A) There is no reason to believe that they have not.
B) There may be a correlation between people who believe the mailing system works, and people who don't plan ahead. Both require not really thinking the whole situation through.
That, and there was this small blog once that was only focusing on new for nerds. Everybody knew that blogs had no chance against real media. After all, why would someone read news that were being compiled by some cmdrtaco when they could read the New York Time.
If the mailing method worked, I WOULD send myself half a dozen manila envelopes. Do I have a plan for them? No. I just figure, you never know. I don't think I would be alone in this.
"At what point did I say that I agreed with it as a teaching method?"
The point at which you stated it as fact and said that based on this I should be able to tell that you work in a school, as opposed to you stating that it is an incorrect fact that others believe. Clearly wherever you went to school, the schools are just as bad as here in the US.
Complaining about being beautiful is like complaining about being rich. The benefits massively outweigh the drawbacks to the point of not even making a difference. Just like when your rich, you can easily make yourself not rich, someone who is beautiful can easily make themselves not beautiful. The reason that beautiful people, particularly women, often get treated like "barbie dolls" is because as a group, they are FAR more likely to be dumb. Why would this be? Because they are human. Humans generally take the path of least resistance. If they don't have to learn, they generally don't learn. A hot woman is way more likely to live well by leveraging her looks than an ugly woman. This is not a judgment of 'women' as much as a judgment of 'human'. Stop for a second and think about whether you would REALLY spend as much time and effort improving your intellect if for your entire adult life, you had a line of women that would buy you whatever you wanted, and have sex with you any time you wanted. I know I wouldn't be as smart.
"All beautiful women who have been stalked, abused, or raped because they are physically attractive, may beg to differ."
I think that every ugly woman who has been stalked, abused, or raped irrelevant of their physical appearance may beg to differ with you.
It's real simple. Any beautiful woman that REALLY thinks being beautiful is worse than being ugly is too stupid to have a valid opinion. If she really believed it, and was smarter than a retarded monkey, she would just stop being beautiful.
"Despite what you may read here, not all the US Government does is evil...."
That's the interesting part. Shouldn't it be a little worrisome that the bulk of people on a site as big as Slashdot think that doing business with the US Government makes you evil? Presumably because they believe the US Government itself is evil?
Wow. You are a perfect example of why home schooling is becoming more popular.
"it's teaching 'don't be a dick' or 'sit down, shut up and work when told to or you'll end up mopping floors for a living' rather than calculus, but it's still inflicting learning on the unwilling."
Really? Really? Have you ever actually listened to what your saying? Those are not the words of an educator, but of a bully who knows that he has his victims cornered. You can rationalize why your child slave labor is OK, but you and I know perfectly well that you are not doing it because you think it will make them better educated.
"I do however take exception to this. 11 was on the verge of adulthood if you were a pre bronze age child or if you live in a subsistance-poor family at any point, including currently. Children didn't sexually mature until much later than now, even into their 20's, due to malnutrition. In the wealthier sections of society, even in the iron age, children were much older than 11 before taking the full mantle of responsibility."
Take exception if you want, but it is true. Look at the rights of passage into adulthood for most cultures in the world. Things like the bar/bat mitzvah. They are almost always at 12 or 13. I don't know what country you live in, but less than a hundred years ago, right here in the U.S. wasn't uncommon for 13 to 16 year olds to get married.
Take a look at historical life expectancies. For your claim to be true, most of your classical Roman's not only never bread because they were dead before they could have children, and most of those that did breed, never saw their children's 11th birthday.
"Children are sexually mature earlier than ever,"
I've been hearing this since I was a kid in the early 70's. In the 70's, girls were on average hitting puberty between 11 and 13, although it was not unheard of for it to be as young as 8 or 9. So, for this to be true, the average age of puberty would have to be averaging 8 or 9 now at least. As far as I know, that is not the case. A quick search showed that it is currently at 12.5.
"but lack the reasoning capacity to use it properly it often seems"
That's right. People like you train them "sit down, shut up and work when told to". It's no suprise that they are developing slower and slower. Of course that is the point. The sad thing is that the retardation is environmental, not genetic.
"We also require them to know a hell of a lot more than they used to function in our society"
The only more that we expect them to know now that we did not expect before is that we expect them to be able to read, although not particularly well. This is a task that a bright child can learn to do well by 3, and a slow one can easily learn by 6 or 7. Your belief that most modern people know significantly more than people used to is cultural bias. Life in modern America is so simple, and so little knowledge is required of people that most modern Americans could simply not function in older environments.
