|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On February 27 2015 07:51 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2015 07:29 xDaunt wrote:On February 27 2015 06:50 Introvert wrote:
On a quick note, I'd like to say as a self-identified Tea Party person, that I'm not liking Ben Carson. He keeps saying stupid things and probably should have stuck to medicine.
It seems to me he's a good, soft-spoken guy, but he doesn't really know how to "do" politics. I don't really understand the Carson-hype (such as it is). Frankly, the Tea Party already has their damn-near-perfect candidate in Scott Walker. He's pretty much everything they could want and without the baggage. Most importantly, he's actually electable. Eventually the big money republican donors are going to figure out that no one wants Jeb and will start sending more funds Walker's way. EDIT: What a disaster of an original post editing-wise. I think there are a number of people who could win (at least more than TL would admit), but I really like Walker. I just hope he doesn't sell out for all that big donor money :p
All presidential candidates have to sell out to a degree to raise money. However, I do not think that Walker will be one who compromises himself too much.
It may be that other republican candidates can win, too. I just think that Walker clearly has the best chance in a national election. The dude is a political beast who has repeatedly crushed the opposition in a swing state. You cannot ask for more than that.
|
On February 27 2015 10:31 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2015 07:51 Introvert wrote:On February 27 2015 07:29 xDaunt wrote:On February 27 2015 06:50 Introvert wrote:
On a quick note, I'd like to say as a self-identified Tea Party person, that I'm not liking Ben Carson. He keeps saying stupid things and probably should have stuck to medicine.
It seems to me he's a good, soft-spoken guy, but he doesn't really know how to "do" politics. I don't really understand the Carson-hype (such as it is). Frankly, the Tea Party already has their damn-near-perfect candidate in Scott Walker. He's pretty much everything they could want and without the baggage. Most importantly, he's actually electable. Eventually the big money republican donors are going to figure out that no one wants Jeb and will start sending more funds Walker's way. EDIT: What a disaster of an original post editing-wise. I think there are a number of people who could win (at least more than TL would admit), but I really like Walker. I just hope he doesn't sell out for all that big donor money :p All presidential candidates have to sell out to a degree to raise money. However, I do not think that Walker will be one who compromises himself too much. It may be that other republican candidates can win, too. I just think that Walker clearly has the best chance in a national election. The dude is a political beast who has repeatedly crushed the opposition in a swing state. You cannot ask for more than that.
I'm just going to remain cautiously optimistic. I'd rather donors line up behind Walker than have him go chasing, but that might be unrealistic.
|
I am watching Walker's CPAC speech. He is a very good orator -- so much better than the crap that we have seen from republican candidates over the past 20+ years.
Edit: I think he gave that speech without a telepromtpter.
|
On February 27 2015 07:56 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2015 07:28 Introvert wrote:On February 27 2015 07:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 27 2015 06:50 Introvert wrote:
On a quick note, I'd like to say, as a self-identified Tea Party person, that I'm not liking Ben Carson. He keeps saying stupid things and probably should have stuck to medicine.
It seems to me he's a good, soft-spoken guy, but he doesn't really know how to "do" politics. Any insight as to why his stupid comments haven't put off more of your tea-party brethren? The latest polls show that he is marginally more approved of than Walker by Tea party members (Conservatives). Bush is really struggling with conservative voters. Among 'very conservative' voters on this poll, just 37% rate Bush favorably to 43% with an unfavorable opinion. By comparison Carson is at 73/2, Walker at 68/3, and Cruz at 68/8 with those folks. SourceCruz couldn't win a national election if he paid every voter $100 to vote for him, so that makes Walker the only hope for 'conservatives' to win right? I was just stating my opinion, it's too early to say Walker is the "only one who can win." Just like you think Bush is the only one who could win. It's far too early. I'm personally just not a fan of the type of rhetoric he is employing, but to other people it's understood as just being politics. Democrats say things like this too ("They're gonna put ya'll all back in chains" from the idiot Joe Biden comes to mind.) It's just campaigning really, but I feel like Carson isn't very skilled at it. Maybe it's just a reflection of my personality, but going over the top in trying to make a point always causes me to grimace, no matter who does it. Which other conservatives are you thinking could win the primary and general? Are you suggesting you genuinely think Carson or Cruz has a chance at a win in the general election?
