multiple "Premier" and "Elite" leagues

[DBackham]

What exactly does this have to do with the original topic? Sigh.

Does anyone remembers what was the original topic?

[perspective]

Just to be clear, are there people out there who are pretty confident that Barack Obama got into Occidental College, Columbia University and Harvard Law School on merit? I see a lot of people decrying the converse as racist (of course, what else?) but I don't hear people actually claiming that he rose to anything on merit.

I will defend the guy with some faint praise. I don't think his admission to Columbia was necessarily an affirmative action fraud because at the time Obama was transferring Occidental had outrageously inflated grades and Columbia's standards for transfers were extremely low. Half of Obama's class would have been at the GPA / SAT average of transfer admission to Columbia that year. Admission to Harvard and getting onto the Harvard Law Review? Yeah, I'm leaning affirmative action on those. C'mon. Seriously? No, seriously?

Now if you are searching for some other accomplishment for the guy, I think you have to acknowledge that his single greatest achievement is running a big campaign. There was certainly some informal affirmative action wind at his back but no other person has ever been able to harness that breeze to an advantage before Obama. As a speaker and speech maker I find the guy uninteresting and ineffective - even WITH the teleprompter. Without it, you'd rather listen to a baby crying. I think that comes through clearly in the second term when all of the glitter is on the floor. The guy makes Bush look like James Earl Jones as a communicator but some of the blame for that must go to the speechwriters.

In short, I think the guy would have had the ability to be a productive citizen in the private sector. Probably in campaign management or a related field. Possibly marketing. As a lawyer, he claims to have been a constitutional specialist (yikes!) so you have to think he didn't have much promise as a lawyer or law professor. He is a black hole on economics and finance and he's wisely never claimed any competence in those areas. Hardly the kind of person you would interview as a butler but not the kind of person you would entrust with the keys to the governor's mansion either. The White House? How did he ever get the stones to even dream of it? Sorry, was channeling Hillary there for a minute...

Wow. You actually believe half of this, don't you? Makes me curious to hear your thoughts on Clarence Thomas' rise to the Supreme Court.

Was is affirmative action also that got him THROUGH Harvard Law? Not generally considered a breeze, especially for overwhelmed students who so wildly don't belong there.

And you've outed yourself with the Bush speaking ability comparison.

[perspective]

He said embecile, heeheehee.

Perspective has somebody broken into your account? If so they are doing a number on you with some of these posts in your name!

You are eager to jump on a misspelling, and then you follow that with "heeheehee"???

I'm confident no further engagement with you is warranted.

[Unregistered]

You are eager to jump on a misspelling, and then you follow that with "heeheehee"???

I'm confident no further engagement with you is warranted.

I don't usually give high marks to the spelling police but you gotta admit that whiffing on "imbecile" in the first line of a post in which you are calling someone stupid is about as ironic as flailing around reflexively calling people racists.

I've often valued the things you've posted on this board and I have some gasp of the forces allied against you (I don't believe you are simply being paranoid). However, on this little political jag you have been awful. Not good even from the perspective of someone who voted for Obama in 2008. It doesn't even sound like your voice. I think you painted a picture of the people you are arguing with and it starts with their being racist SOBs. Some people have just gotten over the man. He wasn't the guy we hoped he was. He's not exactly what you would call an effective leader, an honest person or a unifier. You can say I just described every politician in Washington DC but I'd respond that that's no excuse to shill for the man.

[perspective]

I don't usually give high marks to the spelling police but you gotta admit that whiffing on "imbecile" in the first line of a post in which you are calling someone stupid is about as ironic as flailing around reflexively calling people racists.

I've often valued the things you've posted on this board and I have some gasp of the forces allied against you (I don't believe you are simply being paranoid). However, on this little political jag you have been awful. Not good even from the perspective of someone who voted for Obama in 2008. It doesn't even sound like your voice. I think you painted a picture of the people you are arguing with and it starts with their being racist SOBs. Some people have just gotten over the man. He wasn't the guy we hoped he was. He's not exactly what you would call an effective leader, an honest person or a unifier. You can say I just described every politician in Washington DC but I'd respond that that's no excuse to shill for the man.

