mspart

Vak - I agree that students in general (99% of them) don't understand financing and that is the fault of our education system. That should be as important as the other MATH classes they have to take. The loan officer will answer questions but if you don't know what to ask, it all sounds rosy. Honestly I didn't learn until I had to take Engineering Finance. When I go in for a closing, I know exactly how much will be paying because I have calculated it on my own. It has saved me several thousand dollars in at least one transaction because the bank snuck in some fees I told them I would not pay. Everyone should be able to do this. I also agree with you that the universities over sell their degrees. That's on them. I hope the student loan discussion in the country is having people change their minds about going that direction or going to a stupid expensive university. Much better approach is CC and then university if a BS or BA is desired. Cheaper by far. mspart

I don't see that as an excuse. The resource officer is there to protect the kids. By abdicating that, who knows how many kids would still be alive if he had gone after the shooter. He may not have won that is true. But it is just as likely, with his training, he could have taken out the shooter before more damage was done. Even with a 9mm and a few well placed rounds. I agree with everything else you said. I just don't excuse the resource officer who was armed and there to stop this kind of thing. However, we never truly know what we will do in a similar circumstance until we are in it. I will give him that much I guess. mspart

Hi WKN, My understanding of the situation is that these colleges and universities want their student population to reflect the general population. So much White, so much Asian, so much Black, so much Indian, so much ..... So my comments were based on that. Harvard was not admitting Asians because their school population would be not in proportion to society in general. Asians would be over represented on campus. That was Harvard's argument to SCOTUS. So I was just pointing out that Stanford was not abiding by this, assuming this was their cause as well, and they need to bring in more white males on campus to get it to look like the rest of society. Obviously that means some other ethnic group was over represented. Title IX was also interpreted this way in some cases, that sports had to reflect the % of females and males on campus. This was one of 3 ways to comply. But what is not being said here is the fact that those in power do not think that Blacks, Hispanics, Indians can compete, that they can't measure up, so they need help. That is as much an indictment of our school system as it is of their racism. mspart

You better think so anyway. mspart

What I have not heard is the Scotus reasoning on this case. Was it solid? How about the dissent? Was it solid? I am not for loan forgiveness in general. You take out a loan and you pay it back, simple as that. You don't expect your neighbor to pay it off for you right? But more than that, this was attempted to be done by Presidential dictate, not by Congress. The law they were citing for loan forgiveness was strictly written for servicemen. How can that then be applied to general population? If Congress passes bills to the effect, and the President signs them into law, then it is law and we can not be happy but it was done right. This was not done right, and for that I am grateful SCOTUS stopped this. This is not government by a person, it is government by the people. The people (Congress) had no say in this. Why? Because it wouldn't have passed so Joe just said, well, I'll make it happen on my own. That is not the way to legislate laws. SCOTUS was correct, dissenters not. I agree with Husker, the fact that there were dissenters tells me they have no idea what the Constitution says. mspart

Vak, can you explain this more? How is a huge increase in tuition and fees not as predatory as the banks? mspart

Ok, got it. If a person has WR's seal of approval, legit candidate. Otherwise, he/she doesn't belong, not legit, go home not worth taking anyone's time. You can't take me seriously? That's your opinion. But for my part it is difficult to take someone serious that refuses to acknowledge that RFK Jr IS a candidate for the Democratic nomination. Here's a tip: When someone does all the paperwork necessary to become a presidential candidate, they are a legit presidential candidate. It doesn't matter if you approve or not. To your tip for me: I knew nothing about Clinton when he was running. Hick from AK is all I knew. Therefore, he was not a legitimate candidate if I go by your philosophy. Funny thing that he won eh? And he was not the front runner at the beginning because "who the heck was he". Here's the deal and the optics: Joe won't debate. RFK Jr will debate. Who's afraid of who? Why won't Joe debate, and the many follow up questions from that. I am not a RFK Jr acolyte. I would prefer Biden win the nomination. He's as weak as it gets. I think in the end he won't be the nominee. It will be like Lyndon Johnson, just not enough support. He's running on "Bidenomics" and 34% of the people polled approve of his handling of the economy. There is no there there. And no one even on the left wants Biden for a 2nd term. I'm guessing he will bow out and Newsome and some other Ds will take his place. I'll bet they would be happy and excited to debate RFK Jr and wipe the stage with him. I will be enjoying the 4th of July with my family. I wish you a Happy 4th of July as well. mspart

Thanks for posting the participants. Funny not seeing JB on the list. mspart

White men are 30% of the population according to https://thehill.com/changing-america/respect/diversity-inclusion/555503-new-study-finds-white-male-minority-rule/ Therefore, at these schools, white males should be 30% of the school population. But apparently they were 12% at Stanford. So by their own rules they need to get more white males in there to reflect the general population. Isn't that their criteria? They weren't even abiding by their own criteria. That is interesting. mspart

So what good is having armed personnel protecting a school if they won't protect a school? The prosecution must not have established his intent not to get involved is all I can figure. What does the future hold now? No one will get involved? That's the precedent set here. mspart

