I wanted Barrett.

I'll take a guy educated at Yale who teaches law at Yale, Harvard (hired by Elana Kagan) and Georgetown. I like how he horsed around with his daughters during his speech. And I like his Catholicism. And I like the normalcy of a guy who finds time to coach his daughter's basketball team, where he is known as Coach K.

Let the war begin. Saw Corey Boker on MSNBC claiming that there was a 99% chance that we're all going to die if he gets confirmed. That's a slight exaggeration.

I wanted Barrett.

I'll take a guy educated at Yale who teaches law at Yale, Harvard (hired by Elana Kagan) and Georgetown. I like how he horsed around with his daughters during his speech. And I like his Catholicism. And I like the normalcy of a guy who finds time to coach his daughter's basketball team, where he is known as Coach K.

Let the war begin. Saw Corey Boker on MSNBC claiming that there was a 99% chance that we're all going to die if he gets confirmed. That's a slight exaggeration.


Well if it was Joe Biden announcing the pick, Kavanaugh's his wife would at least get a back rub from "Uncle Joe".

Judge Kavanaugh Congress should pass a law giving presidents immunity from civil suits and criminal investigations and prosecutions until they leave office.

Interesting his reasoning POTUS is a hard job ..

Judge Kavanaugh Congress should pass a law giving presidents immunity from civil suits and criminal investigations and prosecutions until they leave office.

Interesting his reasoning POTUS is a hard job ..

I see you were watching MSNBC last night.

That has the appearance of being self-serving from Trump's point of view, but we're a million miles away from Trump being indicted and the question going to SCOTUS. But it's a good point.

From what I can tell, people are upset because Kafanaugh thiks that judges should adhere to the rulebook (the Constitution), and not invent law or invent rights that aren't enumerated in that document. To the left, that is controversial.

My senator, Richard Blumenthal, is afraid women will lose their rights. An overturn of Roe V Wade (we're also a million miles away from that) doesn't outlaw abortion. It sends the question to the states. Very., very few states would outlaw abortion.

Judge Kavanaugh Congress should pass a law giving presidents immunity from civil suits and criminal investigations and prosecutions until they leave office.

Interesting his reasoning POTUS is a hard job ..

What's even more interesting is that it was in reference to Jones v Clinton.

Guess it made perfect sense back then, now, Not so Much

What's even more interesting is that it was in reference to Jones v Clinton.

Guess it made perfect sense back then, now, Not so Much

It was heroic then.

Hard tellin, not knowin
Brett Kavanaugh, who President Donald Trump nominated to replace the retiring Supreme Court justice Anthony Kennedy, previously contributed to a 1998 report that made a case for President Bill Clinton's impeachment.
This experience has shaped Kavanaugh's belief that presidents should not be indicted or distracted by investigations while in office.
"Whether the Constitution allows indictment of a sitting President is debatable," he has said.
Kavanaugh instead believes impeachment is the proper way to deal with a president's serious and "dastardly" misbehavior.
Donald Trump's pick for a seat on the Supreme Court is Brett Kavanaugh, a man who holds strong opinions on whether a president should be indicted or impeached.

A Yale Law graduate, Kavanaugh started his career as an associate counsel with special prosecutor Kenneth Starr, where he helped draft the report that recommended Clinton should be impeached for having an extramarital affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.

The report laid out 11 possible grounds for impeachment, including how misleading the public and lying to staff amounted to obstruction of justice. These findings have become particularly relevant as special counsel Robert Mueller, who is heading the Russia investigation, considers actions Trump has taken that could possibly be considered obstruction of justice.

But despite his experience co-authoring the report, or rather because of it, Kavanaugh has become an ardent supporter of a president's power.

I see you were watching MSNBC last night.

That has the appearance of being self-serving from Trump's point of view, but we're a million miles away from Trump being indicted and the question going to SCOTUS. But it's a good point.
Actually it's being reported pretty much everywhere.

As for a million miles from Trump being indicted, I think we're a few months away from several very high profile indictments, maybe even family. Unless Mueller has something just blatantly criminal against Trump I doubt he'll try and indict a sitting President...let Congress impeach him.

Actually it's being reported pretty much everywhere.

As for a million miles from Trump being indicted, I think we're a few months away from several very high profile indictments. Unless Mueller has something just blatantly criminal against Trump I doubt he'll try and indict a sitting President...let Congress impeach him.

"I think we're a few months away from several very high profile indictments"

Which doesn't contradict what I said...

"let Congress impeach him"

If there's an impeachable offense, sure.

As to Kavanaugh. He said last night that Elana Kagan hired him to teach law at Harvard. Isn't that interesting...

You said you expected it to be civil. We shall soon see. The protesters were out in force immediately, and I saw Princess Liz Warren, raising her fist at their podium, showing her solidarity. It appears that Princess Lie-awatha wants the scalp of the Great White Chief, and that her ultimate goal, is his tee-pee.

All the women will either be dead or in internment camps, if you listen to Sen Blumenthal or Sen Corey Booker, who apparently get their tin foil hats at the same store.

Trump publicly offered to donate $1 million to Warren's favorite charity, if she'd take a DNA test. She hasn't taken him up on it yet, I can't imagine why.

No president has ever consulted more widely or talked with more people from more backgrounds to seek input about a supreme court nomination. Mr. President,

from last night doesn't sound very independent He learns quick you must Praise the Donald

You said you expected it to be civil. We shall soon see. The protesters were out in force immediately, and I saw Princess Liz Warren, raising her fist at their podium, showing her solidarity. It appears that Princess Lie-awatha wants the scalp of the Great White Chief, and that her ultimate goal, is his tee-pee.

All the women will either be dead or in internment camps, if you listen to Sen Blumenthal or Sen Corey Booker, who apparently get their tin foil hats at the same store.

Trump publicly offered to donate $1 million to Warren's favorite charity, if she'd take a DNA test. She hasn't taken him up on it yet, I can't imagine why.

This made me chuckle the other day......well....until I realized they would be heading to the polls someday.

https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=11100

"
Trump publicly offered to donate $1 million to Warren's favorite charity, if she'd take a DNA test. She hasn't taken him up on it yet, I can't imagine why.

back it the day you dropped your pants ..if your pencil was sharpened you were taken away ... Now the POTUS is going down this road with no Idea of History .. maybe he thinks he can force anyone of Native America heritage wear a feather as proof:kewl:

"I think we're a few months away from several very high profile indictments"

Which doesn't contradict what I said...

"let Congress impeach him"

If there's an impeachable offense, sure.

As to Kavanaugh. He said last night that Elana Kagan hired him to teach law at Harvard. Isn't that interesting...

You said you expected it to be civil. We shall soon see. The protesters were out in force immediately, and I saw Princess Liz Warren, raising her fist at their podium, showing her solidarity. It appears that Princess Lie-awatha wants the scalp of the Great White Chief, and that her ultimate goal, is his tee-pee.

All the women will either be dead or in internment camps, if you listen to Sen Blumenthal or Sen Corey Booker, who apparently get their tin foil hats at the same store.

Trump publicly offered to donate $1 million to Warren's favorite charity, if she'd take a DNA test. She hasn't taken him up on it yet, I can't imagine why.
She didn't put it in a book
In his 1987 autobiography "The Art of the Deal," Donald Trump repeated the lie that his family was from Sweden. He later admitted that was untrue, and claimed German heritage in later books.

back it the day you dropped your pants ..if your pencil was sharpened you were taken away ... Now the POTUS is going down this road with no Idea of History .. maybe he thinks he can force anyone of Native America heritage wear a feather as proof:kewl:

https://i.imgflip.com/1xmk70.jpg

No president has ever consulted more widely or talked with more people from more backgrounds to seek input about a supreme court nomination. Mr. President,

from last night doesn't sound very independent He learns quick you must Praise the Donald

Are you referring to the fact that Kavanaugh was nice to Trump, on the eve that Trump nominated him to the Supreme Court? Because Kavanaugh was gracious, that means he can't ever stand up to Trump?

back it the day you dropped your pants ..if your pencil was sharpened you were taken away ... Now the POTUS is going down this road with no Idea of History .. maybe he thinks he can force anyone of Native America heritage wear a feather as proof:kewl:

Yeah, because this is the same exact thing. The woman lied, and she got rich off the lie. She checked off Native American on her application at Harvard, and they hired her at $400k a year.

And you can only fault the person calling her out for her lies? She isn't culpable at all? She didn't do anything wrong in your eyes?

She didn't put it in a book
In his 1987 autobiography "The Art of the Deal," Donald Trump repeated the lie that his family was from Sweden. He later admitted that was untrue, and claimed German heritage in later books.

No, she put it on an application for a job paying $400,000 a year.

Trump is a scumbag. So is Warren.

See? I can criticize a liar on my side, and my head didn't explode. Can you do it? Can you call Warren what she is?

Yeah, because this is the same exact thing. The woman lied, and she got rich off the lie. She checked off Native American on her application at Harvard, and they hired her at $400k a year.

And you can only fault the person calling her out for her lies? She isn't culpable at all? She didn't do anything wrong in your eyes?
Jim, there's no evidence her heritage had any impact on her employment at Harvard.

She didn't put it in a book


unless you count her recipes from the book Pow Wow Chow :hihi:

The only evidence is that she misrepresented herself for to get a leg up on a potential job. Not the worst person but certainly a lack of character.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why would I equate Warren with Trump?
While I don’t agree with her on many political issues I think she has far more integrity than Donnie Bonespur
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/dec/01/facts-behind-elizabeth-warren-and-her-native-ameri/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim, there's no evidence her heritage had any impact on her employment at Harvard.

