Why Conservatives are obsessed with Obama's grades

[Toddsterpatriot]

He won't be able to use the excuse that his leadership sucks because of mean Republicans.
We'll be able to see that he sucks because he's not very bright.

when the only thing that will come out of your mouth is vile racist hatred, you really ought to keep your mouth shut

What does his race have to do with his ignorance?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Zzz.

No matter how hard he tries, and flails, and swings and misses, and no matter how often, the result is always the same:

ConztipHATEdlibDerrp simply has nothing to offer.

Nothing.

Not a thing.

It actually is a waste of time to even bother poking that clump of shit.

He's got no game.

Ya know, most people know when to stay down, when I have literally beaten you to a pulp as I do in every single discussion, you might learn the lesson

Cretin says what?

 

[bripat9643]

That is so ridiculous that you should be embarrassed. And your source??? The American Thinker!!!!

What's telling about the Obama letter is that it DOES contain so many mistakes in grammar. Lawyers make their living from the proper use of words. One would think that in a letter responding to someone questioning his qualifications that Barry would have proof read what he was putting into the public record. That he allowed THAT letter to be published over his signature goes a long way towards proving Mr. Chen's point that the new President of the Law Review wasn't qualified to hold that post.

Really?? Such as??

You didn't notice the grammar mistakes even though they were pointed out in the article?

No one is surprised.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Why conservatives are obsessed with Obama's college grades: 4 theories - The Week

1. Conservatives want to paint Obama as a dumb, affirmative-action fraud
In his $20,000 offer for Obama's transcripts, Bayne lays out his rationale: "We're not convinced that Barack is as smart as you media elitists keep insisting he is." The charge that the president got bad grades 30 years ago doesn't hold water, however: Biographer David Maraniss says Obama got a 3.7 GPA at Columbia and graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law, something you can't do with bad grades.

2. Conservatives are obsessed with "vetting" Obama
The play to shame Obama into releasing his college grades "is nothing more than a pathetically desperate effort to find something, anything that they can use against him in the upcoming election," says Doug Mataconis at Outside the Beltway. It's part of the Right's effort to "vet" Obama, four years after the media made him "one of the most vetted presidential candidates in recent memory."

3. This is just birtherism warmed over
When you "get to the bottom of the conspiracy," says Sarah Jones at Politicus USA, it's clear that Wayne is a birther, and his "foreign exchange student" theory is part of the claim that Obama isn't really American. Indeed, this "irrelevant nonsense about college transcripts... has been a central part of birtherism from the beginning,"

4. The Right is desperate to distract from Romney's taxes
The reason conservatives are "freaking out in unison" about Obama's college grades "couldn't be more obvious," says Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs: They're trying anything they can to "divert attention away from Mitt Romney's refusal to release financial information

Harvard gets 20-30 applicants per seat, the B school takes into account "business experience"* and of course alumni preference, and his grandfather's millions to the B school got Bush II in. Obama was selected on merit, as it appears Romney was also. There is more than the GRE & LSAT, and grades involved, LONG essays are included in the applications.


*Poppy manufactured....uh...EXPLAINED the Bush boy's great mind for business no doubt.

Obama was selected on "merit"......? can you prove that....?

i heard some saudi sugar daddy donated $20 million to get Barry into school....

 

[freedombecki]

Why conservatives are obsessed with Obama's college grades: 4 theories - The Week

1. Conservatives want to paint Obama as a dumb, affirmative-action fraud
In his $20,000 offer for Obama's transcripts, Bayne lays out his rationale: "We're not convinced that Barack is as smart as you media elitists keep insisting he is." The charge that the president got bad grades 30 years ago doesn't hold water, however: Biographer David Maraniss says Obama got a 3.7 GPA at Columbia and graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law, something you can't do with bad grades.

