leh-nerd skin-erd

It's easier to point what you got close to getting right. I would prefer the next President be a conservative. As for that being an "absolute", if it doesn't go that way, that president will be my President. I don't believe I've taken any significant stance on what you refer to as "book banning", but certainly believe that consideration should be given to what type of books are placed in elementary, middle and high schools. I'd bet you think that, too, though dunderheadedness on your part likely precludes you from taking that position. Beyond that, what you wrote was a combination of silliness, gibberish and fabrication.

Comprehension. Focus. Honesty. Integrity. Maturity. Understanding. Decency. Good faith. Morality. There's more, but it really just boils down to a lack of character on your part.

Of course Harvard has to deal with it. I wasn't under the illusion the government didn't already have rules, regulations and guidelines directing business to do things a certain way. That said, if you're still clinging to the notion that the government "...doesn't tell Exxon..." what to do after the revenue comes in, we're simply wasting time here. One would have to be foolish to argue that there are not socialistic...tendencies inherent in our system. Of course there are, and not all are necessarily good or inherently bad. Balance and moderation, sir. That's the ticket if you ask me. Absolutism be damned. I'm not sure how you ping-ponged from a conversation about Harvard, student loan debt, fair share and the greater good to Archer Daniel Midlands, Trumpers, maggots and victimization, but I'll leave work through the powerful emotions and thoughts you've shared with me today. At the same time, I'll remember that reasonable people can disagree, and offer for your consideration: "The poorest way to face life is to face it with a sneer." -Theodore Roosevelt

Tiberius Porter? Well I'll be darned.

I'd think a Harvard grad would know that from minimum wage, unemployment, insurance requirements, permits, fees taxes and beyond, the government surely tells Exxon what to do with their money. I'm surprised you don't, maybe too much hockey. As for my suggestion, Harvard is perhaps the most recognizable name in American education and a key player in the industry. I don't understand why it makes sense to discuss Big Pharma's role in, say the opiod crisis or prescription drug cost, but shy away from discussing the role of educational institutions in the debt crisis beyond whatever self-serving approach they current take. Why be so timid? People are hurting. My initial thought is that Harvard would want to be part of the solution, so I wouldn't think the government would have to "tell them" to do anything. If there was resistance, sure, you push forward, but why? Not far from my office, there was a family farm (went back generations) adjoining land where the local high school/middle school sat. It turned out the school wanted some of the land to build a brand new bus garage, the family didn't want to sell, and it became contentious. At one point, the local Supt of the district stated that once they forced the sale of the land, they wouldn't necessarily need it all, and they would agree to "let the family keep some of it". It was ugly, really, and thankfully the community rallied around the family and the Superintendent crawled back into the shadows. It's all about fair share, and breaking down the walls of wealth and privilege. You seem to be more comfortable on the country club side of things, but I'd typically side with the family on the farm.

No, I don't think endowments are bad. I actually thought I was clear--Harvard holding $51 billion in what amounts to a corporate slush fund is problematic in a world where student loan debt is allegedly crushing the average American. One way to address that would be to partner with the federal government, and provide relief through gifts, grants to those suffering the most..and as you've pointed out, those people tend not to be Harvard grads. My initial suggestion was 50%, but that's just an easy, round number. 33%? 25%? 40%? The number of people that could be helped would be amazing, and Harvard would still control obscene amounts of money. Multiply that by the massive holdings of some of our university and colleges, you're getting some traction. Too much money, in too few hands, helps far too few people. We call it out when country clubs are exclusionary, yet in education, it's a no fly zone. I'm not speaking ill of your alma mater, I'm just talking real world. Small school, the university accepts nearly 60% of applicants, and 85 out of 100 graduate. If the university has a good hockey program, great. A google search suggests average attendance at an SLU game at around 1,200 over the past few years. It's awesome that you had an excellent experience there, that's what's most important for you. I'm talking big picture here. No, not at all. Your suggestion implies there is no middle ground. That Harvard must maintain control of its incredible wealth, or give it all away. There's plenty of middle ground to be found.

