<p>I just read the first post.</p>
<p>This is probably taking it way too far, but the first thing that honestly comes to my mind when reading that somebody decided not to go Yale because GWB went there is that she should probably avoid visiting Germany, because it produced Hitler. </p>
<p>I'm sorry, but that is just pretty dumb. And while all of this discussion about him being an alumni interviewer is going on, I can't help but ask if any of you have ever had a conversation with him in person? I am not saying that I agree with his presidential addresses and I am not saying that I agree with his policies or the way he runs this country. In fact, I disagree with a lot of it. However, I have met him before (he went to my church while he was governor of Texas and for a while as president-elect) and he is honestly not the same bumbling and vocabulary-challenged locutionist in person as he is on TV. So...I'm not trying to stir up a fight here. But really. As a PERSON? He's not that bad.</p>
<p>There is some sort of internet joke about all threads reaching their end through a comparison to Hitler</p>
<p>hahaha</p>
<p>Haha sorry, didn't mean to reach the end of the thread.
Continue, everyone.</p>
<p>Hmm. Okay. Most of what Bush has said and done may be attributed either to stupidity or to malice. </p>
<p>I tend to favor the stupidity explanation. I dunno, just seems kinder, gentler ;)</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
There is some sort of internet joke about all threads reaching their end through a comparison to Hitler
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>It's called Godwinning; whoever mentions Hitler first loses. However, there's another part of the rule - whoever brings up that the thread has been Godwinned also loses.</p>
<p>My interviewer works about 2 blocks away from the White House.</p>
<p>"as we were thinking about a war WITH China, not just IN China. In WWII we were allies."</p>
<p>We still (hopefully) are allies with those people, they live in Taiwan. With the mounting debt we owe China, I wonder at some point will we abandone those people of Taiwan who fought bravely during WWII as our allies. Money makes loyalty sometimes an obsolete ideal.</p>
<p>"not to go Yale because GWB went there is that she should probably avoid visiting Germany, because it produced Hitler. "</p>
<p>So everyone who didn't attend Yale is a loser? Please don't be a lemming. Don't be a consumer who has to have a Yale handbag. </p>
<p>While I'm sure Yale is a fine institution and I do business with some Yalies, it's not the end all, be all that some here think it is. Reasons don't have to be scientific in accuracy and neither does defense. They are just opinions not subject to test. If your live feels a bit better or worse for attending or not attending Yale (or any other place for that matter) that's on you. If you feel you've failed by not attending an ivy or Nd or what not, what did you bring to the party in the first place? </p>
<p>I guess my family suffers a bit of an independent streak in such that we believe that "we" bring success to the table in our situations. It is up to us to gain success, not the institution we attended. They are just a 4 year platform that should provide us a comfortable educational environment. If we could only succeed at one place, well, that's our fault. </p>
<p>I don't expect some here to understand because some are so "sold" on certain products, labels and what not, they aren't aware.</p>
<p>Haha I in no way insinuated that everyone who didn't go to Yale is a loser. In all likelihood, I will not go to Yale, and I don't really consider myself a loser. I just think that Yale is a good school and that somebody not giving it a chance because of a particular alumnus it produced is a little sad. Yale has amazing opportunities to offer as one of the top institutions in the country, and if you never attempt to research that or learn anything about it because your opinion is marred by something as silly as GWB going there, that's unfortunate.</p>
<p>I understand your case that some people aren't as "sold" on certain products and some are. This is perfectly valid and applies to many who cannot stray from the glory of the Ivy name, but that's not really what I was discussing at all. I think my comment was a bit misinterpreted, which was probably my fault, but anyway, the point is that I don't think anything should be eliminated or hailed without giving it a decent chance, and that includes Yale. In my opinion, whomever eliminated Yale because of GWB didn't give it a fair chance. That is her prerogative and it's not going to hurt anybody (or herself) in the long run, but it just seems a bit silly.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"not to go Yale because GWB went there is that she should probably avoid visiting Germany, because it produced Hitler. "</p>
<p>So everyone who didn't attend Yale is a loser? Please don't be a lemming. Don't be a consumer who has to have a Yale handbag.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Nobody is arguing that, and in fact that is completely different than what the quote of the prior poster indicated. Look, it is foolish to ignore a school because of one alum that went there, and some people think poorly of you for saying that. </p>
<p>I'm sure the school your daughter is at now has some bads alumni that we could point to and say "don't go to that school!" It is extremely unfair and, quite honestly, reprehensible to call that person a lemming for something they never said. If I wanted to be puerile, I would say that if you had attended Yale, you wouldn't be committing the logical fallacies you have been making. But, I will refrain and just say I think you should apologize for disparaging someone when you put the words in their mouth and realize that you make people annoyed when you denigrate a school they attended/like just because of one alum you don't like. Perhaps there will be a reader out there who will discount your alma mater because of you, and I don't think we would want that!</p>
<p>"it is foolish to ignore a school because of one alum that went there, and some people think poorly of you for saying that. "</p>
<p>I guess I shoulda put the smiley face on this, I wasn't that serious about it. </p>
<p>However, both kids didn't consider the "ivies" or Stanford for that matter because they really weren't interested for a lot of reasons. Alot of it had to do with wanting to follow their own path. We believe there are many roads to the city, everyone will eventually get you there. Some roads are just more enjoyable than others and must be driven at a different speed to be appreicated. Just because one road is quickest, does it really make it the best? What if you're not in a hurry? </p>
<p>"If I wanted to be puerile, I would say that if you had attended Yale, you wouldn't be committing the logical fallacies you have been making."</p>
<p>Why? Why is it a logical fallicy? Because you attended or read something about it?</p>
<p>Does everyone, every person who attends this particular school or any other guaranteed success and happiness? I know some yalies and outside of running in some celeb/political circles they aren't the brightest blubs in the box and without family money, could quite possibly be asking if you want fries with that? </p>
<p>In your concern of my logic, you've missed my point. That is, the person can be successful ANYWHERE if they are so inclined. Granted family wealth helps, but family wealth keeps more fools in charge than makes successful people who do it on their own. </p>
<p>" But, I will refrain and just say I think you should apologize for disparaging someone when you put the words in their mouth"</p>
<p>but wouldn't that be putting your words in my mouth? </p>
<p>" and realize that you make people annoyed when you denigrate a school they attended/like just because of one alum you don't li" </p>
<p>And because of the affection for the label, you lost the point. I am sure my point is evil because it supports an individual be to an individual and have success where ever they go. bad idea isn't it?</p>
<p>I think that the idea of you-dont-need-an-Ivy-to-be-successful is being unnecessarily mixed with the entire thing about your daughter not choosing Yale because of GWB. I understand now that that was a joke, but previously I was unaware of that. I don't think that the issue of the GWB thing is related to the issue of Ivies not being the only path to success. Maybe they are distantly, in terms of your children's decisions, but I don't think that they are conceptually.</p>
<p>I understand completely that you don't need to go to an Ivy or Stanford to be successful in life. I would actually say that I am not as caught up in the labels as many of my peers are. If THIS is why your children decided not to apply to Ivies or to Stanford, then that is completely legitimate and frankly none of our business. However, the way the information was presented originally (my D crossed Yale off the list early because of GWB) didn't include that information.</p>
<p>dam smiley's :) </p>
<p>No harm intended, sorry if the undies bunched a bit. :) </p>
<p>Both kids have been quizzed far too much about the ivies so we kind of blow it off that way. I think they built a bit of resentment because so many "told" them that's where they should be. No saying if they would have got in or not, I honestly don't know. </p>
<p>Both are looking at careers where they have control over their outcomes win or lose. Must be genetic. </p>
<p>But also, it is OK not to like GWB, isn't it? I mean I like his dad. I wish he had listened to his dad or at least read his book. So I don't know if that's a love hate thing with the Bush family. His dad did a great job with foriegn policy. Jr. eehh not so much.</p>
<p>Haha yes Opie, it is fine not to like him.</p>
<p>We need to utilize :) more often.</p>
<p>The blind hate against GWB here is extremely pathological and not the least bit logical. I am a card-carrying member of the right wing conspiracy, but i would never say something as loaded and blatantly wrong as "everything _____ (Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Howard Dean, whoever) ever did was a result of either stupidity or malice". For crying out loud, take off the tin foil hats and join the real world where we have to back up wild-eyed assertions with at least SOME kind of evidence.</p>
<p>"The blind hate against GWB here is extremely pathological and not the least bit logical"</p>
<p>REALLY? So it's just a hold over from his days as owner of the Rangers? :)</p>
<p>I don't consider him stupid at all, stubborn yes, but not stupid. He was able to convince enough of the population to follow him down a rosey path that ends in a pit. He's a bright enough guy as he knows how to manipulate enough of the people to suspend their own logic and buy into his. As I posted eariler he should have talked more with his dad or read his book. Dad was spot on about what would happen if we took out Hussen. Spot freaking on. </p>