2. Conservatives are obsessed with "vetting" Obama
The play to shame Obama into releasing his college grades "is nothing more than a pathetically desperate effort to find something, anything that they can use against him in the upcoming election," says Doug Mataconis at Outside the Beltway. It's part of the Right's effort to "vet" Obama, four years after the media made him "one of the most vetted presidential candidates in recent memory."

3. This is just birtherism warmed over
When you "get to the bottom of the conspiracy," says Sarah Jones at Politicus USA, it's clear that Wayne is a birther, and his "foreign exchange student" theory is part of the claim that Obama isn't really American. Indeed, this "irrelevant nonsense about college transcripts... has been a central part of birtherism from the beginning,"

4. The Right is desperate to distract from Romney's taxes
The reason conservatives are "freaking out in unison" about Obama's college grades "couldn't be more obvious," says Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs: They're trying anything they can to "divert attention away from Mitt Romney's refusal to release financial information

Harvard gets 20-30 applicants per seat, the B school takes into account "business experience"* and of course alumni preference, and his grandfather's millions to the B school got Bush II in. Obama was selected on merit, as it appears Romney was also. There is more than the GRE & LSAT, and grades involved, LONG essays are included in the applications.


*Poppy manufactured....uh...EXPLAINED the Bush boy's great mind for business no doubt.

Teddy Kennedy's old man was richer and more influential than Bush's ancestor, and Teddy got his ass kicked out of Harvard for cheating.

Harvard deals with students on a what-the-student-does basis alone. And to their credit, they gave the young Mr. Kennedy a second chance.

The young Mr. Bush got no favors. None.

 

[freedombecki]

He won't be able to use the excuse that his leadership sucks because of mean Republicans.
We'll be able to see that he sucks because he's not very bright.

when the only thing that will come out of your mouth is vile racist hatred, you really ought to keep your mouth shut

Firstly, this charge is about hard work and achievement, and not about race. Ever think about graduating from remedial school before you come to an adult discussion board?

 

[Peach]

Why conservatives are obsessed with Obama's college grades: 4 theories - The Week

1. Conservatives want to paint Obama as a dumb, affirmative-action fraud
In his $20,000 offer for Obama's transcripts, Bayne lays out his rationale: "We're not convinced that Barack is as smart as you media elitists keep insisting he is." The charge that the president got bad grades 30 years ago doesn't hold water, however: Biographer David Maraniss says Obama got a 3.7 GPA at Columbia and graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law, something you can't do with bad grades.

2. Conservatives are obsessed with "vetting" Obama
The play to shame Obama into releasing his college grades "is nothing more than a pathetically desperate effort to find something, anything that they can use against him in the upcoming election," says Doug Mataconis at Outside the Beltway. It's part of the Right's effort to "vet" Obama, four years after the media made him "one of the most vetted presidential candidates in recent memory."

3. This is just birtherism warmed over
When you "get to the bottom of the conspiracy," says Sarah Jones at Politicus USA, it's clear that Wayne is a birther, and his "foreign exchange student" theory is part of the claim that Obama isn't really American. Indeed, this "irrelevant nonsense about college transcripts... has been a central part of birtherism from the beginning,"

4. The Right is desperate to distract from Romney's taxes
The reason conservatives are "freaking out in unison" about Obama's college grades "couldn't be more obvious," says Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs: They're trying anything they can to "divert attention away from Mitt Romney's refusal to release financial information

Harvard gets 20-30 applicants per seat, the B school takes into account "business experience"* and of course alumni preference, and his grandfather's millions to the B school got Bush II in. Obama was selected on merit, as it appears Romney was also. There is more than the GRE & LSAT, and grades involved, LONG essays are included in the applications.


*Poppy manufactured....uh...EXPLAINED the Bush boy's great mind for business no doubt.

Teddy Kennedy's old man was richer and more influential than Bush's ancestor, and Teddy got his ass kicked out of Harvard for cheating.

Harvard deals with students on a what-the-student-does basis alone. And to their credit, they gave the young Mr. Kennedy a second chance.

The young Mr. Bush got no favors. None.