There are those with better chances.
|
On February 27 2015 10:55 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2015 07:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 27 2015 07:28 Introvert wrote:On February 27 2015 07:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 27 2015 06:50 Introvert wrote:
On a quick note, I'd like to say, as a self-identified Tea Party person, that I'm not liking Ben Carson. He keeps saying stupid things and probably should have stuck to medicine.
It seems to me he's a good, soft-spoken guy, but he doesn't really know how to "do" politics. Any insight as to why his stupid comments haven't put off more of your tea-party brethren? The latest polls show that he is marginally more approved of than Walker by Tea party members (Conservatives). Bush is really struggling with conservative voters. Among 'very conservative' voters on this poll, just 37% rate Bush favorably to 43% with an unfavorable opinion. By comparison Carson is at 73/2, Walker at 68/3, and Cruz at 68/8 with those folks. SourceCruz couldn't win a national election if he paid every voter $100 to vote for him, so that makes Walker the only hope for 'conservatives' to win right? I was just stating my opinion, it's too early to say Walker is the "only one who can win." Just like you think Bush is the only one who could win. It's far too early. I'm personally just not a fan of the type of rhetoric he is employing, but to other people it's understood as just being politics. Democrats say things like this too ("They're gonna put ya'll all back in chains" from the idiot Joe Biden comes to mind.) It's just campaigning really, but I feel like Carson isn't very skilled at it. Maybe it's just a reflection of my personality, but going over the top in trying to make a point always causes me to grimace, no matter who does it. Which other conservatives are you thinking could win the primary and general? Are you suggesting you genuinely think Carson or Cruz has a chance at a win in the general election? There are those with better chances.
Who are you thinking of?
|
On February 27 2015 10:46 xDaunt wrote:
I am watching Walker's CPAC speech. He is a very good orator -- so much better than the crap that we have seen from republican candidates over the past 20+ years.
Edit: I think he gave that speech without a telepromtpter.
So Walker is the frontrunner for the xDaunt prize for political theatre.
@ jonny
I'm sure you've seen this picture before jonny, but I think it sums up the state of the infrastructure in the US pretty well for people like you who like looking at $ graphs.
![[image loading]](https://d262ilb51hltx0.cloudfront.net/max/1200/1*vjBgjUy9VGEW2jfUuRDHkA.png)
I'm sure you have explanations for this that would make the cable companies proud, like how the US has a unique geography, difficult terrain, and other costly factors that would bring the price up. Also explanations for how if we wanted better, faster internet service we will have to fork over more cash so the internet companies, which have already been investing copiously into a network that is largely static from year to year, can redouble their efforts to provide us with state-of-the-art service.
Especially with the failure of public broadband in places like Chattanooga, I, for one, trust my (sole) local cable provider to provide the best cable service at the lowest available price.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i wonder where the 'money to local government for right of way' and associated costs go in their statements
|
On February 27 2015 11:19 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2015 10:46 xDaunt wrote:
I am watching Walker's CPAC speech. He is a very good orator -- so much better than the crap that we have seen from republican candidates over the past 20+ years.
Edit: I think he gave that speech without a telepromtpter. So Walker is the frontrunner for the xDaunt prize for political theatre. @ jonny I'm sure you've seen this picture before jonny, but I think it sums up the state of the infrastructure in the US pretty well for people like you who like looking at $ graphs. + Show Spoiler +I'm sure you have explanations for this that would make the cable companies proud, like how the US has a unique geography, difficult terrain, and other costly factors that would bring the price up. Also explanations for how if we wanted better, faster internet service we will have to fork over more cash so the internet companies, which have already been investing copiously into a network that is largely static from year to year, can redouble their efforts to provide us with state-of-the-art service. Especially with the failure of public broadband in places like Chattanooga, I, for one, trust my (sole) local cable provider to provide the best cable service at the lowest available price. Haha IgnE you're making me laugh. I'm glad we can agree that our stellar cable companies are providing unparalleled value, customer service, and advances at competitive rates. After all, I really think that Estonia and Slovenia have faster speeds because they are so much more technologically advanced.
