Willard, the consummate corporate raider/eternal flop-flipper claims the Prez spent too much time at Harvard. Romney put in 4 years while Obama was there for about 2. Yep, the fuzzy math of the GOP never ceases to amaze.
Here's a mathematical fact Mitt. When you garner 46% of the vote to Obama's 54% in Nov. that means you've lost and get to stay home and play with the controls in your brand new garage elevator. Remember, Level 1 is closer to the Earth's core than Level 2. Simplified to it's lowest common denominator this means that Level 1 is lower than Level 2.
Law school was another story for Obama. He graduatedmagna **** laudefrom Harvard Law School (the second highest honor available) in 1991. He also was the first black president of theHarvard Law Review, a very prestigious honor.
COLLEGE TRANSCRIPTS OF GEORGE W. BUSH SHOW C AVERAGE
In fact, George W. Bush has openly released hisYale University undergraduate transcript. As you can see, Bush truly was a solid C student. He never got an A inanythingthe entire time that he was in college (although he never got a D or an F either).
Obama could have easily cashed in and gone to
a major law firm. Instead, he went to helped those
Mitt Romney's educational history is well documented and fully available. Anyone can find that he was at the top of his class at BYU's College of Humanities and was a speaker at his commencement. At Harvard he was **** laud at the Law School and a Baker Scholar at the Business School. So I go back to my previous post, it is clear that President Obama's policies are highly influenced by his Harvard Professors. It would seem to me that there are few people with the credentials that Mitt Romney has as proof that he digested those Professors' instruction to their satisfaction. Therefore if the point he is trying to make is that their influence is too great in this administration can't we agree that he speaks with some authority?
Harvard expects that the scholarship and collegiality it fosters in its students will lead them in their later lives to advance knowledge, to promote understanding, and to serve society.
So Obama fulfilled Harvard's expectation and Romney did not.
Clearly Obama is the better person by his decision to help others.
Obama like the vast majority of politicians will have a legacy of doing more harm than good even if we refuse to acknowledge it. A better person would have used their own ingenuity to provide cheaper or superior goods or services that improve the quality of life of it's customers. A better person would be charitable with their own amassed wealth rather than pawning off the burden of their generosity on others. Those better people seldom are appreciated for their contributions and society has dismissed them as so called "robber barons."
Translation: The many will suffer so a few corrupt and
amoral criminals masquerading as entrepreneurs can engage
in shady business practices and corrupt the political
process. This form of economic system rivals fascism as
You are right, Obama and the executives at Boeing, Solyndra, Siemens, et al. are unscrupulous opportunist exploiting the system for person gains while the government should be an impartial law enforcer rather than the biased participant that it is wielded as.