Barack Obama: The Ghost of Columbia University

[MondoBongo]

Nope. No sale.

That image has no sourcing behind it other than being a "find" by a project backed by Breitbart.com.

We have no way of ascertaining its authenticity.

I do see it as funny how you will suddenly accept something put up by Breitbart, however.

So you don't think any official at Columbia University would come forward and say that when Obama claims to have graduated from their university cum laude, that he is lying? That's a whole lot of people in on one conspiracy.

You are so far off the mark it is funny you are commenting. Obama says almost nothing about Columbia and as far as I know he never made the clam of cum laude, that as at Harvard.

Oh okay. So, Harvard just took Obama's word for it that he went to Columbia and let him into their prestigious law school. Got it.

 

[MondoBongo]

for two, Bush II and Gore, neither were particularly impressive.

Wrong. Bush II most certainly did NOT release his college transcripts. Neither did Al Gore. Guess again?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Well, Obama is kinda forgettable. For instance, remember all the promises he made, like balance the budget, end the wars, close Guantanamo bay, sunset the Bush era tax cuts, go line by line on bills... end corruption? Yeah, all the Obama-bots forgot about all of them promises, now they defend the war on terror, bailouts, mass money bombs dumped on the rich to play with in the markets and record deficits.

I seriously doubt Obama will be forgotten. We will be paying for years for his mis-deeds.

The Columbia story has me wondering. When a professor who taught the classes that Obama should have attended comes out and says that he doesn't remember Obama something just ain't right. And the fact that his records indicate the wasn't that great of a student at Occidental seems it VERY unlikely that an American could transfer to Columbia.

On the other hand there are those who do say they remember him. So what's up with that? There was a poem, I think, that was published at Columbia credited to Obama and used as proof he attended. All it really proves is that a article was printed that may have been written by Obama.

I think Obama is the Manchurian Canidate.

Nobody remembered seeing Bush at his National Guard Drills, either.

But the records indicate he was there.

Nobody remembers how this relates to the argument.

A non sequitur.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

So you don't think any official at Columbia University would come forward and say that when Obama claims to have graduated from their university cum laude, that he is lying? That's a whole lot of people in on one conspiracy.

Please don't try to tell me what I think. Folks who do so are usually intent on skewing things. Or they're just not very good at it.

What I maintain is that Obama has made a concerted effort to hide his past (not counting his autobiographical accounts which may or may not be fiction).

I say it is MORE than passing odd, it is downright strange that a graduate of these Ivy League Schools would be SO damn intent on HIDING his own academic records. The fucking guy was the President of the Law Review at Harvard, for God's sake. It shouldn't be that difficult to imagine that he had some intellectual capacity to back up GETTING to Harvard and getting that Law Review gig.

And yet, no RECORDS.

We DO have an instance of at least one University official (a professor) denying that he ever saw Obama, by the way, so I am not sure why you ask that particular "rhetorical" question.

I can grok that the University would honor the confidentiality/request of a student who denies them the right to release his school records.

What is strange is why a guy who became a success even in Harvard Law would find it so important to conceal his academic history -- including his own financial applications.

Can you list the other Presidents who have released their college transcripts as a matter of course?

Can you explain why that makes any difference one way or the other first?

 

[MondoBongo]

Please don't try to tell me what I think. Folks who do so are usually intent on skewing things. Or they're just not very good at it.

What I maintain is that Obama has made a concerted effort to hide his past (not counting his autobiographical accounts which may or may not be fiction).

I say it is MORE than passing odd, it is downright strange that a graduate of these Ivy League Schools would be SO damn intent on HIDING his own academic records. The fucking guy was the President of the Law Review at Harvard, for God's sake. It shouldn't be that difficult to imagine that he had some intellectual capacity to back up GETTING to Harvard and getting that Law Review gig.

And yet, no RECORDS.