After this whole net neutrality thing I am extremely cynical towards them. I'm very lucky that google fiber was just announced for my area - looking forward to doing away with Timewarner forever.
|
On February 27 2015 11:19 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2015 10:46 xDaunt wrote:
I am watching Walker's CPAC speech. He is a very good orator -- so much better than the crap that we have seen from republican candidates over the past 20+ years.
Edit: I think he gave that speech without a telepromtpter. So Walker is the frontrunner for the xDaunt prize for political theatre.
Hey, indulge me a little bit. The republican nominee as been the inferior orator in every presidential election since Reagan ran for office (maybe HW Bush was better than Dukakis, but I don't really know). With few exceptions, Romney, McCain, and Bush were generally uninspiring at best.
|
On February 27 2015 11:19 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2015 10:46 xDaunt wrote:
I am watching Walker's CPAC speech. He is a very good orator -- so much better than the crap that we have seen from republican candidates over the past 20+ years.
Edit: I think he gave that speech without a telepromtpter. So Walker is the frontrunner for the xDaunt prize for political theatre. @ jonny I'm sure you've seen this picture before jonny, but I think it sums up the state of the infrastructure in the US pretty well for people like you who like looking at $ graphs. I'm sure you have explanations for this that would make the cable companies proud, like how the US has a unique geography, difficult terrain, and other costly factors that would bring the price up. Also explanations for how if we wanted better, faster internet service we will have to fork over more cash so the internet companies, which have already been investing copiously into a network that is largely static from year to year, can redouble their efforts to provide us with state-of-the-art service. Especially with the failure of public broadband in places like Chattanooga, I, for one, trust my (sole) local cable provider to provide the best cable service at the lowest available price.
As a Canadian I have to say, that graph is utter bullshit. We pay higher rates and get slower internet.
Not to mention unlike you guys, most of our packages still have data limits.
|
On February 27 2015 11:19 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2015 10:46 xDaunt wrote:
I am watching Walker's CPAC speech. He is a very good orator -- so much better than the crap that we have seen from republican candidates over the past 20+ years.
Edit: I think he gave that speech without a telepromtpter. So Walker is the frontrunner for the xDaunt prize for political theatre. @ jonny I'm sure you've seen this picture before jonny, but I think it sums up the state of the infrastructure in the US pretty well for people like you who like looking at $ graphs. + Show Spoiler +I'm sure you have explanations for this that would make the cable companies proud, like how the US has a unique geography, difficult terrain, and other costly factors that would bring the price up. Also explanations for how if we wanted better, faster internet service we will have to fork over more cash so the internet companies, which have already been investing copiously into a network that is largely static from year to year, can redouble their efforts to provide us with state-of-the-art service. Especially with the failure of public broadband in places like Chattanooga, I, for one, trust my (sole) local cable provider to provide the best cable service at the lowest available price.
Why are you addressing this to me? I never took the position that our internet is the best / cheapest or that regulatory changes can absolutely not improve the situation or that municipalities were a pox on free market virtue.
But yeah, since you brought it up there is more to pricing than 'evil corporations' and whatever other mindless ideology you feel like shitting out today.
|
On February 27 2015 02:11 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2015 01:46 hannahbelle wrote:On February 27 2015 01:42 oneofthem wrote:
hannahbelle where did you go to school MBA from the Kelley School of Business in Indiana. Not that I am sure it is relevant to the discussion... read up one post from mine, see where you talked about the guy's public education reasoning skills. looks like your nonpublic education didn't get you enough skills to score a decent gmat kek.
Really, you are stooping this low? I would have thought better of you, but then I realized, you're just ignorant. Probably socio-economically disadvantaged, so you really can't be held responsible for your own stupidity.
When I was checking on grad schools, my GMAT was the median of those at the Harvard School of Business. I just didn't have the money or desire to uproot my family and move them 1000 miles to go to school. As well as trying to find another job to support my family in a new area while going to school. It was just as easy to go to the top-10 rated MBA program that was a half hour from my house. But I'm sure you in your infinite knowledge of business grad schools already knew how these programs stack up.
kek
|
On February 27 2015 07:56 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2015 07:28 Introvert wrote:On February 27 2015 07:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 27 2015 06:50 Introvert wrote:
On a quick note, I'd like to say, as a self-identified Tea Party person, that I'm not liking Ben Carson. He keeps saying stupid things and probably should have stuck to medicine.