Well, it’s been a few years since I knew or hung out with any Wall St types. They were friends of a friend, successful guys working for Wall Street firms and none that went to Ivy League schools that I can recall. One guy worked at Cantor and died on 9/11. It’s a small sample size, but again, we’re not arguing. The networking and insider opportunities are legendary, and quite exclusive. Education is big business—lots of money and power consolidated in a few places. Endowment estimated at $315m for a tiny spec of a school just shy of the Canadian border. Dartmouth is sitting at $8b. Interestingly, the school seems content to try and be part of the solution with student aid and grants awarded to lowish income student. Still, $8b, wow.

You were talking 'real life'. I was, too. It wasn't meant to be personal, nor was it meant to be an indictment on graduates of Harvard--wealthy from birth or hard-scrabble kids who overcame their situation. I don't invest much time in worrying about that sort of thing, because it provides nothing of value to me. I guess I would say Harvard, the prestigious educational institution, has provided the world with some first class educated individuals who have done some great things for humanity (and of course, more than a few scoundrels). It's also fair to say Harvard, the business, is exclusionary, biased, tribal, nepotistic and awfully good at keeping extraordinary amounts of money in house. "Won't do a thing" leads me back to the original point. Who is doing anything about these institutions beyond offering their graduates/undergrads a ride on the taxpayer gravy train? It's almost like the normal rules don't apply to them. Here's a thought. As of 2022, Harvard's slush fund was $51,000,000,000. Why not reach out to the trustees, explain the challenges in education and student loan debt, and ask 'em to kick in $0.50 on the dollar? Lather, rinse, repeat across the country, especially at the prestigious universities with wealthy benefactors. Ah, I don't think that way, so I'll leave you to it.

The interesting part to me about this is that if one were to look at Harvard as a corporation, historically it would represent many of the things liberal voters often complain about. High barrier to entry, exorbitant cost, lily white for decades, a highly developed alumni network that favored croneyism/tribalism over virtually everything else, and an exorbitant endowment funded by powerful people of and for the benefit of other powerful people. We agree on this, Fergie, that's the real world. It's just kind of odd that liberals are down with all that, up to and including picking up the tab on the taxpayer dime. What does this mean? What constitutes a substandard degree? Field of study? School? And..."any" woman? There's more here, and we might yet find some more common ground... It's really pretty amazing that you keep getting bounced from the platform. 🤫

@The Frankish Reich What say you?

I'm having trouble following you. We started with you supporting a/the inquiry, by congress. You suggested there was enough 'smoke' to support it. You have been crystal clear on how you feel about anything associated with the I word. I get that for sure. But now, you're on to this being an issue borne of a "focus group"? It would be silly to claim there is not a political aspect to the H & J Biden issue, of course there is. I recognize it could all be political, but human nature suggests otherwise. When you raised the issue of "smoke", it seemed you were saying reasonable people would reasonably support investigating the matter further because of evidence (or material if you prefer) brought to light thus far.

So, you don't support an impeachment inquiry, but believe the evidence gathered so far suggests additional scrutiny into potential wrongdoing by Joe Biden? But had Congress steered clear of any impeachment talk at this point, you were comfortable that it wasn't political (or overtly so)? Just trying to get a handle on the smoke.

Wow--hold on. Chi presses you with a gentle nudge and you throw in the towel? What about the smoke? You just said a congressional inquiry was warranted. In the 6 minutes since then it's all political? (Of course there are political elements to this. That's the way it works. It's like everyone suddenly becomes the Dali Lama when the focus of an investigation shifts.)

No, I don't think so. There is no reason to cede the high ground to a guy like Hunter Biden. By doing so, you change the narrative from "We're investigating" to "We're investigating as long as it's convenient for you.". If, as you suggest, H. Biden takes the 5th, the transcripts will reflect it. Finally, by capitulating to a guy with his background and the political connections he has, it gives the appearance that he's above the law or deserving of special consideration others would not benefit from. I'm glad you see the smoke, but politically speaking, it's a dense dark smoke rolling across the forest and can be seen for miles. I hate this phrasing, but I'll use it anyways--change Joe Biden to DTrump, and H Biden to Don Jr--every dem from here to Beijing jumps in with both feet. I would think they run hard with the notion that H Biden and his father have something to hide and proceed accordingly. If Joe's clean, surely that shall be revealed. The Rs should proceed as they see fit.