I wouldn't consider "heeheehee" your best work either.

As for reflexively calling people racists, I'm curious as to how YOU think Obama references gratuitously appear all the time where they don't have the slightest relevance (pro or con), and how you or whoever gets a pass when saying the man has accomplished nothing in his life and owes anything he has accomplished to people being duped due to his race. If you are going to argue that he's benefited for racial reasons then at least have the integrity to acknowledge that he's suffered because of them too. I certainly wish some things had gone better, and he I wish he had handled some things better, but a lot has gone right as well. And it's not fair to just slam him on health care as though as least half the country hasn't wanted major reforms (moving towards universal care) in health care long before he was even elected. I you recall, back you claim you voted for him, that was a major part of his platform, from the very beginning. I also think your unifier critique is a little harsh since the majority on the other side has made it their life's work to block him, sometimes even when they agree with him, just because it is him. And you do recall the state of the country when he took over, right, or are you glossing over that in a fogged mind??? And everyone ignored my comment, but you did notice the stock market tripled during his time, right? I imagine most posting on this site are doing OK and no worse for wear.

[Unregistered]

Wow. You actually believe half of this, don't you? Makes me curious to hear your thoughts on Clarence Thomas' rise to the Supreme Court.

Was is affirmative action also that got him THROUGH Harvard Law? Not generally considered a breeze, especially for overwhelmed students who so wildly don't belong there.

And you've outed yourself with the Bush speaking ability comparison.

Well, since Thomas didn't go to Harvard Law I'd have to say no.

But, interestingly, he did go to Yale Law and was taken aback by the racial taint that he and the dozen other black students had to bear as perceived beneficiaries of affirmative action. Thomas was a radical back then, by the way. You can read about it in his book.

As opposed to Obama who is typically referred to as a good listener and facilitator in his college and law school days, Thomas is usually described as very quiet until he had something to say. And then, very impressive. Much the same as his tenure on the Supreme Court.

Since Thomas is, in fact, a brilliant man it is difficult to say whether he is a product of affirmative action. I suspect, as he does, that he was a beneficiary of the admissions department's fixation with race. Affirmative action doesn't weed out truly great candidates - it just lets in some lesser lights to the disadvantage of the truly great.

Lastly, just for fun, listen to any momentous Bush speech back-to-back with an Obama speech on YouTube. If you do, you will be surprised. You don't have to come back here and admit it. But do it.

[perspective]

Well, since Thomas didn't go to Harvard Law I'd have to say no.

But, interestingly, he did go to Yale Law and was taken aback by the racial taint that he and the dozen other black students had to bear as perceived beneficiaries of affirmative action. Thomas was a radical back then, by the way. You can read about it in his book.

As opposed to Obama who is typically referred to as a good listener and facilitator in his college and law school days, Thomas is usually described as very quiet until he had something to say. And then, very impressive. Much the same as his tenure on the Supreme Court.

Since Thomas is, in fact, a brilliant man it is difficult to say whether he is a product of affirmative action. I suspect, as he does, that he was a beneficiary of the admissions department's fixation with race. Affirmative action doesn't weed out truly great candidates - it just lets in some lesser lights to the disadvantage of the truly great.

Lastly, just for fun, listen to any momentous Bush speech back-to-back with an Obama speech on YouTube. If you do, you will be surprised. You don't have to come back here and admit it. But do it.

So you are on the record, so to speak, endorsing Thomas as brilliant and Obama as, not so much. Your description suggests that you think Obama might make for a mediocre middle manager at Walmart. I'm going to take a wild guess and say that Obama outperformed Thomas in law school. No one ever described Thomas as some major bright light. I assume you also think Anita Hill is a delusional liar.

