meh poor is relative. Just take their smartphone, which even the homeless "trick" in "nightcrawler" had, and that'll deter every minimum wage bum from hiding their $15 savingsOriginally Posted by TurtleDude
meh poor is relative. Just take their smartphone, which even the homeless "trick" in "nightcrawler" had, and that'll deter every minimum wage bum from hiding their $15 savings
Kinda like what the earlier generations did with those 'damned Irish', Poles, Slavs, and other 'lesser folk' that huddled masses bit. far more of the 'nativists' forefathers came here steerage than first class.
But the haters don't like REAL history invoked....
True in the past but with $10 billion or whatever, yale could ignore all legacies and still give free rides to the poor kids
Basically value of degree generates wealthy alums, whether they started poor or not, who in turn donate those billions. In addition, Yale doesn't need to give preference to C students whose parents can cough up $50k/year any more, not when most qualified students will fall in the 1% anyway
I don't blame that kid's frustration, because those legacies have had *everything* handed to them, including undeserved admission AND a free education (parents pay for it), and a cruise trip during spring break etc etc.
why do you care if the AG was picked on meritocracy, when the president himself is not picked that way? Nor anyone in elected office, including the vast majority of judges
What i find more disturbing is this notion of dem or repub judges. I mean wtf? I thought the law is supposed to be as clear as possible and not subject to political interpretation
Those people were not illegally sneaking into our country, but arrived at Ellis Island legally!; where they were processed by the proper authorities. Sure, they may have arrived by steerage, but they did pay to get a seat on those boats, even though most were very poor. They went on to become citizens by working hard to learn English, worked hard on the jobs they got, bought houses and raised families. Their children and grandchildren helped to make this country great. There was no need to offer amnesty to them - they earned their right to be here, and they were here legally! Most of the people in our country today are the offspring of legal immigrants that came here during the early years of the 20th Century, me included. They adopted our customs, and assimilated into our society, instead of trying to change America to suit them, which seems to be a big problem with the illegals today. They want the benefits without any effort on their part to become legal citizens, and that's wrong. We owe them nothing - they owe this country, and it's time they realized that!Kinda like what the earlier generations did with those 'damned Irish', Poles, Slavs, and other 'lesser folk' that huddled masses bit. far more of the 'nativists' forefathers came here steerage than first class.
But the haters don't like REAL history invoked....
Like I said, for some reason rich white boys defend AA for rich white boys. Weird how that works. Of course rich white boys justify AA for their own kids - they're rich, they're entitled to special treatment. Black kids not so much.
BTW, MIT manages to fund their endowment without legacy admissions. It's an excuse for legacy admissions, not the reason for them.
No, I'm enjoying pointing out how stupid your argument is. You have no idea how her selection was made and you haven't demonstrated any knowledge of her competence or record over a 30 year career spanning a significant amount of time in both the public and private sectors. Whether she earned that post simply isn't based on her GPA in college and LS in the early 1980s. What is several orders of magnitude more important is her work over her subsequent career, and whether she has the political skill, public relations skills, interpersonal skills, and leadership skills developed over that career to succeed in an inherently political job. You know jack squat about that and apparently don't even care about her career - all you need to know is her academic record, which you judge based on made up criteria, conclude she's a failure, as a student and as a professional in the law.
All you see is black woman =====>>>> unqualified.
"When was the last time you obsessed about a white man's college record appointed to any political position? My guess is never. Without looking it up on wiki, you can't tell me the first thing about the education of Meese, Ashcroft, Thornburgh, etc. No one cares, or should care except as trivia, because it's irrelevant about 5 years after they left college and had a record in their careers."given how few blacks are really top law school graduates, your argument is silly. You act as if there are an equal number of blacks who really earned their way into top law schools as there are whites.
BTW, nice story, but I'm still waiting on some evidence for the stats you're pulling out of your rear on this issue. Is it 2,000 white boys or 1,000 or 1,200 (including women) and 20x seems to be an unlikely round number.
Last edited by JasperL; 04-26-15 at 11:39 AM.
Big difference between your parents giving you money and the govt taking money from working strangers and giving the money to you.
Poor, middle class, wealthy - not the point. The point is cops seizing money/assets and not having to prove an actual crime was committed. And the incredibly corrosive incentives when the police department seizing the money gets to keep the money as part of their funding. It's an invitation for abuse.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote