Libertarian Party

Reason Rewind: Wayne Root Was Saying the Same Stuff (Minus the Birther Twist) Four Years Ago

|

"He's a communist!"

Libertarian National Campaign Committee Chair Wayne Allyn Root's attention-grabbing guess that his Columbia University classmate Barack Obama "got a leg up by being admitted to both Occidental and Columbia as a foreign exchange student" who neglected to "ever change his citizenship back," which was flagged here last night by Mike Riggs, is a version of what he told me four years ago at an LP fundraiser during the Democratic National Convention in 2008. From that conversation:

"A vote for Obama is four years of Karl Marx, and no one should be happy about that," he told us and a few genial young libertarian activists over cocktails. "He's a communist! I don't care what anybody says. The guy's a communist…. And his mother was a card-carrying communist, and he says she's the most important person in his entire life; he learned everything from her." […]

Root: And I'd be willing to bet every dime I have in the world, a million dollars I'll put, I'll put a million dollars cash on the fact—

Welch: This is on the record—

Root: —that my GPA was better than Barack's—

Welch: Oooooh.

Root: …and he got in based on the color of his skin.

Hey, a lot changed in three years!

Does anyone doubt that possibly Barack could have gotten into Harvard with a C average because he's black, where as I, white, couldn't get into the same school with a B-plus, A-minus average? And yet his wife says that America is a terrible nation unfair to minorities! I say, Au contraire!

I say the whole problem with America is we are racist against people because of the color of their skin. We're helping people because they're black. We're helping people because they're minority. We're helping people because they're poor. In reality only those who have the most skill and talent should get into Harvard, not because of the color of their skin.

So now I ask out loud in the press, I challenge my classmate to give his GPA against mine. And let's see if he really is the bright guy they all say he is. What if we discover he got into Harvard with a C average? Is he then the brilliant man America thinks he is? That would be a very good question, don't you think?

I spend a lot of time (and will indeed spend more time today, at noon eastern on Fox Business Network!) talking on television about how this or that micro-media scandal of the day is irrelevant to the urgent problems of both our immediate and long-term fiscal and economic picture. Barack Obama's academic record three decades ago ranks right down there with his dog-eating as reasons why normal humans are dead sick of listening to some Republicans (and some former Republicans) talk about politics.

About which read more at The Declaration of Independents: How Libertarian Can Fix What's Wrong With America, with a new foreward by meself & Nick Gillespie.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

431 responses to “Reason Rewind: Wayne Root Was Saying the Same Stuff (Minus the Birther Twist) Four Years Ago

  1. I hate Obama as much as the next guy, but the problem with this argument is this:

    Columbia’s and Harvard’s admissions don’t have to be “fair”.

    Their admissions should be designed to do one thing and one thing only: to enhance the prestige of the schools. That’s it. They aren’t admitting people to be nice, or to be fair. They’re admitting people to enhance their prestige and their endowments.

    So if they “unfairly” admitted Obama, it’s retroactively justified by the fact that the guy is now President of the United States, and they can say, “Suck on that, Yale! This President’s our alumnus and not yours!” And, of course, they can say that to every other college in America too.

    So the question really becomes, “Would the white guy who could have been admitted in Obama’s place be President today?” Because if the answer is no, and it almost certainly is, then the admissions officer who decided to admit Obama was a fucking genius and nobody gets to second guess him.

    1. No they don’t have to be fair. And everyone knows Obama is an affirmative action baby. If it turned out his grades were lousy, it would be a week long story if that.

      The more interesting issue is the foreign exchange student issue. That is why I think Obama has never released his records. It is pretty clear Obama is a US citizen and was born in Hawaii. So that would mean that he lied about being a foreign student to get into college. That would show a real character flaw and admitting it would totally humiliate Obama. I don’t know how much it would effect the election. But it would be very humiliating.

      People like Root hate Obama personally. And thus would love to see him not just lose but be humiliated. Welch in contrast seems to like Obama at least on a personal level. And thus doesn’t understand why Root is so intent on humiliation rather than just winning.

      1. Obama humiliated? I have never witnessed a democrat being humiliated. When bad things happen they make excuses and promote it. Democrats don’t care about character flaws.
        Besides the whole lying on an application is more about working the unjust system, for that he would be hailed a hero.
        Why isn’t the college saying anything about the situation, you know at least one person has looked at his records.

        Democrats just don’t care.

        1. They do. They just are good at shamelessly pretending they don’t. It would bother him or he would have already released them. But yes, when it turned out Obama lied his way into Columbia and Harvard, the story would be “those damned racist Republicans just picked on a black man.”

        2. To be humiliated one must have shame.

          Politicians in general have no shame.
          That’s not a party issue. It just comes with being a professional liar.

          1. It is a party issue. I will agree that all politicians are professional liars with no values. The difference is when democrats get caught committing a crime or doing something unethical excuses are made and they continue their work in politics. When republicans get caught they resign.

            1. Democrats continue after being caught because the voters don’t hold it against them.

              Republicans resign after being caught because they are now an unelectable liability.

              1. After Warren’s red faced evasions in regard to her lying about her heritage, I’d say there does appear to be a large segment of the population that is utterly unconcerned with massive character flaws in politicians. (As long as those flaws are in their TEAMS happy place.)

                Ron Paul is the only analog we have for someone like Grover Cleveland today.

        3. The Obamabots would just say that Obama’s family lore mistakenly said he was born in Kenya at the time.

          1. His book jacket said he was born there too, but he didn’t write that.

      2. That may be true, but I was addressing the actual argument Root offered in the blockquote.

        By any reasonable measure, it was their decision to admit Root that was questionable. That’s what he doesn’t seem to get.

        We talk a lot here about how Ivy League admissions are skewed towards certain personality types (that could be summarized as Corrupt Joiner Snakes). But that’s actually appropriate, from the schools’ perspective. The schools want to admit people who will hold dominant positions in society after graduation, in politics, business, and the arts. And if the society we currently have is structured in such a way that Richard III style schemers will occupy those positions, that’s who the schools should admit.

        So Root may be a bright guy, but it’s pretty clear that he’s got some personality issues that have sidelined him – he’s got the kind of mind that is attracted to a fringe political/philosophical movement, and he’s too impolitic and indiscreet to keep his mouth shut and not make himself look like a loon. So that means that the admissions officer who looked at him and saw potential blew it – Root will always be a freak like us, and will never hold a position of actual authority or power. Even if his grades were higher than Obama’s, Obama’s admission was the right move and Root’s was a mistake. Do you think Columbia is delighted to have Root as an alumnus, and ashamed of Obama, or the reverse? I think I know the answer.

        1. I also agree with Fluffy here. Columbia is not obligated to admit the “smartest”. They are obligated to admit (that is, obligated insofar as they are an institution in society that engenders this sort of thing) those who are going to be influential and powerful in the future.

          1. Yes. And the applicants are obligated to provide honest information on their applications. The allegation is that Obama was misrepresenting himself (or not according to some) as a foreign exchange student.

            1. Sure. But that’s an internal matter for Columbia.

        2. Sure they regret admitting Root. But that is only because they only think liberals have a right to exist in society. You are right. But I think that reflects pretty poorly on Columbia.

          1. This isn’t a Culture War point, John. Harvard admitted W., after all.

            1. W’s grades were quite good actually. And he did well in Harvard Business School.

              The better example is Al Gore.

            2. Right.

              By the same standard I am using here, legacy admissions are entirely appropriate, too.

              The sons of billionaires and Presidents have a pretty good chance to be the type of alumni these schools want. That means they should be admitted if they don’t have criminal records or truly abysmal character and personality disorders.

              “But what about genius kids who aren’t social manipulators and who aren’t the sons of Presidents?”

              That’s what MIT is for, guys. MIT is there to soak up all the kids with Social Anxiety Disorder but with genius-level intelligence.

            3. Actually, it’s the real culture war issue.

              Which pits worthless ‘elite’ pieces of shit against the rest of us.

              The culture wars of Buchanan and O’Reilly are mostly a useful distraction for the elites, from the real war of their raping the rest of us.

              1. I get where you’re coming from, VG, but this is the point that I had to get drilled into my head by experience:

                The guy of most value to an enterprise is not necessarily the “smartest” guy.

                And this is something critical that every Rand didn’t get. Even if we had a pure capitalist, purely “just” system, salesmen are important.

                I spent a significant portion of my career patting myself on the back about how I was the smartest guy in the room, but ultimately I have been forced to concede that people who are good at sales, or people who can network, or people who can create institutional relationships (and people who luck into all those things by being born with connections) create just as much enterprise value as people who think shit up. And this will always be true, no matter how “free” we are.

                So when these schools bias their process in favor of glad-handing brown-nosers who join every club, and/or the mediocre sons of wealthy and connected people, they’re demonstrating wisdom. If they admitted John Galt, they’d be fools. John Galt was an entry level railroad worker.

                1. Don’t disagree with you at all. The most successful people are rarely the smartest.

                  But

                  The difference between a super successful salesman and a Harvard grad is that the salesman is actually accountable for his results or lack there of. While the Harvard man continues to fail upward because, well, because he’s a top man.

                  The self perpetuating, unaccountable elite are the source of America’s problem. They’re becoming a type of inbred aristocracy that always leads to failure.

                  The infuriating aspect is that it’s all based on bullshit pushed by the media. If Ivy Leaguers were correctly seen as the corrupt twats and hacks that they actually are they would pretty quickly lose power.

                  1. I know quite a few Harvard grads who are definitely not the elite or moving upwards. It’s no guarantee.

                    1. Tell me about it.

                  2. A lot of social norms are actually class discrimination mechanisms. What is considered “impolitic” or “ill-mannered” is a malleable, subjective thing. If you look at cultures all over the world, it’s also part of what allows racial or ethnic groups to detect who is part of their “in-group” and who to “other”.

                    Sometimes this is pretty obvious, even in America. Things like which fork to eat with, eating the bread at a dinner, what to do with a napkin and crap like that – poor people aren’t going to have that training, and it makes it easy for elites to tell who is “one of them” at an instant.

                    Now, these days, most people don’t give a crap what fork you eat with, but still, there are a lot of cues. And some of the stuff Fluffy is talking about might not be positive personality traits, it might just be having the upper-class social training that makes you fit the accepted norm of correct behavior.

        3. I’m going to disagree there. I got into an invy league school, and I can admit that – as a child of a dysfunctional family – I had a few personality issues. But I think I’ve mostly overcome those, and I’m grateful that people didn’t just write me off because I was “wierd” or “impolitic” as a 20 year old.

          There are a lot of brilliant, wierd, people out there. I dare say most brilliant people are eccentric in one way or another. Schools should give brains first priority, not social training and decorum. Society needs more wierdos and freaks in positions of power. If there, were I’d bet we’d all be a lot more socially tolerant and relaxed about eachother’s differences.

      3. I hate WAR, TEAM REDs as much as the next guy, but as I said in the Morning Links:

        Of all sides to pick, I have to reluctantly side with John and WAR here.

        First of all, I have no doubt that the President was born in America. There are HI SOS documents and newspaper reports that prove it beyond all doubt.

        Regardless, I think what is going on here is that being foreign and exotic not only gets you a lot of cred with people, especially on college campuses, but it gets you scholarships and attention.

        Remember how some girls were LUGs at your school? It’s the same dynamic. Did you ever lie as a kid about what your parents did or where they are from so people would find you ‘interesting’? Same thing.

        WAR is right in his article: it cannot be bad grades.

        We already have that weird author biography anomaly that is explainable by the “I Am Foreign and Interesting” phenomenon.

        1. Did you know any foreign born students in college? Speaking as someone who was foreign born, I don’t remember a single scholarship, loan or anything that was available to me due to my country of birth. Anything that was available because he was “exotic” came regardless of where he was born. This is just imagined grievance.

          1. Did you know any foreign born students in college?

            Yes.

            Speaking as someone who was foreign born, I don’t remember a single scholarship, loan or anything that was available to me due to my country of birth.

            I don’t know what to tell you about that. It is a pretty open secret on college campuses that interesting back stories and exotic backgrounds can trump the local kid from Backwater, Ohio. I am not saying it is bad or anything.

            And, setting the institutional benefits aside because we quibble over them, there is a social, subjective benefit to having an “interesting” and “well-traveled” background.

            Again, I am not saying that as if it is bad.