INCORRECT. Alumni preference is a factor, I attended Harvard, I KNOW. And as I wrote, grades, SATs, LSATs, etc., are only part of the application process. An interview, and extensive essays are also required.

 

[freedombecki]

Harvard gets 20-30 applicants per seat, the B school takes into account "business experience"* and of course alumni preference, and his grandfather's millions to the B school got Bush II in. Obama was selected on merit, as it appears Romney was also. There is more than the GRE & LSAT, and grades involved, LONG essays are included in the applications.


*Poppy manufactured....uh...EXPLAINED the Bush boy's great mind for business no doubt.

Teddy Kennedy's old man was richer and more influential than Bush's ancestor, and Teddy got his ass kicked out of Harvard for cheating.

Harvard deals with students on a what-the-student-does basis alone. And to their credit, they gave the young Mr. Kennedy a second chance.

The young Mr. Bush got no favors. None.

INCORRECT. Alumni preference is a factor, I attended Harvard, I KNOW. And as I wrote, grades, SATs, LSATs, etc., are only part of the application process. An interview, and extensive essays are also required.

The inference was made GWB did not enter the school on his own merit. I find the inference political and not academic. Do correct me if you find it off base.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why conservatives are obsessed with Obama's college grades: 4 theories - The Week

1. Conservatives want to paint Obama as a dumb, affirmative-action fraud
In his $20,000 offer for Obama's transcripts, Bayne lays out his rationale: "We're not convinced that Barack is as smart as you media elitists keep insisting he is." The charge that the president got bad grades 30 years ago doesn't hold water, however: Biographer David Maraniss says Obama got a 3.7 GPA at Columbia and graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law, something you can't do with bad grades.

2. Conservatives are obsessed with "vetting" Obama
The play to shame Obama into releasing his college grades "is nothing more than a pathetically desperate effort to find something, anything that they can use against him in the upcoming election," says Doug Mataconis at Outside the Beltway. It's part of the Right's effort to "vet" Obama, four years after the media made him "one of the most vetted presidential candidates in recent memory."

3. This is just birtherism warmed over
When you "get to the bottom of the conspiracy," says Sarah Jones at Politicus USA, it's clear that Wayne is a birther, and his "foreign exchange student" theory is part of the claim that Obama isn't really American. Indeed, this "irrelevant nonsense about college transcripts... has been a central part of birtherism from the beginning,"

4. The Right is desperate to distract from Romney's taxes
The reason conservatives are "freaking out in unison" about Obama's college grades "couldn't be more obvious," says Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs: They're trying anything they can to "divert attention away from Mitt Romney's refusal to release financial information

Harvard gets 20-30 applicants per seat, the B school takes into account "business experience"* and of course alumni preference, and his grandfather's millions to the B school got Bush II in. Obama was selected on merit, as it appears Romney was also. There is more than the GRE & LSAT, and grades involved, LONG essays are included in the applications.


*Poppy manufactured....uh...EXPLAINED the Bush boy's great mind for business no doubt.

Obama was selected on merit,

I'd love to see the proof of that claim.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Harvard gets 20-30 applicants per seat, the B school takes into account "business experience"* and of course alumni preference, and his grandfather's millions to the B school got Bush II in. Obama was selected on merit, as it appears Romney was also. There is more than the GRE & LSAT, and grades involved, LONG essays are included in the applications.


*Poppy manufactured....uh...EXPLAINED the Bush boy's great mind for business no doubt.

Teddy Kennedy's old man was richer and more influential than Bush's ancestor, and Teddy got his ass kicked out of Harvard for cheating.

Harvard deals with students on a what-the-student-does basis alone. And to their credit, they gave the young Mr. Kennedy a second chance.

The young Mr. Bush got no favors. None.

INCORRECT. Alumni preference is a factor, I attended Harvard, I KNOW. And as I wrote, grades, SATs, LSATs, etc., are only part of the application process. An interview, and extensive essays are also required.

where you come from is also a determining factor.......Obama could have used foreign student status.....