It seems to me he's a good, soft-spoken guy, but he doesn't really know how to "do" politics. Any insight as to why his stupid comments haven't put off more of your tea-party brethren? The latest polls show that he is marginally more approved of than Walker by Tea party members (Conservatives). Bush is really struggling with conservative voters. Among 'very conservative' voters on this poll, just 37% rate Bush favorably to 43% with an unfavorable opinion. By comparison Carson is at 73/2, Walker at 68/3, and Cruz at 68/8 with those folks. SourceCruz couldn't win a national election if he paid every voter $100 to vote for him, so that makes Walker the only hope for 'conservatives' to win right? I was just stating my opinion, it's too early to say Walker is the "only one who can win." Just like you think Bush is the only one who could win. It's far too early. I'm personally just not a fan of the type of rhetoric he is employing, but to other people it's understood as just being politics. Democrats say things like this too ("They're gonna put ya'll all back in chains" from the idiot Joe Biden comes to mind.) It's just campaigning really, but I feel like Carson isn't very skilled at it. Maybe it's just a reflection of my personality, but going over the top in trying to make a point always causes me to grimace, no matter who does it. Which other conservatives are you thinking could win the primary and general? Are you suggesting you genuinely think Carson or Cruz has a chance at a win in the general election?
Cruz yes. Carson probably not.
|
On February 27 2015 04:08 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2015 02:10 hannahbelle wrote:On February 27 2015 02:00 Nyxisto wrote:
We have the same amount of crazy people in our population, the difference is that we don't have black neurosurgeons who claim that Obamacare is worse than slavery. The stuff isn't institutionalized here. Sure we have climate change deniers and anti-vaccers and all kinds of stuff, but you can't actually hold these positions and seriously try to run for president. It's like all intellectuals in the US are getting shoved around by a bunch of people who have simply lost their mind. I find it odd that you equate being intellectual with not being fiscally and socially conservative. Edit: oh, and he also equates it with people who don't revert to ridiculous hyperbole to get their point across. You can be an intellectual and disagree (strenuously) with Obamacare and everything it means. However, you cannot be an intellectual and think that it is worse than slavery.
True, but it's not like liberals don't have their share of really dumb things being said either. The VP is a veritable breathing book of stupid quotes. It doesn't advance the conversation to attack one side for something that is done equally by the other, just because pointing out Republican gaffes makes you feel better about your own false sense of intellectual superiority.
People say dumb things all the time. I am sure that even you and Nyxisto have said dumb things in the past you wish you hadn't said. If you haven't, my hats off to you.
|
On February 27 2015 12:54 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2015 11:19 IgnE wrote:On February 27 2015 10:46 xDaunt wrote:
I am watching Walker's CPAC speech. He is a very good orator -- so much better than the crap that we have seen from republican candidates over the past 20+ years.
Edit: I think he gave that speech without a telepromtpter. So Walker is the frontrunner for the xDaunt prize for political theatre. @ jonny I'm sure you've seen this picture before jonny, but I think it sums up the state of the infrastructure in the US pretty well for people like you who like looking at $ graphs. + Show Spoiler +I'm sure you have explanations for this that would make the cable companies proud, like how the US has a unique geography, difficult terrain, and other costly factors that would bring the price up. Also explanations for how if we wanted better, faster internet service we will have to fork over more cash so the internet companies, which have already been investing copiously into a network that is largely static from year to year, can redouble their efforts to provide us with state-of-the-art service. Especially with the failure of public broadband in places like Chattanooga, I, for one, trust my (sole) local cable provider to provide the best cable service at the lowest available price. Why are you addressing this to me? I never took the position that our internet is the best / cheapest or that regulatory changes can absolutely not improve the situation or that municipalities were a pox on free market virtue. But yeah, since you brought it up there is more to pricing than 'evil corporations' and whatever other mindless ideology you feel like shitting out today.