            1. The Obamabots can po-face all they want on the subject… anyone who thinks race, national origin and background doesn’t come into play in admissions and every other aspect of academia is either liar or completely ignorant of the culture.

              Academics are more race-obsessed than your average White Power dipshit.

              Obama may not have graduated because of race, but it sure as hell was a factor in getting in to both Columbia and Harvard.

            2. Exotic back story doesn’t require one to be born abroad. Obama has an exotic backstory (living in Indonesia, etc.) even with his birth in Hawaii.

              Also, you moved from scholarships to admissions. FWIW, you also get points for being from backwater Alabama and Mississippi than you do for being from backwater Ohio because schools like to have “geographic diversity” and there tend to be fewer qualified applicants from there than from Ohio and other states.

              1. Whatevs. I think this is the most likely explanation for these past anomalies, and you don’t. The unfortunate part is that we won’t know.

                1. One can play up an exotic background regardless of where they were born. My little sister was born in the US, but lived abroad for a year when she was in high school. She played that up in college applications. On the other hand, it’s hard to make much out of “I lived in country X from age 0-1”.

            3. I knew foreign students – some were very obviously on a full-ride. Some I don’t know and didn’t ask as it was none of my business.

          2. please Mo. I went to a large public university that had a healthy contingent of foreign students and that was back in the early 80s. Teh population has only swelled in the intervening years.

            As to Obama, context: he went to school when it became in vogue for schools to address their white liberal guilt by admitting certain students regardless of qualification. There is also the story of Obama’s bio on the book jacket; it’s not as if he was above making shit up to advance himself.

            1. Public universities have those quotas too (they also have quotas for out of state students. The typical quota for international students is about 8-12%.

          3. I thought schools liked foreign students because they don’t get scholarships and they pay the full tuition.

            1. Obama’s Executive Order Dream Act disagrees.

          4. I don’t remember a single scholarship, loan or anything that was available to me due to my country of birth.

            You must not have been looking very hard. They’re definitely out there. And that’s just one list from one website. Google “list of scholarships for foreigners”, or replace “foreigners” with your nationality.

            A lot of them aren’t widely advertised because for some reason most college financial aid offices seem more interested in pushing subsidized Stafford loans, but believe me they’re there if you look hard enough.

            1. I remember that before the federal government effectively crowded out private loans and scholarships and rendered those things irrelevant by making college so expensive, we got a whole list of scholarships from the high school counselor’s office, many of which were contingent on a certain background.

              That was true of pastor’s kids, kids of military, dead cop’s children, black kids, Jewish kids…blah blah.

            2. If you expand most of those, they’re general scholarships (i.e. they’re available to foreign and domestic students) or have to be submitted by your country of origin.

        2. If anything, he would more likely to find scholarships available for students born in Hawaii than for students born in Kenya. It’s much harder for foreign students to gain admissions to top colleges because they have quotas for foreign students that are much smaller relative to the application pool than the general admissions pool.

          1. He was not foreign at that point. He was a transfer student.

            And, as I said, setting the financial benefits aside because there is some disagreement, there is social cache with being interesting, exotic, and foreign. Didn’t everybody swamp the exchange kids in your high school, or was that just my singular experience? I know that exchange programs in college and law school were popular, not just for obvious reasons but also because the host nations loved the Americans.

            1. At Cornell the Asian foreign students kept to themselves and didn’t speak English.

            2. I think that was your own experience. The foreign students in b-school and undergrad tended to keep to themselves. Though at Notre Dame people did swamp the foreign students at the beginning of the year … so that they could buy their football tickets.

      4. And everyone knows Obama is an affirmative action baby.

        Surely, then, you have a source for this claim?

        1. We don’t need a source, Tony. Harry Reid taught us that little lesson already.

          1. Harry Reid is in the rather unique position of being Harry Reid. Doesn’t excuse John for lying.

            1. Fair enough, but in context, this article from Root was borne from Reid’s stance.

              I agree that two wrongs don’t make a right, but if Reid gets to sit on the Senate floor and lie, lie, lie, what do you expect the other TEAM members to do? What would you as an admitted TEAM member do?

              1. I expect John to lie. Well not so much lie as believe wholeheartedly in the Limbaughian version of reality. And I wouldn’t have him any other way. It’s clear he doesn’t really have his heart in the white male resentment complex that characterizes the Limbaughian right, but he does try ever so hard. It’s just so cute.

                Harry Reid is being a political genius. As evidence, I present the fact that you’re talking about Harry Reid.

                1. tony,
                  even by your standards, “John is lying, Reid is a genius” is nuclear level retarded. Reid is lying, to the point that the WH has left him hanging. Not that he minds; Harry took one for the team.

                  Obama got the HLR spot because affirmative action was in vogue and the guilty whites could feel good about themselves giving the black guy a title. A title he did nothing with.

                  1. Do you have a fucking source for that claim wareagle or are you being a racist piece of shit?

                    Because all you guys seem to be saying is that it is highly unbelievable for a black man to have been admitted to Harvard all on his own.

                    1. Because all you guys seem to be saying is that it is highly unbelievable for a black man to have been admitted to Harvard all on his own.

                      I would say that the question can not be profitably discussed, because during the time period when he applied black applicants weren’t being admitted all on their own. So trying to puzzle out whether he “would have” been admitted will always remain an unverifiable counterfactual.

                      I’m happy to argue, as I have extensively here, that Obama’s admission is retroactively justified 1000 times over by subsequent events. But we can never, ever say that we “know” his ethnicity had nothing to do with his admission. That would be deliberate obtuseness.

                    2. Obama’s admission is retroactively justified 1000 times over by subsequent events

                      Sure, because he went on to become an undistinguished state legislator, an undistinguished senator, and a terrible president. What more proof could anyone want?

                    3. Papaya, please tell me you aren’t actually that dense.

                      If you don’t see the value of having a President as an alumnus, I wouldn’t hire you to take out my garbage.

                    4. I am mocking Tony’s claim because he’s crediting affirmative action with creating later achievements that can be credited to affirmative action. It’s circular.

                      Yes, I want a president who’s gone to college, if that’s what you mean. Sheesh, calm down.

                    5. no Tony; we are simply speculating about the admittance of THIS black man. And with good reason. As your side likes to say, this issue could be resolved in five minutes if academic records were released. Instead, they are more hidden than the JFK assassination papers.

                      By the way, it’s not racism to point out bullshit just because a black benefited from it. How many suits have we had over folks screwed by the system? You are a party tool and it is pathetic.

                2. Harry Reid is being a political genius. As evidence, I present the fact that you’re talking about Harry Reid.

                  Kind of, but what we’re talking about in regards to Harry Reid is also important, and it’s the fact that he’s a liar and has been branded a pederast for all eternity because of his lies.

                  GENIUS!

                3. If Reid is such a genius, he can provide proof of The Decade Where Romney Never Paid Taxes or Went to Jail for Not Paying Taxes, Either.

                  1. Where would the upside of that be? It would end the speculation that’s sucking up all the oxygen.

            2. I am not lying it is true. Obama did nothing in his post college career to show that he had any kind of a top legal mind or in any way deserved admission to Harvard. Harvard trains lawyers not politicians. Never making partner at a law firm, never getting a tenured track professor position, never holding a high legal position in government and never publishing any legal scholarship of any note, is not the mark of someone who, without affirmative action, would have ever gotten into Harvard.

              And his gaffe a minute Presidency has only confirmed that. The facts are what they are.

              1. Besides, how many white kids that went to Harvard have described their high school years as on long drug bender the way that Obama did in Dreams.

                1. It’s not Harvard, but I knew a bunch of guys at MIT that described high school that way.

                  1. That’s because you don’t have to work hard to get an engineering degree. That’s one option. You can also just have the right kind of brain. If you’ve got the aptitude for it, engineering is easy. There’s no memorizing or tracking down precedents. You just apply a few generic mathematical rules to this specific instance. On one test I rederived the equation I needed from F=ma. You can’t do that in law.

                    1. There are a boatload of people to whom law comes easily. It breaks your brain and may make you a monster without you knowing it, but it does come easily.

                    2. But even if it comes easily you still need to invest a bunch of time reading the history and precedents.

                    3. That’s because you don’t have to work hard to get an engineering degree.

                      Are you serious or is this parody?

                    4. Are you serious or is this parody?

                      I’m an engineer.

                    5. You can’t be.

                      You spelled “engineer” correctly. 🙂

                    6. “On one test I rederived the equation I needed from F=ma. You can’t do that in law.”

                      John Roberts disagrees.

              2. His membership on the Law Review would seem to contradict your little narrative. That is an anonymous selection process based on grades and a writing competition. His presidency of the Law Review was a result of election by the other editors.

                Oh then he went on to become president of the United States.

                1. tony,
                  all you have demonstrated is the inherent flaw in affirmative action. Far more voted FOR Obama because of his color than against him. The man was less qualified than Palin for the job and even you know that.

                  1. That makes it rather difficult for any person of color to make it to the presidency with any legitimacy in your eyes, wouldn’t you say?

                    1. tony,
                      your side had a more qualified woman to put forth. As usual, the left chose race over gender. Anyone who dared question the credentials of The Obama was shouted down as a racist. Please, the man was a less qualified version of John Edwards, but without either the sleaze or the law practice.

                    2. Thomas Sowell?

                2. His membership on the Law Review would seem to contradict your little narrative

                  Which only matters if you buy into the idea that Harvard is populated by the best and brightest.

                  For which, evidence is sorely lacking.

                3. So 2 or your 3 points are that he can win elections?

                4. Please refer us to a single article he wrote for the Law Review.

                5. “Oh then he went on to become president of the United States.”

                  It’s called The Peter Principle.

                6. His membership on the Law Review would seem to contradict your little narrative. That is an anonymous selection process based on grades and a writing competition.

                  And, if memory serves, an interview, so it wasn’t entirely anonymous.

                  His presidency of the Law Review was a result of election by the other editors.

                  Trust me, I was there just before him. The fact that he was widely touted as the first black editor indicates that this particular election was probably (in part, at least) an affac.

                  You’re missing the part that can’t be faked:

                  He got really, really, really good grades – top 5% of his class. And those are all anonymous. He was an excellent law student. He’s a born academic.

                  1. Since when are grades anonymous?

                    I don’t think he got any help on his grades, but I don’t think I’ve ever heard of anonymous grading.

              3. John, stop making Tony look rational and levelheaded.

                1. How Propriests, by pointing to the fact that Obama never accomplished anything as a lawyer to justify his admission to Harvard?

                  It is okay Proprietist. Just because obama isn’t a genius doesn’t mean you are a racist.

                  1. So because he never defended a major case before the Supreme Court or build a huge practice of his own, he was a failure as a lawyer and a smear on Harvard Law’s name? Are you serious?

                    And George Bush Jr. wasn’t a businessman of note, driving multiple businesses into the ground before getting elected governor on the basis of his name recognition. Why the double standard, John? Unlike Tony, I’m not going to accuse you of patent racism but you are an extremely annoying partisan hack.

                    1. Bush didn’t hit oil a few times. And he the Rangers were worth a whole lot more when he sold his share than they were when he bought them.

                      Is there any myth liberals can tell you that you don’t believe?

                      And Obama did a lot less than just build a law practice. He did nothing. The really smart people at Harvard, as opposed to the legacies and the affirmative action babies, go become judicial clerks, work for top law firms, work for DOJ or become law profs. Obama did none of that. You can’t say he was a successful or even good lawyer.

                      I am sorry the facts don’t fit your narrative.

                    2. But you ALSO can’t say he was a BAD lawyer. What did he fail at? And yes, no notable lawyer accomplishments, I agree with you there. That doesn’t amount to “bad lawyer”.

                      And Bush? A bad businessman. Owning the Rangers is hardly an accomplishment. Owning a sports team isn’t exactly the same as running your own business, which he apparently was pretty bad at.

                      So Bush was actively bad at what he tried to do, while Obama just didn’t do anything. To my mind, that doesn’t mean one is less qualified than the other, it means they’re BOTH pretty unqualified. No notable accomplishments for either of them.

                    3. Owning a sports team isn’t exactly the same as running your own business, which he apparently was pretty bad at.

                      The rangers are not a business? That will come as a hell of surprise to the people who own them and make money.

                    4. The rangers are not a business?

                      Not what he said, John playing fast and loose with his reading comprehension again

                      What he SAID was

                      Owning a sports team isn’t exactly the same as running your own business

                      Nowhere did he say it wasn’t a business John. And as proof that you’re wrong and he’s right, baseball has an anti trust exemption from congress. That alone makes it different from “running your own business”.