I don't remember there being other candidates in 2020 on the R side and I don't remember there being a hue and a cry for debates. Trump was the candidate. I don't even know who they were. Were there 2012 D debates? Why not? I said RFK is bona fide because he is an official candidate on the D side. Just because you don't like him doesn't mean he shouldn't be on a debate stage with Biden. From what you are saying, Biden would wipe him off the stage. That would dim his star and he would not be a candidate for long. If Biden won't debate him, then I could say he is not up to the challenge. What is wrong with that? Would I automatically be wrong? I don't think so. Imagine if Kyle Snyder said, I've been at the top so long I don't consider any challenger bona fide therefore the spot is mine without a wrestle off for as long I want. Stupid example, but the stakes are much higher. He must prove his superiority just like Biden should. That's my opinion. I hope Biden is the D candidate because he will look silly against any opposition. Now I say that because that's what I see. But he seems to rally for debates so maybe not. I could have said neither Inslee or Harris were bona fide candidates because they didn't even make it to a primary election. But they were on the debate stage with everyone else before the first primary vote. The did what was necessary to be a bona fide candidate, just like RFK Jr, whether you like him or not. My guess is he would not get your vote. So that's really easy eh? All I know about RFK is that he is RFK's son. That's it. That is all I know. But he is a registered candidate and Biden should show him the door on the debate stage. What's he worried about? So you don't like RFK Jr, because he is a bad person. Therefore no debate is necessary. Got it. mspart

Where is the list of US wrestlers? Not finding it at themat. mspart

Well, is that a reason not to have a debate? Nobody took WA gov Inslee or CA senator Harris seriously as Presidential candidates yet they were on the debate stand before Iowa voted. Of course both left before Iowa voted because nobody could stand either of them. Your opinion of him not withstanding, if he thinks he can win the Primary, and if he is a bona fide candidate ,then he should debate Pres Biden, or rather Pres Biden should debate him. By saying he won't debate, Biden is saying he can't win a debate, if I may be so bold. Put up or shut up Joe. My feeling is that Joe will end up not running. The D's don't really want him, the American electorate don't want him, and neither wants Harris. The D's need a better candidate really, objectively speaking. The R's need better than Trump objectively speaking. mspart

Maybe so, but RFK says things that matter whereas Joe can't. Maybe we should look at content rather than delivery here. mspart

Notice that the SCOTUS ruling points to the Constitution and Law. Dissents point to emotionalism and non law based arguments. That is the difference in approaches. What feels good vs the Constitution and law. Who is attempting to legislate from the bench? mspart

Ah, I see the conundrum. mspart

If you want the best and the brightest, who cares if one ethnic group is over represented or not. You have the best and the brightest. Harvard artificially kept out qualified applicants based on their ethnicity period. That is not right per 14th amendment, and the Civil Rights Law, as SCOTUS points out. It doesn't matter if what Harvard wanted felt good, it is against the Constitution and the Civil Rights Law. Not sure how this will be applied to anything outside of Universities and Colleges. But I would think it will become the standard for businesses and the Federal and State and local governments as well. mspart

Yes, the whole point of this case was the curtailing of Asian students getting in to Harvard and UNC. What is the good reason to keep them out? mspart

If I were to say what the article says, someone on here would say, how do you know that? Prove it!!!! So to not punish everyone to go through that, I paste the article so everyone knows how I know it and then I comment on it a little. You may not like that WR, but that is why I do it. No doubt you would be one of those asking me to prove my point. Well, you aren't saying that are you. Because I put it out there. All you can complain about is that I put it out there. Weak sauce. mspart

Not a chance. They have said there will be no debates. Period. Unless there are. mspart

Sophomore year, weighed 99. Junior 105, senior had a growth spurt to 113. Yeah, I was good at football back when I was 6 and 7. To your other point, right on. Hoefully his folks are savvy enough to invest that money for him. mspart

pinfall does sound stupid. It is either a Pin or a Fall. PinFall is redundant. Just my $.02. mspart

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/ab-inbev-announces-new-ad-campaign-as-bud-light-sales-continue-to-crater-120039088.html AB InBev announces new ad campaign as Bud Light sales continue to crater Sales of Bud Light declined 28.5% during the week ending June 17. Bud Light's parent company Anheuser-Busch InBev (BUD) is out with a new ad campaign highlighting the workers behind its products as sales continue to take a hit following its campaign with influencer Dylan Mulvaney earlier this year. On Wednesday, the beer giant announced the new campaign, called "That’s Who We Are." The first ad, dubbed "We Make the Beer," includes a 30-second and a 60-second spot that features more than 140 Anheuser-Busch employees, growers, wholesalers, and partners in the campaign's ad. AB InBev's Bud Light brand lost its top spot in the US beer market to Constellation Brands' (STZ) Modelo and is now going into its third month of declining sales following its partnership with Mulvaney, a transgender influencer and TikTok personality, which prompted a boycott among certain US consumers. In the week ending June 17, sales of Bud Light declined 28.5%, according to Nielsen data received from Bump Williams Consulting. That's an acceleration from the 26.8% decline seen in the week prior. Volumes were also down 31.1% compared to a 30.3% decline the week before.... That will take care of it. A new ad campaign will bring back the 25% of lost beer sales. Heck fire, why didn't we think of this sooner!! mspart

To your first paragraph, I attribute that to the high gas prices and more prevalent use of EVs reducing the purchase of gasoline. The carbon tax or fee is not considered a gas tax and does not go for roads etc like the gas tax does. It is essentially a slush fund for the state to do with what they like. You would think that would be to help along renewable energy projects but it could be used for anything. So if gas taxes are going down like you say, the CO2 fees are not included in that, which is why Inslee and his crowd are quick to say that the CO2 fees are not gas tax, but a CO2 environmental fee. I agree to your second paragraph. But there has been no news about a pipeline issue that I have read or heard. Inslee used that as one item that was causing the gas prices to be high. His main point was the gas companies gouging the heck out of us. That was my point about them only targeting WA, and not any other state. That makes no sense. If they were gouging WA, they would be gouging the other 47 contiguous states as well. But they aren't as reflected in the national gas prices. WA being #1 for high gas prices is strictly a result of the CO2 fee. That's my opinion. But I think it is backed up by facts and data. mspart

That's a wild assumption OTM, you know that don't you? mspart