 

[Article 15]

Nice try, the GOP didn't have the votes to stop it, 60 votes in the Senate, heavy majority in the House. So, the Dems didn't do it then, now they want to? BS! They are playing you like a fiddle at a country hoe down.

They had the votes to stop every other piece of legislation and they did. They refused to extend unemployment benefits and ratify START. Obama caved

Dems did not have 60 votes in the Senate in December 2010. In fact, they only had a 60 vote majority for a few months total

In 2009 when he entered office, he decided NOT to touch the tax cuts, because he felt it would further stall the economy. The tax cuts were set to expire in 2010, no action was needed by Congress and the Republicans would have needed a filibuster proof Senate to get it passed, congress then decide as a whole to extend them and the Dems thinking most Americans wouldn't remember, went along.

So, if you want to blame anyone, blame the ones in charge, the ones than extended further out until 2013, the Democrats.

When he entered office we were losing 750k jobs a month and 5% GDP a quarter, of course he didn't touch the tax cuts right away. Raising taxes then and there wasn't prudent and as you know they were set to expire anyway at the end of 2010. By the time Dec 2010 came around the economy had been stabilized and was growing again. The Dems proposed only letting the cuts sunset on income earned over 250k. That's when the GOP put unemployment benefits on the chopping block and wouldn't take them off until the cuts were extended for income earned over 250k.

Obama and the Dems were fiscally responsible about handling the tax cut sunset while the GOP played their typical game of brinksmanship.

 

[freedombecki]

They had the votes to stop every other piece of legislation and they did. They refused to extend unemployment benefits and ratify START. Obama caved

Dems did not have 60 votes in the Senate in December 2010. In fact, they only had a 60 vote majority for a few months total

In 2009 when he entered office, he decided NOT to touch the tax cuts, because he felt it would further stall the economy. The tax cuts were set to expire in 2010, no action was needed by Congress and the Republicans would have needed a filibuster proof Senate to get it passed, congress then decide as a whole to extend them and the Dems thinking most Americans wouldn't remember, went along.

So, if you want to blame anyone, blame the ones in charge, the ones than extended further out until 2013, the Democrats.

When he entered office we were losing 750k jobs a month and 5% GDP a quarter, of course he didn't touch the tax cuts right away. Raising taxes then and there wasn't prudent and as you know they were set to expire anyway at the end of 2010. By the time Dec 2010 came around the economy had been stabilized and was growing again. The Dems proposed only letting the cuts sunset on income earned over 250k. That's when the GOP put unemployment benefits on the chopping block and wouldn't take them off until the cuts were extended for income earned over 250k.

Obama and the Dems were fiscally responsible about handling the tax cut sunset while the GOP played their typical game of brinksmanship.

Where's the fulfillment of the budget that proves this?

My sources are saying the national debt is now at $15.955 trillion in the red.

If Obama and the Dems were fiscally responsible, the national debt would be shrinking, not expanding at an exponential rate.

 

[Article 15]

In 2009 when he entered office, he decided NOT to touch the tax cuts, because he felt it would further stall the economy. The tax cuts were set to expire in 2010, no action was needed by Congress and the Republicans would have needed a filibuster proof Senate to get it passed, congress then decide as a whole to extend them and the Dems thinking most Americans wouldn't remember, went along.

So, if you want to blame anyone, blame the ones in charge, the ones than extended further out until 2013, the Democrats.

When he entered office we were losing 750k jobs a month and 5% GDP a quarter, of course he didn't touch the tax cuts right away. Raising taxes then and there wasn't prudent and as you know they were set to expire anyway at the end of 2010. By the time Dec 2010 came around the economy had been stabilized and was growing again. The Dems proposed only letting the cuts sunset on income earned over 250k. That's when the GOP put unemployment benefits on the chopping block and wouldn't take them off until the cuts were extended for income earned over 250k.

Obama and the Dems were fiscally responsible about handling the tax cut sunset while the GOP played their typical game of brinksmanship.