                    5. Sports businesses are different. It is rare for a professional sports team owner to have lost large amounts of money on the entire transaction (purchasing the team to selling the team.) Doubt that W would have sniffed the Governor’s Mansion if his name was George W. Stone.

                      Be that as it may, I still can’t get past Obama not being selected for some sort of clerkship. The rest of it: partner, USA position, etc,… whatever. Things happen. I had thought—correct me if I’m wrong Dean, since you went there—that everyone on the Harvard Law Review found a clerkship. That he was the first minority President of the HLR (and how is President different than Editor in Chief?) and didn’t go to as much as a District Court, is mindboggling, and suggests to me that he was unsuited to the practice of law. Which would have come out, if the legacy media gave a shit anymore about vetting candidates.

                      Plenty of other things to criticize Obama for, of course.

                    6. And he the Rangers were worth a whole lot more when he sold his share than they were when he bought them.

                      The Clippers are worth a lot more now than they were when Donald Sterling purchased the league. Sterling is acknowledged as the worst one or two owners in the NBA. The increase of value of a sports team has more to do with the commissioner’s office and league office rather than the quality of the team’s ownership.

                    7. Heck Mo, didn’t Marge Schott make money hand over fist when she sold her share of the Reds, even considering the low price she received due to being kicked out by MLB?

                      Purchasing a controlling interest for 11M in 1984 and selling it for 67M in 1999 is a pretty sweet gig, if you can get it. Closer to home, Drayton McLane ran the Astros into the ground, his last four years of ownership. He still sold them for, allegedly, 610M, 19 years after he bought them for 117M. I get a 8.8% annualized return, according to CNN’s calculator.

                      Sterling may be an abysmal owner, from a perspective of whether the team’s competitive, but, IIRC, he’s always made money year to year owning the team. As opposed to relying on franchise appreciation to provide the profit for the investment.

                      It’s really hard for owners to screw up.

                    8. Well, he makes money because he’s in a huge market, where the other team in the market generates demand and excitement for the sport and reaps the benefits as people come to see the other teams’ stars come play. Add to the fact that league TV and jersey money is split evenly between teams and you can’t design a more favorable way to mooch and profit. Donald Sterling is basically profiting from NBA welfare.

                    9. Donald Sterling is basically profiting from NBA welfare.

                      Completely agree, as are many of the bottom-dwellers in MLB. Like the Pirates, every year for the last 20 except, strangely, this one. I am curious just how low the Astros are going to be able to drive their payroll next year. Gotta’ pay off that $215M debt somehow…

                      Despite the profit-sharing you note, and having one of the Association’s most electrifying players in Chris Paul, Shinn still ended up having to declare bankruptcy with the Hornets. So it’s possible to lose your shirt as a sports owner, but awfully difficult. And I agree that I don’t think he goes bankrupt if he’s in L.A. versus NOLA.

                    10. Shinn lost his shirt because he kept trying, and failing, to make the Hornets a winner with CP3 and overpaid guys like Okafor. Sterling just says fuck it and doesn’t try to win.

                      Look at what happened with Frank McCourt and the Dodgers. He did everything in his power to run the team into the ground, had to have the team pried from his hands and made a huge profit after owning the team for less than a decade. He still owns half the parking lots and land around the stadium despite selling the team for over $2B.

                      Nice gig if you can get it.

        2. Surely, then, you have a source for this claim?

          Obvious things are obvious.

          1. Tony – Have a source for the claim that Obama actually attended Columbia – other than Obama?

        3. Everyone knows that when someone uses the term “everyone knows” you should ignore what they have to say.

        4. It’s not at all controversial to say Obama got in because of affirmative action. You may think it it, but I’m going to go with prof. Gates on this one.

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..ata_player

      5. He graduated from law school with honors and as president of the review. That doesn’t strike me as an affirmative action baby. An affirmative action baby is someone that gets in even though they’re unqualified and can’t cut the mustard. Clarance Thomas also isn’t an affirmative action baby because he quite obviously could make it through and be successful academically and professionally.

        1. The editor position is a political position. It says nothing about your academic ability just your ability to get elected.

          And Thomas was a successful government lawyer after graduation.

          1. That doesn’t explain the whole graduating with honors thing.

            1. Few people are contending he’s dumb, though. All I am saying is that with the weird author blurb, the fact that there is some understandable confusion about which country Barack Obama considered his home country, and the allegation from Root about the transcripts, I think the most plausible explanation for all of the evidence so far is that Obama held himself out as foreign-born in his past.

              1. I’ve suspected that’s what’s at the root of all of this business. At some point, he played up his “foreignness.” I agree, it’s extraordinarily unlikely that he wasn’t born in the U.S. I only hedge at all because he’s a fucking politician.

                1. At some point, he played up his “foreignness.”

                  Yes, well put.

            2. how do we know he graduated with honors? Did someone tell Harry Reid that, too?

        2. In fairness, the hardest part of law school, as a mutual of ours is fond of saying, is getting in.

          That said, I didn’t even think AA was that big of thing in the early 80s.

          1. absolutely, it was a big thing then. Michelle benefited from it, too, then wrote a Master’s thesis whining about how the rich white kids treated her differently.

            1. So? They probably did. AA sucks, but stop writing off any minorities’ achievements and admissions with blanket statements.

              Unless you were on the admission boards and/or you have definitive proof that Michelle and Barack couldn’t cut it in the programs they graduated from, shut up because you don’t know what you’re talking about.

              1. stop writing off any minorities’ achievements and admissions with blanket statements.

                Stop admitting anyone of any race based on anything but their academic merit, and that problem will go away.

                As for whether or not 0 or Chewie could really hack it in law school or not, we’ll never know one way or the other. I thinks it’s probable that they did. I also it’s think it’s probable that they had a little help in the admissions process by being able to check a box other than “White/ Caucasian” and in Chewie’s case “Male” on their application forms. It certainly couldn’t have hurt.

              2. AA sucks, but stop writing off any minorities’ achievements and admissions with blanket statements.

                Precisely why honest minority folks are against AA. It tars all with the same brush and diminishes legitimate achievements.

                Of course, the Obamas could remove this problem by merely releasing their transcripts. They don’t, so they deserve the derision.

        3. Please prove a linked reference to the Honors thing.

      6. He didn’t have to lie about being a foriegn student if Lolo Soetoro really adopted him. It is disingenuous though. Hell he might still be an Indonesian citizen.

    2. That admission to Harvard…

      You didn’t earn that, someone else made that happen.

    3. I hate Obama as much as the next guy, but the problem with this argument is this:

      Columbia’s and Harvard’s admissions don’t have to be “fair”.

      Then can we stop pretending that their graduates are the best and brightest, super smart top men that should run everything.

      And instead are nothing but successful suck ups that parrot whatever bullshit is shoveled at them.

      1. Then can we stop pretending that their graduates are the best and brightest, super smart top men that should run everything.

        I don’t think Harvard is interested in admitting people who “should” run everything.

        I think they want to admit the people who will run everything.

        There’s a difference. A gigantic one.

        1. That is a difference you are right. But it is not one they would ever admit to existing. And it is certainly a proposition open for challenge. Perhaps someone ought to do something about those people running everything.

      2. “Then can we stop pretending that their graduates are the best and brightest, super smart top men that should run everything.”

        My white brother graduated college Suma Cum Laude on a free ride for winning the National Merit Scholarship. He had a Ph.D. in a hard science after just turning 25. From there, it was a post doc at Columbia. I’d say he is among the best and brightest.

    4. Excellent point, and this is why attempting to smear the president as an Affirmative Action recipient is so absurd. It’s basically to admit that Affirmative Action is a wildly successful program.

      But that’s to overthink what is simply blatant racism. John.

      1. It is not racist to admit that Obama is, while a supreme manipulator, one of the least bright people ever to hold political office and someone who benefited enormously from affirmative action.

        1. Unless you compare him to his immediate predecessor, who is objectively dumber and objectively more of a recipient of special privileges in his education, business, and political careers.

          Give it up John. You don’t have to like any of Obama’s policies, but there’s no reason to think he’s not brighter than average and there’s no evidence he ever received affirmative action. Even if he did, as I said above, doesn’t that testify to the success of the program? He went on to become POTUS. Are you saying we need more affirmative action to seek out more diamonds in the rough?

          1. Unless you compare him to his immediate predecessor, who is objectively dumber

            It’s kind of amazing the way socialist dumb asses keep repeating this crap when

            a) He had better grades at Harvard than either of his opponents for the presidency.

            b) The same people spouting this crap defend Obama’s hiding every trace of evidence from high school through HL.

            1. Business school is not college.

              1. how is Harvard Business School NOT college? There is no objective criteria you have that shows Bush as being dumber. Of course, that’s because we have no data about Obama at all.

                1. Business school is a joke. The required math for a finance degree that I took was the easiest math I had taken since my junior year of high school.

              2. Bush’s undergrad grades at Yale were almost identical to John Kerry’s.

                Al Gore was certainly not that outstanding a student at Harvard either.

                If I had to single out the one thing that is most truly annoying about liberals, Toady, it would be this habit of labelling those they disagree with stupid while claiming that people they agree with are smart.

                1. I agree with Isaac.

                  1. Mo, if I’ve learned anything in my life, it’s that some of the world’s most spectacular failures are utterly brilliant people.

                    When smart people are wrong they seem to do it in grand style.

                    1. Now THAT’S the sort of failure I want to be!

                    2. Theodore John “Ted” Kaczynski agrees with you.

                    3. Dumb people aren’t smart enough to get into situations to do really dumb things. All of my dumbest college antics have always started off when my smartest friends said, “Hey I wonder what happens when …”

                    4. 🙂

              3. Only a snooty leftist bastard would look down his nose at “business school”.

                1. I may be snooty and I may be a leftist, but I know who my father is.

          2. You don’t have to like any of Obama’s policies, but there’s no reason to think he’s not brighter than average

            So there it is Tony. After three and a half years in office, even you are reduced to claiming “Obama is brighter than average”. Move the goal posts much?

            1. He’s smarter than every single Republican on Earth. There’s my goalpost.

              1. That’s a really dumb statement, Tony. There are plenty of Republicans smarter than Obama.

                It’s a Team Red vs. Team Blue limbo contest, everyone. How low can your brain go…

                1. There are plenty of Republicans smarter than Obama.

                  This from the person who thinks Reagan was stupid. Leave tony alone

                  1. In my analysis, some Republicans Reagan Obama some other Republicans. I never said Reagan was stupid. You’re just as disingenous as Tony in the way you argue, John. It’s frankly pathetic.

                    1. Ha ha. You lost all of the “carrots”, didn’t you?

                      No dog in this fight. Just wanted to laugh at another victim of the Squirrelz.

                    2. Stupid old squirrels, stealing my carrots.

              2. Thomas Sowell disagrees with you. As does Alan Keyes.

          3. Even if he did, as I said above, doesn’t that testify to the success of the program? He went on to become POTUS.

            His becoming POTUS was just another instance of affirmative action. If he were a white guy with the same charisma and intelligence, Hillary would have stomped him into the dirt. But he wasn’t, and since youngish black guy trumps old white lady in the hierarchy of political correctness, in he went.

            And if you’d bother to actually look at the results of his presidency, then I think it would be pretty obvious that affirmative action is not only not successful, it’s downright disastrous for everyone.

            1. in fact, there WAS another guy with equal levels of intelligence and charisma, plus more experience. The media told me so. His name was John Edwards, who actually had practiced law and made a mint doing so. He also won a US Senate seat first time out. Edwards is sleazy, but not stupid.

            2. While I’m tempted to leave the room due to the level of stupid approaching my nostrils, he did get elected, just like every other president (except GW Bush for his first term, when he was appointed). If you want to claim that the election, which was a landslide, wasn’t legitimate for the reasons you state, then no election of any nonwhite person can ever be legitimate.

              Unless, of course, you want to blame affirmative action for the fact that all white people voted for a white guy in every prior election.

              1. While I’m tempted to leave the room due to the level of stupid approaching my nostrils

                It’s futile. That smell is you, and you can’t escape yourself.

              2. (except GW Bush for his first term, when he was appointed). If you want to claim that the election, which was a landslide, wasn’t legitimate for the reasons you state, then no election of any nonwhite person can ever be legitimate.

