigation resulted in an impeachment, which is more than you can say about IC Walsh. He exonerated Reagan, $87 million later.
Clinton was impeached in December 1998, a full two years before he left office. I do not know where you got that "40 days before vacating" nonsense.
It's the least they could do after Clinton worked with them in signing NAFTA and repealling Glass-Steagall....and of course welfare reform.
To this day I think it's hillarious how much libs love Clinton and cons despise him. He was the first black republican president.
None of that is true. It is truly amazing the fantasies liberal freaks concoct.
NAFTA is a GOP created treaty, going back to 1984. Both the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 and the passage of the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 were made with a veto-proof majority over Clinton's strenuous objections. In fact Clinton originally vetoed the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 in January 1996, and threatened to veto it again in June 1996. That is when the GOP passed the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 in July of 1996 with a veto-proof majority. I find your fantasies to be hillarious and it truly demonstrates that liberal freaks have a mental illness that makes them incapable of dealing with reality.
Obama's alleged "polarization" is a direct reflection of the number of racists in this country. The bottom line is, some people hate Obama because they can't stand the thought of a "n****r" (their word) in the White House. He's smarter than them, and he's a threat to their "way of life" ... i.e., white 50s America. End of story.
You have just summed up the totality of all the phony "polarization" comments, accusations, opinions, articles, from Fox media and the right wing in this country. They are too cowardly to express their beliefs, so they throw out this "polarization" canard - which just means "I don't like him" (Fox is merely using them of course). They are dumb enough to think other people can't see through all this, so they are actually just using code to, in effect, talk to each other.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KUchief25
Clinton rode the dot com bubble wave and the economy was good. You can get away with fondling your interns when the economy is good.
As opposed to fondling and having affairs with anybody and everybody. So Clinton's fondling "polarized" you against him? Sure. You express the typical right-wing phony outrage.
Before you say "Democrats do it too", just remember who it is that engages in the ongoing, incessant "family values" preaching. Here's a list of these "preachers". Republican Sex Scandals Dwarf Those of Democrats - Salem-News.Com
Clinton was not as polarizing as Obama!
But after Clinton came George W. who was the most polarizing figure since Nixon (for 8 years). Obama is a similar occurrence (this time democrat). However he has only 4 years and someone else will be then elected.
I've met Clinton several times, is just a likable fellow and very smart. He was popular and not as polarizing. Of course cable news was a LOT different then too.
None of that is true. It is truly amazing the fantasies liberal freaks concoct.
NAFTA is a GOP created treaty, going back to 1984. Both the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 and the passage of the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 were made with a veto-proof majority over Clinton's strenuous objections. In fact Clinton originally vetoed the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 in January 1996, and threatened to veto it again in June 1996. That is when the GOP passed the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 in July of 1996 with a veto-proof majority. I find your fantasies to be hillarious and it truly demonstrates that liberal freaks have a mental illness that makes them incapable of dealing with reality.
"veto proof majority"...
lets be clear on what that means.
Republicans NEVER had a majority in the house or senate capable of providing a veto proof vote. That MEANS any vote that would be "veto proof" would have to be by-partisian with a large number of both Republicans and Democrats voting for it.
Clinton took credit for the Welfare Reform Act even if you say je didnt.
Robert Rubin was very much involved in writing the Graham Leach Bliley act that repealed Glass-Steagall. your version above is just a balled facted lie.
and since you decided to get nasty, lets also point out that republicans in the Senate, sought in G-L-B to not expand the Community Reinvestment Act which was a major part of the housing crisis that took place in 2008. Clinton wanted both CRA and repeal of Glass Stegal and in the end got what he wanted.
that combination CAUSED the 2008 housing meltdown.
Republicans NEVER had a majority in the house or senate capable of providing a veto proof vote. That MEANS any vote that would be "veto proof" would have to be by-partisian with a large number of both Republicans and Democrats voting for it.
Clinton took credit for the Welfare Reform Act even if you say je didnt.
Robert Rubin was very much involved in writing the Graham Leach Bliley act that repealed Glass-Steagall. your version above is just a balled facted lie.
and since you decided to get nasty, lets also point out that republicans in the Senate, sought in G-L-B to not expand the Community Reinvestment Act which was a major part of the housing crisis that took place in 2008. Clinton wanted both CRA and repeal of Glass Stegal and in the end got what he wanted.
that combination CAUSED the 2008 housing meltdown.
That is correct, the Republicans never had a veto-proof majority, yet they were able to get veto-proof majorities on numerous bills. Obviously that required at least some Democrats to veto with the GOP.
I never said Clinton did not take credit for the Welfare Reform Act of 1996, I said he vetoed it in January 1996, and threatened to veto it again in June 1996. It was only because Welfare Reform Act of 1996 passed Congress with a veto-proof majority that Clinton had absolutely no choice but to accept what Congress passed.
The repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 was also passed with a veto-proof majority. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 (S. 900) passed the Senate 90 to 8 (Record Vote No: 354), and passed the House 362 to 57 (Roll no. 570). Or do you not comprehend the meaning of "veto-proof?"
Obviously are you completely clueless.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) as liberals say, he would have an outstanding GPA and we would all agree that he is, in fact, intelligent. If, on the other hand, he had a lousy GPA (which he probably did- even his classmates said he was not a great student), it confirms that he is probably an idiot and just a product of affirmative action. 
You have just summed up the totality of all the phony "polarization" comments, accusations, opinions, articles, from Fox media and the right wing in this country. They are too cowardly to express their beliefs, so they throw out this "polarization" canard - which just means "I don't like him" (Fox is merely using them of course). They are dumb enough to think other people can't see through all this, so they are actually just using code to, in effect, talk to each other. 