Where's the fulfillment of the budget that proves this?

My sources are saying the national debt is now at $15.955 trillion in the red.

If Obama and the Dems were fiscally responsible, the national debt would be shrinking, not expanding at an exponential rate.

Thank you for sharing, simpleton. In reality, trillion dollar deficits don't turn around on a dime or any where near it especially when you have a political party that will stop at nothing to take one side of the balancesheet off the table when trying to fix the problem.

 

[Papageorgio]

They had the votes to stop every other piece of legislation and they did. They refused to extend unemployment benefits and ratify START. Obama caved

Dems did not have 60 votes in the Senate in December 2010. In fact, they only had a 60 vote majority for a few months total

In 2009 when he entered office, he decided NOT to touch the tax cuts, because he felt it would further stall the economy. The tax cuts were set to expire in 2010, no action was needed by Congress and the Republicans would have needed a filibuster proof Senate to get it passed, congress then decide as a whole to extend them and the Dems thinking most Americans wouldn't remember, went along.

So, if you want to blame anyone, blame the ones in charge, the ones than extended further out until 2013, the Democrats.

When he entered office we were losing 750k jobs a month and 5% GDP a quarter, of course he didn't touch the tax cuts right away. Raising taxes then and there wasn't prudent and as you know they were set to expire anyway at the end of 2010. By the time Dec 2010 came around the economy had been stabilized and was growing again. The Dems proposed only letting the cuts sunset on income earned over 250k. That's when the GOP put unemployment benefits on the chopping block and wouldn't take them off until the cuts were extended for income earned over 250k.

Obama and the Dems were fiscally responsible about handling the tax cut sunset while the GOP played their typical game of brinksmanship.

So the Dems weren't fiscally responsible, they could of had their way at the beginning of 2009 and they didn't, the reason is the same reason they didn't let them expire, they didn't want to and wanted a political football.

It was just as prudent then as today, he caved and was afraid of a backlash after getting drubbed in the elections of 2010.

 

[Article 15]

In 2009 when he entered office, he decided NOT to touch the tax cuts, because he felt it would further stall the economy. The tax cuts were set to expire in 2010, no action was needed by Congress and the Republicans would have needed a filibuster proof Senate to get it passed, congress then decide as a whole to extend them and the Dems thinking most Americans wouldn't remember, went along.

So, if you want to blame anyone, blame the ones in charge, the ones than extended further out until 2013, the Democrats.

When he entered office we were losing 750k jobs a month and 5% GDP a quarter, of course he didn't touch the tax cuts right away. Raising taxes then and there wasn't prudent and as you know they were set to expire anyway at the end of 2010. By the time Dec 2010 came around the economy had been stabilized and was growing again. The Dems proposed only letting the cuts sunset on income earned over 250k. That's when the GOP put unemployment benefits on the chopping block and wouldn't take them off until the cuts were extended for income earned over 250k.

Obama and the Dems were fiscally responsible about handling the tax cut sunset while the GOP played their typical game of brinksmanship.

So the Dems weren't fiscally responsible, they could of had their way at the beginning of 2009 and they didn't, the reason is the same reason they didn't let them expire, they didn't want to and wanted a political football.

It was just as prudent then as today, he caved and was afraid of a backlash after getting drubbed in the elections of 2010.

"The Dems weren't fiscally responsible (by not raising taxes in early 2009 while the economy was in a free fall)"

"Just as prudent then as today"

You become more of a hack everytime I engage you. Your history revision is laughable.

You've been told why they didn't raise taxes right way and why the situation between the begging of 2009 and December 2010 were light years apart. When Obama took office in 2009 is back then we were losing three quarters of a million jobs a month and GDP was plummetting. In Dec 2010 were were adding jobs and GDP was growing.

To say they "didn't want to raise taxes/let the cuts lapse" is flat out wrong. They wanted to let the cuts lapse on income earned over 250k but Obama and the Dems "caved" because the GOP put struggling Americans on the traintracks to prevent the Bush tax cuts from lapsing on income earned over 250k. Were you in coma or just a drunken stupor when all that was going down?

