occupy wall street.......

[Richard L]

KL,

Neither of my statements is false, reread them in their original context and you'll see. You're trying so hard to read between the lines of my text that you've missed what is actually there.

I have reread them and they still contradict each other....So why don't you explain what you meant to imply and stop talking in riddles. What's the difference if it was a male of female? What's the difference if the hands are those of a white person? And what is the meaning for saying "White males getting scholarships of that magnitude is unknown in my area"?? You said if for a reason, so explain what you meant??? If you were not implying anything, what is the context of that statement supposed to mean or imply?

You ARE doing that same thing by having 2 gas-guzzling cars for one man, driving up the prices for "everyone else who may be less fortunate". Just FYI

Not true again! I actually have 3 cars, but that is not the issue here. I can only drive one vehicle at a time. And since I am retired, I don't have a daily commute, and I don't even drive everyday, so I think I can confidently say that I am using far less gasoline than you do. So what is your response to that ??? Please try to weasle out of what you IMPLIED in your statement !!



Also, None of my vehicles are gas-guzzzlers. The Mercedes easily gets to 31-33 MPG on the highway and about 26 in town. The Toyota Highlander gets about 26 MPG on the Highway and 22 MPG in town. The old Honda gets 30+ MPG on the highway but has not been driven in years. I am restoring it for my grandkids. So, since I can only drive one vehicle at a time, your statement that I am driving two gas-guzzlers and driving up gas prices is also another bogus statement you made.



As for the Mercedes being a Luxury car, that would depend on who you ask. My Mercedes is a C-class (small MB) that I chose over a fully equiped Honda Accord because I got a great deal, and it only cost a few $$$ more than the Honda. Most only associate Mercedes with luxury cars but they do make some quality cars that compete pricewise with the Honda Accord and Toyota Camry....Even the CTC Caddy is more expensive with too many confusing options.



Like I said, I enjoy an intelligent debate with anyone, but you don't seem to meet those minimum standards. You only make accusations and then run and hide when you are called out. Your comments about the sign carrier were completely out of left field, sounded racist and/or sexist, and were not even related to the subject of this thread. And you continue to refuse to clarify those remarks.



...Rich

 

[Thomas Rogers]

I have to agree with KL,



Even the white males graduating high school in our area with EXCELLENT (not good, and definitely not "decent") grades that got scholarships that cover 90% of were few and far between (I know of NONE).



It may be politically incorrect to say, or even to imply (not saying KL did) that scholarships are more liberally given to minorities and to females, but arguably that is the case. Many institutions seeking diversification (read: increased minorities, more females) will give more scholarships monies with lower qualifications to those they wish to attract. This does happen.



Is pointing out what one feels is the rather "unlikely" nature of what appears to be a white male with decent grades in high school getting 90% tuition covered in scholarships bad form in an off-topic thread? I think not. The post by Hugh and the picture is meant to smack those in the nose that think college loan "bailouts" is a good idea. It does so by presenting a "portrait" or "profile" of what we are supposed to think is a responsible college student. I submit the profile is less than believable. That's not to say there aren't those that are going to college and not incurring debt. I am sure they are. But I am skeptical of the image posted and the reality purports to convey.



Oh, and as for the picture that Hugh posted. I have to say: "whoppty-freakin-doo!" Decent grades that give one scholarships to pay 90% of college at a public university, all paid for by working a "McJob" for 30 hours a week. Yeah, so what? Public universities are mostly a pay-for-grade endeavor meaning you pay, show up to class, do a little work and get a B or an A. 10% of public university tuition, books, etc is only a few hundred dollars to a thousand for a semester...and that's an over-estimate on the high end. Paying for an apt, okay, that's noble.



But I don't consider any of that "working my ass off!"



Now, compare and contrast that with someone who get EXCELLENT grades, has been working part-time since 14, gets scholarships for about 50% of their tuition and a prestigious private school and goes into debt. Is there an issue with that? Nope, not necessarily. It's called RETURN ON INVESTMENT. If the arguably more notable school and degree lands one a better job, or more likely lands them a job out of college, then the debt may be worthwhile.



Should the government "excuse" this debt? Probably not. But there was a time in this country where MORE of your tax dollars went towards scholarships given out at public and private, and government sponsored scholarships. Under Reagan much of that went away and shifted toward guaranteed loans. Essentially, that change made a clear statement as to the value our country places on higher education.