We DO have an instance of at least one University official (a professor) denying that he ever saw Obama, by the way, so I am not sure why you ask that particular "rhetorical" question.

I can grok that the University would honor the confidentiality/request of a student who denies them the right to release his school records.

What is strange is why a guy who became a success even in Harvard Law would find it so important to conceal his academic history -- including his own financial applications.

Can you list the other Presidents who have released their college transcripts as a matter of course?

Can you explain why that makes any difference one way or the other first?

Sure. I want to know what the reasoning is for demanding a different standard for this president than all the other presidents who came before him. Why does your side now want to change the "rules"

 

[TemplarKormac]

From what I can tell, the acquisition of these so-called "college transcripts" is sketchy. I can hardly believe such records would so easily be obtainable by a 2nd tier news sources. On top of that, how many times has Obama ducked requests to release his college transcripts? Why has he made such an effort to keep them a secret? I would begin by checking the authenticity of these claims made by The Blaze and other news sources before before I made a conclusion.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Can you list the other Presidents who have released their college transcripts as a matter of course?

Can you explain why that makes any difference one way or the other first?

Sure. I want to know what the reasoning is for demanding a different standard for this president than all the other presidents who came before him. Why does your side now want to change the "rules"

I will counter that by saying this:

I want to know why you get upset when someone holds Obama to a high standard, but, however, were most likely doing the exact same thing to Bush while he was president? So why are we enforcing such a double standard, MB? Each side has a bad habit of setting the bar too high for the President of the opposing political party. Bush could never please Democrats, just as Obama will never please Republicans. Both parties are being unreasonable. However, I seem to notice how Liberals tend to get more upset when people hold their leaders and demagogues to a higher standard.

Alas, sometimes the President sets the bar too high for himself. But that's beside the point. Mayhap, if we researched the credentials of our candidates before we elected them, we wouldn't have to set these high standards.

 

[MondoBongo]

Can you explain why that makes any difference one way or the other first?

Sure. I want to know what the reasoning is for demanding a different standard for this president than all the other presidents who came before him. Why does your side now want to change the "rules"

I will counter that by saying this:

I want to know why you get upset when someone holds Obama to a high standard, but, however, were most likely doing the exact same thing to Bush while he was president? So why are we enforcing such a double standard, MB? Each side has a bad habit of setting the bar too high for the President of the opposing political party. Bush could never please Democrats, just as Obama will never please Republicans. Both parties are being unreasonable. However, I seem to notice how Liberals tend to get more upset when people hold their leaders and demagogues to a higher standard.

Alas, sometimes the President sets the bar too high for himself. But that's beside the point. Mayhap, if we researched the credentials of our candidates before we elected them, we wouldn't have to set these high standards.

Funny, but I have absolutely no recollection of anyone on the left demanding to see Bush's long form birth certificate. And, more recently, Rmoney got a pass from the right when he refused to release tax returns (which unlike college transcripts, it is the norm for candidates to release). So the "your side does it too" argument doesn't really carry a lot of weight with me. And you may think you have noticed that Liberals tend to get more upset, but that's just your partisanship showing. Your side had apoplectic fits over the left's demand that Bush produce his military transcripts even though there was actually a valid reason: a). He was grounded from flying b). he was going to be Commander in Chief so HIS record while in the service should have been impeccable.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Sure. I want to know what the reasoning is for demanding a different standard for this president than all the other presidents who came before him. Why does your side now want to change the "rules"

I will counter that by saying this:

I want to know why you get upset when someone holds Obama to a high standard, but, however, were most likely doing the exact same thing to Bush while he was president? So why are we enforcing such a double standard, MB? Each side has a bad habit of setting the bar too high for the President of the opposing political party. Bush could never please Democrats, just as Obama will never please Republicans. Both parties are being unreasonable. However, I seem to notice how Liberals tend to get more upset when people hold their leaders and demagogues to a higher standard.