                I only see one person in the thread claiming that an election was illegitimate. I see people claiming that people may have voted for Obama based on racist views… which is explicitly shown to be true with editors at Reason.

              3. And LOL at Bush being “appointed”. There’s this thing called the electoral college, you butthurt little dumbshit.

                Bush wasn’t even the first guy to become president despite losing the popular vote. It had happened three times before. God, you are such an ignorant fuck.

                1. Toady’s not complaining about “winning the popular vote”, he’s complaing that Gore’s boys in Broward and Palm Beach Counties weren’t able to take the unmarked ballots into the back room and change them into votes for Al.

                  1. Yeah, I realize he thinks the SCOTUS should have allowed Gore to recount and remark ballots until he finally won. But if he weren’t such a brainless TEAM BLUE sycophant, he would know that history didn’t begin with the 2000 election and he may even have learned something about previous events like, oh, the corrupt bargain that put John Quincy Adams in office despite Jackson winning both the popular and electoral votes.

                    Then again, if he weren’t such a brainless TEAM BLUE sycophant, he wouldn’t be Tony.

                2. Voting for him because he is black is as legitimate a reason as many others, including “because he seems like a guy I’d like to have a beer with” or “because he will keep those dark-skinned layabouts from taking my hard-earned money.” I voted for him because he was a Democrat. Who gives a shit. A vote is a vote.

                  1. Voting for him because he is black is as legitimate a reason as many others

                    Which is my point. Why do you keep saying legitimate? You’re the one making that argument. Voting for him because he’s black still counts as a legitimate vote, but by definition is racist.

                    Learn to read and use basic logic:

                    I only see one person in the thread claiming that an election was illegitimate. I see people claiming that people may have voted for Obama based on racist views

              4. While I’m tempted to leave the room due to the level of stupid approaching my nostril

                Tony, you just said Obama was smarter than every Republican alive. Perhaps you are just smelling your upper lip?

        2. There are some pretty stupid people in political office, John.

          I mean, really really dumb.

          In that respect Obama is not unique.

          1. This is true. But not even Tony claims someone like Pelosi or Reid is bright. And no one claims Santorum is a genius. In contrast we were told in 2008 that Obama was a genius.

            1. Reid and Pelosi are also both smarter than every Republican left on the planet Earth.

              1. You are such a self Parody Tony.

              2. Wow, I didn’t know there was a setting higher than full retard.

                1. Wow, I didn’t know there was a setting higher than full retard.

                  Tony is weapons-grade retard.

                2. Wow, I didn’t know there was a setting higher than full retard.

                  “You see, this [retard] goes to 11. That’s one [more retarded], isn’t it.”

              3. Reid and Pelosi are also both smarter than every Republican left on the planet Earth.

                Did someone hack Tony’s password or something? This is too Tony to be Tony.

        3. Oh come on, John. That’s patently absurd. Are you seriously making that statement? Obama’s obviously very smart, which is why he can be so successfully manipulative and come out smelling like roses for enough people.

          Credibility’s foot, meet bullet.

          1. Propritest, being manipulative is not being “smart” at least by my estimation. There are people with 80 IQs who are massively intuitive and manipulative. One has nothing to do with the other.

            1. It’s difficult to get away with being manipulative without being intelligent. Besides, we’ve had several total rubes for president, like Andrew Johnson. Bush Jr. struck me as objectively less intelligent, as did Reagan. I’m not pretending Obama’s a brilliant supergenius (alas, in the scheme of things most politicians aren’t), but if he’s not even one of the dumbest presidents ever, how can he possibly be one of the dumbest “political office holders”?

              Also, the biggest tragedy of affirmative action is that people like you are able to write off any minority’s accomplishments as being undeserved on baseless speculation alone. Unless you were on the admissions board, or you have any grounds on which to factually argue that he didn’t deserve to be at Harvard, shut up.

              1. struck me as objectively less intelligent, as did Reagan

                Then you know nothing about Reagan. Everyone who ever worked with the guy or knew him all said he was wildly smart with an incredible sense of humor and charm and understanding of issues. The whole “Reagan was less intelligent” meme has been disproved over and over by biography after biography. Even liberals don’t believe that anymore.

                The fact that you still do makes your opinions really suspect on this issue. You apparently have bought into the myth that all liberals are smart and all conservatives are dumb.

                1. Sense of humor and charm and competency, yes. But he was no super-genius. And I never said Reagan was a mindless rube (or even GWB) – he was certainly above average intelligence. Obama strikes me as more intelligent, even though he (like Reagan) erroneously selects his own set of “facts” to follow his political beliefs and ignores facts to the contrary. Almost every politician does this.

                  I haven’t bought any any such myth, and the fact that you refuse to objectively see both sides of the story demonstrates how big of a shill you are. I think the Left in general is either brilliant and evil in their manipulation of the poor and minorities for political purposes, or naive and idiotic because all their economic policies accomplish the direct opposite of what they claim to want. I tend to believe Obama and the leaders of the Democratic Party are more the former, and the activists on the ground are more the latter.

                  1. Obama strikes me as more intelligent,

                    Why? Obama can’t speak without a teleprompter. He doesn’t give interviews. Reagan ran the screen actor’s guild. Reagan was a successful governor of California. What has Obama done? Seriously what about him strikes you as intelligent? Why do think that. I have never seen the guy say anything funny or interesting that wasn’t written on a teleprompter. His books have been proven to be fiction and ghost written. Name me five things about obama that cause you to think he is intelligent.

                  2. I will even give you a head start. He went to Harvard Law and got elected President. Now name me three others?

                    1. He can write a decent book–being able to write well is as sure a sign of intelligence as any other, imo. Contrary to the absurd Limbaughian resentment narrative that blacks get all the breaks, getting elected president while being black in a country about 25% full of racist hillbillies is something of an accomplishment.

                      That he’s favored to win his next election despite unemployment being above 8% is also an accomplishment, though that does owe something to Mitt Romney being an incredibly weak candidate.

                      And he did manage to get OBL, something Bush and his men with two wars and a singular focus on terrorism couldn’t do.

                      Obama iz dumb is Republican political bullshit at its most simplistic. Take a politicians strength and turn it into a weakness. Obama is widely recognized as an intelligent guy with good speaking skills etc., thus he must be made to be an idiot who lets a teleprompter do his thinking. All you’re doing is channeling Karl Rove for Dummies. Like Mitt Romney. The GOP, and its shills, have fallen so far.

                    2. He can write a decent book–

                      NO he can’t. Those books were ghost written and are full of falsity and composites. Try again Tony

                      And he did manage to get OBL,

                      No he didn’t. OBL was gotten because of a ten year effort that started before he got into office

                      And all you are left with is he won an election. And I gave you that one. So try again Tony.

                    3. Citation for the book being ghost written? Citation for the OBL operation not being personally approved and overseen by the president?

                      How can I debate you when all you have is weak partisan bullshit lies supplied by talk radio hacks?

                    4. “in a country about 25% full of racist hillbillies”

                      Data, please.

                    5. – Graduated from Columbia and Harvard Law (magna cum laude). Below-average intelligence people simply don’t get in to Harvard or Columbia in the first place, affirmative action or no.

                      – Lecturing in the Law School at University of Chicago, one of the best universities in the country, for 12 years. Supposedly turned down tenured positions to maintain his political career path.

                      – State director of an Illinois voter registration non-profit. Supposedly raised more money than any of his predecessors. Also served on numerous boards.

                      You simply don’t get to be president by being below average intelligence. It’s very difficult to argue Obama used AA to unfairly get ahead without acknowledging that Romney, McCain and Bush Jr. all used their father’s careers to help put them in their positions. What’s fair and what isn’t?

                    6. It’s very difficult to argue Obama used AA to unfairly get ahead without acknowledging that Romney, McCain and Bush Jr. all used their father’s careers to help put them in their positions. What’s fair and what isn’t?

                      Not really hard at all, really, as long as you don’t pretend AA is equivalent to someone working their asses off and disposing of the fruits of their labor as they see fit.

                    7. ???

                      From what we know about Romney’s high school grades, which from the released transcript were mostly Bs and Cs, he almost certainly didn’t deserve to get into Harvard either. We don’t know Obama’s grades, and I’d be very interested to see them, but the burden of proof is on the person accusing Obama of not being worthy of Harvard Law and of getting ahead based on some unfair advantage. And any objective observer can’t hold Obama to one standard and Romney, Bush, etc. to another.

                    8. ???

                      What are you having trouble with?

                    9. And any objective observer can’t hold Obama to one standard and Romney, Bush, etc. to another.

                      Can and do. But AGAIN, becuase you seem to be slow, I don’t think AA is equivalent to someone working their asses off and disposing of the fruits of their labor as they see fit.

                    10. I never said it was. AA was in theory a corrective to the fact that blacks didn’t tend to come from wealthy, influential families like the Bushes and Romneys and also tended to go to less prestigious schools, so would have trouble getting into a school like Harvard no matter how hard they work. If Obama was a B-C student in high school and got in undeservedly, how was B-C student Romney any more deserving?

                      AA is also generally not “we let in every minority that applies” – they still have to meet certain well-above-average standards at elite schools. It’s not like they don’t have to try and can waltz into the Harvard Law Review with below average intelligence on the basis of their skin color and walk out magna cum laude.

                      And the point is that diversity is a desireable product at an academic institution, so you don’t necessarily just take the five thousand smartest students that apply – there are other factors that make a student desireable. For instance, being a high level executive or politician’s kid, or child of an alumnus.

                    11. I never said it was.

                      Your argument doesn’t make sense unless it is though. What do you call it when you obviously depict them as equivalent.

                      And I didn’t read the wall’o’text. You’re not that interesting.

                    12. Romney gave away his inheritance. Love him or hate him, he made a lot of money on his own. Sure being his dad’s son didn’t hurt him. But being an idiot son doesn’t preclude you from accomplishing things. He did what he did in the business world.

                      As far as Obama being “smart”. No he is not stupid. But when you compare his accomplishments to Romney or Reagan or Bush I or even Carter, they are pretty pedestrian. Carter was a nuclear engineer. Reagan, who you swear is just of average or below average intelligence, ran a major union and was governor of a state. Bush I ran the CIA. Those are all much bigger deals than graduating high in your class or running some third rate non prophet.

                      How can you not be impressed with Reagan, a guy who ran a major union and was governor of California and then claim that Obama, who never ran anything, is so obviously more intelligent. It doesn’t compute.

                    13. Love him or hate him, he made a lot of money on his own. Sure being his dad’s son didn’t hurt him. But being an idiot son doesn’t preclude you from accomplishing things. He did what he did in the business world.

                      I think that when your dad is a former governor and former CEO of AMC, that means that whenever you pick up the phone to get a sit down with somebody, the door starts out open and you have to fuck up to close it. You’re in a completely different situation than some kid with no name cold-calling people he doesn’t know and trying to get a business put together.

                      But once he got his foot in those open doors, he definitely made his mark. Nobody can deny that. And you’ll note that the Dems don’t even try to deny it – they just say he was evil and mean, when he used his brain to make a profit instead of making it his life’s mission to save middle management jobs at failing companies.

                    14. WHERE DID I SWEAR REAGAN WAS BELOW AVERAGE INTELLIGENCE? Please, God, stop putting words into my mouth I didn’t say. I said I felt he was less intelligent than Obama, so I guess you must have erroneously construed that because you seriously believe Obama is amongst the “least bright elected officials ever.”

                    15. And John if you read my comments about Obama’s intelligence, I believe he, like many leading Democrats are extremely intelligent and extremely evil and manipulative with how they use that intelligence.

                      Free marketers are intelligent because they understand and follow the laws of economics and understand how it can make everyone’s lives better. Progressives in control are also intelligent because they know that most people don’t understand economics and that the poor are easily manipulated politically and will willingly suckle upon their political benevolence and endless promises, and in return grant them power. It’s Machiavellian, but it’s generally difficult to be successful at being cunning and manipulative without being at least marginally intelligent.

      2. Excellent point, and this is why attempting to smear the president as an Affirmative Action recipient is so absurd.

        He’s a dog eater.

      3. It’s basically to admit that Affirmative Action is a wildly successful program.

        But that’s to overthink what is simply blatant racism.

        So you’ve finally accepted that AA is the most racist thing left in 2012 America?