As for the speeches, you simply cannot be serious. Whether you like it or not Obama will go down in history as one of the top 5 Presidential orators of all time. Bush was a C student and listening to him talk is like listening to a gag reel. Talk about someone who had his speeches written for him.

[DBackham]

It’s good to see ABC High School 1975 Debate team back together and practicing. All four and a half of you.
Summarizing today’s progress I would like to highlight the most intense moments of the day: Obamacare and the action wind behind POTUS’s back. We also learned what the average gynecologist’s annual salary is and how to spell “heeheehee”. We scrolled through such a vital soccer-related topics as IRS, mid-term election, lowest common denominator and stockholders increasing their margins. On this note I would like to thank all debaters and wish you a safe trip to another web forum where TS community will not hear you all anymore. Here is my today’s story for you:

A turkey was chatting with a bull. "I would love to be able to get to the top of that tree," sighed the turkey, "but I haven't got the energy. "Well, why don't you nibble on some of my droppings?" replied the bull. "They're packed with nutrients." The turkey pecked at a lump of dung and found that it actually gave him enough strength to reach the first branch of the tree. The next day, after eating some more dung, he reached the second branch. Finally after a fortnight, there he was proudly perched at the top of the tree. Soon he was promptly spotted by a farmer, who shot the turkey out of the tree. Moral of the Story: Bull**** might get you to the top, but it won't keep you there.
Have a great night!

[Unregistered]

So you are on the record, so to speak, endorsing Thomas as brilliant and Obama as, not so much. Your description suggests that you think Obama might make for a mediocre middle manager at Walmart. I'm going to take a wild guess and say that Obama outperformed Thomas in law school. No one ever described Thomas as some major bright light. I assume you also think Anita Hill is a delusional liar.

As for the speeches, you simply cannot be serious. Whether you like it or not Obama will go down in history as one of the top 5 Presidential orators of all time. Bush was a C student and listening to him talk is like listening to a gag reel. Talk about someone who had his speeches written for him.

Wow, I have to chime in here Perspective, I never realized how much of an idealogue you are. Anyone at the far ends of either spectrum are dangerous individuals incapable of any free thought whatsoever, operating under the guise of group think. Sadly, I suppose that explains some of your past musings.

I would contend that Thomas did in fact perform better than the Teleprompter in Chief. I have read many a decision by him and find his legal reasoning incredibly sound, even when I have not necessarily agreed. However, since all of the Dear Leader's college transcripts were sealed long ago for undisclosed reasons, we will never know; nor will we ever get to gauge any actual writings by him, as they are few and far between. He is however, an excellent speaker, provided there is no unscripted Q&A.

We haven't had an independent thinker or visionary since JFK. And race has nothing to do with it. We, as a society, have allowed it to happen, by continually towing the party line in the face of reason. Despite constant dissatisfaction with Congress, incumbents rarely lose.

Playing the race card is an incredibly juvenile approach to resolve any disagreement, BTW. It's lazy, to say the least. And don't be so impressed with Harvard Law. Having worked with many of them, I can say, as with everything in this world, some are brilliant, some are good, some are bad, but they are certainly not all of the same caliber by any means.

I suppose this brings it full circle. We can call colleges elite, and for many they are, but for some they are not, as some students are there not on their merits, but on who they are and who they are associated with. Just like the elite soccer teams/leagues.

[perspective]

Wow, I have to chime in here Perspective, I never realized how much of an idealogue you are. Anyone at the far ends of either spectrum are dangerous individuals incapable of any free thought whatsoever, operating under the guise of group think. Sadly, I suppose that explains some of your past musings.

I would contend that Thomas did in fact perform better than the Teleprompter in Chief. I have read many a decision by him and find his legal reasoning incredibly sound, even when I have not necessarily agreed. However, since all of the Dear Leader's college transcripts were sealed long ago for undisclosed reasons, we will never know; nor will we ever get to gauge any actual writings by him, as they are few and far between. He is however, an excellent speaker, provided there is no unscripted Q&A.