"I doubt you'd find many roman 11 year olds capable of being a network administrator, even if they could work a shift on the farm."
Gee, you doubt that someone who had never seen a computer, could be a network administrator? Go figure. Of course, I doubt that you will find many 11 year olds today that can speak Latin and make an authentic Roman shield. Heck, that is even with hind site in their favor. Why? Because people don't learn things they are not exposed to, which is why so many people are now retarded. Because they are called children for a half to whole decade after they reach adulthood.
Your belief that historically people were considered children into their 20's is simply revisionist history, and you are helping with the dumbing down of modern America.
The statement was still a lie. He may be repeating the official company lie, but he was stating as fact something that was untrue, and somewhere along the line someone intentionally made that untrue statement and trained other people to repeat the lie. Actually, if the person was just repeating a trained lie, then not only should you believe nothing the individual says, but you should also assume anyone else in his position will be telling you lies.
Just because the person you are speaking to is dumb as a box of rocks, don't assume that they are not just the mouthpiece for someone smarter that is intentionally trying to deceive you.
You are absolutely correct about the sexism. It is accepted today that it is OK for women to be female shovenist pigs. The particular act of shovenism is half right. It is not just that women are bad communicators, it is that they are bad communicators and society embraces it. How many times have you heard that "women communicate differently". Or, "Men communicate directly while women's communication is more complex". Those are euphemisms for "Lie". If it we were to accept that the communication disconnects were just misunderstandings, then lest see the study where they ask women if they accepted money/goods/services for sex, and did not provide them. Either virtually all women will have to start coping to being prostitutes, or they are all going to have to claim that they don't understand simple communication. Given our sixist society, I expect either to happen. I expect that when a woman accepts a the gift of a guy driving three hours out of his way to drop her off somewhere and then says "I just want to be friends", this kind of study will still categorizes it as the evil stupid man can't communicate.
I believe that it is shown during install. Given that you have already downloaded the software and are planning to install it anyway, it is easier for you to read the EULA than I, so I will leave that exercise to you. I decided not to use the MS Express product because of that clause. I would hate to think that I could not give my code to other people, and that MS could decide how my code was used.
I would say that the EULA are not legally very enforceable, but MS could easily run a lawsuit for a year or two, driving you into bankruptcy with the plausable deniability that they thought they were.
I would say that MS has gotten halfway their with their Visual Studio Express license. I'm sure that most of the people that downloaded the "free" software didn't notice that the EULA specifically bans the distribution of YOUR programs as OSS. I expect to see this kind of thing happen with more software/services/products/companies as time goes on. We are currently at the cusp of the share cropper stage to corporations. I hope that we don't become full fledged slaves.
Jeez, you think? This study is stupid. It takes a group who get financial gain by pretending to offer sex and then not going through with it and then letting them tell you whether they were screwing over their marks. What next, we are going to ask Comcast if they are offering the best service possible to bittorrent users?
We had hundreds of thousands of years where offering sex for financial gain was not just possible, but was necessary for survival. Most of human history would have seen women who have sex without financial gain dead very quickly. Pregnancy would have been a forgone conclusion, and trying to chase down a carriboo while 9 months pregnant would not end well. So, the women that survived to pass on their genes and traditions were the ones that found a "good provider". "Good Provider" is by definition someone who is going to keep the money (or stuff that money buys) coming in. I have talked to many women who were given the advice by their grandmothers of "Marry a fireman, because at least you always have the pension."
Now, times have changed. Women no longer require men just to survive. But, you don't stop a few hundred thousand years worth of human behaviour in 40 or 50 years. Particularly when the behaviour is profitable and fully accepted by the group.
Very simply, prostitution is profitable, and prostitutes that do not keep up their end of the deal are not punished, so why would anyone expect a prostitute to admit that she is not keeping up her end of the deal.
Two things. One, You are absolutely correct. The story should read. "11-year old has parents who got him special treatment!"
That being said. Big whoop if the kid is a network admin. It's not that hard. Is it really doubtful that an 11 year old can install an OS, install some software, and help a few people with their computers? How many of us started programming younger than that? How money of us cut our teeth on computers in the 80's? These machines were harder to use than a network is to run today. Especially when you have someone to step in when you run into something you can't handle.