    5. They’re nonprofit organizations. They’re supposed to be advancing society.

      That’s not a legal requirement of course, but it is a moral one. Universities get a sweet fucking deal in our current tax system so they better damn well give back.

    6. Harvard can be explained by legacy. His dad was a brilliant scholar. Columbia is a huge WTF?!?. Surely, there were far better qualified black students that were pushed aside to make room for Obama. Who knows what that was about.

      1. And you know his qualifications or lack thereof, how, exactly?

        1. Read his books. At the urging of Tulpa, actually. He talked about not taking school seriously, and not buttoning down until he got to New York.

        2. BTW, what’s up with the defense of that piece of shit going on of late, anyway? True colors coming out every four years? If you’re default mode isn’t ‘fuck Obama’ you should get your chromosomes checked out.

          1. I don’t care how much I disagree with them, hate them, etc. I refuse to stoop to the fallacious and disingenuous levels of the politicians I despise.

            Do you think Romney took high school seriously, by every account, including his own? Yet somehow he got into both Stanford and then Harvard Law and Harvard Business. If we’re being purely speculative, using AA as a bludgeon against Obama without recognizing the nepotism that possibly helped Romney is ludicrous. None of us were on the admissions boards, so none of us have any knowledge as to on what basis either were admitted.

            Again, the site’s called Reason. Many commenters here prefer knee-jerk partisanship, and it’s too bad. We can hate politicians without stooping to hyperbole and fallacy.

            1. Again, the site’s called Reason.

              Drink.

              Many commenters here prefer knee-jerk partisanship, and it’s too bad. We can hate politicians without stooping to hyperbole and fallacy.

              This.

      2. But who knows if he even went to Columbia.

  2. I love crazy people full of hyperbole.

  3. I agree that academic records are low priority, but I think the problem is the choosing by the Fourth Estate on whose background to ignore and on whose to focus.

    It is relevant to this voter which of my potential political leaders benefited from Affirmative Action, which I consider soft racism, because it might cause them to make a continuation of the program a worthwhile policy if elected.

  4. Is this article supposed to be a defense of WAR?

  5. The other issue of course is the incredible media double standard. The Boston Globe actually got Romney’s freshman report card from high school. Meanwhile no one dare even ask about Obama’s college transcript or life in general. Fuck them. Maybe if a liberal got humiliated once in a while the media might stop playing these games.

    1. Maybe if a liberal got humiliated once in a while the media might stop playing these games.

      Not a chance in hell.

      You know it’s all going to come out eventually, and the reaction will be a collective yawn by the leftwing establishment.

      For example: none of them give a crap that JFK lied and covered up his addison’s; lied about not having a ghost writer for his big book; was addicted to prescription narcotics and had a series of reckless sexual affairs while president.

      And none of them will care about anything that should besmirch the legacy of THE ONE.

    2. To be humiliated one must have shame.

      Politicians have no shame, liberals especially. And liberal voters don’t give a shit.

      Look at Elizabeth Warren. She’s been exposed as a liar and a fraud, yet she’s tied with Brown in the polls.

      Liberals don’t care about being right. They care about winning. If winning means lying, cheating, and fraud, so be it.

      1. Warren is tied with Brown in Massachusetts. In any other state, she would be finished. And had she not been outed as a fraud, she would probably be ahead by double digits.

        1. If definitive proof came out that Obama did something similar, do you think it would affect his numbers?

          I don’t think so.

          Liberals don’t care if their guy is a liar or a cheater, as long as they win.

          1. sarc’s exactly right. There is not even the hint of principle among Dems. It’s all team, all the time. Just look at this campaign – the Obama dogwashing committee is talking exclusively about Romney; not a word about why their guy should be re-elected.

            1. Long ago Gary Studds proved that Dems have no shame and their voters don’t care.

          2. Liberals don’t care, but moderates do. And Obama needs moderates if he’s going to win.

            1. Do they? Really?

          3. Vitter got reelected, doing the same thing that sunk Spitzer. It goes both ways, dude.

    3. Maybe they dared, but perhaps Romney’s was somehow more easily accessible?

      No, you’re right – it’s all a big cover-up. MSNBC has had the only copy of Obama’s transcripts all along. It’s locked in their sealed vault until after the election. The vault guarded by four armed guards to make sure no sneaky Fox News spies can steal it.

      Sad to see how Obama really brings out the dumb in you.

      1. No Proprietist, the transcripts are protected under the privacy act and they can’t be released until Obama agrees to it. Obama won’t end the issue and agree to it for some reason. Why?

        Nothing brings out the stupid in people like the desire to be seen above it all and to be liked by liberals.

        Suppose Root is right. What if he did lie his way through college. Isn’t kind of relevant to his character?

        1. What does this have to do with being liked by liberals? I call out Tony and all the other resident liberals all the time.

          You make stupid, fact-free, fallacious and blind arguments, I call you out on them. I don’t care which team you’re on. The site’s called “Reason”, not “Sycophancy.”

          1. The fact is Obama hasn’t released them. The fact is that he is doing that for a reason. And the most likely reason is that there is something he doesn’t want the world to know. What is that? Lying about being foreign seems to be the most likely prospect.

            There is nothing fact free about that. And even pro liberate and Randian agree with me. Why are you so afraid of admitting the obvious?

            1. “Romney hasn’t released his tax returns. Therefore he’s obviously hiding something. I conclude Harry Reid is obviously right that Romney has never paid taxes.”

              I’m going to start calling you Harry, John. Or would you prefer Reid?

            2. So how many years of tax returns should Romney release?

              1. He’s released enough tax returns, Tony. How many college transcripts should Obama release?

                1. He’s released enough.

        2. If Barry’s transcripts are protected, then why weren’t Jack Ryan’s divorce records also protected?

  6. Barack Obama’s academic record three decades ago ranks right down there with his dog-eating as reasons why normal humans are dead sick of listening to some Republicans (and some former Republicans) talk about politics.

    Amen!

    Preach on, Brother Welch.

    It’s the partisans on both sides. The stuff they care about is what makes the headlines, but it doesn’t have anything to do with what’s really important to most Americans.

    The man squandered a chunk of my future paychecks on bailing out Wall Street and the UAW–but I’m supposed to oppose him because of his college transcripts?!

    There is an unappreciated part of the electorate that doesn’t get much attention. They’re not really swing voters, and they sure as hell aren’t undecided. They really would vote against the president–if they thought it was important enough to take the time on the way home from work to vote. But when they think the issue of the day is over trivial stuff like Obama’s college transcripts?

    They think that isn’t very important.

    How many Republicans marginalized themselves out of the primaries over these silly “issues”?

    1. P.S.

      Although…he is the Dog-Eater in Chief!

      1. P.P.S.

        Dog eater!

        1. I hear dog isn’t very good.

          1. I am sure it is not, otherwise the early caveman would not have domesticated it as a pet. He would have eaten all of them instead.

  7. Oh, Wayne Allyn Root — will you ever learn?

    1. Even if he did learn, he’d still have a name that sounded like a serial killer.

  8. Matt-

    I don’t know if it’s the new look of the site, or something unique to my computer, but I have noticed recently it’s difficult to distinguish between what is being quoted and the reason blogger’s words.

    The previous standard blockquote format seems to have gone away.

    1. Same here. I can’t tell block quotes from article text.

  9. Like Matt said – this is all distraction and Root is playing into the Obama campaign’s central strategy: DON’T MENTION THE WAR ECONOMY!

    Queers, lady parts, fried chicken, overt/covert/future imperial wars, dead teenagers, scary guns, old tax returns, bad grades in high school, crazy religions — all fucking distractions.

    Please try to pay attention people.

    1. 1. While this is fun to talk about, no one listens to WAR.

      2. Even if they did, it is not like they forget about the economy. The economy doesn’t have to be mentioned. It is the 800 pound gorilla in the room.

      1. Seriously. Arguing about college transcripts and tax returns is equivalent to the cliche of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

        1. Seconded.

          President Clinton getting blown by an intern didn’t count for shit.

          Why would college transcripts or tax returns matter to anyone–who isn’t already a Moonie or a Scientologist?

          …or whatever it is the Republicans and Democrats are calling themselves these days.

          1. President Clinton getting blown by an intern didn’t count for shit.

            Al Gore would disagree. The economy was great in 2000. The tech bubble didn’t burst until 2001. Al Gore should have coasted to the Presidency just like Bush I did. He only lost because of Clinton’s scandals.

            1. Gore couldn’t even win his home state. By any calculus, he should have won comfortably. But Gore was pompous even then, while Bubba seemed like your buddy even though you knew he would screw your wife and grab your wallet given half a chance. Gore lost on his own merit.

              1. Bubba was overrated. He lost the Congress for the Democrats and never cracked 50%. And he ended up selling out liberals at every turn after the 94 election to stay in office.

                1. Gore lost because he’s an inconsummate douchebag with no tangible platform and a long record of flip-floppery who wound up running against a complete and utter moron with a tiny modicum of charisma.

                  I.e. the same exact reason Romney will lose this time, unfortunately.

                  1. Obama is not going to win. Even Democrats are starting to come to terms with that. And they also realize that Obama has advanced their cause. He payed off their cronies. Passed laws and regulations that will never be undone. Now he is becoming an embarrassment. I think most Dems will be happy to see Obama go away.

                    1. I’m not so optimistic. Don’t forget that Democrats were coming to terms with Obamacare being thrown out too.

                    2. Obama will win. I take all bettors for low stakes.

                    3. What odds are you giving Randian?

                    4. I’ll give you 2-3.

                  2. Gore lost because of the Elian Gonzalez fiasco.

                    (recall he won the popular vote)

                2. Clinton would have gotten more than 50% in 2000 if he were allowed to run.

                  1. Gore would have won Florida if those old geezer voters in Palm Beach County hadn’t failed the literacy test that their (Democrat) Supervisor of Elections set up.

                  2. Bill would probably get 50% if he were to run now.

        2. Arguing about college transcripts and tax returns is the desperation of both parties fully aware that their candidates suck and that their only hope is that the other party’s candidate sucks more to the average American.

          1. No one but WAR and some bloggers are arguing about the transcripts. It is hardly the Republican Party or Romney who hasn’t said anything about it.

            Jesus Proprietist, we know you are not a racist. No one things you are one. Turn the stupid knob off 11 for a while.

            1. Plenty of Republicans have demanded his transcripts over and over again, but were mostly tripping over themselves to definitively prove that Obama was a Muslim born in Kenya. Now that Obama made them look utterly stupid, this is their backup plan. Pretty pathetic that they even have to stoop to ad hominems considering how awful Obama has been.

              And what does this statement I made here have to do with race? You’re the one who levelled the baseless affirmative action accusation, as well as the patently absurd “Obama is one of the least bright people ever to hold political office.” I’m a severe critic of Obama and affirmative action, and I’m not going to willingly make myself look dumb for a minor political edge or out of personal spite for a specific politician.

              1. Plenty of Republicans have demanded his transcripts over and over again

                Really? Who? I want links and names. Without that you are just talking out of your ass and repeating talking points someone else fed you. I haven’t heard shit about the transcripts anywhere but WAR and the right wing blogsphere. Show me a Republican politician who is demanding them.

                You are talking out of your ass proprietist.

                  1. The Times article doesn’t list a single Republican. It just says “calls for Obama to release his transcripts”. Again no mention of whom.

                    And the TPM is Donald Trump. Sorry but you are going to have to do better than that. Trump is a bigger nut than Root.

                    At least reading the articles. Again, who are these Republicans demanding this? You have WAR and Trump, both of which are nuts and neither of which hold office or are running for office.

                    That is just a sorry effort son.

                    1. You can easily find sources from Romney’s sons to Mike Huckabee to Rush Limbaugh to Glenn Beck yourself. If you haven’t heard the calls as far back as 2007, you obviously weren’t paying attention.

  10. OT:I think Charles SF’d the Brickbat link and I can’t comment on that post as it gives me a blank screen so I had to come here and comment.

  11. The economy doesn’t have to be mentioned. It is the 800 pound gorilla in the room.

    Unfortunately, a significant portion of the electorate actually believes the president “runs” the economy, and can create jobs.