Open your eyes, retard. The GOP was willing to take food off the table of Americans struggling the most to ensure that top income earners could save 3% on their income beyond 250k.

When it comes to fiscal responsibility the left is running circles around modern day republicans who are beholden to the wealthy elite and an idea that Grover Norquist wet dreamed up when he was 12.

 

[Lakhota]

Why Conservatives are obsessed with Obama's grades

 

[Oldstyle]

When he entered office we were losing 750k jobs a month and 5% GDP a quarter, of course he didn't touch the tax cuts right away. Raising taxes then and there wasn't prudent and as you know they were set to expire anyway at the end of 2010. By the time Dec 2010 came around the economy had been stabilized and was growing again. The Dems proposed only letting the cuts sunset on income earned over 250k. That's when the GOP put unemployment benefits on the chopping block and wouldn't take them off until the cuts were extended for income earned over 250k.

Obama and the Dems were fiscally responsible about handling the tax cut sunset while the GOP played their typical game of brinksmanship.

So the Dems weren't fiscally responsible, they could of had their way at the beginning of 2009 and they didn't, the reason is the same reason they didn't let them expire, they didn't want to and wanted a political football.

It was just as prudent then as today, he caved and was afraid of a backlash after getting drubbed in the elections of 2010.

"The Dems weren't fiscally responsible (by not raising taxes in early 2009 while the economy was in a free fall)"

"Just as prudent then as today"

You become more of a hack everytime I engage you. Your history revision is laughable.

You've been told why they didn't raise taxes right way and why the situation between the begging of 2009 and December 2010 were light years apart. When Obama took office in 2009 is back then we were losing three quarters of a million jobs a month and GDP was plummetting. In Dec 2010 were were adding jobs and GDP was growing.

To say they "didn't want to raise taxes/let the cuts lapse" is flat out wrong. They wanted to let the cuts lapse on income earned over 250k but Obama and the Dems "caved" because the GOP put struggling Americans on the traintracks to prevent the Bush tax cuts from lapsing on income earned over 250k. Were you in coma or just a drunken stupor when all that was going down?

Open your eyes, retard. The GOP was willing to take food off the table of Americans struggling the most to ensure that top income earners could save 3% on their income beyond 250k.

When it comes to fiscal responsibility the left is running circles around modern day republicans who are beholden to the wealthy elite and an idea that Grover Norquist wet dreamed up when he was 12.

What's amusing about this rant is that what the GOP is "doing" is utilizing basic economics in trying to determine what is best for the country yet you accuse them of trying to take food off the table for Americans who are struggling? The truth is...raising taxes on anyone in an economic downturn is bad fiscal policy...something that Christina Romer admitted last year. So has anything changed economically since she made that statement? The answer to that is no...if anything the economy has slowed since then. So why is Obama pushing tax increases NOW that he didn't push through when he had control of both the House and Senate? The answer to that is that he knows the GOP controlled House won't ever let tax increases happen, so he's safe proposing something that can't be done. Why do I say "safe"? Because if those tax increases DID happen, it would slow economic growth...it would take food off the table of struggling Americans...and Barack Obama WOULD be blamed for that happening. Quite frankly, the Democrats are playing politics with the millions of people who are out of work right now or are under employed. Instead of proposing economic solutions that would help that situation this Administration is proposing things that they know will never be passed (with good reason!) because they think it's something they can win with in November. So who is REALLY taking food off the table for Americans that are struggling?

 

[Papageorgio]

When he entered office we were losing 750k jobs a month and 5% GDP a quarter, of course he didn't touch the tax cuts right away. Raising taxes then and there wasn't prudent and as you know they were set to expire anyway at the end of 2010. By the time Dec 2010 came around the economy had been stabilized and was growing again. The Dems proposed only letting the cuts sunset on income earned over 250k. That's when the GOP put unemployment benefits on the chopping block and wouldn't take them off until the cuts were extended for income earned over 250k.

Obama and the Dems were fiscally responsible about handling the tax cut sunset while the GOP played their typical game of brinksmanship.

So the Dems weren't fiscally responsible, they could of had their way at the beginning of 2009 and they didn't, the reason is the same reason they didn't let them expire, they didn't want to and wanted a political football.

It was just as prudent then as today, he caved and was afraid of a backlash after getting drubbed in the elections of 2010.

"The Dems weren't fiscally responsible (by not raising taxes in early 2009 while the economy was in a free fall)"

"Just as prudent then as today"

You become more of a hack everytime I engage you. Your history revision is laughable.

You've been told why they didn't raise taxes right way and why the situation between the begging of 2009 and December 2010 were light years apart. When Obama took office in 2009 is back then we were losing three quarters of a million jobs a month and GDP was plummetting. In Dec 2010 were were adding jobs and GDP was growing.

To say they "didn't want to raise taxes/let the cuts lapse" is flat out wrong. They wanted to let the cuts lapse on income earned over 250k but Obama and the Dems "caved" because the GOP put struggling Americans on the traintracks to prevent the Bush tax cuts from lapsing on income earned over 250k. Were you in coma or just a drunken stupor when all that was going down?

Open your eyes, retard. The GOP was willing to take food off the table of Americans struggling the most to ensure that top income earners could save 3% on their income beyond 250k.

When it comes to fiscal responsibility the left is running circles around modern day republicans who are beholden to the wealthy elite and an idea that Grover Norquist wet dreamed up when he was 12.

Just because you believe in fairytales, doesn't mean I have to.
If they had done nothing in 2010 the cuts would have expired. Ever since the tax cuts went into effect the liberals have told us it was a tax cut ONLY for the rich. Now, you guys say it is not.

My idea is to cut spending, big time, repeal Obamacare, raise taxes for 5 years on everyone, and then reduce them once we get the budget under control cut out the loopholes, shut down the offshore accounts.

I also am for no corporate welfare, no subsidies, no funding silly research projects and so on.

It is time for government to tighten up and neither party will do it.

Reagan was the last President to cut loopholes in the tax code, since then, they have increased. It's time to cut out loopholes.

I know the Dems won't tackle any of those issues, so spare me how any one is more fiscally conservative than the other.

I like Romney just because he will spark the economy.

 

[PredFan]

Here's the real answeer to why Conservatives are "obsessed" as the OP calls them, over Obama's grades:

Because they are hidden from the public. It's the same reason that the left is obsessed with Romney's tax returns.

 

[Liability]

The cool part about taking note of the REFUSAL of The ONE to be transparent about his fucking academic records is: if any of the whining, obsequious lib Obamaphiles try to contend that the complaint makes any of us a closet "birfer," the ANSWER is withering.

IF it's true (and the son of a bitch won't answer us, so we don't know if it is true or not) but IF it's true that Pres. Obama is busy concealing his academic records because he claimed to be a foreign student (in order to get assistance to pay for school), WE don't have to be BIRFERS to make the suggestion!

It was (perhaps) HIS claim. And it doesn't even have to be TRUE!

If he was NOT born out of the country (and I presume to this moment that he was born in Hawaii), then he is eligible to be President as a natural born citizen. See? No birfer shit required. But if that's the case, and he GOT financial assistance on the basis of a CLAIM that he was a foreign student, then releasing the academic records might REVEAL that he lied.

If I were him, I wouldn't trip over myself to release such recorded confirmation of a criminal fraud I had perpetrated, either.

ON the other hand, perhaps he DIDN'T lie and commit a criminal fraud. But if he claimed entitlement to foreign aid as a student without lying, then -- well, now maybe we have some birfer shit to discuss. Of course, in THAT CASE if I were Pres. Obama, I STILL wouldn't trip over myself to release those records.

Why not release the records, Mr. President?