As for the 11 year old being legal to work. There are a couple of things. First, there are all sorts of exemptions for various jobs like acting, modeling, and whatnot, but at least here in California, but for all intents and purposes it is illegal to hire anyone under 12 for most jobs. Network administrator would definitely fall into that category.
Exceptions that the school could be using is the "self-employed" exemption. This is questionable though, as it is likely that the school dictates where and when he does the job, so he may not legally be self employed. The other "exemption" is that schools have never followed child labor laws themselves. Child labor has traditionally been a method of punishment in public schools. Children are often put to work underage, outside of legal work hours, and without compensation. I have never heard of a state stepping in and stopping this behavior. It is just one of those lawless aspects of our public school system. I know when I was in school, I always wondered how the public schools could get away with what is for all intents and purposes slavery. If a school can force students to perform janitorial services with no compensation, we cannot expect anyone to stop them from allowing a student to perform IT services.
Really, though this comes story boils down to the fact that it is just not that impressive that someone 11 years old can do the job of network administrator. For most of human history, this person would have been on the cusp of adulthood. 11 only sounds young because we artificially retard our population so that most never learn to function until much later.
I would say that mine is a little different. The examples you give are illegal actions to try to stop an existing atrocity. My example was trying to point out an illegal act that would prevent a disaster before it happens. The biggest flaw in my example is that with the Titanic, the disaster was not a forgone conclusion as it is with widespread biometric usage.
Really, the official should be happy and count his lucky fingers that the biometric identity theft only involved lifting his fingerprints. If fingerprints become a common security feature, touching glasses will be the least of our worries.
This comment is interesting when compared to the threads we see periodically that complain about prescription medicines being advertised on TV, where other posters make the claim that only a doctor is qualified to understand pharmacology, and it is an abomination for anyone to question a doctor about it. It makes for an interesting dichotomy.
While I'm not necessarily for a dog ban, I sure wish it was harder to get a license for a dog than it was for a gun. It seems that most people don't seem to understand that a dog IS a weapon. Many breeds were specifically engineered to be weapons. Of course, this isn't so much a problem with the dogs as it is with the people who own them. I place dogs in a different category than soldering irons, glue together models and unpadded furniture because I have never had any of those items chase me down to attack me. I cannot say the same about dogs. Of course, if people were held responsible for the actions of their dogs, we would see this problem disappear. Unfortunately, most counties in the US are just like the one I live in. A dog has to attack multiple people before the authorities will do anything about it.
"Wearing earplugs doesn't just filter out cellphone talker noise. It's important to be able to hear unexpected sounds."
This is simply a lie. There are no "unexpected sounds" that it is important to hear on an airplane. You are simply self centered, and think that it is better for everybody to do what you say than it is for you to take care of yourself.
I think it is monumentally stupid to go into a crowded public place and NOT expect a lot of noise. Once you get past that monumentally stupid mistake, the next monumentally stupid mistake often made is not knowing what ear plugs are for, and thus knowing that if hearing other people talk annoys you, you can solve the problem with $0.15 worth of equipment.
Finally! Someone that doesn't want to hear other people talk, yet is smart enough to buy earplugs. For some reason it seems that the less a person likes to hear other people use cell phones the lower their intelligence goes. It is good to see that this is not a universal truth. There might actually be hope for other people that like it to be silent in public places.
That is untrue. It is like accusing your wife of causing your bankruptcy because she buys too many shoes, while you go out every weekend and buy new computer equipment to get a few more frames per second on your favorite fps game. We were overspending before the war, and we are over spending after the war. Ending the war without stopping deficit spending will not help the situation. If we stop deficit spending even with the war, the financial problems are solved.
It was going down with ONE president, how many presidents before that did it go up with? I'm not saying that there is no way for it to go down. I'm just saying that Clinton was the exception, not the Bush. If Bush was the first president that had deficit spending, or even if his was unusual, I might agree with you, but he is not.
There are plenty of things to complain about Bush for, so we don't need to make stuff up. If you want to complain that he squandered an opportunity that Clinton presented him with, fine, but to act like he was unique in running a deficit is not honest. And complaining that his deficit is bigger than others is an indication that you don't understand how compound interest and inflation work.
Slashdot Mirror
A) There is no reason to believe that they have not.
B) There may be a correlation between people who believe the mailing system works, and people who don't plan ahead. Both require not really thinking the whole situation through.
That, and there was this small blog once that was only focusing on new for nerds. Everybody knew that blogs had no chance against real media. After all, why would someone read news that were being compiled by some cmdrtaco when they could read the New York Time.
If the mailing method worked, I WOULD send myself half a dozen manila envelopes. Do I have a plan for them? No. I just figure, you never know. I don't think I would be alone in this.
"At what point did I say that I agreed with it as a teaching method?"
The point at which you stated it as fact and said that based on this I should be able to tell that you work in a school, as opposed to you stating that it is an incorrect fact that others believe. Clearly wherever you went to school, the schools are just as bad as here in the US.
Complaining about being beautiful is like complaining about being rich. The benefits massively outweigh the drawbacks to the point of not even making a difference. Just like when your rich, you can easily make yourself not rich, someone who is beautiful can easily make themselves not beautiful. The reason that beautiful people, particularly women, often get treated like "barbie dolls" is because as a group, they are FAR more likely to be dumb. Why would this be? Because they are human. Humans generally take the path of least resistance. If they don't have to learn, they generally don't learn. A hot woman is way more likely to live well by leveraging her looks than an ugly woman. This is not a judgment of 'women' as much as a judgment of 'human'. Stop for a second and think about whether you would REALLY spend as much time and effort improving your intellect if for your entire adult life, you had a line of women that would buy you whatever you wanted, and have sex with you any time you wanted. I know I wouldn't be as smart.
"All beautiful women who have been stalked, abused, or raped because they are physically attractive, may beg to differ."
I think that every ugly woman who has been stalked, abused, or raped irrelevant of their physical appearance may beg to differ with you.
It's real simple. Any beautiful woman that REALLY thinks being beautiful is worse than being ugly is too stupid to have a valid opinion. If she really believed it, and was smarter than a retarded monkey, she would just stop being beautiful.
"Despite what you may read here, not all the US Government does is evil...."
That's the interesting part. Shouldn't it be a little worrisome that the bulk of people on a site as big as Slashdot think that doing business with the US Government makes you evil? Presumably because they believe the US Government itself is evil?
Wow. You are a perfect example of why home schooling is becoming more popular.
"it's teaching 'don't be a dick' or 'sit down, shut up and work when told to or you'll end up mopping floors for a living' rather than calculus, but it's still inflicting learning on the unwilling."
Really? Really? Have you ever actually listened to what your saying? Those are not the words of an educator, but of a bully who knows that he has his victims cornered. You can rationalize why your child slave labor is OK, but you and I know perfectly well that you are not doing it because you think it will make them better educated.
"I do however take exception to this. 11 was on the verge of adulthood if you were a pre bronze age child or if you live in a subsistance-poor family at any point, including currently. Children didn't sexually mature until much later than now, even into their 20's, due to malnutrition. In the wealthier sections of society, even in the iron age, children were much older than 11 before taking the full mantle of responsibility."
Take exception if you want, but it is true. Look at the rights of passage into adulthood for most cultures in the world. Things like the bar/bat mitzvah. They are almost always at 12 or 13. I don't know what country you live in, but less than a hundred years ago, right here in the U.S. wasn't uncommon for 13 to 16 year olds to get married.
Take a look at historical life expectancies. For your claim to be true, most of your classical Roman's not only never bread because they were dead before they could have children, and most of those that did breed, never saw their children's 11th birthday.
"Children are sexually mature earlier than ever,"
I've been hearing this since I was a kid in the early 70's. In the 70's, girls were on average hitting puberty between 11 and 13, although it was not unheard of for it to be as young as 8 or 9. So, for this to be true, the average age of puberty would have to be averaging 8 or 9 now at least. As far as I know, that is not the case. A quick search showed that it is currently at 12.5.
"but lack the reasoning capacity to use it properly it often seems"
That's right. People like you train them "sit down, shut up and work when told to". It's no suprise that they are developing slower and slower. Of course that is the point. The sad thing is that the retardation is environmental, not genetic.
"We also require them to know a hell of a lot more than they used to function in our society"
The only more that we expect them to know now that we did not expect before is that we expect them to be able to read, although not particularly well. This is a task that a bright child can learn to do well by 3, and a slow one can easily learn by 6 or 7. Your belief that most modern people know significantly more than people used to is cultural bias. Life in modern America is so simple, and so little knowledge is required of people that most modern Americans could simply not function in older environments.