Alas, sometimes the President sets the bar too high for himself. But that's beside the point. Mayhap, if we researched the credentials of our candidates before we elected them, we wouldn't have to set these high standards.

Funny, but I have absolutely no recollection of anyone on the left demanding to see Bush's long form birth certificate. And, more recently, Rmoney got a pass from the right when he refused to release tax returns (which unlike college transcripts, it is the norm for candidates to release). So the "your side does it too" argument doesn't really carry a lot of weight with me. And you may think you have noticed that Liberals tend to get more upset, but that's just your partisanship showing. Your side had apoplectic fits over the left's demand that Bush produce his military transcripts even though there was actually a valid reason: a). He was grounded from flying b). he was going to be Commander in Chief so HIS record while in the service should have been impeccable.

Funny, Mondo, I wasn't talking about birth certificates, nor have I ever requested to see Obama's long form birth certificate. There is no doubt in my mind Obama was born in the United States. So that, my friend, is a non issue. Don't move the goalposts. Bush was automatically held to a higher standard by all of us when 9/11 happened. After it became clear that another atrocity like that wasn't going to occur again, Democrats began chanting that he should pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan or face impeachment proceedings. Protesters reacted by starting riots in Philadelphia during the 2004 GOP Presidential Convention. I have never come across such behavior from Republicans. Furthermore, I am on neither side of this abomination of a two party political system, so the references to "your side" are inaccurate. It's the fact that I have disabused myself from it that I can gauge accurately who gets more upset over what. And what debunks your entire argument, is the fact that you deemed Bush's secrecy as "impeachable". That is typical Liberal Democratic partisanship. I don't think Obama should be impeached, I think the disgrace that comes with his mistakes should serve enough to make sure that Liberal candidates from here until 2016 are labeled by them. And yes, your side does do it too, don't sit there and tell me that it doesn't. If you insist, I can draw a stark contrast between the two.

 

[tinydancer]

From what I can tell, the acquisition of these so-called "college transcripts" is sketchy. I can hardly believe such records would so easily be obtainable by a 2nd tier news sources. On top of that, how many times has Obama ducked requests to release his college transcripts? Why has he made such an effort to keep them a secret? I would begin by checking the authenticity of these claims made by The Blaze and other news sources before before I made a conclusion.

I find it interesting that the press were able to get hold of GW's confidential school records with relative ease when he was running for President.

What was cool about GW was he never pretended to be an Einstein.

Bush, after all, has never claimed Phi Beta Kappa membership or an internship at Partisan Review.

He told the Washington Post’s Lois Romano that if he ever dared to call himself “an intellectual” his friends would immediately “start laughing” at him.

The college records merely confirm what Bush has already conceded. According to the Yale document, Bush was a C student...

The Talk of the Town: Dept. of Aptitude (w/Alexandra Robbins) : The New Yorker

 

[MondoBongo]

I will counter that by saying this:

I want to know why you get upset when someone holds Obama to a high standard, but, however, were most likely doing the exact same thing to Bush while he was president? So why are we enforcing such a double standard, MB? Each side has a bad habit of setting the bar too high for the President of the opposing political party. Bush could never please Democrats, just as Obama will never please Republicans. Both parties are being unreasonable. However, I seem to notice how Liberals tend to get more upset when people hold their leaders and demagogues to a higher standard.

Alas, sometimes the President sets the bar too high for himself. But that's beside the point. Mayhap, if we researched the credentials of our candidates before we elected them, we wouldn't have to set these high standards.

Funny, but I have absolutely no recollection of anyone on the left demanding to see Bush's long form birth certificate. And, more recently, Rmoney got a pass from the right when he refused to release tax returns (which unlike college transcripts, it is the norm for candidates to release). So the "your side does it too" argument doesn't really carry a lot of weight with me. And you may think you have noticed that Liberals tend to get more upset, but that's just your partisanship showing. Your side had apoplectic fits over the left's demand that Bush produce his military transcripts even though there was actually a valid reason: a). He was grounded from flying b). he was going to be Commander in Chief so HIS record while in the service should have been impeccable.

