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.
Why weren't they asked "time after time?" What is it about this president that demands such scrutiny?
And when and where will it stop? If he does release his transcripts, will it stop there? Or will there be demands to see his high school records, then middle school, and on down? After every single school record is released, then what will you and all the other birther/racists be after? His kindergarten records?
It will never stop. I actually kind of wish President Obama hadn't released his "long form" birth certificate; I wish he had said "tough s**t" to all of you, that the COLB, which is recognized as legal proof of identity everywhere, was good enough. But he didn't and now all you racist s.o.b.'s want more, more, more.
The rest of the world must look at us and wonder how we, as a nation, can treat the man who was elected to our highest office in such a humiliating manner. It's a freakin' disgrace.
I don't know how old you are or if you have a bad memory but history is not on your side.
Read this complete article.
2 points.
1. The media praises dems and denigrates repubs.
2. It shows you are wrong about only "this President".
Maybe we don't trust Obama and the left media based on their history.
I wonder how thE New Yorker hey got the transcripts for these 2 when it has been claimed on these posts that transcripts are private ND CAN ONLY BE RELEASED if THE OWNER?
[SIZE=+1]"GORE'S DUBIOUS SCHOOL RECORD[/SIZE] BOSTON GLOBE ^ | 9-7-2000 | Author: By JENNIFER C. BRACERAS
Posted on Friday, October 04, 2002 5:46:10 PM by buffyt
Jennifer C. Braceras is an attorney and research fellow at Harvard Law School. Her column appears regularly in the Globe.
When will the liberal media stop treating left-wing ideology as a proxy for intelligence? For months the press has questioned the intellect of Republican candidate George W. Bush, while describing Al Gore as "serious," "intellectual" - even "wonkish."
The basis for the media's unfair attacks on Bush's intelligence is his 30-year-old Yale College transcript (purloined last fall and published by The New Yorker). Yet The Washington Post's subsequent revelation of Gore's unimpressive academic record has done little to alter the media's false portrayal of Gore as "the smartest kid in the class." It is a record that is worth reviewing, if only to debunk the myth of Gore as a serious student.
Gore's undergraduate transcript from Harvard is riddled with C's, including a C-minus in introductory economics, a D in one science course, and a C-plus in another. "In his sophomore year at Harvard," the Post reported, "Gore's grades were lower than any semester recorded on Bush's transcript from Yale." Moreover, Gore's graduate school record - consistently glossed over by the press - is nothing short of shameful. In 1971, Gore enrolled in Vanderbilt Divinity School where, according to Bill Turque, author of "Inventing Al Gore," he received F's in five of the eight classes he took over the course of three semesters. Not surprisingly, Gore did not receive a degree from the divinity school. Nor did Gore graduate from Vanderbilt Law School, where he enrolled for a brief time and received his fair share of C's. (Bush went on to earn an MBA from Harvard).
But whereas the liberal press has described Bush's college days as a time of misspent youth, media accounts of Gore's undergraduate years are grossly fawning. (The New York Times: "As Mr. Bush was frolicking around Yale, a young man named Al Gore was studying at Harvard"; "Harvard nurtured the part of [Gore] that is in love with the world of ideas." The New Republic: "At Harvard, Gore set himself formidable intellectual challenges.")"
"Of course, the stereotyping of conservative candidates as dumb and liberal candidates as "brilliant" is nothing new. During the 1950s,the media lionized Democrat Adlai Stevenson as an intellectual, while ridiculing Republican Dwight Eisenhower as an ineffectual simpleton. Back then, the members of the press knew full well that Stevenson attended Harvard Law School and, yet, had not received a degree. But the media gave Stevenson a pass. (Sound familiar?) Had resourceful journalists investigated, they might have learned (as we now know from Stevenson's biographer John Bartlow Martin) that Harvard Law School Dean Erwin Griswold had hidden Stevenson's transcript in a locked cabinet in his office. What was he hiding? Stevenson, the so-called "thinking man's candidate," had, in fact, flunked out of Harvard Law."