"I doubt you'd find many roman 11 year olds capable of being a network administrator, even if they could work a shift on the farm."
Gee, you doubt that someone who had never seen a computer, could be a network administrator? Go figure. Of course, I doubt that you will find many 11 year olds today that can speak Latin and make an authentic Roman shield. Heck, that is even with hind site in their favor. Why? Because people don't learn things they are not exposed to, which is why so many people are now retarded. Because they are called children for a half to whole decade after they reach adulthood.
Your belief that historically people were considered children into their 20's is simply revisionist history, and you are helping with the dumbing down of modern America.
The statement was still a lie. He may be repeating the official company lie, but he was stating as fact something that was untrue, and somewhere along the line someone intentionally made that untrue statement and trained other people to repeat the lie. Actually, if the person was just repeating a trained lie, then not only should you believe nothing the individual says, but you should also assume anyone else in his position will be telling you lies.
Just because the person you are speaking to is dumb as a box of rocks, don't assume that they are not just the mouthpiece for someone smarter that is intentionally trying to deceive you.
You are absolutely correct about the sexism. It is accepted today that it is OK for women to be female shovenist pigs. The particular act of shovenism is half right. It is not just that women are bad communicators, it is that they are bad communicators and society embraces it. How many times have you heard that "women communicate differently". Or, "Men communicate directly while women's communication is more complex". Those are euphemisms for "Lie". If it we were to accept that the communication disconnects were just misunderstandings, then lest see the study where they ask women if they accepted money/goods/services for sex, and did not provide them. Either virtually all women will have to start coping to being prostitutes, or they are all going to have to claim that they don't understand simple communication. Given our sixist society, I expect either to happen. I expect that when a woman accepts a the gift of a guy driving three hours out of his way to drop her off somewhere and then says "I just want to be friends", this kind of study will still categorizes it as the evil stupid man can't communicate.
I believe that it is shown during install. Given that you have already downloaded the software and are planning to install it anyway, it is easier for you to read the EULA than I, so I will leave that exercise to you. I decided not to use the MS Express product because of that clause. I would hate to think that I could not give my code to other people, and that MS could decide how my code was used.
I would say that the EULA are not legally very enforceable, but MS could easily run a lawsuit for a year or two, driving you into bankruptcy with the plausable deniability that they thought they were.
I would say that MS has gotten halfway their with their Visual Studio Express license. I'm sure that most of the people that downloaded the "free" software didn't notice that the EULA specifically bans the distribution of YOUR programs as OSS. I expect to see this kind of thing happen with more software/services/products/companies as time goes on. We are currently at the cusp of the share cropper stage to corporations. I hope that we don't become full fledged slaves.
Jeez, you think? This study is stupid. It takes a group who get financial gain by pretending to offer sex and then not going through with it and then letting them tell you whether they were screwing over their marks. What next, we are going to ask Comcast if they are offering the best service possible to bittorrent users?
We had hundreds of thousands of years where offering sex for financial gain was not just possible, but was necessary for survival. Most of human history would have seen women who have sex without financial gain dead very quickly. Pregnancy would have been a forgone conclusion, and trying to chase down a carriboo while 9 months pregnant would not end well. So, the women that survived to pass on their genes and traditions were the ones that found a "good provider". "Good Provider" is by definition someone who is going to keep the money (or stuff that money buys) coming in. I have talked to many women who were given the advice by their grandmothers of "Marry a fireman, because at least you always have the pension."
Now, times have changed. Women no longer require men just to survive. But, you don't stop a few hundred thousand years worth of human behaviour in 40 or 50 years. Particularly when the behaviour is profitable and fully accepted by the group.
Very simply, prostitution is profitable, and prostitutes that do not keep up their end of the deal are not punished, so why would anyone expect a prostitute to admit that she is not keeping up her end of the deal.
Two things. One, You are absolutely correct. The story should read. "11-year old has parents who got him special treatment!"
That being said. Big whoop if the kid is a network admin. It's not that hard. Is it really doubtful that an 11 year old can install an OS, install some software, and help a few people with their computers? How many of us started programming younger than that? How money of us cut our teeth on computers in the 80's? These machines were harder to use than a network is to run today. Especially when you have someone to step in when you run into something you can't handle.