TJR

 

[H D]

I guarantee you As are not handed out at the public University of Georgia. Most professors' grade distributions reflected 10% As, 60% Bs or Cs, and 30% got Ds or Fs. Keep in mind that for most majors, a D is as good as an F and does not count toward graduation except as a poor elective just dragging down a GPA. I would put my public University's education against any of the private or Ivy League schools of your choosing. Actually, the Princeton review ranks my college at UGA, the School of Public and International Affairs in the top 3 in the nation. #1 was Princeton, #2 University of Texas, and #3 UGA. 2 of the top 3 are public universities. What says you about that.



And as for working my ass off. Been there done that. I believe the other student probably did as well.



And as for being a white, middle class male. Scholarships are impossible. At 21 years of age and 4 years after receiving any financial help from my parents, I was denied the Pell Grant. Why? Because my parents made too much money. I was making $8,000 a year and in school full time. Sucked for me. Oh well, move on and keep working. I didn't stage a protest or have a pity party.



I'm in grad school now and still can't receive any financial assistance, save for loans. Ain't doin' that in this economy. I'll just keep working and studying. The economy won't be bad forever. When it turns, I'll have something to show on my resume besides spending a winter sitting in a park, smoking pot, holding signs and taking it to the man.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Hugh,



From what I have seen Georgia seems somewhat unique in its public, state universities and in the rigor of the coursework, the caliber of the instruction, the harshness of the grading, and the value of the education. There are far worse states to try to get a valuable public education within.



I wasn't trying to belittle all public universities, which is why I said "mostly". I have nothing but respect for most of the GA universities, especially UGA and GT.



Be glad that you can pay for grad school at a great school without taking on loans. Not everyone lives in GA where that is an option.



I currently work for a GA-based corp but still live in PA. I considered moving down there JUST for the universities and the fact that residents can go to them pretty dirt-cheap (compared to comparable education in the Northeast). Only reason I didn't, was because, by and large, the public high schools, IMHO, were very hit-or-miss and most simply were not as good, not even close, to the high schools in our area of southeastern PA.



That's what I have to say about that.



TJR

 

[H D]

I did consider Penn State. Out of state tuition and real winters were a huge detraction. I have family in Pennsylvania so we may have been able to work on the in-state, out of state thing.



I do have loans. I refuse to take on more. I was unwise when I was younger. Mine aren't huge, but they are more than I wish I had. I have friends from our cheap Georgia schools with $60k in debt. Most of them did it so they didn't have to work and could live in the nice communities.



Both of my younger sisters are currently enrolled in private schools and pay per year what UGA cost in three years. Their choice, though. They could have chosen a cheaper school. By my judgement, I received a far superior education as well.



I'm still waiting to see how much Frank wants to help me pay for my life choices. It must be hard to make those fairness calculations. I'll wait patiently.

 

[Richard L]

TJR,

You probably are not aware of the history between me and KL. He knit-picks every word I post here and always takes things out of context.....Just giving him a taste of his own medicine.



Because you agree with him, does not make him right ! Is he right to claim that I am driving two Gas-Guzzlers and using more than my allotted share of gas? Is he right to make an issue that one of my cars is a Mercedes. I worked for everything I have and I try not to be wasteful in anyway. I probably give more to charities in one month than KL does in a year! Almost every month I make donations to the local food bank, and give clothes and household items to Goodwill.



I had a 100% tuition paid scholarship via the US Army but I still had to buy all my books. I went to school 3 nights a week and on Saturdays on 3 different campuses while still doing my daily military duties to get my degree.



I would expect you to agree with KL since I find that you and KL tend to be overly anal about proper grammar and tend to look down you noses at anyone who might not meet your standards of written English. Of course that is just my opinion...:grin:



...Rich

 

[Thomas Rogers]

RichardL,



I am not aware of the seeming hatefest you and KL have. But don't lump me in on it, please.



I won't get into your tit-for-tat that you seem to be having with KL.



I never came to anyone's defense. I merely pointed out the relative merits of the general statement KL was making in the other thread, and this one as well. The fact that I did this, objectively and without bias, you viewed it as "talking KLs side". I'm not interested in "sides", just in discussion and the merit of ideas. The fact that I found KLs ideas meritous you felt it as an attack. I wasn't attacking you. But you have certainly attacked me.



As far as you saying:

"I would expect you to agree with KL since I find that you and KL tend to be overly anal about proper grammar and tend to look down you noses at anyone who might not meet your standards of written English. Of course that is just my opinion..."

That is simply uncalled for and I want an apology.



I am not nor have I ever been a grammar or English Nazi. I am someone who thinks people should say what they mean, and mean what they say, and when I can't understand their point will ask for clarification. That is not in any way "anal", and I certainly do NOT look down my nose at anyone.



You need to step back and apologize, pal...seriously!



I haven't made this personal, but you just did, and that is uncalled for.



Please be civil. I'll stop posting in threads that you are in if that will help, but man, it's pretty freaking lame if it comes to that. The stopping of ideas and civil discussions (look back I was civil in EVERY POST THE LAST TWO DAYS) because some simply cannot handle it is a tragedy, IMHO.



TJR

 

[Robert Thomas]

Decaf

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Redfish,



Only one cup so far... can't be the caffiene. LOL.



Obviously a fire has been burning while I was gone. Seems like I made the fatal mistake of comment on something someone said, when that someone was in the midst of a flame war, and I am not collateral damage. LOL.



TJR

 

[Richard L]

TJR,

I am not upset at you. I did not intend to offend you, I did not intend to accuse you of being the Grammar or Spelling Nazi since you have not done that, but others have and I just threw them all into them lump and I appologize for that.



We have had a number of disagreements in the past. Most of our differences were related to you twisting my words to try to extract a different meaning, one that conforms to your definition. Other members clearly understood the statement, but you seemed to want to disect each word and explore all the possible meanings and I am not the only one who has brought that to your attention.



So not hard feelings, but I just feel that KL made the statments and needs to explain them. and he needs to appologize to me for the accusations he made about my Gas Guzzling cars, etc.



...Rich

 

[H D]

:bwahaha::bwahaha::bwahaha:



It's getting cold in the North!

:angry:

 

[Richard L]

Hugh,

It's getting cold down here in Central Texas as well.....but after a summer of record setting 100+ degree days, I will not complain.



All I can suggest is, if you don't have a heated pool or hot tub with a large flat panel TV outdoors, you probably need to check with Gary and perhaps take a trip to Connecticut...:bwahaha:



...Rich

 

[H D]

 

[H D]

Didn't take long for the violence.

 

[Richard L]

Yes, the violence is going to make a lot of their sympathizers turn their backs on them.



Of course they did not shut down Oakland like they said they would. The did shut down the Oakland port, but they did not get the dockworkers union to join them.



...Rich

 

[H D]

Hey, as long as they shut down Frank, it had some kind of success.:cheeky: :bwahaha:

 

[Frank screwyourednecks]

Hey Hugh... what does that mean? "Shut down Frank"

 

[Richard L]

I think it means that they only shut down the port...and the city of Oakland goes on as usual. I think that their idea of Shutting down Oakland flopped.



...Rich

 

[H D]

Didn't figure you'd try to come back and claim they actually shut down Oakland. Or try to somehow defend the violence.



If the political impact you were referring to is forcing funds to be diverted from actual municipal operations to put out fires, board up buildings and book ignorant thugs...I suppose there was some political impact. Good thing Oakland is America's land of milk and honey. Hurting the economy of Oakland would go a long way toward "showing the man.":banghead:



You still haven't told me how much of your paycheck is my monthly's fair share since you probably make more than me.



Another question for you, since the only tangible result from this besides destruction of personal property and infringement of individual rights is the brilliant college loan executive order. I've been paying cash for graduate school. That's roughly 30% of my yearly income right now. I allot that much CASH for school. Should I just get a loan for the Spring 2012 semester with no intention of fully paying it off? That would be smarter right? Just get your taxes to pay for it...I may become a socialist yet.



I know your retort will be that the 1% should pay for it. I just can't believe people think this way. It amazes me every time I try to wrap my mind around this kind of thinking.

 

[H D]

I do want to grant you one thing Frank. The violence is by those on the fringe, not the average OWS protestor.



But, what is it about they type of movement this is that these types of fringe idiots are attracted to it? These kind of events have not happened in a single Tea Party rally.



So, to answer your previous question:

Hilarious...for all of you anti-Occupy people... Do you somehow think that the Tea Party protesters are any

different?

I absolutely do. Not only because they are not violent, but because they prefer to meet at a scheduled time, with proper preparation (including sanitation, etc) and they go back to work at the end of it.