We haven't had an independent thinker or visionary since JFK. And race has nothing to do with it. We, as a society, have allowed it to happen, by continually towing the party line in the face of reason. Despite constant dissatisfaction with Congress, incumbents rarely lose.

Playing the race card is an incredibly juvenile approach to resolve any disagreement, BTW. It's lazy, to say the least. And don't be so impressed with Harvard Law. Having worked with many of them, I can say, as with everything in this world, some are brilliant, some are good, some are bad, but they are certainly not all of the same caliber by any means.

I suppose this brings it full circle. We can call colleges elite, and for many they are, but for some they are not, as some students are there not on their merits, but on who they are and who they are associated with. Just like the elite soccer teams/leagues.

Your post started out like you were really going to nail me and say something insightful that would cut me to the quick. And then, as usual, you flaunted race yourself with the apparently irresistible urges to refer to someone by grossly condescending nicknames like Teleprompter in Chief and Dear Leader (just as those who persist with Barry and all of the other inflammatory stuff). Even if we assumed he is mediocre, there is nothing that explains the intensity of the slandering and mocking that so easily comes out of your keyboard. You reveal everything I have said right there in black and white. None of you, btw, have indicated when racing race woudld be appropriate, since you can always say it is was "playing the juvenile race card," of course, unless, you do it yourself by saying he has done nothing that wasn't a product of him playing off his race, which you then deny is racist despite the outrageousness of the statement on its face. Suggesting that Thomas is anywhere near the same planet as Obama in intellect is an insult to all of us, and not a single bit of data has been offered to support the idea that Obama got into Harvard and then succeeded at Harvard on anything but merit...not a single thing, and in the absence of which requires the presumption that he indeed did succeed on the merits. We all know that if there was any evidence given all of the people obsessed with hating him, including rich idiots in Mass who stand over overpasses with Obama-Hitler signs, would have found something by now. You all embarrass me. And your prejudice that is so deeply ingrained that you can't even see it is offensive to the senses.

[perspective]

Wow, I have to chime in here Perspective, I never realized how much of an idealogue you are. Anyone at the far ends of either spectrum are dangerous individuals incapable of any free thought whatsoever, operating under the guise of group think. Sadly, I suppose that explains some of your past musings.

I would contend that Thomas did in fact perform better than the Teleprompter in Chief. I have read many a decision by him and find his legal reasoning incredibly sound, even when I have not necessarily agreed. However, since all of the Dear Leader's college transcripts were sealed long ago for undisclosed reasons, we will never know; nor will we ever get to gauge any actual writings by him, as they are few and far between. He is however, an excellent speaker, provided there is no unscripted Q&A.

We haven't had an independent thinker or visionary since JFK. And race has nothing to do with it. We, as a society, have allowed it to happen, by continually towing the party line in the face of reason. Despite constant dissatisfaction with Congress, incumbents rarely lose.

Playing the race card is an incredibly juvenile approach to resolve any disagreement, BTW. It's lazy, to say the least. And don't be so impressed with Harvard Law. Having worked with many of them, I can say, as with everything in this world, some are brilliant, some are good, some are bad, but they are certainly not all of the same caliber by any means.

I suppose this brings it full circle. We can call colleges elite, and for many they are, but for some they are not, as some students are there not on their merits, but on who they are and who they are associated with. Just like the elite soccer teams/leagues.

And, btw, you believe that anyone who supports the President by definition is part of some group think, unthinking, and dangerous? He's so evil and so lacking in intelligence that it's a logical impossibility that anyone could like and support the guy?

[Unregistered]

Thank goodness I am 'well hung' and don't have to worry about descriptive titles like elite or premier.....I am king....and even more....a caucasion king

[perspective]

It’s good to see ABC High School 1975 Debate team back together and practicing. All four and a half of you.
Summarizing today’s progress I would like to highlight the most intense moments of the day: Obamacare and the action wind behind POTUS’s back. We also learned what the average gynecologist’s annual salary is and how to spell “heeheehee”. We scrolled through such a vital soccer-related topics as IRS, mid-term election, lowest common denominator and stockholders increasing their margins. On this note I would like to thank all debaters and wish you a safe trip to another web forum where TS community will not hear you all anymore. Here is my today’s story for you:

A turkey was chatting with a bull. "I would love to be able to get to the top of that tree," sighed the turkey, "but I haven't got the energy. "Well, why don't you nibble on some of my droppings?" replied the bull. "They're packed with nutrients." The turkey pecked at a lump of dung and found that it actually gave him enough strength to reach the first branch of the tree. The next day, after eating some more dung, he reached the second branch. Finally after a fortnight, there he was proudly perched at the top of the tree. Soon he was promptly spotted by a farmer, who shot the turkey out of the tree. Moral of the Story: Bull**** might get you to the top, but it won't keep you there.
Have a great night!

Why do you keep ruining seemingly reasonable critiques with parables of animals? You had me until you stooped to turkey droppings. Maybe everybody needs a couple of days off, and then we can get full tilt back into bashing Stars and BB, and boasting and ranting all day and night about U11 Boys.

[Unregistered]

Your post started out like you were really going to nail me and say something insightful that would cut me to the quick. And then, as usual, you flaunted race yourself with the apparently irresistible urges to refer to someone by grossly condescending nicknames like Teleprompter in Chief and Dear Leader (just as those who persist with Barry and all of the other inflammatory stuff). Even if we assumed he is mediocre, there is nothing that explains the intensity of the slandering and mocking that so easily comes out of your keyboard. You reveal everything I have said right there in black and white. None of you, btw, have indicated when racing race woudld be appropriate, since you can always say it is was "playing the juvenile race card," of course, unless, you do it yourself by saying he has done nothing that wasn't a product of him playing off his race, which you then deny is racist despite the outrageousness of the statement on its face. Suggesting that Thomas is anywhere near the same planet as Obama in intellect is an insult to all of us, and not a single bit of data has been offered to support the idea that Obama got into Harvard and then succeeded at Harvard on anything but merit...not a single thing, and in the absence of which requires the presumption that he indeed did succeed on the merits. We all know that if there was any evidence given all of the people obsessed with hating him, including rich idiots in Mass who stand over overpasses with Obama-Hitler signs, would have found something by now. You all embarrass me. And your prejudice that is so deeply ingrained that you can't even see it is offensive to the senses.

I believe that the absence of evidence is in the fact that neither his grades nor his admission papers have ever been made public. Therefore, you cannot state he did it on merit. You don't know for certain and never will. It's safe to say GW received his Ivy League education on family ties and its not a stretch that most of the Kennedy's did as well. You are one suffering from white guilt dude.

[Unregistered]

I wouldn't consider "heeheehee" your best work either.

As for reflexively calling people racists, I'm curious as to how YOU think Obama references gratuitously appear all the time where they don't have the slightest relevance (pro or con), and how you or whoever gets a pass when saying the man has accomplished nothing in his life and owes anything he has accomplished to people being duped due to his race. If you are going to argue that he's benefited for racial reasons then at least have the integrity to acknowledge that he's suffered because of them too. I certainly wish some things had gone better, and he I wish he had handled some things better, but a lot has gone right as well. And it's not fair to just slam him on health care as though as least half the country hasn't wanted major reforms (moving towards universal care) in health care long before he was even elected. I you recall, back you claim you voted for him, that was a major part of his platform, from the very beginning. I also think your unifier critique is a little harsh since the majority on the other side has made it their life's work to block him, sometimes even when they agree with him, just because it is him. And you do recall the state of the country when he took over, right, or are you glossing over that in a fogged mind??? And everyone ignored my comment, but you did notice the stock market tripled during his time, right? I imagine most posting on this site are doing OK and no worse for wear.