As for the 11 year old being legal to work. There are a couple of things. First, there are all sorts of exemptions for various jobs like acting, modeling, and whatnot, but at least here in California, but for all intents and purposes it is illegal to hire anyone under 12 for most jobs. Network administrator would definitely fall into that category.
Exceptions that the school could be using is the "self-employed" exemption. This is questionable though, as it is likely that the school dictates where and when he does the job, so he may not legally be self employed. The other "exemption" is that schools have never followed child labor laws themselves. Child labor has traditionally been a method of punishment in public schools. Children are often put to work underage, outside of legal work hours, and without compensation. I have never heard of a state stepping in and stopping this behavior. It is just one of those lawless aspects of our public school system. I know when I was in school, I always wondered how the public schools could get away with what is for all intents and purposes slavery. If a school can force students to perform janitorial services with no compensation, we cannot expect anyone to stop them from allowing a student to perform IT services.
Really, though this comes story boils down to the fact that it is just not that impressive that someone 11 years old can do the job of network administrator. For most of human history, this person would have been on the cusp of adulthood. 11 only sounds young because we artificially retard our population so that most never learn to function until much later.
I would say that mine is a little different. The examples you give are illegal actions to try to stop an existing atrocity. My example was trying to point out an illegal act that would prevent a disaster before it happens. The biggest flaw in my example is that with the Titanic, the disaster was not a forgone conclusion as it is with widespread biometric usage.
Really, the official should be happy and count his lucky fingers that the biometric identity theft only involved lifting his fingerprints. If fingerprints become a common security feature, touching glasses will be the least of our worries.
It likely is. In just the same way that sinking the Titanic before any passengers boarded would have been grounds for criminal action.
This comment is interesting when compared to the threads we see periodically that complain about prescription medicines being advertised on TV, where other posters make the claim that only a doctor is qualified to understand pharmacology, and it is an abomination for anyone to question a doctor about it. It makes for an interesting dichotomy.
While I'm not necessarily for a dog ban, I sure wish it was harder to get a license for a dog than it was for a gun. It seems that most people don't seem to understand that a dog IS a weapon. Many breeds were specifically engineered to be weapons. Of course, this isn't so much a problem with the dogs as it is with the people who own them. I place dogs in a different category than soldering irons, glue together models and unpadded furniture because I have never had any of those items chase me down to attack me. I cannot say the same about dogs. Of course, if people were held responsible for the actions of their dogs, we would see this problem disappear. Unfortunately, most counties in the US are just like the one I live in. A dog has to attack multiple people before the authorities will do anything about it.
No, what they mean is that no man made pesticides have been used on the moon.
Blame Canada.
That kind of joke is only funny when it is true. When I visited London, the subways were plenty noisy.
"Wearing earplugs doesn't just filter out cellphone talker noise. It's important to be able to hear unexpected sounds."
This is simply a lie. There are no "unexpected sounds" that it is important to hear on an airplane. You are simply self centered, and think that it is better for everybody to do what you say than it is for you to take care of yourself.
I think it is monumentally stupid to go into a crowded public place and NOT expect a lot of noise. Once you get past that monumentally stupid mistake, the next monumentally stupid mistake often made is not knowing what ear plugs are for, and thus knowing that if hearing other people talk annoys you, you can solve the problem with $0.15 worth of equipment.
Finally! Someone that doesn't want to hear other people talk, yet is smart enough to buy earplugs. For some reason it seems that the less a person likes to hear other people use cell phones the lower their intelligence goes. It is good to see that this is not a universal truth. There might actually be hope for other people that like it to be silent in public places.
That is untrue. It is like accusing your wife of causing your bankruptcy because she buys too many shoes, while you go out every weekend and buy new computer equipment to get a few more frames per second on your favorite fps game. We were overspending before the war, and we are over spending after the war. Ending the war without stopping deficit spending will not help the situation. If we stop deficit spending even with the war, the financial problems are solved.
It was going down with ONE president, how many presidents before that did it go up with? I'm not saying that there is no way for it to go down. I'm just saying that Clinton was the exception, not the Bush. If Bush was the first president that had deficit spending, or even if his was unusual, I might agree with you, but he is not.
There are plenty of things to complain about Bush for, so we don't need to make stuff up. If you want to complain that he squandered an opportunity that Clinton presented him with, fine, but to act like he was unique in running a deficit is not honest. And complaining that his deficit is bigger than others is an indication that you don't understand how compound interest and inflation work.