Is he hitting traffic in his house? That’s wack!

That’s usually the way these things play out though, so it’s nothing new. It’s a push. As for clouds, misleading statements and lies, should that be the case—it would not be unique to poor Joe Biden. If he can’t withstand what you seem to think is a completely baseless political firefight, time for him to put the Top Gun glasses away and retire to Delaware. I’d think when all is said and done, at best, Joe Biden looks like a complete buffoon running interference and protection for his wayward son who doesn’t really give a **** about the law, taxes or just about anything beyond money/hookers/blow. I think it will be worse than that, with evidence suggesting he’s profited handsomely partnering with Russia, China and others.

If Hunter Biden is an innocent victim of a hyper-partisan subterfuge, and Joe Biden is completely innocent of wrongdoing with no knowledge whatsoever of what complicated work his family members do, perhaps he should be re-elected. I’d consider voting for him if the cards played out that way. As it stands right now, polls suggest a majority of Americans feel that Joe has his hands in the cookie jar while he’s saying he can’t even find the kitchen. Since the cookie jar may be full of yuan and rubles, probably good to put it to bed one way or the other.

If it’s purely a political ploy—and it strikes me as really, really odd that the president’s family members are so deeply aligned with Russian and Chinese interests and not one democrat finds that problematic—it’ll run its course and Americans can express their feelings at the ballot box. Biden has plenty of time to explain his side of the story, and the advantage of speaking from the bully pulpit. On the other hand, if the committee continues to work within the framework of their obligation and it turns out an impeachment vote is warranted, so be it.

Q1. Read all, seek understanding and you'll get it. Q2. After completing your assignment from Q1, you'll understand the answer is Joe Biden. Q3. Hunter Biden "offered" nothing, he is the subject of a subpoena. Not the first, not the last. The committee sets the terms, as it always does. He is seeking special treatment, his request has been denied, and we keep moving forward. There are always concerns of politics, leaks, transparency. I guess if everyone does the right thing there is nothing to be afraid of.

The way you put it makes it sound like you don’t agree.

The conversation was about Hunter Biden ignoring the congressional subpoena. From there you suggested he wasn’t the privileged son of a powerful politician because his father’s father was a car salesman. Obviously, that lead you to researching the Trump family history and some as yet unexplained connection between Blue Collar Hunter and money Donald Trump’s father gave him. Do you think that’s why Hunter wants special treatment for his testimony? Do you think he’s going to use the “Fred Trump gave Donald Money!” defense? Is that like the Crane Technique for rich kids? Well guess what Mr. Mister. BillSy says that Donald Trump’s grandfather had walls in his house and Hunter Biden’s great grandmother only had windows in hers. Apparently she lived in a greenhouse.

I didn’t insult you, I just asked another poster if you were Polish. That’s neither cool nor uncool, it just is. That was a private conversation!

You just can't carry enough water for the Biden's can you? I get you are an extremist, but pay attention so you don't look so darn silly every time. Your family tree work on the Biden family is fascinating. I'd bet if you went back another generation or two, it might turn out that Joe's old nemesis, Corn Pop, may actually be a distant cousin once removed. Be that as it may, the link was about Hunter Biden (the Biden mentioned in the link, the subject of the subpoena) ...son of a Joe Biden, grandson of Gampa Biden (car salesman) and, it's been said--ice road trucker who rescued a bus load of nuns when they slid off a bridge into Kachemak Bay in 19oughtFiveFour. I'm serious.

This is an excellent outcome for the Rs where it relates to those on the fence. Biden is a child of privilege, the son of a powerful Washington insider, who got a sweetheart deal working for a corrupt company in a corrupt country, who figured paying taxes was for chumps, who used illegal drugs, ****ed around with firearms...and still had Washington insiders willing to pull strings for him (laptop was Russian disinfo, statute of limitations tolled on serious charges, was 30 seconds from a sweetheart deal that was scuttled at the last minute. So, not only does he defy the subpeona, he claims victim status, invokes his old man's name and claims he, too, is a victim. The only question is if the Rs have the common sense to leverage what they hav appropriately.

I can handle the vulgarity, I probably deserved that. However, eavesdropping is never cool, Tibs.