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

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 ??

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:

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

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

Exactly

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!!!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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-u...-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

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

I try to keep it local Pete but still resort to Amazon. We even have a local bookstore.
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.

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

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?

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

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