So why do you suppose, she checked that box? Are you that obtuse?

Harvard, in some kind of professor profile, made mention of it.

Why would I equate Warren with Trump?[/i][/size]

You would if you were honest.

But you can't., You can't bring yourself to say "she lied to get a job she wanted". everyone in the world knows that's exactly what happened.

So why do you suppose, she checked that box? Are you that obtuse?

Harvard, in some kind of professor profile, made mention of it.

You’re repeating false statements and think I should be willing to agree otherwise I’m wrong

Yelling louder doesn’t make you the winner
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Harvard Law School professor Charles Fried, who served as U.S. Solicitor General under President Ronald Reagan and was part of the committee that put Warren in a tenure position, said in a written statement that her ethnicity never came up during the process.

Fried, who donated $250 to Warren's campaign, told the Republican, a Springfield, Mass., newspaper, in 2012, "This stuff I hear that she was an affirmative action hire, got some kind of a boost, it is so ludicrous and so desperately stupid and ignorant, it just boggles the mind."
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If you don't agree with Kavanaugh's nomination at the very least pick another name off the list of 25 that you would support and say why.

So why do you suppose, she checked that box? Are you that obtuse?

Harvard, in some kind of professor profile, made mention of it.
My understanding is she checked the box AFTER she was hired filling out some paperwork they use to document minority employees. The person who hired her has publicly stated they had no knowledge of any minority status and it wasn't a factor.

I think she genuinely believes she has some ancestry. This is just a political hit job to smear a woman with a pretty impressive resume.

You would if you were honest.

But you can't., You can't bring yourself to say "she lied to get a job she wanted". everyone in the world knows that's exactly what happened.

I find it interesting that Jim has absolutely no way to know her genealogy, yet he claims to know exactly what happened. Catholic virtue? Ha.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Are you referring to the fact that Kavanaugh was nice to Trump, on the eve that Trump nominated him to the Supreme Court? Because Kavanaugh was gracious, that means he can't ever stand up to Trump?

that lines not being Gracious its kowtow

this one is Gracious Mr. President, I am grateful to you and I am humbled by your confidence in me. Thank you.

Yeah, because this is the same exact thing. The woman lied, and she got rich off the lie. She checked off Native American on her application at Harvard, and they hired her at $400k a year.

And you can only fault the person calling her out for her lies? She isn't culpable at all? She didn't do anything wrong in your eyes?

this is the same guy who offered $5 million donation if President Obama released “his college records and applications” and his “passport applications and records.”


did she do the work ? or are you saying they just paid her 400k for being an Indian

If you don't agree with Kavanaugh's nomination at the very least pick another name off the list of 25 that you would support and say why.

That is pretty hard for anyone less than far right of center. All 25 were vetted first by both the Federalist Society and the Heritage foundation...

At least she is trying to make the cost of education more affordable
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That is pretty hard for anyone less than far right of center. All 25 were vetted first by both the Federalist Society and the Heritage foundation...

I understand. But the nomination of conservative SC justices is something that comes with winning the past election. If you win you get to call the shots and try and get your picks in. I remember a past president said something to the effect of "Elections have consequences". Kind of like that. Some people can go crazy but at the end of the day he may get his pick into the SC.

That is pretty hard for anyone less than far right of center. .

where exactly is the center...?

Harvard Law School professor Charles Fried, who served as U.S. Solicitor General under President Ronald Reagan and was part of the committee that put Warren in a tenure position, said in a written statement that her ethnicity never came up during the process.

Fried, who donated $250 to Warren's campaign, told the Republican, a Springfield, Mass., newspaper, in 2012, "This stuff I hear that she was an affirmative action hire, got some kind of a boost, it is so ludicrous and so desperately stupid and ignorant, it just boggles the mind."
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I've heard this from people, that she made the declaration AFTER she was hired. But she also knew that this was a big box to check in Academia (if you think it is not you are fooling yourself). Tom Nichols (a NeverTrumper BTW) who's opinion I trust and consider even when I don't agree with his statements, had a great point; he know's people in Academia that *COULD* claim some minor ethnicity due to family lure and how well that plays in Academia but they DON'T when the cannot document that heritage. Warren went with it. Whether before or after the hire she went with it because it would boost her own rating.

My understanding is she checked the box AFTER she was hired filling out some paperwork they use to document minority employees. The person who hired her has publicly stated they had no knowledge of any minority status and it wasn't a factor.

I think she genuinely believes she has some ancestry. This is just a political hit job to smear a woman with a pretty impressive resume.

See above.

That is pretty hard for anyone less than far right of center. All 25 were vetted first by both the Federalist Society and the Heritage foundation...

Yes, both of those ALT-RIGHT Fascist organizations ; ) :tooth:

My understanding is she checked the box AFTER she was hired filling out some paperwork they use to document minority employees. The person who hired her has publicly stated they had no knowledge of any minority status and it wasn't a factor.

I think she genuinely believes she has some ancestry. This is just a political hit job to smear a woman with a pretty impressive resume.

Kavanaugh's resume is also impressive. His political hit job will be worse.

I think she genuinely believes she has some ancestry. .

'So you don't think she's a liar, you think she's delusional. Got it.

where exactly is the center...?

Somewhere well left of you :btu:

Somewhere well left of you :btu:

LOL
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"This stuff I hear that she was an affirmative action hire, got some kind of a boost, it is so ludicrous and so desperately stupid and ignorant, it just boggles the mind."
Charles Fried
Politics and affiliations
In September 2005, Fried testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in support of the nomination of John Roberts to become Chief Justice of the United States. After the nomination of Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court, Fried praised Alito as an outstanding judge but dismissed claims that Alito is radical, saying, "He is conservative, yes, but he is not radically conservative like Scalia."[6] Fried testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee and wrote a New York Times op-ed in support of Alito, who had served under him in the Solicitor General's office.[7]

On October 24, 2008, despite his previous support for the presidential aspirations of Senator John McCain, Fried announced that he had voted for Senator Barack Obama for President by absentee ballot. Fried cited Senator McCain's selection of Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate as the principal reason for his decision to vote for Senator Obama.[8] As president of the Harvard Law Review in 1990, Obama had published an article Fried wrote criticizing the effects of race-based affirmative action.[9] Fried later told The Wall Street Journal:

I admire Senator McCain and was glad to help in his campaign, and to be listed as doing so; but when I concluded that I must vote for Obama for the reason stated in my letter, I felt it wrong to appear to be recommending to others a vote that I was not prepared to cast myself. So it was more of an erasure than a public affirmation—although obviously my vote meant that I thought that Obama was preferable to McCain-Palin. I do not consider abstention a proper option.[10]

In February 2011, Fried testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in support of President Obama's health care reform law.[11] When asked by Illinois Senator Richard Durbin to respond to critics of the law's individual mandate who ask: "[I]f the government can require me to buy health insurance, can it require me to have a membership in a gym, or eat vegetables?,” Fried replied:

Yes. We hear that quite a lot. It was put by Judge Vinson, and I think it was put by Professor Barnett in terms of eating your vegetables, and for reasons I set out in my testimony, that would be a violation of the 5th and the 14th Amendment, to force you to eat something. But to force you to pay for something? I don’t see why not. It may not be a good idea, but I don’t see why it’s unconstitutional.[12][13]

Fried is an adviser to the Harvard chapter of the Federalist Society.

I've heard this from people, that she made the declaration AFTER she was hired. But she also knew that this was a big box to check in Academia (if you think it is not you are fooling yourself). Tom Nichols (a NeverTrumper BTW) who's opinion I trust and consider even when I don't agree with his statements, had a great point; he know's people in Academia that *COULD* claim some minor ethnicity due to family lure and how well that plays in Academia but they DON'T when the cannot document that heritage. Warren went with it. Whether before or after the hire she went with it because it would boost her own rating.
I don't think you have ANY evidence to justify your speculation. I've also never heard of a single instance where she received any benefit for this consideration.

Reality is she's extremely smart and passionate which makes her a threat. Put this political smear in context of her significant career and it's insignificant.

I don't think you have ANY evidence to justify your speculation. I've also never heard of a single instance where she received any benefit for this consideration.

Reality is she's extremely smart and passionate which makes her a threat. Put this political smear in context of her significant career and it's insignificant.

Judge Kavanaugh is also extremely smart and passionate. Your side is saying that if he gets confirmed, then many women will die. Is that fair?

I don’t see warren as a threat, you are missing the point. She’s a liar and/or a lunatic. She’s a world class hypocrite ( attacks banks for profiting from school loans, yet she made 400k teaching at Harvard; criticizes banks for the subprime mortgage mess, yet she profited from flipping foreclosures). She is a huge gift to my side, I hope she runs for President.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I understand. But the nomination of conservative SC justices is something that comes with winning the past election. If you win you get to call the shots and try and get your picks in. I remember a past president said something to the effect of "Elections have consequences". Kind of like that. Some people can go crazy but at the end of the day he may get his pick into the SC.

EXACTLY. I guess elections only have consequences when democrats win.

I get why the dems are pissed that Merrick Garland didn't get confirmed. But the American people freely chose to give control of the senate to the GOP, and common sense suggests that they didn't do so, so that they'd let Obama do whatever he wanted.

When the American people decide to give senate control back to the democrats (in other words, when we decide we'd all be better off with smaller paychecks), then the democrats can confirm whoever they want.

https://www.cnn.com/2016/06/29/politics/elizabeth-warren-native-american-pocahontas/index.html

Yes. We hear that quite a lot. It was put by Judge Vinson, and I think it was put by Professor Barnett in terms of eating your vegetables, and for reasons I set out in my testimony, that would be a violation of the 5th and the 14th Amendment, to force you to eat something.

