- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 94,823
- Reaction score
- 28,342
- Location
- Williamsburg, Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Fine, I award you a gold star for stubbornly and deliberately missing the obvious point to prevail in a debate on semantics! :applaud
So we agree, the behavior in THIS case cannot be squared with sincerely held religious faith, because it cannot be argued to be advancing god's will.
You are now speaking nonsense.Again, if the underlying act isn't illegal and you define that to be "(looking out for their children)" then selling cocaine to fund college should also be pardoned, same with stealing cars, robbing banks - the ends justify the means. I don't agree!
You are now speaking nonsense.
An underlying act of drug sell/distribution is illegal and they would be charged with that.
In this case the underlying act is not illegal.
Are you purposely playing obtuse?They've been indicted on the "underlying acts" so the law and reality don't agree with your analysis. The courts and a jury or (or guilty pleas with the advice of very competent counsel) will ultimately determine if the charges were legitimate. If not, no need for any pardons. If pardons are necessary, the acts were by definition determined by the court system to be illegal. This isn't that hard.
Are you purposely playing obtuse?
The underlying acts were legal here.
And again.No, they weren't legal. We know this because the feds indicted several people, and some have already pleaded guilty to crimes. :shrug:
An accusation isn't proof
iLOL no you don't. You said you "hope Trump pardons all the parents who were looking out for their children." They weren't "looking out for them" but bribing schools to accept their dullard kids who couldn't compete on the merits, and committing crimes in the process, and while doing so taking slots from more deserving applicants.
If he pardons them, he's memorializing plutocracy, rules for thee (the proles) not for me. Or perhaps you support the Golden Rule - he who has the gold makes the rules. There's nothing merit based about what the parents did.
It's true that the wealthy have other means to influence admissions, but you cannot support a merit based system while supporting pardons for parents who can't even get their stupid kids into college using those other, legal, levers like big contributions or connections or tutors or providing private school educations that spend 12 years preparing their kids just for this moment - applying to colleges.
And again.
I am speaking to the underlying acts of the Parents that were not illegal. Not the other people involved.
When the underlying activity is legal? Of course it is.
I spoke directly to the parents charged with mail fraud.
I suppose someone helping Russia sew discord wouldn't understand that.
Fantastic! That will be great news to them and their lawyers. They can just refer to this thread and your excellent legal analysis (nothing) and the judge will throw out the charges and no need for Trump to pardon anyone for crimes they didn't commit and weren't (cannot be!) convicted of committing.
So you refuse to acknowledge what is being spoken about.What the **** are you babbling about in this post?
No, when the "underlying activity" is illegal, it's illegal. No idiot in this world thinks it's okay to commit a crime so your children can attend college.
That's a fact.
So you refuse to acknowledge what is being spoken about.
Figures.
Like I already said; I suppose someone helping Russia sew discord wouldn't understand that.
Your babbling tells me you know exactly to what I refer.Why are you babbling about Russia in a thread about Americans bribing their childrens' way into college? I'm not Donald Trump. I don't have Russia on my mind when posting about Americans.
Your babbling tells me you know exactly to what I refer.
Can you call it a merit-based system if it has other "side doors" besides this one? What about the high school star athletes who aren't academically prepared for college but who are nevertheless slotted in, for example?
"Liz Peek: College admissions scandal disproves claim that rich get whatever they want": Liz Peek: College admissions scandal disproves claim that rich get whatever they want | Fox News
Are college admissions policies perfectly egalitarian? No. Successful high school athletes, legacies and numerous other groups get special treatment. But there are also a growing list of schools with admissions policies that are “need-blind” and others that today provide students from low-income families a full four-year ride.
Are there persistent advantages held by the wealthy? Yes. They send their children to the best schools they can, they provide their kids with tutors to help boost test scores, and they can sometimes help their offspring get useful internships. And the very well-heeled can attract the attention of college development officers with sizeable donations to colleges. Those are among the perks of success [aka wealth].
iLOL I am quite aware of what the topic is and what you are doing.I'm not the one who is off topic. That's you. This thread isn't about Russia. So if you're saying that I know you're off topic, you would be correct.
Maybe you should read the OP. It isn't about Russia.
iLOL I am quite aware of what the topic is and what you are doing.
It is why you continue to deflect with babble.
What the **** are you babbling about in this post?
No, when the "underlying activity" is illegal, it's illegal. No idiot in this world thinks it's okay to commit a crime so your children can attend college.
That's a fact.
Yeah, I can't figure it out either. The underlying activity was, he said, watching out for your kids, which means selling cocaine is OK if you use the proceeds for schooling. But that's not OK. So apparently the perfectly legal underlying activity is something other than what the parents and kids did in this case, the legal ways, not the things they DID do which were illegal. If they'd done something ELSE, it would have been legal. Or something.
But we both know you can't win an endurance battle here with that person. :2razz:
The article starts with a straw man. The claim isn't that "the rich get whatever they want" every time, in all cases, no matter the facts, but that the system is heavily rigged in favor of the rich, that rich kids start at 2nd or 3rd and the rest of the kids start at home plate. And then she proves the actual argument, which is nice I guess...
What the public know is the grades Trump wasn't among the top academic performers in his class. His name is conspicuously absent from the listed names of students who graduated with honors. He thus was not the "excellent student" he claims to have been.
I spoke to you helping Russia sew discord by your bs replies.iLOL if you knew what the topic was you wouldn't be posting about Russian discord.
:lamo And again you show you know not of what you speak even though I continually have pointed that out.Yeah, I can't figure it out either. The underlying activity was, he said, watching out for your kids, which means selling cocaine is OK if you use the proceeds for schooling. But that's not OK. So apparently the perfectly legal underlying activity is something other than what the parents and kids did in this case, the legal ways, not the things they DID do which were illegal. If they'd done something ELSE, it would have been legal. Or something.
Someone with a degree in economics thinks that trade deficits result in one country being "ripped off" at the expense of another. You know trump did not write his own papers or take his own tests. He can't even tweet in a gramatically-correct fashion.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?