Mindless ideology is just rampant in this thread. Jonny's head remains clear: maximize shareholder value. Pricing is complicated.
|
On February 27 2015 03:58 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2015 03:53 farvacola wrote:
The ISPs lost! That's all that counts in my opinion lol. What I read so far makes it sound like a good thing, then I read a bunch of republicans talking about how its the end of the world so was wondering if someone here could explain it better. I have to go to class now though, and then work, so I won't really get to find out until later today 
Bottom line is that your internet is now going to be everything you hate about your cable service.
Now that ISPs will have a monopoly in your area, your fees will go up, your customer service will go down, and innovation will plummet.
All in the name of protecting ISPs ability to fund "infrastructure upgrades".
Do yourself a favor and actually read some of the briefs being published by groups not funded by George Soros and you will see how atrocious this "net neutrality" regulation actually is.
|
On February 27 2015 13:08 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2015 12:54 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 27 2015 11:19 IgnE wrote:On February 27 2015 10:46 xDaunt wrote:
I am watching Walker's CPAC speech. He is a very good orator -- so much better than the crap that we have seen from republican candidates over the past 20+ years.
Edit: I think he gave that speech without a telepromtpter. So Walker is the frontrunner for the xDaunt prize for political theatre. @ jonny I'm sure you've seen this picture before jonny, but I think it sums up the state of the infrastructure in the US pretty well for people like you who like looking at $ graphs. + Show Spoiler +I'm sure you have explanations for this that would make the cable companies proud, like how the US has a unique geography, difficult terrain, and other costly factors that would bring the price up. Also explanations for how if we wanted better, faster internet service we will have to fork over more cash so the internet companies, which have already been investing copiously into a network that is largely static from year to year, can redouble their efforts to provide us with state-of-the-art service. Especially with the failure of public broadband in places like Chattanooga, I, for one, trust my (sole) local cable provider to provide the best cable service at the lowest available price. Why are you addressing this to me? I never took the position that our internet is the best / cheapest or that regulatory changes can absolutely not improve the situation or that municipalities were a pox on free market virtue. But yeah, since you brought it up there is more to pricing than 'evil corporations' and whatever other mindless ideology you feel like shitting out today. Mindless ideology is just rampant in this thread. Jonny's head remains clear: maximize shareholder value. Pricing is complicated.
Crawl back under your bridge. You clearly have nothing to add beyond bullshit and baseless accusations.
|
On February 27 2015 13:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2015 13:08 IgnE wrote:On February 27 2015 12:54 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 27 2015 11:19 IgnE wrote:On February 27 2015 10:46 xDaunt wrote:
I am watching Walker's CPAC speech. He is a very good orator -- so much better than the crap that we have seen from republican candidates over the past 20+ years.
Edit: I think he gave that speech without a telepromtpter. So Walker is the frontrunner for the xDaunt prize for political theatre. @ jonny I'm sure you've seen this picture before jonny, but I think it sums up the state of the infrastructure in the US pretty well for people like you who like looking at $ graphs. + Show Spoiler +I'm sure you have explanations for this that would make the cable companies proud, like how the US has a unique geography, difficult terrain, and other costly factors that would bring the price up. Also explanations for how if we wanted better, faster internet service we will have to fork over more cash so the internet companies, which have already been investing copiously into a network that is largely static from year to year, can redouble their efforts to provide us with state-of-the-art service. Especially with the failure of public broadband in places like Chattanooga, I, for one, trust my (sole) local cable provider to provide the best cable service at the lowest available price. Why are you addressing this to me? I never took the position that our internet is the best / cheapest or that regulatory changes can absolutely not improve the situation or that municipalities were a pox on free market virtue. But yeah, since you brought it up there is more to pricing than 'evil corporations' and whatever other mindless ideology you feel like shitting out today. Mindless ideology is just rampant in this thread. Jonny's head remains clear: maximize shareholder value. Pricing is complicated. Crawl back under your bridge. You clearly have nothing to add beyond bullshit and baseless accusations.
Pot meet kettle.
|
It's starting.
As promised, President Obama is using executive actions to impose gun control on the nation, targeting the top-selling rifle in the country, the AR-15 style semi-automatic, with a ban on one of the most-used AR bullets by sportsmen and target shooters.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives this month revealed that it is proposing to put the ban on 5.56 mm ammo on a fast track, immediately driving up the price of the bullets and prompting retailers, including the huge outdoors company Cabela’s, to urge sportsmen to urge Congress to stop the president.