    1. They also are starting to understand that the President can also destroy them.

      1. He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing.

        1. Nah, we’ve hidden the spice where he can’t find it.

          1. So now we get the full story on Curiosity.

          2. You think he hasn’t foreseen that move?

            1. We planned it in a no-room.

              1. I see you’ve fallen for his no-room trick.

    2. And yet somehow that 800 pound gorilla isn’t able to drop BO’s approval rating below 45%.

      1. Or get his strongly disapproves below 45%. Obama is currently upside down by nearly 20 points between strongly approve and disapprove.

        That is horrible by any measure. I know you just try to be contrary. But you might want to avoid being stupid for the sake of being contrary.

        1. Sorry, John, but it just is not going to happen.

        2. That 45% wouldn’t get off the Obama train for anything.

          Heck, it could come out that he really isn’t a citizen and they wouldn’t care.

          1. That is not true. The 23% who strongly approve would not get off the Obama train for anything. The other 22% are soft supporters, most of whom are too afraid to be called racists to disprove of a black President publicly. Not all of those people are voting for Obama.

            1. Not all of those people are voting for Obama.

              Yes they are.

              Saying that they won’t is like saying you’re not voting for Romney.

              1. If they were voting for Obama they would be “strongly approve”. Those are the ones that are insane. The rest of them are just guilty white people. Some will vote for Obama, some will stay home. And others will vote for Romney. IN the end that leave Obama with somewhere between 40 and 45% of the vote. And that won’t get it done, even with Johnson taking 5%.

                1. Johnson is not going to take 5%, first of all.

                  Obama only needs to win, of states that are truly in play, Ohio or Florida.

                  Go do your own map, honestly, and you’ll see it’s pretty bleak for Mitt Romney.

                  1. No Randian. Go to your map. It it looks bleak for Obama.

                    First. Romney gets 14 more votes because of the census just for winning the McCain states. Then throw in North Carolina and Indiana which are pretty much guaranteed to flip.

                    That means Obama has to win Florida. If he doesn’t, he will have to draw what amounts to a straight flush of winning Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Virginia. Neither of those are very likely. It is Romney’s election to lose.

                    1. PA and MI are not in play. Sorry, but that’s reality.

                      Ohio, VA, and FL all lean Obama at the moment.

                      I get that there are authentic toss-ups and that anything can happen, but saying that this is “Romney’s to lose” is not an accurate capture of the current polls.

                    2. Michigan is totally in play. Obama is only up by 6 in the RCP average. And all of those polls are way heavily weighted Dem. Obama isn’t over 50% in any of the swing states. Incumbents below 50% are always in trouble Randian.

                    3. You think it’s unlikely he’ll win Michgan? Eh?

                    4. John’s just engaging in wishful thinking.

                      Here is a map I did that shows that Obama does not have to win any of Ohio, Florida, VA, or NC to win the Presidency. Realistically, Obama only has to win NV and CO.

              2. I am not voting for Romney. I have said that. I am not voting this year. I am in a blue state, so it doesn’t count anyway. And I am not going to spend four years defending why I voted for someone.

                1. Don’t you live in Virginia?

                  1. No Randian I don’t.

  12. Libertarian mud wrestling! What’s not to like?

    Matt, you’ve got big ones to go up against the King o’ Vegas! Good luck!

    1. Re: Anal Vanneman,

      Libertarian mud wrestling! What’s not to like?

      Liberal perfunctory fallacy of composition! What’s not to like?

  13. Here is the bottom line with all of this. Obama is an enormous narcissist. The guy and his supporters were living off his being the Editor of Harvard Law review to this day. There is not question that if those transcripts said anything good, he would release them. The fact that he doesn’t says that there is something embarrassing in there.

    That something is probably not horrible grades. That story would blow over in a day. The most likely thing is that Obama, a guy with a foreign father and who grew up in Indonesia, claimed to be a foreign citizen to look more exotic and get a leg up in the admissions process.

    Does that make obama unfit for office? I don’t know. Is is the most important thing in the world? No. Is it the end of the world if we never no for sure? No. Does it change my vote? No.

    But it is the truth. And I don’t see why anyone is under an obligation not to speculate about those transcripts and why Obama won’t release them. If that offends liberals, too fucking bad.

    1. If you go back 8 years in this blog, what will you find as the most posted upon issue? The wars? Bush domestic policy? Or would it be Kerry’s war record (I happen to think anyone who served on a PTA in the Delta was a damn brave SOB, the swiftboaters biggest complaint was Kerry was a gloryhound), and the Texas Air National Guard records. Somehow, Reason staffers made it through that without being all that embarrassed by the side line issues.

      Here is Tim C with one example,
      https://reason.com/blog/2004/09…..at-we-lost

      and Jacob Sullum with another:

      https://reason.com/blog/2004/09…..at-we-lost

      I suppose that people do mature over time, and those kind of articles would be beneath their standards now.

      1. served on a PTA

        1. I don’t think Kerry was a coward. he was just a glory hound self promoter who told a bunch of bullshit when he got back. In other words, he was a politician.

          1. Exactly. Typical sailor too.

      2. Wow. Yeah. I never heard a single person complain about speculating on Bush’s past for 8 years. But now, we need to stop doing that so we can get to the serious issues.

        In the end, there is a certain breed of libertarian who just want liberals to like them. They just think liberals are cool and Republicans are icky. It is a total culture thing. It it affects their judgment.

        1. Here’s the Sullum one I meant to poin to, my bad:

          https://reason.com/blog/2004/09…..ts-a-gatew

          I don’t think it is bad faith on their part. They don’t realize how profoundly Obama has changed their own perceptions of what is and is not verboten in DC, Manhattan and media culture.

          1. I have said this before, I have ran Reason I would move it to Wichita. They don’t realize how deeply they are affected by the DC bubble. and they are in it doubly so, the DC and the journalist bubble. If your friends are Dave Weigel and Stewart Ackerman, you might start thinking some crazy things.

            1. Again — John deciding who is libertarian is like Dunphy proclaiming what is constitutional.

              1. CN if you are going to be snarky, at least read the post. Living in a bubble doesn’t’ mean you are or are libertarian or not whatever that is. I don’t really care if they are libertarians or not. But I would like them to be something besides beltway conventional wisdom

                And I don’t give a flying fuck if I am a libertarian or not. I think for myself. If I come to conclusions libertarians or conservatives or whoever doesn’t like, too fucking bad.

                Who the hell the said I wanted to be on your team?

              2. And lets not talk about me CN. Lets talk about Killazontherum catching Reason with its ass showing here. The difference in treatment of Bush and Obama in this regard is amazing. What accounts for it?

                1. Did you read those links that Killaz posted? That you and he think they somehow catch “Reason with its ass showing here” says all that needs to be said.

                  1. I read them. And they found Bush’s past wildly interesting and important. But somehow Root is a nut for wanting to see Obama’s college transcript. The double standard is obvious.

                    1. “As neither candidate seems capable of making a compelling case either for or against the current war, I am uninterested in what they were doing back when Brezhnev was still “alive.””

                      Wildly interesting. Hmmm.

                    2. Perhaps you should change your handle to J o h n.

                    3. Or perhaps you should go fuck yourself Citizen. Those posts are full of loving snark. Total contrast to the “now we can’t have that” attitude they have to the Obama stories.

                    4. I was only pointing the way. Can’t do everything for you, CN. You can check out there record on how much consideration they have given to the records of candidates in the past yourself, https://reason.com/archives/weekly/2004-09-01

                      Here’s a juicy one from Cathy. A lot of tut tuts there, but so full of detail, you know she secretly enjoyed it:

                      https://reason.com/archives/200…..onths-hate

                    5. The amusing logic of verbotenist: talking about A is a problem, verbotenist talks about A, so, they are also a part of the problem?

                    6. Nice selective quoting there.

                      Thanks for that compliment

                      Wildly interesting. mmm.

  14. If you don’t want to hear about Obama’s dog-eating, convince them to stop talking about Romney’s dog-carrying.

  15. The LP 2014 Convention is coming to C-Bus? Fuck, yeah! Maybe I’ll have a party at teh compound! (W.A.R. not invited, though.)

    1. Or Barr, even though I had a cigar and scotch with that fucker at Easton.

      1. We need to get Stanhope to party with us.

        1. I want to take *Starchild* and let him loose in the Short North.

  16. Barack Obama’s academic record three decades ago ranks right down there with his dog-eating as reasons why normal humans are dead sick of listening to some Republicans (and some former Republicans) talk about politics.

    You do realize that the reason these things pop up is because liberals like to argue that conservatives are stupid and undereducated whereas liberals are Ivy League geniuses, and because the Obama reelection team team outed Romney as some sort of dog hater.

  17. “Again — John deciding who is libertarian is like Dunphy proclaiming what is constitutional.”

    if you can point out one example where my constitutional analysis as to what is constitutional or isn’t is wrong, feel free to do so here:

    again, distinguish between normative and descriptive statements

    for example, when i say state drug laws are constitutional, that’s descriptive not normative.

    similarly, when i say various search and seizures under the (vastly inferior to WA state) federal constitution are constitutional, i am again speaking descriptively based on you know… actual case law.

    so, again, if you can point out where i have erred in doing so, feel free to do so

    as usual, what you devolve to instead of a discussion of issues is personal attack, and in this case a personal attack with no basis in fact.

    pretty immature and sad.

    1. Seriously, your tired “immature and sad” commentary is really, really fucking stale.

      1. Actually, I’m immature and happy.

        1. Probably shoulda gone with “John deciding who is a libertarian is like Dunphy deciding who is immature and sad.”

        2. it is immature and sad when people, because i dare upset the derp derp derp circle jerk, constantly engage in posts that are personal attacks.

          that’s immature and sad.

          and obsessive.

          again, if my constitutional analysis has been wrong, point out when

          the difference between most circle jerkers and me is that i actually, as part of my job, have to APPLY constitutional law in the field, write search warrants, attend 3.5/3.6 hearings, etc.

          so, i know it academically AND practically

          i had one awesome case where i interrogated a guy (based on a hunch) and got a confession for multiple arsons.

          i didn’t mirandize him. why? because i knew the case law well enough to know that even though i was interrogating him for several class A felonies, in the police station, that i could do it in a manner that was noncustodial.

          and it held up at suppression hearing

          so, i am proud of my constitutional knowledge, because i know it is upheld in the real world.

          i should also note i chose WA state in part because we have MUCH MORE restrictive (state) constitutional law regarding search and seizure

          iow, my state’s constitutional law is BETTER and i like it that way. less police power. more privacy

          1. Yeah. I probably shoulda.

            1. w3rd

          2. Including the right of “civil servants” to beat the Mexican Piss out of people, tase pregnant women, execute the mentally disabled and erase dashboard cam videos that portray you in an unflattering light. I see why you love it so much Kojack.

            1. troll-o-mETER: .0001

              i do love my job, though. never done any of those things.

              thanx for your “concern”

          3. it is immature and sad when people, because i dare upset the derp derp derp circle jerk, constantly engage in posts that are personal attacks.

            that’s immature and sad.

            and obsessive.

            again, if my constitutional analysis has been wrong, point out when

            the difference between most circle jerkers

            So what is it when you engage in seven personal attacks in a few sentences?

            1. feel free to show where i started the personal attacks

              i’d rather discuss ideas than personal shit. in this thread, as in most others, OTHERS start with the personal attacks

              feel free to peruse threads and see which side starts the personal attacks.

              and i readily admit i have done it on a few occasions.

              but that ratio speaks for itself.

              calling me out with some stupid comment about constitutional law

              and note again… the OP (and nobody else) has provideed a single example where my constitutional analysis was wrong.

              there are a very few people here who have a decent knowledge of constitutional law.

              but seriously, most people here have very little understanding of it

              they know what they WANT constitutional law to be, but their knowledge of actual case law could fit in a thimble

              that’s what’s refreshing about volokh.com

              people know what they are talking about vis a vis the law

              1. feel free to show where i started the personal attacks

                Feel free to show where I said you did.

                I asked you “what is it when you engage in seven personal attacks in a few sentences?”

                I did this because you whined about personal attacks then engaged in them, making you a hypocrite.

                I don’t care about the rest of your post.

  18. For a woman who was supposedly a communist, it’s a bit wierd that she helped pioneer microcredit programs.

    WTF?

  19. Also, the whole “he claimed to be a foreign student so he could qualify for loans” is a completely insane, nonsensical argument.
    I was a foreign student. Foreign students do NOT qualify for FAFSA.
    Unless Wayne means he qualified for Indonesian and Kenyan loans, he has no fucking idea hat he is talking about.

