Yup, I’m doubling down on my vote. And not just because this is the fourth page of the thread, which is a little late for pre-emptive “you don’t need to know” posts.
I’m putting it down as a failed attempt to Tea Party.
Rushing the Question?
No, seriously, perhaps it’s a red herring debate tactic?
—G!
I can’t explain the time it takes
to make you understand…
. --Robin Zanders (Cheap Trick)
. Never Had a Lot to Lose
. Lap of Luxury
Of course. There’s a pile of evidence (newspaper announcements, legal documents, etc.) that Obama was born in a certain place (Hawaii). It also makes sense he was born there, because his mother lived there at the time- and would have had to take a costly and long (and useless) flight to his supposed birthplace while several months pregnant. There’s ZERO evidence he was born anywhere else- no testimony, no documents, no nothing.
What questions are left to ask?
Note that JQPublic is a “birther” (and I think that’s all he’s posted about on the SDMB)- which is why I’m bringing that up.
I read that whole article, and nowhere win it does it say anything about magna cum laude being awarded on an affirmative action kind of qualification.
I’m left wondering why it would be that you deliberately left out of your post that the article you were citing referred only to the Harvard Law Review and not to the designation of magna cum laude in graduation from the Harvard Law School. :dubious:
It certainly looks as tho you were trying to mislead people into thinking that both, and not just one, of those things was subject to some kind of affirmative action program.
Let’s go to the quarry and throw stuff down!
Did you actually read through the whole exchange, or just look for something you think you can impugn?
FG, just out of curiosity, do you believe that the benefits of affirmative action generally exceed the benefits of being even a moderately well-off white guy?
I read thru the whole exchange, and I did impugn your motive and your post.
Also, you got the quarry phrase wrong.
There is no way to do it correctly.
I’ve taken a quick look, and I can’t find Mitt’s transcript or tax info. Care to point it out to me?
A very complex issue with a lot of variables, and well beyond the scope of this thread.
That does not speak well of you.
Prior to the post that you quoted, I had acknowledged that Magna cum laude was apparently not based on AA (posts #135 & #142), which has 2 implications. 1) the crux of the subsequent discussion was about the law review which is what was still up for discussion, and 2) it makes no sense in light of the above to assume that I was trying to imply something that I had already acknowledged to be apparently untrue.
Considering that I did not explicitly make a claim as to what was included in that cite, your claim is baseless. And so, I think you were just looking for something to attack with and foolishly thought you found something, either because you failed to read the entire exchange or because you failed to understand it.
That really sucks.
I feel the same way about how your omission speaks of you. I guess we’re even on that score, then.
You’re still at it, with the use here twice of the weasel word “apparently”. Until you admit that no, MCL does not and never has had any kind of affirmative action component, the implicit conclusion is that you believe it may have an affirmative action component. Thus, your explicit failure to acknowledge the lack of any AA component being mentioned in the article you cited logically leads to the conclusion that you were somehow trying to imply that because there was an AA factor in the selection of people for the Harvard Review, there is also the same factor for MCL.
Oh, I understood it perfectly. You have a baseless belief that MCL is somehow determined not just by grades, but by race, but you think that you can’t prove it just yet. If you did not believe that, you wouldn’t need to say it “apparently” isn’t influenced by race; you’d just come right out and say that it is not influenced by race. ISTM that you sought to further possible doubt in readers by a sideways appeal to authority: “see? the Review used AA! How do you know MCL doesn’t as well? Just because it’s not discussed in the article doesn’t mean they don’t!”
If that wasn’t your intent and your thought process, then just admit that no, MCL isn’t awarded on the basis of anything but GPA.
Your semantic games and plays of strategic omission are more transparent than you think they are.
Yeah, for you it does.
Fair enough. Let’s try a different and simpler question.
Do you have similar concerns about potentially unfair advantages afforded Michael Steele? Clarence Thomas? Condoleeza Rice?
Heck, Shodan has done it repeatedly on this very message board.
What reason has Obama given anyone to do so?
I hereby call for everything on both of them…how’s that?
Nevermind that Romney’s upbringing and college era activities are likely to be known already.
My references to “transperancy” relate to Obama’s claim that he would be more so when he became President… please correct me if that didn’t happen… the claim that is.
He wasn’t saying he’d be transparent with grades from college.
I clipped the above to give me an excuse to post this.
As a Texan, I’ve had lots of practice in ignoring Republican foolishness. So I’ll let the resident teabaggers continue to blather on; they aren’t helping their cause.
I’m not demanding anything and I have no right to demand anything myself anyway.
I’m generally talking about the information gathering and releasing game that is part of the political process.
To liken it to law enforcement is pretty silly.
If I put forth a plausible hypothetical or two the obvious response would be “Ya, but there’s no evidence of that.” so what’s the point?
And if I may… the OP was an attempt to get some info that was turned political by others. You might have noticed a similar thread that I started subsequently that remained in GQ.
“Note that JQPublic is a “birther” (and I think that’s all he’s posted about on the SDMB)- which is why I’m bringing that up.”
You must have me confused with someone else. I never brought up the birth issue in this thread or any previous thread.
Prove that I did.
I’ve not expressed any concerns about the potentially unfair advantages afforded Obama or anyone else. I’ve merely noted that there is reason to believe that his academic accomplishments were aided by AA and thus these are less of a proof of his accomplishments than would be similar academic accomplishments by non-minority members. And the same would apply to other minority members in similar circumstances.
In that context, I’m not sure of what you’re asking about WRT these people. I believe I once saw written that Clarence Thomas was the beneficiary of AA in school, but I’m not sure, and I don’t know about the others. There is little doubt that Clarence Thomas would not be on the SC today if not for his skin color. Similar might be true of CR. I am not that familiar with Michael Steele’s career or accomplishments that you might be referring to - I would guess that his appointment as RNC chair was not unrelated to skin color, and he was not a big success in that role, FWIW.
As previous, in the case of all these people, they have a large body of work with which to judge them on, much like Obama, and as such - again much like Obama - their possible benefit from AA is not that big of a deal in assessing their accomplishments. For example, in the case of CT, if his accomplishment is “he was appointed to the SC”, then sure, it’s less than if some vanilla white guy made it to the SC, because CT was helped by ethnic considerations (though even in the case of white guys there are frequently political considerations in SC appointments, so you have to look at each case). But you don’t have to look at just the mere fact of his being appointed. He’s been on the court a while, and has written any number of opinions, and you can judge the body of his work. And so on for the others (again, including Obama).
You seem to be eager to engage in a debate over the merits of AA (and FTR it absolutely has some merit, along with the downside) but the issue we’re discussing here is much narrower. The issue is Obama’s college transcripts, and whether their release would be meaningful. And my point is and has been that to the extent that they’re meaningful, it would be for the purpose of shedding some light on the extent to which Obama’s academic achievements were earned by intelligence and hard work versus skin color.
Now I myself have said consistently throughout this thread that I don’t think Obama’s college transcripts are relevant, because as I’ve been saying all along and reiterated in this post, I don’t think Obama needs to be judged at this point by anything that he did or didn’t do in college. But to the extent that other people keep trotting out his scholastic achievments, that makes his transcripts an issue, and to this contributes to keeping this issue alive (to the limited extent that it is).
Snowboarder Bo, I’ve spent more time with you and your silliness than you or it deserve already. My previous comments stand, notwithstanding your subsequent doubling down on your nonsense.