Would it be a violation to force you to buy vegetables?

But to force you to pay for something? I don’t see why not. It may not be a good idea, but I don’t see why it’s unconstitutional.[12][13]


Would it be constitutional to force you to pay for something you don't want to buy?

Judge Kavanaugh is also extremely smart and passionate. Your side is saying that if he gets confirmed, then many women will die. Is that fair?
I don't know exactly how he'll vote but if you deny women access to the health care they need I'm sure some will die.

I don’t see warren as a threat, you are missing the point. She’s a liar and/or a lunatic. She’s a world class hypocrite ( attacks banks for profiting from school loans, yet she made 400k teaching at Harvard; criticizes banks for the subprime mortgage mess, yet she profited from flipping foreclosures). She is a huge gift to my side, I hope she runs for President.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
You do think she's a threat that's why you can't think straight. She's not a hypocrite. She understands the economy and finance. Hell, she used to be a Republican.

Your flipping foreclosures argument got three Pinocchio's by the Washington Post just FYI.

Speculation Jeff?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Speculation Jeff?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
More like common sense.

I don't know exactly how he'll vote but if you deny women access to the health care they need I'm sure some will die.


You do think she's a threat that's why you can't think straight. She's not a hypocrite. She understands the economy and finance. Hell, she used to be a Republican.

Your flipping foreclosures argument got three Pinocchio's by the Washington Post just FYI.

"if you deny women access to the health care they need I'm sure some will die."

Where to begin...

(1) first, before Roe V Wade, I believe abortion was legal when the life of the mom was in actual jeopardy. That is very rare. The overwhelming majority of abortions today, are done for convenience, not necessity. Let's frame it honestly for a second. I know that's very challenging for your side on this issue, but let's try.

(2) even if Roe V Wade was overturned, THAT DOES NOT OUTLAW ABORTION. It means that the question would go to the states. Very few states would outlaw early-stage convenience abortions, and you know this. State would only do this if a majority of the citizens wanted it that way, and that's how it's supposed to work.

"You do think she's a threat "

I think she's a deranged, hypocritical, azzhole. And she's not a threat to my side, she's a valuable asset. because evefry time she opens her big, fat, commie, 100% Caucasian mouth, money gets donated to the GOP. I would not want her to go away, heck I want her to run for POTUS.

"that's why you can't think straight"

She refuses to take the DNA test that will settle this. So I know she's lying, there's no other reason not to take the test. You are the one in denial, the one not thinking straight.

"She's not a hypocrite"

So when she says it's wrong for banks to profit off of college tuition, but it's OK if she profits off of college tuition...you don't think that's hypocritical? Can you elaborate? Have fun trying.

Not your best work here, Spence.

Don't get led astray Jim on the Indian crap, hit them with her making $430,000 for 2010 and part of 2011 to teach one class. She has a personal net worth of over 8 million. Yet she claims to be for the little guy, rails against the very establishments that got her to where she is. The woman is a two faced fraud

I
Your flipping foreclosures argument got three Pinocchio's by the Washington Post just FYI.

How about my argument about her profiting from college students going into debt, while she says it's unethical for banks to do the same. Let's focus on that.

She bought a house from an elderly Oklahoma woman for $30,000 in August of 1993, then sold it for $145,000 3 months later. She either took advantage of the woman, or flipped a property which was it?

More like common sense.

Tighten the chinstrap my little cupcake.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Don't get led astray Jim on the Indian crap, hit them with her making $430,000 for 2010 and part of 2011 to teach one class. She has a personal net worth of over 8 million. Yet she claims to be for the little guy, rails against the very establishments that got her to where she is. The woman is a two faced fraud
How many Pinocchios Jeff?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

She bought a house from an elderly Oklahoma woman for $30,000 in August of 1993, then sold it for $145,000 3 months later. She either took advantage of the woman, or flipped a property which was it?

Yeah, but if you convert those dollars to wampum, which is the currency that Warren surely deals in, she probably only broke even.

Don't get led astray Jim on the Indian crap, hit them with her making $430,000 for 2010 and part of 2011 to teach one class. She has a personal net worth of over 8 million. Yet she claims to be for the little guy, rails against the very establishments that got her to where she is. The woman is a two faced fraud
I have never seen a single credible reference that she was paid more than normal to teach X classes.

She bought a house from an elderly Oklahoma woman for $30,000 in August of 1993, then sold it for $145,000 3 months later. She either took advantage of the woman, or flipped a property which was it?
It was 5 months actually.

She helped her family buy a decrepit property (not a foreclosure by the way) and remodel it for resale. Even in 1993 you couldn't do that level of extensive renovations on an entire house with a small profit and expect anything less. Who knows if she even made any money.

Tighten the chinstrap my little cupcake.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You are adorable. Always worthy of a reach around in my book.

She has a personal net worth of over 8 million. Yet she claims to be for the little guy, rails against the very establishments that got her to where she is. The woman is a two faced fraud

He can relate.

I don't think you have ANY evidence to justify your speculation. I've also never heard of a single instance where she received any benefit for this consideration.

Reality is she's extremely smart and passionate which makes her a threat. Put this political smear in context of her significant career and it's insignificant.


What that Academia, particularly Harvard, does not award extra Purple Forehead Stars and unicorn sticker points for extra check boxes on Diversity? They've got an effing wing of Diversity Zampolits. Being one 64th Insert Your Ethnic Diversity Mark here is a big checkmark on Campus. That is worth two whole licks on the Self-Licking Faculty IceCream Cone.

She bought a house from an elderly Oklahoma woman for $30,000 in August of 1993, then sold it for $145,000 3 months later. She either took advantage of the woman, or flipped a property which was it?

That’s when she was a Republican
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Don't get led astray Jim on the Indian crap, hit them with her making $430,000 for 2010 and part of 2011 to teach one class. She has a personal net worth of over 8 million. Yet she claims to be for the little guy, rails against the very establishments that got her to where she is. The woman is a two faced fraud

Tump is worth 3.1 billion and says hes for the little guy as well funny dont hear you calling him a 2 faced fraud ??

That’s when she was a Republican
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

For a Republican to do such a thing it would be heralded as great business sense!!! if it was commented negatively from liberals we would be accused of Hating successful people

But when the shoes is on someone else's foot they find a conscious.. and are outraged :btu:

It was 5 months actually.

She helped her family buy a decrepit property (not a foreclosure by the way) and remodel it for resale. Even in 1993 you couldn't do that level of extensive renovations on an entire house with a small profit and expect anything less. Who knows if she even made any money.

Maybe you should read the story, cause that's not what the family is saying about this particular house, one of many she was involved in either purchasing herself or lending the money to her brother or sister in-law on multiple occasions

I have never seen a single credible reference that she was paid more than normal to teach X classes.

The point is not whether or not she was paid more, the point is as long as she was getting paid by an institution of higher learning she was fine with the system, once she became a senator the system is bad

How about my argument about her profiting from college students going into debt, while she says it's unethical for banks to do the same. Let's focus on that.

Exactly

Tump is worth 3.1 billion and says hes for the little guy as well funny dont hear you calling him a 2 faced fraud ??

What you don't hear is Trump giving away your hard earned dollars to illegals or putting them ahead of us. You don't hear Trump rolling over you know face down ass up to the rest of the world like the previous status quo.




USA NO LONGER A DOORMAT!!!

For a Republican to do such a thing it would be heralded as great business sense!!! if it was commented negatively from liberals we would be accused of Hating successful people

But when the shoes is on someone else's foot they find a conscious.. and are outraged :btu:

Bull#^&#^&#^&#^&, great for her she made money, then when the next collapse happened and people were doing the same thing she suddenly got a concience as a senator

What you don't hear is Trump giving away your hard earned dollars to illegals or putting them ahead of us. You don't hear Trump rolling over you know face down ass up to the rest of the world like the previous status quo.




USA NO LONGER A DOORMAT!!!


nice deflection The usa was never a door mat.. another lie from the right .... putting illegals ahead of Americans another lie from the right ( never knew treating people with dignity was anti American ) .. but again the right longing to go back in time to when the country great but the cant say when that was ... patriotism and Nationalism are not the same

Bull#^&#^&#^&#^&, great for her she made money, then when the next collapse happened and people were doing the same thing she suddenly got a concience as a senator

And what did she propose to do that was incorrect?

I am not sure why America First offends Americans.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And what did she propose to do that was incorrect?

She criticizes people for doing that which she has done. It's OK for her to get rich off the backs of college students, but she attacks banks for doing the same thing. You see nothing a wee bit hypocritical there?

She criticizes people for doing that which she has done. It's OK for her to get rich off the backs of college students, but she attacks banks for doing the same thing. You see nothing a wee bit hypocritical there?
Is it hypocritical for a Democrat to accumulate wealth?
Why do you think her wealth was from wages at colleges?
She has written 11 books
Did she make students go to college?
In 2009, The Boston Globe named her the Bostonian of the Year[28] and the Women's Bar Association of Massachusetts honored her with the Lelia J. Robinson Award.[134] She was named one of Time Magazine's 100 Most Influential People in the World in 2009, 2010 and 2015.[135] The National Law Journal repeatedly has named Warren as one of the Fifty Most Influential Women Attorneys in America,[136] and in 2010 it honored her as one of the 40 most influential attorneys of the decade.[137] In 2011, Warren was inducted into the Oklahoma Hall of Fame.[138] In January 2012, Warren was named one of the "top 20 US progressives" by the British New Statesman magazine.[106]

In 2009, Warren became the first professor in Harvard's history to win the law school's The Sacks–Freund Teaching Award for a second time.[139] In 2011, she delivered the commencement address at the Rutgers Law School in Newark, her alma mater, and obtained an honorary Doctor of Laws degree and membership in the Order of the Coif.[140]

In 2018, the Women's History Month theme in the United States was "Nevertheless, She Persisted: Honoring Women Who Fight All Forms of Discrimination against Women", referring to Mitch McConnell's "Nevertheless, she persisted" remark about Warren.