Funny, Mondo, I wasn't talking about birth certificates, nor have I ever requested to see Obama's long form birth certificate. There is no doubt in my mind Obama was born in the United States. So that, my friend, is a non issue. Don't move the goalposts. Bush was automatically held to a higher standard by all of us when 9/11 happened. After it became clear that another atrocity like that wasn't going to occur again, Democrats began chanting that he should pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan or face impeachment proceedings. Protesters reacted by starting riots in Philadelphia during the 2004 GOP Presidential Convention. I have never come across such behavior from Republicans. Furthermore, I am on neither side of this abomination of a two party political system, so the references to "your side" are inaccurate. It's the fact that I have disabused myself from it that I can gauge accurately who gets more upset over what. And what debunks your entire argument, is the fact that you deemed Bush's secrecy as "impeachable". That is typical Liberal Democratic partisanship. I don't think Obama should be impeached, I think the disgrace that comes with his mistakes should serve enough to make sure that Liberal candidates from here until 2016 are labeled by them. And yes, your side does do it too, don't sit there and tell me that it doesn't. If you insist, I can draw a stark contrast between the two.

First of all, when I mentioned the birth certificate it was in response to your claim that the left held Bush to a higher standard during his administration. Again, no president before this one has ever had an issue about producing their "long form" birth certificate.

Secondly, I said "impeccable" not "impeachable." If a former member of the military is running to become Commander in Chief, his time in the military should have been above reproach. Or do you not agree?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Funny, but I have absolutely no recollection of anyone on the left demanding to see Bush's long form birth certificate. And, more recently, Rmoney got a pass from the right when he refused to release tax returns (which unlike college transcripts, it is the norm for candidates to release). So the "your side does it too" argument doesn't really carry a lot of weight with me. And you may think you have noticed that Liberals tend to get more upset, but that's just your partisanship showing. Your side had apoplectic fits over the left's demand that Bush produce his military transcripts even though there was actually a valid reason: a). He was grounded from flying b). he was going to be Commander in Chief so HIS record while in the service should have been impeccable.

Funny, Mondo, I wasn't talking about birth certificates, nor have I ever requested to see Obama's long form birth certificate. There is no doubt in my mind Obama was born in the United States. So that, my friend, is a non issue. Don't move the goalposts. Bush was automatically held to a higher standard by all of us when 9/11 happened. After it became clear that another atrocity like that wasn't going to occur again, Democrats began chanting that he should pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan or face impeachment proceedings. Protesters reacted by starting riots in Philadelphia during the 2004 GOP Presidential Convention. I have never come across such behavior from Republicans. Furthermore, I am on neither side of this abomination of a two party political system, so the references to "your side" are inaccurate. It's the fact that I have disabused myself from it that I can gauge accurately who gets more upset over what. And what debunks your entire argument, is the fact that you deemed Bush's secrecy as "impeachable". That is typical Liberal Democratic partisanship. I don't think Obama should be impeached, I think the disgrace that comes with his mistakes should serve enough to make sure that Liberal candidates from here until 2016 are labeled by them. And yes, your side does do it too, don't sit there and tell me that it doesn't. If you insist, I can draw a stark contrast between the two.

First of all, when I mentioned the birth certificate it was in response to your claim that the left held Bush to a higher standard during his administration. Again, no president before this one has ever had an issue about producing their "long form" birth certificate.

Secondly, I said "impeccable" not "impeachable." If a former member of the military is running to become Commander in Chief, his time in the military should have been above reproach. Or do you not agree?

Why are birth certificates such an issue with you? Why are liberals making an issue out of Bush's service record, or his college transcripts? Frankly all of these things are irrelevant! Thing is both parties do it, and you sit there absolving yourself and your party from ever having done such a thing. That is dishonest.