You are not corresponding with the author of "heeheehee" but I would think you'd want the EMBECILE subplot to go away rather than dredging it up.

I think your reply here is highly instructive and I hope that YOU will gain something by taking another look at it.

You ask how gratuitous references to Obama could find their way onto a talking-soccer board. By the way you frame the question its clear that your go-to explanation for this remarkable phenomenon is RACISM. This represents either a radical lack of imagination or a deeply held bias about the biases of other people. Why might the president of the united states, sitting at the nadir (so far) of his acceptability to the American people on the heels of the government's most aggressive and inept grab for power in our lifetime (not to mention a half dozen scandals that would have remained on the front page of the New York times for 6 months if the president were a republican) be referenced "gratuitously"? I suppose race is a possibility but if I had to bet my own money I'd have it about 5th on the list of possible reasons. Its conceivable that I'm naive about the motives of my fellow citizens but I think its more likely that you're unfairly skeptical of them.

I believe it was acknowledged that Obama is the first national politician to be able to make the affirmative action vibe work to his advantage. Its not like there haven't been black politicians with outsize ambitions before. Yet, their blackness (usually combined with their clownishness) tended to hold them back, on balance, rather than push them forward. Obama solved that riddle. Some might say it wasn't that hard to solve (i.e. just don't be a clown) but he did solve it and used it to tremendous effect. Personally, I remember feeling like voting for the guy based largely on his race was justified because there would be people out there who would be against him just because of his race. Well, it turned out that there were a lot of people thinking like me and not a lot of people thinking the way I feared. We probably cancelled them out 5 times.

It is true that healthcare reform was one of the few actual policy positions you could sink your teeth into with Obama. (outside of massive deficit "stimulus" spending which seemed to be the order of the day regardless of party). I was pleased to see an inefficient healthcare system get some much-needed attention. That's the kind of thing democrats do, right? Could I have imagined the monstrosity that we have today? Enacted on a party-line midnight vote through backroom deals and by legislators who never even read the lobbyist-prepared bill? Could I have imagined the government being able to tell me what and how much of something to buy? Could I have imagined an administration so blinded by political calculations that it would knowingly lie repeatedly to vulnerable classes of citizens and force an implementation that would put good honest people through hell? Could I have imagined carving out exemptions for big corporate interests and political insiders (the congress itself!) so they could be insulated from the ensuing debacle? I don't think any supporter of Obama in 2008 could have envisioned that coming. That was not "hope and change" and it was not what was meant by "yes, we can". And yet, about 35% to 40% of Americans continue to support him. That's what I call hard core. I think if they caught Obama stealing money out of the collection box at church there would be 30% out there that would rise up to support him.

I'm not sure what you are talking about with respect to the stock market and I'm not sure why you would be so enthusiastic to point out recovery by the investor class while employment is in such a sad state. The Dow is up around 75% since Obama took office. That's a pretty good return but not 3x. Its nothing that a corpse couldn't achieve with a Fed chief as compliant as Bernanke. Cheap money makes every bubble inflate. In case you've already forgotten, there's a price for that kind of market manipulation. Those who cannot remember the past blah blah blah. Honestly, I don't think Obama has any idea in this regard. He's been told that deficit spending is good for poor people and inflation is bad for them. I think he generally gets supply and demand but that's a toss up. Clearly the most glaring gap in his personal skill set. John McCain helped to make that irrelevant in 2008 by being an even bigger klutz in ars economica. Can you imagine what healthcare reform might have looked like under McCain?

As far as facing an inhospitable opposition... Give me a break. Democrats controlled the White House and both houses of Congress upon Obama's inauguration. Because of the way they conducted themselves they lost the house and are now on the verge of losing the senate. Its every president's burden to make it work with an unruly opposition. If you think opposition to Obama was more fierce than the historical norm its probably because you are still applying the assumption of racism. This is the DNC strategy - I get the emails. They are so insulting to one's intelligence but, apparently, they have their effect among democrat rank and file.