Of course she's persisting so that is why you are losing your mind about her.

Pete, in case you didn't understand the question, Jim asked if you see hypocrisy in her actions. It is good that you admire her but why not answer?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Is it hypocritical for a Democrat to accumulate wealth?
Why do you think her wealth was from wages at colleges?
She has written 11 books
Did she make students go to college?
In 2009, The Boston Globe named her the Bostonian of the Year[28] and the Women's Bar Association of Massachusetts honored her with the Lelia J. Robinson Award.[134] She was named one of Time Magazine's 100 Most Influential People in the World in 2009, 2010 and 2015.[135] The National Law Journal repeatedly has named Warren as one of the Fifty Most Influential Women Attorneys in America,[136] and in 2010 it honored her as one of the 40 most influential attorneys of the decade.[137] In 2011, Warren was inducted into the Oklahoma Hall of Fame.[138] In January 2012, Warren was named one of the "top 20 US progressives" by the British New Statesman magazine.[106]

In 2009, Warren became the first professor in Harvard's history to win the law school's The Sacks–Freund Teaching Award for a second time.[139] In 2011, she delivered the commencement address at the Rutgers Law School in Newark, her alma mater, and obtained an honorary Doctor of Laws degree and membership in the Order of the Coif.[140]

In 2018, the Women's History Month theme in the United States was "Nevertheless, She Persisted: Honoring Women Who Fight All Forms of Discrimination against Women", referring to Mitch McConnell's "Nevertheless, she persisted" remark about Warren.

Of course she's persisting so that is why you are losing your mind about her.
What are you afraid would happen, exactly, if you admitted I had a point.

I never ever said teaching was her only source of wealth. Liberals, when backed into a corner, like to respond to things that no one ever said, when they can’t reapind to what was actually said.

Try to follow..

Warren criticized banks for profiting off of college students. But warren made north of $400k teaching at Harvard. So why is it ok for her to make a lot of money off college kids spending a fortune on school, but evil when banks do it?

Here, I will make it a fill in the blank for you.

I, Pete F, think it’s ok for warren to make a fortune off of kids paying for college, and I think it’s ok For her to attack banks for doing the same exact thing, because ____________
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pete, in case you didn't understand the question, Jim asked if you see hypocrisy in her actions. It is good that you admire her but why not answer?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
No I don't think it is hypocritical for people to accumulate wealth.
Remember you guys in Mass elected her.
I do think Jim is confusing democrats with people who want to live in a communal society and loudly repeating things that are only partially true.
Remember Democrat/Progressive Bad, Trumplican/Authoritarian Good

What are you afraid would happen, exactly, if you admitted I had a point.

I never ever said teaching was her only source of wealth. Liberals, when backed into a corner, like to respond to things that no one ever said, when they can’t reapind to what was actually said.

Try to follow..

Warren criticized banks for profiting off of college students. But warren made north of $400k teaching at Harvard. So why is it ok for her to make a lot of money off college kids spending a fortune on school, but evil when banks do it?

Here, I will make it a fill in the blank for you.

I, Pete F, think it’s ok for warren to make a fortune off of kids paying for college, and I think it’s ok For her to attack banks for doing the same exact thing, because ____________
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Not the exact same thing at all.
The college could choose anyone to work there and was not required to employ Ms Warren.
The students had no other options and are not told the ramifications of financing their college educations, now I do feel that they are definitely culpable in their choices but I have no more objection to her attacking banks for their practices than I do of Trump attacking Phizer for their pricing.

Someone either has reading comprehension issues, or needs picture books

Someone either has reading comprehension issues, or needs picture books

He’s not coming close to answering what I asked.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He may actually believe himself
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He may actually believe himself
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I do
Since you apparently just fall in lockstep, where do you do your banking today? Is there a community bank that you use or just one of the Megabanks.
I am concerned about the only business surviving in the US being big corporations.
When you were young did you know the people who owned the corner store, the gas station, the lumberyard, the fuel dealer, the doctor, the dentist, the banker, the grocery storekeeper?
Do you now?
Do you think that if Congress passes legislation that makes it easier for big banks than small banks that it won't just kill small banks?
Who do you think wrote that legislation, staff or a lobbyist?
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-warren-banks/us-senator-warren-presses-bank-regulators-over-competition-fears-idUSKBN1HR27O

Pete given that warren made a lot of money off kids going to school, why can’t anyone else do the same?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pete given that warren made a lot of money off kids going to school, why can’t anyone else do the same?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Schools are making a lot of money off kids going to school, tuition rates are borderline criminal

I do
Since you apparently just fall in lockstep, where do you do your banking today? Is there a community bank that you use or just one of the Megabanks.
I am concerned about the only business surviving in the US being big corporations.
When you were young did you know the people who owned the corner store, the gas station, the lumberyard, the fuel dealer, the doctor, the dentist, the banker, the grocery storekeeper?
Do you now?
Do you think that if Congress passes legislation that makes it easier for big banks than small banks that it won't just kill small banks?
Who do you think wrote that legislation, staff or a lobbyist?
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-warren-banks/us-senator-warren-presses-bank-regulators-over-competition-fears-idUSKBN1HR27O

I try to keep it local Pete but still resort to Amazon. We even have a local bookstore.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I am not sure why America First offends Americans.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That statement in and of itself doesn't bother me, but just remember however there are only a small percentage of true native american's; we all are descendants from what those first american's would consider illegal immigrants.

I stated before, I'm ok with tougher immigration laws, provided they are balanced and fair. I'm not sure DJT understands that the country as a whole is facing a labor shortage down the road, so you can only take that policy too far before it puts a serious burden on the manufacturing and farming industries and others.

Just like I'm concerned about DJT latest chest beating get the base all excited beat down on our Nato allies as the summit begins; asking them to pay a higher % of GDP than we currently do is a really great way to start the summit. America wins nothing if we alienate the allies we need to keep Russia and others in check, yeah negotiate a fair deal, but let's do it smartly.

I am not sure why America First offends Americans.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

never thought it was any other way.. but his message is clear it should be some in America 1st some 2nd and others 3 or 4th

Pete given that warren made a lot of money off kids going to school, why can’t anyone else do the same?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
It's not the same Jim and why do you think her income was only derived from teaching? I believe her chair at Harvard was endowed anyways, so students did not fund her.
Are you trying to say you think there should be upper compensation limits in this country?

Pete given that warren made a lot of money off kids going to school, why can’t anyone else do the same?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

your view on how money works is bizarre you also think Public employees should personally thank you for their pay check.. now you suggest a teacher in the system is profiting off children because of a pay check he or she gets.. Then compares it to predatory college lending Almost all student loan fraud claims involve for-profit colleges, study finds... it amazing to watch

I'm ok with tougher immigration laws, provided they are balanced and fair.

Yet when they tried to enforce the ones currently on the books people lost their friggin minds.

From article by Kavanaugh in the Minnesota Law Review
Some are saying this is why he was chosen over others.
My goal in this forum is far
more modest: to identify problems worthy of additional attention,
sketch out some possible solutions, and call for further
discussion.
I. PROVIDE SITTING PRESIDENTS WITH A TEMPORARY
DEFERRAL OF CIVIL SUITS AND OF CRIMINAL
PROSECUTIONS AND INVESTIGATIONS
First, my chief takeaway from working in the White House
for five-and-a-half years—and particularly from my nearly
three years of work as Staff Secretary, when I was fortunate to
travel the country and the world with President Bush—is that
the job of President is far more difficult than any other civilian
position in government. It frankly makes being a member of
Congress or the judiciary look rather easy by comparison. The
decisions a President must make are hard and often life-ordeath,
the pressure is relentless, the problems arise from all directions,
the criticism is unremitting and personal, and at the
end of the day only one person is responsible. There are not
eight other colleagues (as there are on the Supreme Court), or
ninety-nine other colleagues (as there are in the Senate), or 434
other colleagues (as there are in the House). There is no review
panel for presidential decisions and few opportunities for doovers.
The President alone makes the most important decisions.
It is true that presidents carve out occasional free time to
exercise or read or attend social events. But don’t be fooled. The
job and the pressure never stop. We exalt and revere the presidency
in this country—yet even so, I think we grossly underestimate how difficult the job is.
At the end of the Clinton presidency,
John Harris wrote an excellent book about President
Clinton entitled The Survivor.23 I have come to think that the
book’s title is an accurate description for all presidents in the
modern era.
Having seen first-hand how complex and difficult that job
is, I believe it vital that the President be able to focus on his
never-ending tasks with as few distractions as possible. The
country wants the President to be “one of us” who bears the
same responsibilities of citizenship that all share. But I believe
that the President should be excused from some of the burdens
of ordinary citizenship while serving in office.
This is not something I necessarily thought in the 1980s or
1990s. Like many Americans at that time, I believed that the
President should be required to shoulder the same obligations
that we all carry. But in retrospect, that seems a mistake.
Looking back to the late 1990s, for example, the nation certainly
would have been better off if President Clinton could have
focused on Osama bin Laden24 without being distracted by the
Paula Jones sexual harassment case and its criminalinvestigation
offshoots.25 To be sure, one can correctly say that
President Clinton brought that ordeal on himself, by his answers
during his deposition in the Jones case if nothing else.
And my point here is not to say that the relevant actors—the
Supreme Court in Jones, Judge Susan Webber Wright, and Independent
Counsel Kenneth Starr—did anything other than
their proper duty under the law as it then existed.26 But the
law as it existed was itself the problem, particularly the extent
to which it allowed civil suits against presidents to proceed
while the President is in office.
With that in mind, it would be appropriate for Congress to
enact a statute providing that any personal civil suits against
presidents, like certain members of the military, be deferred
while the President is in office. The result the Supreme Court
reached in Clinton v. Jones27—that presidents are not constitutionally
entitled to deferral of civil suits—may well have been
entirely correct; that is beyond the scope of this inquiry. But
the Court in Jones stated that Congress is free to provide a
temporary deferral of civil suits while the President is in office.28
Congress may be wise to do so, just as it has done for certain
members of the military.29 Deferral would allow the President
to focus on the vital duties he was elected to perform.
Congress should consider doing the same, moreover, with
respect to criminal investigations and prosecutions of the President.30
In particular, Congress might consider a law exempting
a President—while in office—from criminal prosecution and investigation,
including from questioning by criminal prosecutors
or defense counsel. Criminal investigations targeted at or revolving
around a President are inevitably politicized by both
their supporters and critics. As I have written before, “no Attorney
General or special counsel will have the necessary credibility
to avoid the inevitable charges that he is politically motivated—whether
in favor of the President or against him,
depending on the individual leading the investigation and its
results.”31 The indictment and trial of a sitting President,
moreover, would cripple the federal government, rendering it
unable to function with credibility in either the international or
domestic arenas. Such an outcome would ill serve the public interest,
especially in times of financial or national security crisis.