As for the "impeccable" timing of Bush's secrecy: I find it very "impeccable" how Obama can so easily shield himself from probes and investigations involving his actions in the White House. Fast and Furious? Remember that? He had those records sealed. He had his college transcripts sealed. Just those things alone should undermine the claims of his "transparency" and "accountability." The fact that (as for a couple of public appearances) he has remained largely silent on the IRS, the NSA and the DOJ also speaks to his secrecy. He promised to close Guantanamo Bay, and end BOTH wars by the end of his first term, yet only Iraq stands as the only war he has managed to wind down. But in place of those things, he has launched drone strikes in other countries (Yemen, Pakistan), and participated in a naval bombardment of the Libyan capital without congressional authorization.

If you don't want a guy being held to high standards, then he shouldn't make promises he can't keep, or set goals for himself that he can't achieve, Mondo. If that worked for Bush, it works for Obama.

 

[MondoBongo]

Funny, Mondo, I wasn't talking about birth certificates, nor have I ever requested to see Obama's long form birth certificate. There is no doubt in my mind Obama was born in the United States. So that, my friend, is a non issue. Don't move the goalposts. Bush was automatically held to a higher standard by all of us when 9/11 happened. After it became clear that another atrocity like that wasn't going to occur again, Democrats began chanting that he should pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan or face impeachment proceedings. Protesters reacted by starting riots in Philadelphia during the 2004 GOP Presidential Convention. I have never come across such behavior from Republicans. Furthermore, I am on neither side of this abomination of a two party political system, so the references to "your side" are inaccurate. It's the fact that I have disabused myself from it that I can gauge accurately who gets more upset over what. And what debunks your entire argument, is the fact that you deemed Bush's secrecy as "impeachable". That is typical Liberal Democratic partisanship. I don't think Obama should be impeached, I think the disgrace that comes with his mistakes should serve enough to make sure that Liberal candidates from here until 2016 are labeled by them. And yes, your side does do it too, don't sit there and tell me that it doesn't. If you insist, I can draw a stark contrast between the two.

First of all, when I mentioned the birth certificate it was in response to your claim that the left held Bush to a higher standard during his administration. Again, no president before this one has ever had an issue about producing their "long form" birth certificate.

Secondly, I said "impeccable" not "impeachable." If a former member of the military is running to become Commander in Chief, his time in the military should have been above reproach. Or do you not agree?

Why are birth certificates such an issue with you? Why are liberals making an issue out of Bush's service record, or his college transcripts? Frankly all of these things are irrelevant! Thing is both parties do it, and you sit there absolving yourself and your party from ever having done such a thing. That is dishonest.

As for the "impeccable" timing of Bush's secrecy: I find it very "impeccable" how Obama can so easily shield himself from probes and investigations involving his actions in the White House. Fast and Furious? Remember that? He had those records sealed. He had his college transcripts sealed. Just those things alone should undermine the claims of his "transparency" and "accountability." The fact that (as for a couple of public appearances) he has remained largely silent on the IRS, the NSA and the DOJ also speaks to his secrecy. He promised to close Guantanamo Bay, and end BOTH wars by the end of his first term, yet only Iraq stands as the only war he has managed to wind down. But in place of those things, he has launched drone strikes in other countries (Yeman, Pakistan), and participated in a naval bombardment of the Libyan capital without congressional authorization.

If you don't want a guy being held to high standards, then he shouldn't make promises he can't keep, or set goals for himself that he can't achieve, Mondo. If that worked for Bush, it works for Obama.

I never said I didn't think Obama should be held to a high standard. Please don't act as if I did. I said that I questioned why many on the right would insist on having his birth certificate and college records released, including both grades and financial information, when this was not requested of other presidents and isn't the norm. That's all.

 

[TemplarKormac]

First of all, when I mentioned the birth certificate it was in response to your claim that the left held Bush to a higher standard during his administration. Again, no president before this one has ever had an issue about producing their "long form" birth certificate.

