Re: GW Bush Junior's Resume' / CV - - was: Colin Powell kicks

[Ratt Mahem]

Bush had a "C" average in college... he should not have been allowed in graduate
school! He only got in because his daddy is rich... and he deprived a DERSERVING
person a quality education. What an ass hole.

Ratt Mahem

WillStG wrote:

> << Sean Holland >>
> << To repeat, an early 1970s MBA is not the same thing as an MBA in these days.
> http://tinyurl.com/2dggt
> And the kind of monkey cleverness that can get you through business courses
> is not the same thing as the wisdom and knowledge of the world you need to
> properly lead a powerful nation. >>
>
> So Harvard Business school sucked in the 70's? I suppose that's why it
> says in the link you provided,
>
> < "Famous Alumni - so who goes on to fame and fortune with an MBA degree?
> Besides George W. Bush, the nation's first MBA President (Harvard "75), the
> most prominent MBA's are CEO's of the world's largest companies. MBA Jungle
> analyzed the Fortune 200 to see where their CEO's went to school. The list,
> once again, has the top schools well-represented, and shows Harvard's strength
> historically."
>
> 1. Harvard Business School 20 Fortune 200 CEO's
> 2. MIT: Sloan 5 Fort. 200 CEO's
> 3. Stanford U GSB 4 "
> 3. Columbia U GSB 4 "
> 3. U of Chicago 4 " >
>
> Gee, how embarassing. If you weren't telling us Harvard Business
> School actually sucked, one might almost think it was the best business school
> in the country...
>
> Will Miho
> NY Music & TV Audio Guy
> Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
> "The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[ryanm]

"5016" > wrote in message
om...
>
> "In 2000, LA exceded the federal standards for 17 days while Houston
> only did so for 13 (AP 8/7/00)."
>
> It is better not to cite if you just make your cite up. And if you're
> going to make it up, then make up dates that could possibly be
> correct. All your stuff is stupid partisan bull**** as well.

Learn to read: http://www.apdigitalnews.com/

After you look up the article and discover that I'm not making this ****
up, I'll expect a full and public apology.

Not only that, but I also provided further cites to EPA documentation,
so even if you don't like the way the AP reports stats before the year is
over, you can always go straight to the source
(http://www.epa.gov/tri/tridata/tri98/state/index.htm). Houston played
leap-frog with LA that year. Houston surpassed LA 3 times that year, IIRC,
but LA came in first in the end. For example:

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Houston outpaces Los Angeles to retake "smoggiest city" lead
Date: September 7, 2000
Publication: Associated Press Archive

A series of sweltering days and soaring ozone levels pushed Houston ahead of
Los Angeles for the title of the nation's smoggiest city, just as southern
California's smog season is likely to wind down.

Houston recorded its ninth consecutive day with an ozone reading above the
national health standard Wednesday, the Houston Chronicle reported Thursday,
giving Houston 37 high-ozone days for the year, compared with 34 for Los
Angeles.

A potent high pressure ridge over Texas...
---------------------------------------------------------------------

When it comes right down to it, though, Bush supported tougher standards
but no one voted for them.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Texas adopts federal auto emission standards
Author: CONNIE MABIN Associated Press Writer
Date: May 31, 2000
Publication: Associated Press Archive

Texas environmental regulators unanimously agreed Wednesday to adopt federal
auto-emission standards favored by the auto industry rather than tougher
standards that were favored by Gov. George W. Bush and environmentalists.

The federal Clean Air Act gives states the choice of following federal
emission requirements or adopting tougher standards used by California,
where up to 10 percent of new cars and light trucks sold must have zero
emissions.

New York, Massachusetts and Vermont...
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Now if you want to dispute my use of the AP as a source, that's another
conversation entirely. But don't accuse me of making **** up, because I
didn't spend my time looking up those cites just to have you call them
bull**** offhand without even checking them.

ryanm

[5016]

"ryanm" > wrote in message >...
> "5016" > wrote in message
> om...
> >
> > "In 2000, LA exceded the federal standards for 17 days while Houston
> > only did so for 13 (AP 8/7/00)."
> >
> > It is better not to cite if you just make your cite up. And if you're
> > going to make it up, then make up dates that could possibly be
> > correct. All your stuff is stupid partisan bull**** as well.
>
> Learn to read: http://www.apdigitalnews.com/
>
> After you look up the article and discover that I'm not making this ****
> up, I'll expect a full and public apology.
>
> Not only that, but I also provided further cites to EPA documentation,
> so even if you don't like the way the AP reports stats before the year is
> over, you can always go straight to the source
> (http://www.epa.gov/tri/tridata/tri98/state/index.htm). Houston played
> leap-frog with LA that year. Houston surpassed LA 3 times that year, IIRC,
> but LA came in first in the end. For example:
>
</OTHER STUFF SNIPPED/>
>
> Now if you want to dispute my use of the AP as a source, that's another
> conversation entirely. But don't accuse me of making **** up, because I
> didn't spend my time looking up those cites just to have you call them
> bull**** offhand without even checking them.
>
> ryanm


I think that you still do not get it.

Your "cite":
> > "In 2000, LA exceded the federal standards for 17 days while Houston
> > only did so for 13 (AP 8/7/00)."

AP cannot report on the year 2000 until after 2000 has finished, i.e.
they cannot report on it on 8/7/2000. That is what I am saying. Now,
if you want an apology, get the Associated Press to explain their use
of soothsayers, auguries or oracles. Otherwise, I shall have to assume
that you were, in fact, making it up.

[ryanm]

"5016" > wrote in message
om...
>
> AP cannot report on the year 2000 until after 2000 has finished, i.e.
> they cannot report on it on 8/7/2000. That is what I am saying. Now,
> if you want an apology, get the Associated Press to explain their use
> of soothsayers, auguries or oracles. Otherwise, I shall have to assume
> that you were, in fact, making it up.
>
Did you read the other article snippet I posted? It, too, reported on
2000 stats before the year was over. This is common.

ryanm

[5016]

"ryanm" > wrote in message >...
> "5016" > wrote in message
> om...
> >
> > AP cannot report on the year 2000 until after 2000 has finished, i.e.
> > they cannot report on it on 8/7/2000. That is what I am saying. Now,
> > if you want an apology, get the Associated Press to explain their use
> > of soothsayers, auguries or oracles. Otherwise, I shall have to assume
> > that you were, in fact, making it up.
> >
> Did you read the other article snippet I posted? It, too, reported on
> 2000 stats before the year was over. This is common.
>
> ryanm

Common or not (and I don't think that it is common), it is wrong.

[WillStG]

(5016)
>Common or not (and I don't think that it is common), it is wrong.

What was your graduating year in High School? <g> Class of ?

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[jjp]

"ryanm" > wrote in message >...
> "5016" > wrote in message
> om...
> >
> > "In 2000, LA exceded the federal standards for 17 days while Houston
> > only did so for 13 (AP 8/7/00)."
> >
> > It is better not to cite if you just make your cite up. And if you're
> > going to make it up, then make up dates that could possibly be
> > correct. All your stuff is stupid partisan bull**** as well.
>
> Learn to read: http://www.apdigitalnews.com/
>
> After you look up the article and discover that I'm not making this ****
> up, I'll expect a full and public apology.
>
> Not only that, but I also provided further cites to EPA documentation,
> so even if you don't like the way the AP reports stats before the year is
> over, you can always go straight to the source
> (http://www.epa.gov/tri/tridata/tri98/state/index.htm). Houston played
> leap-frog with LA that year. Houston surpassed LA 3 times that year, IIRC,
> but LA came in first in the end. For example:
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Houston outpaces Los Angeles to retake "smoggiest city" lead
> Date: September 7, 2000
> Publication: Associated Press Archive

(snip)


http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m1282/13_52/63173670/p1/article.jhtml
"Anyone who claims that Houston's smog problems are equal to or worse
than L.A.'s is misinformed," says Kay Jones, a former EPA official who
now consults on air quality."

http://www.dallasnews.com/texas_southwest/STORY.e9eb444f2b.b0.af.0.a4.cccba.
html
"In some ways, calling Houston America's smoggiest city misrepresented
the relative quality of air in the two cities. Los Angeles' air is
worse than Houston's in other categories. But ozone is the primary
pollutant of concern and therefore gets more attention, officials
said."

Those were older articles. Here's more recent info on ozone
violations:

http://www.lungusa.org/air2001/analysis02.html#woes
State of the Air 2002
"For the third straight year, the top four most ozone-polluted
metropolitan areas were in California: Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange
County; Bakersfield; Fresno; and Visalia-Tulare-Porterville. The state
also has the five most ozone-polluted counties: San Bernadino has been
number 1 three years in a row; Kern, comes in at number 2 this year,
after claiming the number 3 spot for the previous two years; Fresno
moves up to number 3 after two years as the fourth-most polluted
county, Riverside is number 4, after two years as the second-most
polluted county; and Tulare, number five for the second year in a
row."

And overall air quality:

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/2056693
Number of days in 2000-2002 when air quality was unhealthy
1. Riverside-San Bernardino, Ca. 445 days
2. Fresno, Ca. 421
3. Bakersfield, Ca. 409
4. Los Angeles-Long Beach, Ca. 255
5. Sacramento, Ca. 163
6. Pittsburgh, Penn. 134
7. Knoxville, Tenn. 109
8. Birmingham, Al. 100
9. Houston, Tx. 94
10. Baltimore, Md. 93

And particulate pollution:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/05/01/smoggy.skies.ap/index.html
".... 1999-2001 EPA data, do not take into account a pollutant that's
considered more dangerous than smog -- tiny particles of soot
that can lodge deep in the lungs and cause heart problems and even
death."

http://bicycleaustin.info/articles/pol-exercise-risk.html
"Severe particulate (soot) pollution exists in many urban and desert
areas, including Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Chicago, New York City,
Salt Lake City and Phoenix, which in 1998 surpassed Riverside, Calif.,
with the nation's highest particulate levels. Levels of particulate
matter in Houston's air do not exceed the limit set in the current
national health standard for that air pollutant."

[ryanm]

"jjp" > wrote in message
m...
>
> http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m1282/13_52/63173670/p1/article.jhtml
>
>
http://www.dallasnews.com/texas_southwest/STORY.e9eb444f2b.b0.af.0.a4.cccba.
> html
>
> http://www.lungusa.org/air2001/analysis02.html#woes
>
> http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/2056693
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/05/01/smoggy.skies.ap/index.html
>
> http://bicycleaustin.info/articles/pol-exercise-risk.html
>
I found these too, I was just trying to stick to generally accepted news
sources so as to not be accused of using partisan editorials to support my
assertions.

ryanm