Even the lesser burdens of a criminal investigation—
including preparing for questioning by criminal investigators—
are time-consuming and distracting. Like civil suits, criminal
investigations take the President’s focus away from his or her
responsibilities to the people. And a President who is concerned
about an ongoing criminal investigation is almost inevitably
going to do a worse job as President.
One might raise at least two important critiques of these
ideas. The first is that no one is above the law in our system of
government. I strongly agree with that principle. But it is not
ultimately a persuasive criticism of these suggestions. The
point is not to put the President above the law or to eliminate
checks on the President, but simply to defer litigation and investigations
until the President is out of office.32
A second possible concern is that the country needs a check
against a bad-behaving or law-breaking President. But the
Constitution already provides that check. If the President does
something dastardly, the impeachment process is available.33
No single prosecutor, judge, or jury should be able to accomplish
what the Constitution assigns to the Congress.34 Moreover,
an impeached and removed President is still subject to
criminal prosecution afterwards. In short, the Constitution establishes
a clear mechanism to deter executive malfeasance; we
should not burden a sitting President with civil suits, criminal
investigations, or criminal prosecutions.35 The President’s job is
difficult enough as is. And the country loses when the President’s
focus is distracted by the burdens of civil litigation or
criminal investigation and possible prosecution.36
If you want to read the whole thing
https://t.co/rDHJs5RiUY

Schools are making a lot of money off kids going to school, tuition rates are borderline criminal

It costs a lot of money to turn kids into Communists :hidin:

From article by Kavanaugh in the Minnesota Law Review
Some are saying this is why he was chosen over others.
My goal in this forum is far
more modest: to identify problems worthy of additional attention,
sketch out some possible solutions, and call for further
discussion.
I. PROVIDE SITTING PRESIDENTS WITH A TEMPORARY
DEFERRAL OF CIVIL SUITS AND OF CRIMINAL
PROSECUTIONS AND INVESTIGATIONS
First, my chief takeaway from working in the White House
for five-and-a-half years—and particularly from my nearly
three years of work as Staff Secretary, when I was fortunate to
travel the country and the world with President Bush—is that
the job of President is far more difficult than any other civilian
position in government. It frankly makes being a member of
Congress or the judiciary look rather easy by comparison. The
decisions a President must make are hard and often life-ordeath,
the pressure is relentless, the problems arise from all directions,
the criticism is unremitting and personal, and at the
end of the day only one person is responsible. There are not
eight other colleagues (as there are on the Supreme Court), or
ninety-nine other colleagues (as there are in the Senate), or 434
other colleagues (as there are in the House). There is no review
panel for presidential decisions and few opportunities for doovers.
The President alone makes the most important decisions.
It is true that presidents carve out occasional free time to
exercise or read or attend social events. But don’t be fooled. The
job and the pressure never stop. We exalt and revere the presidency
in this country—yet even so, I think we grossly underestimate how difficult the job is.
At the end of the Clinton presidency,
John Harris wrote an excellent book about President
Clinton entitled The Survivor.23 I have come to think that the
book’s title is an accurate description for all presidents in the
modern era.
Having seen first-hand how complex and difficult that job
is, I believe it vital that the President be able to focus on his
never-ending tasks with as few distractions as possible. The
country wants the President to be “one of us” who bears the
same responsibilities of citizenship that all share. But I believe
that the President should be excused from some of the burdens
of ordinary citizenship while serving in office.
This is not something I necessarily thought in the 1980s or
1990s. Like many Americans at that time, I believed that the
President should be required to shoulder the same obligations
that we all carry. But in retrospect, that seems a mistake.
Looking back to the late 1990s, for example, the nation certainly
would have been better off if President Clinton could have
focused on Osama bin Laden24 without being distracted by the
Paula Jones sexual harassment case and its criminalinvestigation
offshoots.25 To be sure, one can correctly say that
President Clinton brought that ordeal on himself, by his answers
during his deposition in the Jones case if nothing else.
And my point here is not to say that the relevant actors—the
Supreme Court in Jones, Judge Susan Webber Wright, and Independent
Counsel Kenneth Starr—did anything other than
their proper duty under the law as it then existed.26 But the
law as it existed was itself the problem, particularly the extent
to which it allowed civil suits against presidents to proceed
while the President is in office.
With that in mind, it would be appropriate for Congress to
enact a statute providing that any personal civil suits against
presidents, like certain members of the military, be deferred
while the President is in office. The result the Supreme Court
reached in Clinton v. Jones27—that presidents are not constitutionally
entitled to deferral of civil suits—may well have been
entirely correct; that is beyond the scope of this inquiry. But
the Court in Jones stated that Congress is free to provide a
temporary deferral of civil suits while the President is in office.28
Congress may be wise to do so, just as it has done for certain
members of the military.29 Deferral would allow the President
to focus on the vital duties he was elected to perform.
Congress should consider doing the same, moreover, with
respect to criminal investigations and prosecutions of the President.30
In particular, Congress might consider a law exempting
a President—while in office—from criminal prosecution and investigation,
including from questioning by criminal prosecutors
or defense counsel. Criminal investigations targeted at or revolving
around a President are inevitably politicized by both
their supporters and critics. As I have written before, “no Attorney
General or special counsel will have the necessary credibility
to avoid the inevitable charges that he is politically motivated—whether
in favor of the President or against him,
depending on the individual leading the investigation and its
results.”31 The indictment and trial of a sitting President,
moreover, would cripple the federal government, rendering it
unable to function with credibility in either the international or
domestic arenas. Such an outcome would ill serve the public interest,
especially in times of financial or national security crisis.

Even the lesser burdens of a criminal investigation—
including preparing for questioning by criminal investigators—
are time-consuming and distracting. Like civil suits, criminal
investigations take the President’s focus away from his or her
responsibilities to the people. And a President who is concerned
about an ongoing criminal investigation is almost inevitably
going to do a worse job as President.
One might raise at least two important critiques of these
ideas. The first is that no one is above the law in our system of
government. I strongly agree with that principle. But it is not
ultimately a persuasive criticism of these suggestions. The
point is not to put the President above the law or to eliminate
checks on the President, but simply to defer litigation and investigations
until the President is out of office.32
A second possible concern is that the country needs a check
against a bad-behaving or law-breaking President. But the
Constitution already provides that check. If the President does
something dastardly, the impeachment process is available.33
No single prosecutor, judge, or jury should be able to accomplish
what the Constitution assigns to the Congress.34 Moreover,
an impeached and removed President is still subject to
criminal prosecution afterwards. In short, the Constitution establishes
a clear mechanism to deter executive malfeasance; we
should not burden a sitting President with civil suits, criminal
investigations, or criminal prosecutions.35 The President’s job is
difficult enough as is. And the country loses when the President’s
focus is distracted by the burdens of civil litigation or
criminal investigation and possible prosecution.36
If you want to read the whole thing
https://t.co/rDHJs5RiUY

1. Do you agree with what Kavanaugh said in the article?

2. Can Kavanaugh or the SCOTUS make such a law as Kavanaugh suggests?

3. If Congress made such a law, would Kavanaugh have to recuse himself if a challenge to the law reached the Supreme Court considering his previous published opinion?

4. Would the President be so overburdened with things to do if the POTUS was reigned in to only the powers and duties ascribed to the office in the Constitution?

It's not the same Jim and why do you think her income was only derived from teaching? I believe her chair at Harvard was endowed anyways, so students did not fund her.
Are you trying to say you think there should be upper compensation limits in this country?