Secondly, I said "impeccable" not "impeachable." If a former member of the military is running to become Commander in Chief, his time in the military should have been above reproach. Or do you not agree?

Why are birth certificates such an issue with you? Why are liberals making an issue out of Bush's service record, or his college transcripts? Frankly all of these things are irrelevant! Thing is both parties do it, and you sit there absolving yourself and your party from ever having done such a thing. That is dishonest.

As for the "impeccable" timing of Bush's secrecy: I find it very "impeccable" how Obama can so easily shield himself from probes and investigations involving his actions in the White House. Fast and Furious? Remember that? He had those records sealed. He had his college transcripts sealed. Just those things alone should undermine the claims of his "transparency" and "accountability." The fact that (as for a couple of public appearances) he has remained largely silent on the IRS, the NSA and the DOJ also speaks to his secrecy. He promised to close Guantanamo Bay, and end BOTH wars by the end of his first term, yet only Iraq stands as the only war he has managed to wind down. But in place of those things, he has launched drone strikes in other countries (Yeman, Pakistan), and participated in a naval bombardment of the Libyan capital without congressional authorization.

If you don't want a guy being held to high standards, then he shouldn't make promises he can't keep, or set goals for himself that he can't achieve, Mondo. If that worked for Bush, it works for Obama.

I never said I didn't think Obama should be held to a high standard. Please don't act as if I did. I said that I questioned why many on the right would insist on having his birth certificate and college records released, including both grades and financial information, when this was not requested of other presidents and isn't the norm. That's all.

No, the problem is that you aren't holding him to a high standard, as with the rest of American Liberalism. If he breaks a promise, Liberals justify it with some reason why, if he fails to achieve a goal, they repeat the behavior. It's the same when he engages in questionable behavior. It's a recurring theme on both sides:

I want to know what the reasoning is for demanding a different standard for this president than all the other presidents who came before him.

Actually, it is the norm. Why were liberals questioning Bush's service record? Please don't act like I'm totally oblivious. I may have been an obnoxious high schooler when Bush was president, but I could feel the political atmosphere thickening to the state it is in today. Liberals all over were demanding certain details about him, in hopes something would come to light that would disgrace him.

 

[MondoBongo]

Why are birth certificates such an issue with you? Why are liberals making an issue out of Bush's service record, or his college transcripts? Frankly all of these things are irrelevant! Thing is both parties do it, and you sit there absolving yourself and your party from ever having done such a thing. That is dishonest.

As for the "impeccable" timing of Bush's secrecy: I find it very "impeccable" how Obama can so easily shield himself from probes and investigations involving his actions in the White House. Fast and Furious? Remember that? He had those records sealed. He had his college transcripts sealed. Just those things alone should undermine the claims of his "transparency" and "accountability." The fact that (as for a couple of public appearances) he has remained largely silent on the IRS, the NSA and the DOJ also speaks to his secrecy. He promised to close Guantanamo Bay, and end BOTH wars by the end of his first term, yet only Iraq stands as the only war he has managed to wind down. But in place of those things, he has launched drone strikes in other countries (Yeman, Pakistan), and participated in a naval bombardment of the Libyan capital without congressional authorization.

If you don't want a guy being held to high standards, then he shouldn't make promises he can't keep, or set goals for himself that he can't achieve, Mondo. If that worked for Bush, it works for Obama.

I never said I didn't think Obama should be held to a high standard. Please don't act as if I did. I said that I questioned why many on the right would insist on having his birth certificate and college records released, including both grades and financial information, when this was not requested of other presidents and isn't the norm. That's all.

No, the problem is that you aren't:

I want to know what the reasoning is for demanding a different standard for this president than all the other presidents who came before him.