    1. Foreign students do NOT qualify for FAFSA.

      And FAFSA is the only way to get loans and always has been…

      1. Cause, like, a bank is going to give someone a loan on the basis that they are foreign and exotic.

    2. And you’re incorrect, eligible non-citizens can get a FAFSA. I just checked. Maybe you should have too.

      1. Permanent residents. Not foreign nationals.

        1. Foreign students do NOT qualify for FAFSA.

          This is where you acknowledge you were wrong.

          1. No, you don’t understand what the word “foreign student” means.

            A permanent resident is not considered a “foreign student”.

            A permanent resident legally qualifies for in-state tuition and state resident. They are no legal sense ever described as “foreign”.

            Frankly, you have no idea what you rae talking about and I do.

            1. No, you don’t understand what the word “foreign student” means.

              Ok, so now you play parse the definition because you were caught lying.

              Great, no thanks, fuck off liar.

            2. Frankly, you have no idea what you rae talking about and I do.

              You lied about this

              Foreign students do NOT qualify for FAFSA.

              Then tried to play “change the definition”.

              I think I know exactly what and whom I am talking about liar.

              1. I didn’t change the definition. The term “foreign student” is, and has always, referred to people on student visas. It has never, anywhere, by anyone, been used to refer to non-citizen resident aliens.

                1. Non-citizen legal permanent residents that is.

                2. I didn’t change the definition

                  Because I didn’t let you liar.

                  It has never, anywhere, by anyone, been used to refer to non-citizen resident aliens.

                  No one claimed otherwise liar.

                  You were wrong.

                  1. You’re a moron. Go back a read the thread.

                    1. You’re a moron.

                      Yes yes, you continue to insult me for pointing out that you lied and got caught and tired to play stupid fucking semantic games.

                      Go back a read the thread.

                      Where do you think all the quotes proving you’re a liar came from?

                    2. You’re calling me a liar for stating a fact : that “foregn students” (i.e. people on F-1 or other non-immigrant visas) do not qualify for FAFSA.

                      Fuck off.

                      Admit you were wrong and apologize.

                    3. You’re calling me a liar for stating a fact : that “foregn students” (i.e. people on F-1 or other non-immigrant visas) do not qualify for FAFSA.

                      No I’m not. I’m calling you a liar for posting a lie

                      Foreign students do NOT qualify for FAFSA.

                      .

                      And you move the goalposts.

                    4. Foreign students do NOT qualify for FAFSA.
                      .

                      And you move the goalposts.

                      This is moving the goal posts? In what universe ?

                      Your breathtaking idiocy continues to stun me.

                    5. This is moving the goal posts? In what universe ?

                      In the universe where you make one claim, it is proven factually wrong, and you adjust that claim.

                      In other words, this one liar.

                  2. And as an aside, who cares?

                    You r point is useless because FAFSA DIDN’T EXIST WHEN OBAMA WAS IN SCHOOL.

                    So not only were you wrong, and lying, you were wrong and lying about a program that has fuckall to do with this discussion.

                    1. So? Stafford and Pell grants existed anf foreign students didn’t qualify for them then either.

                    2. So?

                      YOU brought up the FAFSA point like it proved something, and NOW you say so?

                      WTF?

                    3. See, we’d definitely be able to keep a thread going if all the trolls disappeared tomorrow.

                    4. And as I said earlier, posters like you who think every conversation that doesn’t involve them is a troll spam threads whining about it, and think they’re not spamming.

                      Don’t be so hard on hazel just cause she lied.

    3. You don’t have to be an American to get a FAFSA. What are you talking about?

      1. What are you talking about?

        Apparently, she’s talking about a program that didn’t exist when Obama was in college and how her misunderstanding of it proves something.

      2. Yes you do. You have to at least have a permanent resident’s visa. I.e. Be a “US Person”.

        You seriously think the US government is going to give a Pell grant or a Stafford loan to someone who just flew in from Indonesia? WTF?

        1. Foreign students do NOT qualify for FAFSA.

          So, were you just mistaken or were you lying when you posted that?

          1. You are a moron.
            A permanent resident is never described by anyone anywhere as a “foreign student”.

            A “foreign student” is a person on an F-1 student visa, or an exchange program.

            You’re an idiot who thinks he is scoring points but acutally displaying that he is too stupid to realize when he has no idea what he’s talking about.

            1. You are a moron.

              And you are a liar.

              Except I proved it and you didn’t.

              1. Stop embarassing yourself. Please.

                1. Stop embarassing yourself. Please.

                  She says as she whines and cries for being outed as a liar.

        2. You seriously think the US government is going to give a Pell grant or a Stafford loan to someone who just flew in from Indonesia? WTF?

          FAFSA’s are used for more than just those loans.

          You made a claim. You were wrong.

          1. I am right. The problem is that you’re an idiot with no idea what the fuck you’re tlaking about.

            1. I am right. The problem is that you’re an idiot with no idea what the fuck you’re tlaking about.

              I said “FAFSA’s are used for more than just those loans.”

              Seems like that’s 100% factually accurate.

              1. Ok, change the subject to something totally different.

                The fact is that I am 100% right that “foreign students” (defined, as anyone who has any clue what they are talking about, as people on a foeign student’s non-immigrant visa) do no qualify for FAFSA aid.

                1. The fact is that I am 100% right that “foreign students” (defined, as anyone who has any clue what they are talking about, as people on a foeign student’s non-immigrant visa) do no qualify for FAFSA aid.

                  I see now why you didn’t qualify.

                  1. Yes, after proving that oyur an idiot who jumps the gun and calls people a liar when you have no idea what you are talking about, you proceed to resort to name calling.

                    You continue ot behave like a childish idiot. Fuck off.

                    1. you proceed to resort to name calling.

                      The only “name” I called you is liar, and that’s not a name so much as the truth.

                      Meanwhile, you’ve fired off a bunch of “moron”s because you were wrong, lied, and can’t stand having it pointed out.

                    2. You continue ot behave like a childish idiot. Fuck off.

                      I get confused, is this actual irony?

                    3. gulo gulo,
                      You’ve loaded this thread with red herrings and ad hominems. You’re one to talk.

                    4. You’ve loaded this thread with red herrings and ad hominems.

                      Sigh. Whatever.

                      I called a liar a lair. Your claim that I’ve “loaded this thread with red herrings and ad hominems” is demonstrably false. There hasn’t been a single red herring, and the only “ad homs” I’ve used are factually accurate.

                      Meanwhile, you continue to personally attack me and pretend you have the moral high ground, because you were wrong about your AA claims and I pointed it out.

                    5. You don’t know what the word “liar” means.

                      I stated that foreign students don’t qualify for FAFSA. Using the proper definition of “foreign student”. That is a true fact.

                      You then called me a liar by claiming that a permanent resident is a foreign student (which is bullshit and pr0ves you don’t know what you’re talking about). That was an ad hominmen.

                      Admit I was telling the truth when I said “foreign students don’t qualify for FAFSA” and apologize, or fuck off.

                    6. I stated that foreign students don’t qualify for FAFSA.

                      Which is false, making you a lair.

                    7. I’m going to blow your mind gulo:

                      “non-citzen” != “foreign”

                      Not as far as the law is concerned, or college admissions, or financial aid.

                      There are millions of non-citizen Americans legally walking around living and breating and and working and doing everything that a US citizen does in this country except vote, legally, and happily with the sanction of the US government. They can even work in sectors sensitive to US security. I happen to be one of them.

                      Now I’m going to blow your mind even more and say that there are lots of non-citizen Americans who are also “illegal”. They don’t qualify for aid, but they should.

                      If you weren’t a pig-headed ignorant bigot who is too full of himself to bother becoming informed, you would probably know all this.

                    8. You then called me a liar by claiming that a permanent resident is a foreign student

                      I never claimed any such thing liar.

                    9. Admit I was telling the truth when I said “foreign students don’t qualify for FAFSA”

                      In order to do that, I’d have to be a liar like you.

                      Sorry, can’t do it.

                    10. Even if Hazel is wrong (she’s not) she is not necessarily lying. She could mearely be mistaken.

                      You, on the other hand…

                    11. Even if Hazel is wrong (she’s not)

                      Actually, she is.

                      She claimed “foreign students don’t qualify for FAFSA”

                      That is a lie.

                      You, on the other hand…

                      Pointed out she lied.

                    12. Once again “non-citzen” does not equal “foreign”.

                      There are millions of “non-citizen” US persons who are not legally considered foreigners by anyone except ignorant, ill-informed, bigots like you.

                    13. Once again “non-citzen” does not equal “foreign”.

                      Never said it did liar.

                      There are millions of “non-citizen” US persons who are not legally considered foreigners by anyone except ignorant, ill-informed, bigots like you.

                      And now I’m a bigot…

                      Just exactly who am I bigoted against, based on my posts?

                    14. Are you really this stupid, gulo gulo or are you just having us on?

                    15. He just can’t admit that he called someone a liar unjustly.

                      Now he has to keep digging that hole deeper until he proves himself right by reaching China on the other side.

                    16. He just can’t admit that he called someone a liar unjustly.

                      Because I didn’t.

                      You lied.

                      Insisting otherwise doesn’t remove the black and white proof.

                    17. Are you really this stupid, gulo gulo or are you just having us on?

                      Are you really a pedophile?

                    18. Also, only a child accuses people who they think are wrong of lying.

                      You clearly do not know the definition of the word.

                      Which, of course, is not the only definion of which you are ignorant.

                    19. Also, only a child accuses people who they think are wrong of lying.

                      Then bang on hazel, she’s accused me several time in this very thread.

                    20. And why do you care?

                      Who elected you white knight of reason, bound and determine to passive aggressively defend the honor or board lairs who make false claims about FAFSA?

                      She lied. The proof is in black and white.

                      Your opinion of it changes nothing.

                    21. Also, only a child accuses people who they think are wrong of lying.

                      And only a pedophile accuses people of being a “child” for pointing out people lied.

                      That’s how you play this game right Ike?

                    22. http://money.howstuffworks.com…..l-aid5.htm

                      To qualify for federal need-based aid, the student must be either a U.S. citizen or eligible non-citizen, including registered aliens, residents of certain U.S. protectorates and political refugees. Foreign students aren’t eligible for federal financial aid.

                    23. To qualify for federal need-based aid, the student must be either a U.S. citizen or eligible non-citizen, including registered aliens, residents of certain U.S. protectorates and political refugees. Foreign students aren’t eligible for federal financial aid.

                      http://money.howstuffworks.com…..l-aid5.htm

                    24. http://www.ofas.uci.edu/conten…..ering.aspx

                      Please note that foreign students are not eligible for financial aid. Therefore, foreign students should not complete a FAFSA.

                    25. HazelMeade| 8.7.12 @ 1:25PM |#|?|filternamelinkcustom

                      Also, the whole “he claimed to be a foreign student so he could qualify for loans” is a completely insane, nonsensical argument.
                      I was a foreign student. Foreign students do NOT qualify for FAFSA.

                      Please note me quoting your original statement, in which the bolded part is still a lie.

                      You are a liar.

                    26. http://www.fafsa.ed.gov

                      Nearly every student is eligible for some form of financial aid. Students who may not be eligible for need-based aid may still be eligible for an unsubsidized Stafford Loan regardless of income or circumstances.
                      A student who can meet the following criteria may be eligible for aid:
                      is a U.S. citizen, a U.S. national, or an eligible non-citizen

                      You are still a liar.

                    27. http://www.ehow.com/info_79602…..ities.html

                      Expense
                      Studying in the U.S. can be very expensive. Foreign students are not eligible for financial aid offered by the American government, although some may receive grants in their home countries or scholarships from their colleges.

                    28. http://www.fafsa.ed.gov

                      Nearly every student is eligible for some form of financial aid. Students who may not be eligible for need-based aid may still be eligible for an unsubsidized Stafford Loan regardless of income or circumstances.
                      A student who can meet the following criteria may be eligible for aid:
                      is a U.S. citizen, a U.S. national, or an eligible non-citizen

                      You are still a liar.

                    29. Don’t you love how my link is direct to the site, and her link is to individual institutions grad programs?

                      SERIOUSLY?

                      You’re a fucking liar Hazel, and your desperation is delicious.

                    30. Once again, you still don’t understand the distinction between “foreign” and “non-citizen”. They are not equivalent legally or semantically.

                    31. Once again, you still don’t understand the distinction between “foreign” and “non-citizen”. They are not equivalent legally or semantically.