Where did Jim say that It was only derived from teaching. She is smart,accomplished,wealthy but still a lying hypocrite. Why do you lose focus when asked a simple question regarding the hypocrisy of her Harvard salary while maintaining her opposition for the outlandish price of college.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Where did Jim say that It was only derived from teaching. She is smart,accomplished,wealthy but still a lying hypocrite. Why do you lose focus when asked a simple question regarding the hypocrisy of her Harvard salary while maintaining her opposition for the outlandish price of college.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Because he’s wrong about what’s driving the cost of college

Meanwhile, teaching salaries, one of the biggest single line items, have remained relatively flat—much like those across most of the U.S. labor market. Despite heavy spending by a handful of top universities for the most talented, grant-winning researchers, most schools aren't seeing big wage pressures, largely because teaching jobs are in high demand.
"Overall, the aggregate level that institutions are spending on teaching and student-related services has been pretty much stable for the past 15 to 20 years, adjusted for inflation" said Franke, of the University of Massachusetts in Boston.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Because he’s wrong about what’s driving the cost of college

Meanwhile, teaching salaries, one of the biggest single line items, have remained relatively flat—much like those across most of the U.S. labor market. Despite heavy spending by a handful of top universities for the most talented, grant-winning researchers, most schools aren't seeing big wage pressures, largely because teaching jobs are in high demand.
"Overall, the aggregate level that institutions are spending on teaching and student-related services has been pretty much stable for the past 15 to 20 years, adjusted for inflation" said Franke, of the University of Massachusetts in Boston.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

She made 400k teaching one class. That’s flat? That’s not driving the cost if tuition?

You are disagreeing, just because you can’t concede that even in this one obvious instance, I am right. You can’t do it. If I said two plus two was four, you’d deny it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Just imagine the hate she spewed for that ransom.

Oh and no, college professors at fantastic universities typically make nowhere near that amount. Not even close.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

She made 400k teaching one class. That’s flat? That’s not driving the cost if tuition?

You are disagreeing, just because you can’t concede that even in this one obvious instance, I am right. You can’t do it. If I said two plus two was four, you’d deny it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Do you know what an endowed chair is?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Another Swamp Resident?
http://video.foxnews.com/v/5808134433001/?#sp=show-clips
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Do you know what an endowed chair is?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes I do. And I know that professors who make 400k for teaching one class, are obviously a big driver if the cost of tuition. And equally obvious, is that anyone making 400k for teaching one class, has zero business pretending to be outraged at the cost of tuition. One would only deny these things, if one were hopelessly, blindly, partisan.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Just imagine the hate she spewed for that ransom.

Oh and no, college professors at fantastic universities typically make nowhere near that amount. Not even close.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
The mind boggles at what was taught in that class.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Worst of the worst

http://dailycaller.com/2018/07/11/kavanaugh-feeds-homeless/

where jim gets his info...

Warren did draw a large salary for teaching at Harvard (her 2011 campaign disclosure form indicates a salary for 2010-2011 of $429,981 although her paperwork doesn’t indicate how many classes she was actually teaching) to bad we dont know were Trumps money was made???

clearly you you are confusing course with class many a professor who teaches 1 class (2 h/week for 13 weeks course )


How many classes do you think Alan Dershowitz’s Taught at Harvard law ?

proposals for faculty workload reform and attacks on intellectual's generally come from the political right and have been associated with anti-labor and anti-intellectual values. you reflect this 100% she obviously a big driver if the cost of tuition ... really she taught for what 1 year or as you put it 1 classes and she is the driver of tuition ok sure it is.... your hate for this women is in beast mode hopelessly, blindly, partisan. coming from you thats rich

Worst of the worst

http://dailycaller.com/2018/07/11/kavanaugh-feeds-homeless/

One of the thousand points of light
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Meanwhile the current president created a bogus university and ripped off everyone, was sued and LOST the suit. Yet no one cares
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Meanwhile the current president created a bogus university and ripped off everyone, was sued and LOST the suit. Yet no one cares
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


This is a good point. Between Loser Trump's Failed Fake University, Chief Sh!tt!ng Bull's 400k Class and fake Diversity CheckMark, and with the Moscow Frau's Burlington College, Higher Ed should be very wary of Politicians

The mind boggles at what was taught in that class.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
She taught courses on commercial law, contracts, and bankruptcy
It's not like she taught at Berkeley.
The odds are good that some of the future SCOTUS judges will have taken a course from her, since more than twice as many have gone to Harvard as any other law school.
In 1992-93, Senator Warren served as the Robert Braucher Visiting Professor of Commercial Law at Harvard Law School; in 1995, she accepted a permanent appointment as the Leo Gottlieb Professor of Law. Before coming to Harvard, she taught at the law schools of the University of Pennsylvania, University of Michigan, University of Texas, University of Houston, and Rutgers University. She taught courses on commercial law, contracts, and bankruptcy, and has written more than a hundred articles and ten books.

She has won teaching awards at multiple schools, and graduating classes at Harvard twice recognized her with the Sacks-Freund Award for excellence in teaching. In 2013, she received the Harvard Law School Association Award. National Law Journal named her one of the Most Influential Lawyers of the Decade, TIME magazine has named her one of the 100 most influential people in the world three times, and she has been honored by the Massachusetts Women's Bar Association with the Lelia J. Robinson Award. Senator Warren was elected to the American Law Institute, and later to the Council of ALI where she served as Vice President of the Institute. She also was elected to the National Bankruptcy Conference, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and as a Theodore Roosevelt Fellow of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. In 2014, she was honored with the Roosevelt Institute’s Franklin D. Roosevelt Distinguished Public Service Award.

She taught courses on commercial law, contracts, and bankruptcy
It's not like she taught at Berkeley.
The odds are good that some of the future SCOTUS judges will have taken a course from her, since more than twice as many have gone to Harvard as any other law school.
In 1992-93, Senator Warren served as the Robert Braucher Visiting Professor of Commercial Law at Harvard Law School; in 1995, she accepted a permanent appointment as the Leo Gottlieb Professor of Law. Before coming to Harvard, she taught at the law schools of the University of Pennsylvania, University of Michigan, University of Texas, University of Houston, and Rutgers University. She taught courses on commercial law, contracts, and bankruptcy, and has written more than a hundred articles and ten books.

She has won teaching awards at multiple schools, and graduating classes at Harvard twice recognized her with the Sacks-Freund Award for excellence in teaching. In 2013, she received the Harvard Law School Association Award. National Law Journal named her one of the Most Influential Lawyers of the Decade, TIME magazine has named her one of the 100 most influential people in the world three times, and she has been honored by the Massachusetts Women's Bar Association with the Lelia J. Robinson Award. Senator Warren was elected to the American Law Institute, and later to the Council of ALI where she served as Vice President of the Institute. She also was elected to the National Bankruptcy Conference, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and as a Theodore Roosevelt Fellow of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. In 2014, she was honored with the Roosevelt Institute’s Franklin D. Roosevelt Distinguished Public Service Award.


If you let them tell it... all that was because of the fake Diversity CheckMark .. not hard work :huh: But Kavanaugh is a saint for feeding the homeless.. and his written opinions should not be considered ...

Obviously a very accomplished twat who knows how to get things done.
She still lied about her heritage,that is not going away.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It costs a lot of money to turn kids into Communists :hidin:


the Rights answer to any thing they cant defend .. they just drop the Communists angle .. and the question is answered:btu:

Obviously a very accomplished twat who knows how to get things done.
She still lied about her heritage,that is not going away.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Did she lie ?? I have seen no evidence she lied or any evidence she's telling the truth

all I have seen is accusations not evidence (isn't that the right stance in the Russian investigation show me the evidence )

I did see this...

a genealogist traced Warren's Native American heritage to the late 19th century, which, if true, would make her 1/32 Native American.

So even with a DNA Test the right wouldn't believe Her anyway so why even ask ?

Lets hope this doesn't happen to one of us
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXXJl5561SU

If you let them tell it... all that was because of the fake Diversity CheckMark .. not hard work :huh: But Kavanaugh is a saint for feeding the homeless.. and his written opinions should not be considered ...

No, Kavanaugh is a good person for feeding the homeless. Refreshing to see if anything. Also coaches Kid's basketball and does car pool. Again, refreshing to see.

and you do know that opinions can never be wrong, that's why they are called opinions. Dale Carnegie 101 :hihi:

Did she lie ?? I have seen no evidence she lied or any evidence she's telling the truth



http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/dec/01/facts-behind-elizabeth-warren-and-her-native-ameri/

"I listed myself (in the) directory in the hopes that might mean that I would be invited to a luncheon, a group something, with people who are like I am," Warren told reporters May 3, 2012. "Nothing like that ever happened. That was absolutely not the use for it and so I stopped checking it off."

"Warren’s campaign team could never uncover any documents that confirmed Native American heritage in her family."

"The New England Historic Genealogical Society also could not find any."

"We have no proof that Elizabeth Warren's great-great-great-grandmother O.C. Sarah Smith either is or is not of Cherokee descent,' society spokesman Tom Champoux told the Herald for a May 2012 story. (When we called the society, a spokesman said we should look at its statements from 2012.)"

Nobody can tell her heritage for sure and DNA testing won't either, though I'd be happy to see Trump actually donate some of his money to charity.
http://genetics.ncai.org/tribal-enrollment-and-genetic-testing.cfm

the Rights answer to any thing they cant defend .. they just drop the Communists angle .. and the question is answered:btu:

well, it's better than being called a Racist or a Something-phobe when the other side wants the last word.

the Rights answer to any thing they cant defend .. they just drop the Communists angle .. and the question is answered:btu:

Actually, it was a joke, but yes Communism and it's little brother Socialism, is antithetical to Freedom and Liberty. Communists hate that.

well, it's better than being called a Racist or a Something-phobe when the other side wants the last word.