Wednesday night, Rep. Bob Goodlatte, the Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, stepped in with a critical letter to the bureau demanding it explain the surprise and abrupt bullet ban. The letter is shown below.
The National Rifle Association, which is working with Goodlatte to gather co-signers, told Secrets that 30 House members have already co-signed the letter and Goodlatte and the NRA are hoping to get a total of 100 fast.
"The Obama administration was unable to ban America's most popular sporting rifle through the legislative process, so now it's trying to ban commonly owned and used ammunition through regulation," said Chris W. Cox, executive director of the NRA-ILA, the group's policy and lobby shop. "The NRA and our tens of millions of supporters across the country will fight to stop President Obama's latest attack on our Second Amendment freedoms."
At issue is so-called “armor-piercing” ammunition, an exemption for those bullets mostly used for sport by AR-15 owners, and the recent popularity of pistol-style ARs that use the ammo.
The inexpensive 5.56 M885 ammo, commonly called green tips, have been exempt for years, as have higher-caliber ammunition that also easily pierces the type of soft armor worn by police, because it’s mostly used by target shooters, not criminals. The agency proposes to reclassify it as armor-piercing and not exempt.
But now BATFE says that since the bullets can be used in semi-automatic handguns they pose a threat to police and must be banned from production, sale and use. But, as Goodlatte noted, the agency offered no proof. Federal agencies will still be allowed to buy the ammo.
“This round is amongst the most commonly used in the most popular rifle design in America, the AR-15. Millions upon millions of M855 rounds have been sold and used in the U.S., yet ATF has not even alleged — much less offered evidence — that even one such round has ever been fired from a handgun at a police officer,” said Goodlatte’s letter.
Even some police don’t buy the administration’s claim. “Criminals aren't going to go out and buy a $1,000 AR pistol,” Brent Ball, owner of 417 Guns in Springfield, Mo., and a 17-year veteran police officer told the Springfield News-Leader. “As a police officer I'm not worried about AR pistols because you can see them. It's the small gun in a guy's hand you can't see that kills you.”
Many see the bullet ban as an assault on the AR-15 and Obama’s back-door bid to end production and sale.
“We are concerned,” said Justin Anderson with Hyatt Gun Shop in Charlotte, N.C., one of the nation’s top sellers of AR-15 style rifles. “Frankly, we're always concerned when the government uses back-door methods to impose quasi-gun control.”
Groups like the National Shooting Sports Foundation suggest that under BATFE’s new rule, other calibers like popular deer hunting .308 bullets could be banned because they also are used in AR platforms, some of which can be turned into pistol-style guns. “This will have a detrimental effect on hunting nationwide,” said the group.
Source
And when I argue about slippery slope, no one believes me. Well kids, it's here.
|
On February 27 2015 12:58 hannahbelle wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2015 02:11 oneofthem wrote:On February 27 2015 01:46 hannahbelle wrote:On February 27 2015 01:42 oneofthem wrote:
hannahbelle where did you go to school MBA from the Kelley School of Business in Indiana. Not that I am sure it is relevant to the discussion... read up one post from mine, see where you talked about the guy's public education reasoning skills. looks like your nonpublic education didn't get you enough skills to score a decent gmat kek. Really, you are stooping this low? I would have thought better of you, but then I realized, you're just ignorant. Probably socio-economically disadvantaged, so you really can't be held responsible for your own stupidity. When I was checking on grad schools, my GMAT was the median of those at the Harvard School of Business. I just didn't have the money or desire to uproot my family and move them 1000 miles to go to school. As well as trying to find another job to support my family in a new area while going to school. It was just as easy to go to the top-10 rated MBA program that was a half hour from my house. But I'm sure you in your infinite knowledge of business grad schools already knew how these programs stack up. kek
Half of his posts are trolls. You don't have to bother defending yourself, just ignore it. It's what everyone else does.
Edit: I mean everyone else just ignores the trolly posts. Like IgnE's cute one liners.
oh, it's getting angry in here!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