                      And once again, you blame ME for YOUR initial IMPRECISION.

                      You lied. Then you clairified.

                      But you still lied, and then you posted links that proved nothing.

                    32. The OFFICIAL FAFSA definition doesn’t say “foreign” when discussing these kinds of students.

                      Your insistence that your initial use of “foreign” was correct in regards to FAFSA also fails, becuae THEY DON’T CALL THEM THAT.

                      You lied. Then you realized it, and instead of simply saying “ah I was imprecise” you whined and cried stamped your feet until you got completely shut up.

                    33. How did I clarify by using the term “foreign student” originally.

                      You are the one who replied by saying that “non-citizens” qualify, as if “non-citizen” and “foreign” are equivalent words.

                      I stated a fact. “Foriegn students” don’t qualify for financial aid.
                      I didn’t say “non-citizens”, I said “foreign”. The term “foreign student” as it is commonly used all over the country specifically means students who are on non-immigrant visas. It does not apply to holders of US permanent resident visas. According to the US government a person on a legal immigrant visa who is not a citizen is not legally considered a “foreigner”.

                    34. How did I clarify by using the term “foreign student” originally.

                      Are you saying you can’t read your own posts?

                      You are the one

                      Because you certainly can’t read mine.

                      You lied. I caught you. Stop trying to turn this away from your original claim, that Foreign students do NOT qualify for FAFSA.

                      Or did you forget that?

                    35. Foreign students DON’T qualify for FAFSA, as I have proven repeatedly.

                    36. Foreign students DON’T qualify for FAFSA, as I have proven repeatedly.

                      Yet, the links and quotes still prove you haven’t, and are lying.

                      Let’s end this.

                      Post a link, to fafsa.ed.gov with the definition of foreign student.

                      Should be easy if you’re not lying.

                      Meanwhile I have definitively demonstrated that many foreign students do get fafsa’s, and that you are a disgusting liar with no integrity who will argue about their perception of a definition that they were wrong about.

                    37. By the way, liar, FAFSA uses “international” not “foreign”.

                      Even your pathetic attempt to redefine the phrase fails.

                    38. http://www.ofas.uci.edu/conten…..ering.aspx

                      Hi everyone I’m HazelMeade.

                      I’m posting a link to an individual university’s grad program because it’s one of the few places that actually uses the phrase I’m trying to pretend is widespread and accepted.

                      Yes, I think you’re all so stupid that you won’t notice.

                    39. http://dictionary.reference.co…..n+national

                      Definition:

                      any person who is not a citizen or permanent resident alien of the US

                    40. http://www.answers.com/topic/foreign-national

                      Any person other than a US citizen, US permanent or temporary legal resident alien, or person in US custody.

                    41. http://www.irs.gov/businesses/…..31,00.html

                      Foreign Students and Scholars

                      Aliens temporarily present in the United States as students, trainees, scholars, teachers, researchers, exchange visitors, and cultural exchange visitors are subject to special rules with respect to the taxation of their income.

                    42. http://travel.state.gov/visa/t….._1269.html

                      There are limitations and requirements related to foreign (F-1) students attending public secondary/high schools (grades nine through twelve), under U.S. law. Student F-1 visas cannot be issued to persons seeking to enter the United States in order to attend a public primary/elementary school or a publicly funded adult education program.

                    43. http://life.umt.edu/fsss/

                      Greetings

                      The University of Montana (UM) has a long tradition of welcoming international students to our campus and community. Currently 427 students from 74 different foreign countries attend UM. Over the past year we also had 138 scholars from 43 foreign countries at UM.

                      We update this site regularly with information about a wide range of topics useful to incoming foreign students and scholars, as well as currently enrolled students. Navigation links on the left-hand side provide further information about programs and services offered by Foreign Student and Scholar Services (FSSS) and other departments on campus.

                    44. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05…..ogram.html

                      The State Department, responding to a wave of complaints from foreign students about abuses under a summer cultural exchange program, issued new rules on Friday significantly revising the types of jobs the students can do, prohibiting them from most warehouse, construction, manufacturing and food-processing work.

                      The rules are the most extensive changes the State Department has made to its largest cultural exchange program since several hundred foreign students protested last summer at a plant in Pennsylvania that packs Hershey’s chocolates. The students said they were forced to work on grueling production lines lifting heavy boxes, often on night shifts, isolated in the plant from any American workers.

                      The five-decade-old Summer Work Travel Program brings more than 100,000 foreign university students here each year to work for up to three months and then travel for a month. The program, which uses a visa known as J-1, is designed to give students who are not from wealthy backgrounds a chance to experience the United States. The students’ trips are arranged by American sponsoring agencies that find jobs and housing for them.

    4. No it is not Hazel. As you point out below, you have to have a green card to get those things. You don’t have to be a citizen. They are two different things.

      And a lot of colleges have special programs to admit foreign students. If he got a scholarship for being from Indoesia, he didn’t need a Pell Grant. So it is not “nonsensical”.

      1. Careful John, any second now she’ll come out of the woodwork to screech at you and call you a childish idiot.

        Over and over and over, throwing a few “morons” in there for seasoning and flavor.

  20. But somehow Root is a nut for wanting to see Obama’s college transcript.

    No, Root’s a nut because Root is a fucking nut. Is this your first day here or something?

    Has Root done anything in the last five years that hasn’t made it obvious to everybody that he’s a complete fucking loon?

    Root is the kind of guy who makes libertarians into figures of fun. He may as well have blue fucking skin.

    On this particular argument, I think he’s being silly, for the reasons I’ve outlined. But if the topic is now WAR in general, the guy is a grade A clown.

    1. Root is a nut. But his request here is not nutty. Even a nut can do a sane thing sometimes.

      1. There’s a big difference between asking for transcripts, tax returns, etc., and inventing facts out of thin air on pure speculation, anecdote and assumption. At least for rational people.

        1. “inventing facts out of thin air”

          Like Harry Reid’s been doing?

          1. Yes, John/WAR = Harry Reid. I said as much above.

    2. ^this

  21. Let’s talk about Obama’s real problem, he’s not a natural born citizen because his father was an foreigner.

    Minor v Happersett
    1875

    “…children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

  22. “So why is Wayne Allyn Root giving Romney free campaign advice, when he should be talking to, and about, Libertarian Party candidates?”

    Because he’s a jackass with an ego the size of Mount Rushmore whose never cared about getting libertarians elected to office. Which is both funny and sad because for some reason we made him the chairman of the national committee.

    The Libertarian Party, looking for more ways to stay irrelevant when the old ones just got boring.

  23. This has all been pretty retarded.

    Unless someone is going to cite Occidental College, Columbia University and Harvard University admissions standards and the actual financial aid procedures from the appropriate years, everyone is just talking out of their asses. Except for Hazel, who seems to know what she’s talking about.

    And Root is a tool. “I bet my GPA was better than his.” “He’s a commie because his mommie was a commie!” Grow up, Wayne.

    1. He *may* be a commie, because he was *influenced* by them. Nothing wrong with pondering that possibility.

      Obama despises the private sector, AJ. It’s pretty goddamn obvious he hates wealth, as well. (Yeah, Barry himself is wealthy, but he can fix that.)

  24. “in a country about 25% full of racist hillbillies”

    Well, hell, of course you’d look at it that way, Tony: If you use *yourself* as the template for The Perfect Person, everyone else naturally looks like racist hillbillies.

  25. You don’t have to like any of Obama’s policies, but there’s no reason to think he’s not brighter than average…

    Brighter than the average person, certainly but brighter than the average President, no way.

    As near as I can tell from googling various sources, presidential IQs seem to range in a cluster between about 120 and 135. There are a few outliers like Clinton, Nixon, Carter, Jefferson and the Adamses who are thought to be in the 150+ range but Obama certainly doesn’t live there.

    Frankly I’m constantly on the lookout for all this genius liberals see in him. It certainly is not on show in his oratory, it is painful to hear him speak, nor in his executive ability. Frankly, Dubya and Sara Palin are administrative genii compared to him.

    Considering how three of the most intelligent presidents of the twentieth century, Hoover, Nixon and Carter governed, I’ve pretty much come to the conclusion that being smart is pretty low down on my list of criteria. And graduation from an Ivy does not even appear.

  26. For the love of god …

    http://www.edupass.org/finaid/fafsa.phtml

    The Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) is used by US citizens and permanent residents to apply for financial aid from the US federal and state governments. Colleges and universities also use the information submitted on the FAFSA for computing need-based awards. International students are not eligible for the US government aid programs (Pell Grant, SEOG Grant, Stafford Loan, Perkins Loan, PLUS Loan, and Federal Work-Study). However, many schools will ask international students to submit a FAFSA so that they may use the data for assessing financial need.

    1. Give it up, Hazel.

      His parents shouldn’t let him play with the computer but that’s no reason for you to get sucked into feeding him.

      1. Give it up, Hazel.

        Good advice.

        Her lie is clear as day.

        Now, what about those accusations of you, Isaac Bartram being a pedophile?

      2. HazelMeade| 8.7.12 @ 1:25PM |#|?|filternamelinkcustom

        Also, the whole “he claimed to be a foreign student so he could qualify for loans” is a completely insane, nonsensical argument.
        I was a foreign student. Foreign students do NOT qualify for FAFSA.

        Bolded portion is still a lie.

        And HazelMeade is still a liar.

      3. I’m not one to randomly tar people as socks, but I think you all are arguing with another one of Mary’s creations.

        Thank dog for Reasonable.

        1. Read my post about why people like you are so vile.

          I hate liars, specifcally, liars like hazel who started out being imprecise and only reach the level of “liar” after repeatedly insisting the initial, obviousl imprecision is correct.

          Thank dog for Reasonable.

          Agreed. Plonk you.

        2. I’m not so sure. I think this is a person with a mental illness that prevents him from being able to admit when he is wrong.

          1. And I think you’re a person who makes false claims.

            Except the difference is, I have proof and you have bunched panties.

          2. from being able to admit when he is wrong.

            Funny since you had to modify your original claim, that all students are not eligible for a fafsa, just to pretend you weren’t caught lying.

            1. You are still in capable of grasping the fact that “foreign student” is a term with a specific meaning. A meaning that does not include non-citzens with permanent residents visas.
              A meaning that someone who knows what the fuck they are talking about understands.

              1. You are still in capable of grasping the fact that “foreign student” is a term with a specific meaning.

                You’re the one who misused it.

                1. Who is a Foreign National/Person?
                  The federal definition of a foreign national is a person who is not:

                  granted permanent U.S. residence, as demonstrated by the issuance of a permanent residence card, i.e., a “Green Card”
                  granted U.S. citizenship
                  granted status as a “protected person” under 8 U.S.C. 1324b(a)(3), e.g., political refugees, political asylum holders, etc.
                  This includes all persons in the U.S. as students, businesspeople, scholars, researchers, technical experts, etc.

                  http://tinyurl.com/dyshw2k

              2. Ignore it, Hazel. It’s not worth it.

                1. She quit when challenged to provide proof of her claims from FAFSA.

                  You picked the wrong side pedo.

                2. So, are you her sockpuppet account or is she yours?

                3. It is so worth it. I havn’t laughed this hard in weeks.

  27. He can write a decent book–being able to write well is as sure a sign of intelligence as any other, imo.

    Then Reagan must be a genius in your eyes. Before he became President he wrote all of his own speeches and even afterwards vetted every single speech he gave. Hardly any speech ever survived his pre-reading without being sent back for revisions.

    Obama, on the other hand, sounds like he’s reading something he’s never even seen before. He doesn’t just suck as a speaker, he has the shittiest speechwriters on the planet.

    And from just about every review of his books that I’ve seen they sound like trite formulaic pablum.

  28. Obama beat Hilary in the Democrat primary.

    Obama is not dumb.

    Furthermore questions about Obama’s intelligence or academic record or ability to hold the office are frankly idiotic.

    The only thing that ever mattered was his ability to win a campaign. This is true of any past, present or future president.

    Lastly the smartest President to ever hold office was Woodrow Wilson….I think we can all agree high intelligence and a stellar academic record has nothing to do with weather a president is a good one or a bad one.

    1. I hate to say it, but the smartest president was likely Jimmy Carter.

      Unless there is another president who had a degree in hard science

      1. Herbert Hoover had a degree in geology from Stanford and worked as a mining engineer.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.