In your opinion -- and I guess being a Illinois State Senator and a U.S. Senator doesn't count as a qualification. Remember, prior to being President, Lincoln was "only" a Illinois State Senator and a U.S. Congressman.
Newt Gingrich and Sen. Santorum are running for President and the highest office they ever attained was Congressman and U.S. Senator, respectively. Yet, I don't see the GOP claiming that Gingrich and Santorum are unqualified for the office. The same holds true for Sen. MacCain, who only was a Senator. Clearly a double-standard exists from those claiming Obama unqualified.
There is NO double standard. Since YOU brought it up how about posting each of their political records? You know legislation they introduced, what the for and against, etc.
There is NO double standard. Since YOU brought it up how about posting each of their political records? You know legislation they introduced, what the for and against, etc.
This will be interesting.
You are confused. It's not up to me to perform as your research assistant. If you want to counter a point that I made, the onus is upon you to do the research, not me.
See... this too is an example of the willful ignorance of Birthers and Birthism.
No... he has "sealed" no records. certainly no more than you have "sealed" all of your records or I have "sealed" all of mine. We have in this country chosen over the last few decades (a choice driven largely and correctly by conservatives) to secure our privacy by creating laws that protect our personal records and information. None of them are sealed. All of them are protected by the same laws... no sealing required.
Why wonder when the answer has always been available? They were illegally leaked. No one was more pissed off than George Bush, and the Yale Registrar has to grovel for forgiveness because of the leak.
Then I notice that you haven't really read the thread.
Your constant referral of anyone who has responded to this posting that you don't agree with as as a birther only shows how ignorant you are.
HIS records are SEALED by HIM.
I know that is hard for someone of your inelligence to understand but, that IS THE FACT.
You are confused. It's not up to me to perform as your research assistant. If you want to counter a point that I made, the onus is upon you to do the research, not me.
Sorry, YOU are the one who brought up their political careers for comparison.
If YOU are afraid to back up your claim I understand.
Your constant referral of anyone who has responded to this posting that you don't agree with as as a birther only shows how ignorant you are.
HIS records are SEALED by HIM.
I know that is hard for someone of your inelligence to understand but, that IS THE FACT.
You obviously don't know what a FACT is, then.
My personal records, such as my birth certificate and my college transcripts, are available to me, and only to me. I haven't sealed them, or made any special requests to make them available only to me. Instead, the state where I was born, and the schools and college I attended, have laws and policies that protect my privacy. Those same laws and policies are in place for every other person. And that includes the President of the United States. He didn't SEAL anything. And that would be a FACT.
Sorry, YOU are the one who brought up their political careers for comparison.
If YOU are afraid to back up your claim I understand.
The post speaks for itself and makes the point that Obama is no less qualified in 2008 as Lincoln, Gingrich, Santorum and McCain are/were qualified when they ran. If you want to add additional information, or dispute mine, go right ahead but don't ask me to do it for you.
If you are going to quote me use the complete quote and do NOT alter it.
My post said, "Your constant referral of anyone who has responded to this posting that you don't agree with as as a birther only shows how ignorant you are."
If you are going to quote me use the complete quote and do NOT alter it.
My post said, "Your constant referral of anyone who has responded to this posting that you don't agree with as as a birther only shows how ignorant you are."
The post speaks for itself and makes the point that Obama is no less qualified in 2008 as Lincoln, Gingrich, Santorum and McCain are/were qualified when they ran. If you want to add additional information, or dispute mine, go right ahead but don't ask me to do it for you.
You are making a fool of yourself. You are making things up.I have NEVER said or insinuated that he wasn't qualified. In fact most of the responders on here have never made such a statement.
Again, YOU brought up their political experiences as a comparison. And as I suspected are afraid to show details.
If you can't/won't back it up then your claim is baseless.
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.