:hihi:

Did she lie ?? I have seen no evidence she lied or any evidence she's telling the truth

all I have seen is accusations not evidence (isn't that the right stance in the Russian investigation show me the evidence )

I did see this...

a genealogist traced Warren's Native American heritage to the late 19th century, which, if true, would make her 1/32 Native American.

So even with a DNA Test the right wouldn't believe Her anyway so why even ask ?


I believe you are wrong, a native Cherokee geneologist could find no evidence that she was in fact Cherokee, also the distant relatives names are not on the Dawes Roll

That statement in and of itself doesn't bother me, but just remember however there are only a small percentage of true native american's; we all are descendants from what those first american's would consider illegal immigrants.

I stated before, I'm ok with tougher immigration laws, provided they are balanced and fair. I'm not sure DJT understands that the country as a whole is facing a labor shortage down the road, so you can only take that policy too far before it puts a serious burden on the manufacturing and farming industries and others.

Just like I'm concerned about DJT latest chest beating get the base all excited beat down on our Nato allies as the summit begins; asking them to pay a higher % of GDP than we currently do is a really great way to start the summit. America wins nothing if we alienate the allies we need to keep Russia and others in check, yeah negotiate a fair deal, but let's do it smartly.


Just curious what you would consider balanced and fair? It seems to me that people coming from Asia,Europe, and most of the other countries that have to fly do so legally. otherwise they would not gain entry at customs. Those to our south who refuse to seek legal avenues of entry merely get smuggled or walk across a border that is not protect sufficiently.

What you don't hear is Trump giving away your hard earned dollars to illegals or putting them ahead of us. You don't hear Trump rolling over you know face down ass up to the rest of the world like the previous status quo.




USA NO LONGER A DOORMAT!!!

Or trump saying I will fix the tax system. I won't tell you if I paid taxes or not, but trust me, if i didn't, I am smart. I will change it.

Oh yeah, he did say it and he didn't fix it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I believe you are wrong, a native Cherokee geneologist could find no evidence that she was in fact Cherokee, also the distant relatives names are not on the Dawes Roll

its hard for me to to wrong... when both side have offered no evidence of their assertion.. for or against

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/dec/01/facts-behind-elizabeth-warren-and-her-native-ameri/

"I listed myself (in the) directory in the hopes that might mean that I would be invited to a luncheon, a group something, with people who are like I am," Warren told reporters May 3, 2012. "Nothing like that ever happened. That was absolutely not the use for it and so I stopped checking it off."

"Warren’s campaign team could never uncover any documents that confirmed Native American heritage in her family."

"The New England Historic Genealogical Society also could not find any."

"We have no proof that Elizabeth Warren's great-great-great-grandmother O.C. Sarah Smith either is or is not of Cherokee descent,' society spokesman Tom Champoux told the Herald for a May 2012 story. (When we called the society, a spokesman said we should look at its statements from 2012.)"


^^^^^^^you do know that opinions can never be wrong, that's why they are called opinions. Dale Carnegie 101

is that your evidence

YES!....YES!....YES!!!

https://www.dailynews.com/2018/07/11/could-democrats-nominate-maxine-waters-for-president-answer-yes/

^^^^^^^you do know that opinions can never be wrong, that's why they are called opinions. Dale Carnegie 101

is that your evidence

You have completely lost your chit.....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

this just in, kavanaugh likes baseball, got into some credit card debt and then paid it off. oh my god, he must be stopped, the fiend
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Did she lie ?? I have seen no evidence she lied or any evidence she's telling the truth

all I have seen is accusations not evidence (isn't that the right stance in the Russian investigation show me the evidence )

I did see this...

a genealogist traced Warren's Native American heritage to the late 19th century, which, if true, would make her 1/32 Native American.

So even with a DNA Test the right wouldn't believe Her anyway so why even ask ?

trump offered to donate a million dollars to her favorite charity if she’d take a dna test. to any intellectually honest person, that’s as much evidence of guilt, as refusing to take a breathalyzer test. if she believes she’s telling the truth, there’s no conceivable reason not to take the test, it vindicates her and makes all the doubters have egg in their face. only one possible reason to refuse to take the test.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How many classes do you think Alan Dershowitz’s Taught at Harvard law ?



you are completely missing the point. Dershowitz isn’t cashing huge checks on friday morning, then going on tv that afternoon and attacking banks for making profits off the cost of college. that’s the difference, and it’s a huge difference.

harvard is a private school, they don’t force anyone to do anything. if students want to choose to borrow 250k to line Warrens pockets, that’s their choice, that has absolutely nothing to do with me. nothing.

but when Warren goes on tv and uses her platform as a us senator to tell bankers that it’s wrong for THEM to take money from college students, then we should all call her out for being the hypocrite that she is. she obviously doesn’t believe it’s wrong to profit off of college students seeking an education.

you cannot begin to make that wrong, you just can’t. her salary isn’t the issue, it’s the obvious hypocrisy that’s the issue. you can’t see that?

tell me why i’m wrong. pointing out that trump is rich isn’t refuting my point.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Funny you bring up Dershowitz. He is not a Trump fan and didn't vote for him but has also been complimentary of some of Trumps results. This has made him the target of his liberal friends on the Vineyard. The lock step brain dead folks just can't imagine giving credit where it is due.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you are completely missing the point. Dershowitz isn’t cashing huge checks on friday morning, then going on tv that afternoon and attacking banks for making profits off the cost of college. that’s the difference, and it’s a huge difference.

harvard is a private school, they don’t force anyone to do anything. if students want to choose to borrow 250k to line Warrens pockets, that’s their choice, that has absolutely nothing to do with me. nothing.

but when Warren goes on tv and uses her platform as a us senator to tell bankers that it’s wrong for THEM to take money from college students, then we should all call her out for being the hypocrite that she is. she obviously doesn’t believe it’s wrong to profit off of college students seeking an education.

you cannot begin to make that wrong, you just can’t. her salary isn’t the issue, it’s the obvious hypocrisy that’s the issue. you can’t see that?

tell me why i’m wrong. pointing out that trump is rich isn’t refuting my point.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Are her horrible statements things like this?
Thank you, thank you. As Barry mentioned, before I was a Senator, I was a law professor. What
he didn’t say is that I taught contracts, secured transactions, and bankruptcy – all courses related
to the functioning of competitive markets. I love markets! Strong, healthy markets are the key to
a strong, healthy America.
That’s the reason I am here today. Because anyone who loves markets knows that for markets to
work, there has to be competition. But today, in America, competition is dying. Consolidation
and concentration are on the rise in sector after sector. Concentration threatens our markets,
threatens our economy, and threatens our democracy.
Evidence of the problem is everywhere. Just look at banking. For years, banks have been in a
feeding frenzy, swallowing up smaller competitors to become more powerful and, eventually,
too big to fail.1
The combination of their size, their risky practices, and the hands-off policies of
their regulators created a perfect storm, resulting in the worst financial crisis in 80 years. We
know that excessive size and interconnectedness promotes risky behavior that can take down our
economy – and yet, today, eight years after that financial crisis, three out of the four biggest
banks in America are even bigger than they were before the crisis and two months ago five were
designated by both the Fed and the FDIC as “too big to fail.”
2
The concentration problem—and particularly the idea of “too big to fail” in the financial
sector—gets a lot of attention. But the problem isn’t unique to the financial sector. It’s hiding in
plain sight all across the American economy.
You can read the whole thing
https://www.warren.senate.gov/files/documents/2016-6-29_Warren_Antitrust_Speech.pdf

tell me why i’m wrong.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Because you're just wrong.

First off universities are non-profit organizations. Second, Harvard has an endowment of 38 billion dollars, about 1/2 of their students don't even pay much if any tuition. 400k for an esteemed professor of her stature at one of the top schools in the world isn't in any way out of line.

If you'd bother to actually read what Warren was professing you'd see she's argued the government should underwrite student loans at a rate similar to what the banks get to borrow for to minimize profit either by private lenders or government profit.

It may not be a silver bullet to solve the cost of higher education but it's in no way hypocritical at all.

Because you're just wrong.

First off universities are non-profit organizations. Second, Harvard has an endowment of 38 billion dollars, about 1/2 of their students don't even pay much if any tuition. 400k for an esteemed professor of her stature at one of the top schools in the world isn't in any way out of line.

If you'd bother to actually read what Warren was professing you'd see she's argued the government should underwrite student loans at a rate similar to what the banks get to borrow for to minimize profit either by private lenders or government profit.

It may not be a silver bullet to solve the cost of higher education but it's in no way hypocritical at all.


If the first paragraph of you statement is true, why does it cost north of 50 k for a year at Harvard? Why are so many people scrambling to save for or take out loans for secondary education?

Do you think it one for a professor to make 400k for a year and a half of teaching, then complain when she is done professing that college is too expensive, and then blaming it on banks?

The universities set the price of tuition not banks, if people want to go to school that bad and can't afford it they get loans.

Just like everything else that's costs money in the world, no one is forcing you to buy a house or that new truck and finance it, it is your decision. If you don't like the loan terms you shop around

If the first paragraph of you statement is true, why does it cost north of 50 k for a year at Harvard? Why are so many people scrambling to save for or take out loans for secondary education?
All the top schools are above 50k these days. The difference is they've been able to use their stature and benefactors to create large endowments to offset tuition to get the best students.

Harvard actually has less students graduating with debt than just about another elite university.

