Originally Posted By Mr X <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/20/bush-econ101" target="_blank">http://thinkprogress.org/2007/ 09/20/bush-econ101</a> When asked about the risk of a recession, Bush answered "You know, you need to talk to economists. I think I got a B in Econ 101". Wow, glad such a gifted intellect is steering the ship! p.s. he actually got a C-, the reporter checked.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< p.s. he actually got a C-, the reporter checked. >>> Are you saying that Bush lied?
Originally Posted By Mr X No, he obfuscated. He said "I think", thus covering himself. I can point out some TRUE lies, if you wish. p.s. aside from bragging about BAD grades (nice role model there), has any president ever really TALKED about their school grades at all, or as much as Bush? Isn't that a little weird?
Originally Posted By Mr X Oh yes, and isn't it pathetic that the president feels unqualified to comment on the near future of our economy? Shouldn't he know the MOST about what's going on?
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << p.s. aside from bragging about BAD grades (nice role model there) >> He is a role model for all of the other underachieving sons and daughters of wealthy parents. Why work hard when Daddy's money and rolodex will get you everything you want in the end anyway?
Originally Posted By fkurucz <<Oh yes, and isn't it pathetic that the president feels unqualified to comment on the near future of our economy?>> A poor way of deflecting on having to comment on a problematic issue. Any else notice how, when asked about whether or not we are moving towards forming a North American Union, rather than say yes or no, he basically said that people who talk about this are conspiracy nuts? Why not simply say, "no way, this is not happenning" if its not happening? And why all thesecrecy at the recent SPP meeting in Canada? Or are we not entitled to know more about how we are supposed to be "partnering" with Canada and Mexico to promote "Security and Prosperity"?
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< Any else notice how, when asked about whether or not we are moving towards forming a North American Union, rather than say yes or no, he basically said that people who talk about this are conspiracy nuts? Why not simply say, "no way, this is not happenning" if its not happening? >>> I haven't noticed that particular one, but I have noticed that he and most people in his administration answer just about any question in the form you point out above, such that they're not really saying anything definitive at all. An example would be when there's some accusation of wrongdoing, the answer is very often "We have no evidence that says that happened" rather than the more straightforward and natural "It didn't happen." This isn't the way people normally talk, and the fact that they use it constantly makes it pretty clear to me that it's deliberate.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >> aside from bragging about BAD grades (nice role model there)<< I'm sure he and his handlers think this presents the image of the "every man" -- "George is just a regular guy", kind of thing. I watched his press conference on C-span last night. He had a nickname for every reporter he called on. It reminded me of a CEO I worked for years ago -- whenever he would address the staff at large, he'd make references to this VP's bad golf swing, or that VP's receeding hairline, etc. It was supposed to be warm and folksy or something. Instead, it was cloying and uncomfortable. There sure have been all kinds of intelligence failures in this administration.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>This isn't the way people normally talk, and the fact that they use it constantly makes it pretty clear to me that it's deliberate.<< I'm surprised they haven't just gone ahead and started The Department of Plausible Deniability.
Originally Posted By DAR I tell you my first year of college I would have killed for a C- in pretty much anything.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "I tell you my first year of college I would have killed for a C- in pretty much anything." Ain't that the truth.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 If you're like most of us-- it's because it's that first year of freedom and we were working hard on putting on the 'freshman 15 ' or more-- drinking beer 24 hours a day will take it's toll on grades I discovered
Originally Posted By DAR ^^^ I definitely fell under the more category. I remembered I weighed 140 coming out high school. The year after I weighed about 170. Sadly the number has gone up even more.
Originally Posted By BlueDevilSF ...And Bush got a D in History. He thinks Nelson Mandela is not among the living...
Originally Posted By WorldDisney <<I tell you my first year of college I would have killed for a C- in pretty much anything.>> Well, we're just thankful you're not the one running the country DAR . We obviously can't say the same for the little-President-that-could at the moment.
Originally Posted By Mr X For all we know he did "F" work, but because Daddy was a powerful Senator...well, would YOU want to be the professor that flunked him? He sure does love to brag about how little he worked in College...how'd he manage those "C's" anyway?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh With as bad as President Bush did in college, you'd think the Democrats could have nominated someone smarter than him, wouldn't you? But they couldn't. It's kind of strange.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder The Dems did run someone infinitely smarter. 2004 wasn't a contest about who had the smarter candidate. One candidate was willing to tell more lies. He won.