Actually, it is the norm. Why were liberals questioning Bush's service record? Please don't act like I'm totally oblivious. I may have been an obnoxious high schooler when Bush was president, but I could feel the political atmosphere thickening to the state it is in today. Liberals all over were demanding certain details about him, in hopes something would come to light that would disgrace him.

I disagree. It's not the norm at all. Presidential candidates do not reveal their birth certificates or their college records. they certainly don't release how they paid for college.

I've already explained and you chose to ignore why Bush's service records could be considered relevant. I'm not going to repeat it....scroll back up if you want the information.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I never said I didn't think Obama should be held to a high standard. Please don't act as if I did. I said that I questioned why many on the right would insist on having his birth certificate and college records released, including both grades and financial information, when this was not requested of other presidents and isn't the norm. That's all.

No, the problem is that you aren't:

I want to know what the reasoning is for demanding a different standard for this president than all the other presidents who came before him.

Actually, it is the norm. Why were liberals questioning Bush's service record? Please don't act like I'm totally oblivious. I may have been an obnoxious high schooler when Bush was president, but I could feel the political atmosphere thickening to the state it is in today. Liberals all over were demanding certain details about him, in hopes something would come to light that would disgrace him.

I disagree. It's not the norm at all. Presidential candidates do not reveal their birth certificates or their college records. they certainly don't release how they paid for college.

I've already explained and you chose to ignore why Bush's service records could be considered relevant. I'm not going to repeat it....scroll back up if you want the information.

So how is demanding his service records any different from people on the right asking for Obama's birth certificate? I'm not ignoring it, I fail to grasp the reasoning behind it. If you are, as a Presidential Candidate and eventual President, making promises of transparency and accountability, then anything about you can or will be revealed to the public. All of it is fair game. I can't help it he made those kinds of promises, Mondo. Perhaps that's why he's being held to a higher standard?

 

[Freewill]

So you don't think any official at Columbia University would come forward and say that when Obama claims to have graduated from their university cum laude, that he is lying? That's a whole lot of people in on one conspiracy.

You are so far off the mark it is funny you are commenting. Obama says almost nothing about Columbia and as far as I know he never made the clam of cum laude, that as at Harvard.

Oh okay. So, Harvard just took Obama's word for it that he went to Columbia and let him into their prestigious law school. Got it.

Again, sigh, Columbia says he graduated that isn't the debate.

 

[Freewill]

for two, Bush II and Gore, neither were particularly impressive.

Wrong. Bush II most certainly did NOT release his college transcripts. Neither did Al Gore. Guess again?

Released or was released not a whole lot of difference, here is an article talking about THREE candidates that we know their GPA. Your inference is that we didn't know other canidates grades, you have been proved incorrect.

USATODAY.com - Who is smarter, Kerry or Bush?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Can you list the other Presidents who have released their college transcripts as a matter of course?

Can you explain why that makes any difference one way or the other first?

Sure. I want to know what the reasoning is for demanding a different standard for this president than all the other presidents who came before him. Why does your side now want to change the "rules"

Previously on LA Law, the Presidents had not been questioned about such things as, you know, WERE they even Constitutionally eligible to hold the Office?

A mere piffling "little" thing, I know. But since this guy's Constitutional eligibility did come up, it seems pretty reasonable to go back and sift through old records. And even if I happen to concede that he does appear to be a Natural Born Citizen, there are now good reasons to suspect that the stupid bastard lied about that very thing in the past.

It raises the specter that perhaps he lied on college applications and loan applications, too.

Too bad the guy didn't get vetted by our valiant news media at all prior to his GETTING elected.

 

[J.E.D]

What, do you think he's talking about a single course?

Does it matter? The guy is saying that he doesn't remember Obama out of 700 students. So, he's implying that he remembers the names and faces of 700 students from 30 years ago. He's full of shit.

He is actually talking about a black man out of what was probably a handful and one with a "funny sounding" name to boot.

A black man with a funny name. Of course. Fuck off, you sack of shit.