Perhaps Senator Warrens misdeeds are things like this
https://studentloans.net/rubio-and-warren-team-up-to-protect-student-loan-borrowers/
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/students-cry-for-debt-relief-after-for-profit-college-collapse-while-executives-admit-no-wrongdoing-2018-07-11
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2018/01/02/elizabeth-warren-wants-the-education-dept-s-use-of-earnings-data-investigated/?utm_term=.5e9788ea029c
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/02/16/senate-democrats-want-public-service-loan-forgiveness-fix-budget-agreement
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/09/us/student-loans-consumer-financial-protection-bureau-cfpb.html
And the best for last, but it's not Sen. Warren
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/the-great-college-loan-swindle-124484/

trump offered to donate a million dollars to her favorite charity if she’d take a dna test. to any intellectually honest person, that’s as much evidence of guilt, as refusing to take a breathalyzer test. if she believes she’s telling the truth, there’s no conceivable reason not to take the test, it vindicates her and makes all the doubters have egg in their face. only one possible reason to refuse to take the test.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

did you write that while wearing your jack boots ?? are You willing to take a test to prove you haven't escaped from a mental hospital .. because to any intellectually honest person, they have questions..

Funny you bring up Dershowitz. He is not a Trump fan and didn't vote for him but has also been complimentary of some of Trumps results. This has made him the target of his liberal friends on the Vineyard. The lock step brain dead folks just can't imagine giving credit where it is due.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


I saw a few of his interviews ,, its been said before there are idiots on both sides problem is they get all the news coverage

Because you're just wrong.

First off universities are non-profit organizations. Second, Harvard has an endowment of 38 billion dollars, about 1/2 of their students don't even pay much if any tuition. 400k for an esteemed professor of her stature at one of the top schools in the world isn't in any way out of line.

If you'd bother to actually read what Warren was professing you'd see she's argued the government should underwrite student loans at a rate similar to what the banks get to borrow for to minimize profit either by private lenders or government profit.

It may not be a silver bullet to solve the cost of higher education but it's in no way hypocritical at all.

the university is non profit. warren wasn’t a volunteer. she made a fortune, but claims banks cannot do the same. please explain the difference.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

did you write that while wearing your jack boots ?? are You willing to take a test to prove you haven't escaped from a mental hospital .. because to any intellectually honest person, they have questions..

warren made the claim hat she’s native american. trump isn’t engaging in ethnic cleansing, he’s proving that she’s the liar we all know she is.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

did you write that while wearing your jack boots ?? are You willing to take a test to prove you haven't escaped from a mental hospital .. because to any intellectually honest person, they have questions..
people want trump to release his tax returns, and for good reason. asking her to prove she’s not full of crap with her claims of heritage, is similar. she’s at least considering running for potus, let’s see if she is a liar, or if i’m a fool for claiming she is.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

the university is non profit. warren wasn’t a volunteer. she made a fortune, but claims banks cannot do the same. please explain the difference.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ok Jim. If you're making a large profit and paying employees and then spreading the profits to shareholders...it's not the same thing as paying employees for their work and using the excess to improve the institution and pay for students that can't afford a world class education but who have qualifications that deserve it.

Ok Jim. If you're making a large profit and paying employees and then spreading the profits to shareholders...it's not the same thing as paying employees for their work and using the excess to improve the institution and pay for students that can't afford a world class education but who have qualifications that deserve it.
oh, it’s the bank shareholders that make it unethical!!! so if it’s a privately owned bank, or some kind of mutual, that would be ok for them to make student loans with interest?

that makes all kinds of sense.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

oh, it’s the bank shareholders that make it unethical!!! so if it’s a privately owned bank, or some kind of mutual, that would be ok for them to make student loans with interest?

that makes all kinds of sense.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You're not getting it. Her position was that the government should lend money to students at the same rate it lends it to banks.

You're not getting it. Her position was that the government should lend money to students at the same rate it lends it to banks.

no sir. her position was that the banks are exploiting the students. naturally she would never sink so low.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

the university is non profit. warren wasn’t a volunteer. she made a fortune, but claims banks cannot do the same. please explain the difference.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
This is what she has concerns about
How universities, banks and the government turned student debt into America’s next financial black hole
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/the-great-college-loan-swindle-124484/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is what she has concerns about
How universities, banks and the government turned student debt into America’s next financial black hole
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/the-great-college-loan-swindle-124484/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

but she profited by it also. i cannot believe you and spence, i just can’t. and you people claim that trump supporters are hypnotized? its you who can’t, ever, under any circumstances, being yourself to be critical of anyone prominent on. your side. i’m not asking you to say warren is the moral equivalent of trump. just to concede the glaring, obvious, irrefutable hypocrisy on this one issue. and you can’t do it. you aren’t capable of admitting she profited offf of students borrowing money. you just can’t. strange stuff.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

but she profited by it also. i cannot believe you and spence, i just can’t. and you people claim that trump supporters are hypnotized? its you who can’t, ever, under any circumstances, being yourself to be critical of anyone prominent on. your side. i’m not asking you to say warren is the moral equivalent of trump. just to concede the glaring, obvious, irrefutable hypocrisy on this one issue. and you can’t do it. you aren’t capable of admitting she profited offf of students borrowing money. you just can’t. strange stuff.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim

A Elephant and a Mouse are not the same Just because they both eat peanuts .. but thats what you are trying to get people to admit with warren and predatory lending ... using your logic the lunch lady the janitor or any one who has a job at any college or university in the country profited off of students borrowing money. even though they have no control over policy

Jim

A Elephant and a Mouse are not the same Just because they both eat peanuts .. but thats what you are trying to get people to admit with warren and predatory lending ... using your logic the lunch lady the janitor or any one who has a job at any college or university in the country profited off of students borrowing money. even though they have no control over policy

ummm, i know an elephant and a mouse arentbthe same just because they eat peanuts. you guys are really slow in the uptake.

the mouse and the elephant are different. very different. but if both eat peanuts, neither one has the moral standing to lecture the other about why it’s evil to eat peanuts. do you honestly not agree with that? seriously?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

ummm, i know an elephant and a mouse arentbthe same just because they eat peanuts. you guys are really slow in the uptake.

the mouse and the elephant are different. very different. but if both eat peanuts, neither one has the moral standing to lecture the other about why it’s evil to eat peanuts. do you honestly not agree with that? seriously?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

ever eat a Bad peanut or have a predatory loan both can ruin your day .. never heard the argument that banks couldn't make money

your the only one here not making the distinction between good and bad lenders

Predatory loan..... good one.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

ever eat a Bad peanut or have a predatory loan both can ruin your day .. never heard the argument that banks couldn't make money

your the only one here not making the distinction between good and bad lenders

see, once again, you are losing so you move the goalposts. first you said the distinction was between the elephant and the mouse, now you’re saying the distinction is between good and bad peanuts.

was warren only calling out the “predatory” lenders, and encouraging people to use the ethical lenders? that’s not how i recall it. she went after banks for exploiting students and driving up the cost of tuition. you cannot win this, i have all the cards, you have a pair of 4s.

she’s the textbook definition of a shameless hypocrite. and i pray she runs for potus in 2020.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yikes when we are debating the differences between an elephant and a mouse, I think we have lost focus.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

was warren only calling out the “predatory” lenders, and encouraging people to use the ethical lenders? that’s not how i recall it. she went after banks for exploiting students and driving up the cost of tuition. you cannot win this, i have all the cards, you have a pair of 4s.
I think you're conflating issues Jim. Warren wants all college loans to be at a low enough interest rate so the lender -- often the US Government directly -- doesn't see a profit. I'm not sure why this would be a bad thing.

The predatory issue she has was with shady colleges working to attract students but failing to deliver an education. Previously the government would forgive these loans if the complaint was qualified...under Trump this has pretty much ceased.

Holding all the cards doesn't mean much if you're at the craps table just FYI :rotf2:

Warren wants all college loans to be at a low enough interest rate so the lender -- often the US Government directly -- doesn't see a profit.



this is stupid

I think you're conflating issues Jim. Warren wants all college loans to be at a low enough interest rate so the lender -- often the US Government directly -- doesn't see a profit. I'm not sure why this would be a bad thing.

The predatory issue she has was with shady colleges working to attract students but failing to deliver an education. Previously the government would forgive these loans if the complaint was qualified...under Trump this has pretty much ceased.

Holding all the cards doesn't mean much if you're at the craps table just FYI :rotf2:

"Warren wants all college loans to be at a low enough interest rate "

Which colleges would use as an excuse to pay unionized professors more, to jack up tuition more.

If you want to lower the cost of tuition, a good start would be to not have professors getting paid 400k a year to teach one class. I see Warren isn't advocating for that, gee I wonder why...

"Holding all the cards doesn't mean much if you're at the craps table "

That's true in theory. But when I look at what the GOP is holding right now - the Oval Office, both chambers of congress, and a large majority of state governorships and legislatures...when I see all that, I'm pretty confident that I'm not the one who wandered moronically into the wrong table. Have fun making that wrong.

Jim
How much do you think a person who is very accomplished in their field should earn?
Is their value somehow less if they educate others?
Is it worthwhile for us as a society to invest in higher education?
My answers are the market will determine that
No
Yes
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim
How much do you think a person who is very accomplished in their field should earn?
Is their value somehow less if they educate others?
Is it worthwhile for us as a society to invest in higher education?
My answers are the market will determine that
No
Yes
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

oh, FFS, i’m not saying she doesn’t deserve the money. if students want to pay it, then she earns it. but she loses the right to wag her finger at anyone else making a buck off of college students. my problem isn’t with what she makes, my problem is that she thinks that only she can make money off the backs of students. that’s the last time i’ll say it, if you don’t get it you aren’t going to get it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device