<p>Now junior is scrambling to save his butt in the history books. Won the battle with Iraq in three days, lost the war over the next (fill in the blank) years. People are getting real tired of sending their kids to a warzone to save face for the commander in chief. </p>
<p>He should have stuck to task and set up permanent bases in afganistan. No one, peacenik or hawk, disputes our presence there in seeking out ossama. We could have created a real presence in the region, rather than a rally cry. </p>
<p>And by the way don't be so sure that those who oppose or dislike junior, are just all democrats. Silly mistake. Some of us with conservative tendencies towards foriegn policy find junior to have failed America.</p>
<p>
[quote]
... at least SOME kind of evidence.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Now that's as silly as anything anyone else has said here.</p>
<p>Unless you really believe the evidence is not all around us today. </p>
<p>In which case it's more scary than silly.</p>
<p>How ironic Marsden.....you replied to a call for evidence with...(drumroll)...no evidence whatsoever. WHAT A GREAT ARGUMENT TO MAKE! "Oh come on, GWB is a moron, and if you don't think so you're a moron". Very convincing! You almost had me for a sec.</p>
<p>Opie: what is this "conservative" view of foreign policy you hold? That we can sit on our hands and expect another 9/11 not to happen? To me that's called isolationism, and while unofortunatley plenty of Republicans have taken up the idea, I wouldn't call it conservative by any means. I'd just call it an idea with a pretty bad track record (9/11, Pearl Harbor).</p>
<p>"He's a bright enough guy as he knows how to manipulate enough of the people to suspend their own logic and buy into his."</p>
<p>Or, you know, <em>BIG GASP</em> maybe some people agree with him? But no, it's supposedly innately within everyone to know that GWB is wrong about everything.</p>
<p>"And by the way don't be so sure that those who oppose or dislike junior, are just all democrats. Silly mistake."</p>
<p>I never made that mistake, I'm well aware of the greenies, socialists, Lincoln Chafee/Chuck Hagel Republicans,and neurotic Pat Buchananite isolationist factions in America.</p>
<p>"People are getting real tired of sending their kids to a warzone to save face for the commander in chief."</p>
<p>Oh really? Haven't bothered to look up any data on the military, have you? They voted for Bush twice by comfortable margins and favor staying in Iraq. (Gee, somebody actually wants to win? What a novel idea!) But don't let mere facts get in your way.</p>
<p>drummer you're funny, I like you.</p>
<p>"what is this "conservative" view of foreign policy you hold"</p>
<p>That the military is for national defense. </p>
<p>Unless you just woke up from a coma, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. You may quite possibly be one of the few left in America that think the invasion and occupation was good national policy. If I were to follow your thought process and use troops to strike out at who is responsible for 9/11, we'd have troops in Saudi doing what they are in Bagdad. Instead we are doing the saudi's bidding or as JS says, "missed it by one letter." </p>
<p>"To me that's called isolationism"</p>
<p>No it's called a rational foriegn policy. Being the aggressor nation was never the mainstream conservative pov, that was meant for nutjobs who wanted to rule the world. </p>
<p>"I'd just call it an idea with a pretty bad track record (9/11, Pearl Harbor"</p>
<p>Actually we were quite aware of the japanese impending attack. We just didn't know when or where. We were fortifying pacific islands right up to dec 6th. My dad was on Wake Island building Airstrips taken prison soon after pearl. Your line here leads me to believe you don't know as much as you think about things. He was one of the lucky ones who survived prison camp. </p>
<p>"it's supposedly innately within everyone to know that GWB is wrong about everything."</p>
<p>Well he hasn't hit the bullseye with too much frequency sport. :)</p>
<p>"I'm well aware of the greenies, socialists, Lincoln Chafee/Chuck Hagel Republicans,and neurotic Pat Buchananite isolationist factions in America."</p>
<p>You left off the average middle american with no strong ties to either party or any of these groups you list. Because the percentage of those groups is probably less than 10% of Americans. The middle americans make up 30% and usually swing votes one direction or another. </p>
<p>"Oh really? Haven't bothered to look up any data on the military, have you? "</p>
<p>Is it collected and created by the same people that gave us body counts in nam? </p>
<p>"They voted for Bush twice by comfortable margins and favor staying in Iraq. "
How do we honestly know? exit polls? Aren't votes a private matter? Didn't Gore and Kerry win the exit polls? </p>
<p>"(Gee, somebody actually wants to win? What a novel idea!) But don't let mere facts get in your way."</p>
<p>And by all means produce some yourself. What is there to win there? please enlighten me? What valuable thing exists in Iraq that we (america) needed so badly to cause lasting damage to 30,000 (and climbing) American families? I include the wounded and yet to be discovered mental conditions our troops will come home with DSS. Not everybody comes home whole.</p>
<p>Besides I don't want kids to die for my country, I want the other guy's kids to die for theirs. The military is not a toy, to be played with to save face. The military is our last means to resolve an issue, not the first. </p>
<p>You keep on keepin on, drum. I love it. fire away.</p>