Townhall and Zero Hedge. Both sites are not perfect but Schlichter on Townhall seems to offer more insightful and snarky reporting. Julio Rosas I respect as an actual reporter who wasn’t afraid to go to Antifa ground zero and report what he saw. Matt Vespa and Beth Bauman are vapid. As for Zero Hedge, I have no investments but I do appreciate a libertarian minded viewpoint on cultural and market issues.
Posts: 3218 | Location: Manheim, PA | Registered: September 04, 2007
Hedley Lamarr: Wait, wait, wait. I'm unarmed. Bart: Alright, we'll settle this like men, with our fists. Hedley Lamarr: Sorry, I just remembered . . . I am armed.
Posts: 6917 | Location: Atlanta | Registered: April 23, 2006
Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL: Average application cost is 68 bucks plus having to fill it out send transcripts etc.
There is an application cost for college? Wtf?
Perhaps because it costs schools money to process application paperwork and prospective students are known to apply to multiple schools, then choose the one they want most from those that accept?
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system,,,, but too early to shoot the bastards." -- Claire Wolfe "If we let things terrify us, life will not be worth living." -- Seneca the Younger, Roman Stoic philosopher
I can't remember what the app cost was when I was applying in 1988/89. But I went to a prep school, so 100% of graduates went on to college. Most applied to up to five schools, one being a top choice and one being a safety. So those fees added up. But in the colleges' defense, they had to process a ton of apps they knew were never going to enroll even if accepted.
Posts: 3821 | Location: Cave Creek, AZ | Registered: October 24, 2005
I could only afford to apply to three schools because of the application cost. This is not a profit center for colleges. The 800 dollar "activity fee", however was one of the many profit centers.
Posts: 17705 | Location: Stuck at home | Registered: January 02, 2015
I don't remember an application cost when I went for my first degree. Of course, that was 1955 and I applied to the local "streetcar" college. There may have been one in 1967 when I went for my MSIE, but if there were USAF would have paid it.
Kyle Rittenhouse is destroying the AR-15 he used during his deadly shooting in Kenosha, Wisconsin.
The 18-year-old cleared gunman told “The Charlie Kirk Show” on Tuesday that the weapon he used to defend himself at Black Lives Matter riots is “being destroyed right now.”
“We don’t want anything to do with that,” said Rittenhouse, who broke down at his trial last month as he recalled having to use it to kill two men and injure another while under attack.
Rittenhouse made his revelation after the conservative podcast showed pictures of the controversial moment Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger raised the weapon in court with his finger on the trigger.
Jokingly asked if the prosecutor was “threatening the jury,” Rittenhouse initially quipped, “Pretty much.”
“He was pointing the gun at the gallery, and I looked at my attorney,” he said of one of his defense team, Corey Chirafisi.
“I looked at Corey, and I said, ‘Corey, that’s Gun Safety 101,'” Rittenhouse said of his shock at the scene in the Kenosha courtroom.
“Loaded or unloaded, treat a gun like it’s loaded,” he told the podcasters.
Rittenhouse also poured scorn on the prosecution’s case that he could not rightfully plead self-defense because he was armed.
“I’m no lawyer … [but] what he’s saying is, ‘No one has a right to defend theirself in the United States if they’re the one that brings a gun.’
“So that means what he’s saying is nobody’s allowed to carry a gun, essentially,” said Rittenhouse, who was only 17 at the time but was legally allowed to carry the weapon under Wisconsin law.
He believes it is also why his case became an obsession for left-wing media and even politicians, referring to New York Democrat Rep. Jerry Nadler and a federal probe.
“They’re coming after our guns. They want to come after American’s guns. People’s rights to buy arms,” he said.
In the interview, Rittenhouse insisted that he was still a student at Arizona State University (ASU) — even though on the same day the school insisted he was no longer enrolled there. He dismissed the protest by student groups planned for Wednesday at ASU as “silly and funny.”
“I don’t really care that they’re protesting … I agree with everyone’s right to demonstrate, no matter how silly it is,” he said.
After his legal drama, however, he advised the students to instead “go to college, get a degree, spend time with your family, enjoy your life — because you never know what can happen the next day.”
As for his future, he said that after initial aspirations of going to nursing school he’s now “looking at law school, getting into criminal justice.”
Kyle Rittenhouse is destroying the AR-15 he used during his deadly shooting in Kenosha, Wisconsin.
The 18-year-old cleared gunman told “The Charlie Kirk Show” on Tuesday that the weapon he used to defend himself at Black Lives Matter riots is “being destroyed right now.”
Oh, FFS. In the name of sanity: Why?
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system,,,, but too early to shoot the bastards." -- Claire Wolfe "If we let things terrify us, life will not be worth living." -- Seneca the Younger, Roman Stoic philosopher
He's an 18 yr old kid with PTSD. Even trained soldiers and LEOs have trauma over justified shootings. The trial and the past year of chaos he's been through probably only added to his trauma.
Given all he's been through over the past year, I don't find it unreasonable that he would act in illogical ways.
I would give him a break.
Fear God and Dread Nought Admiral of the Fleet Sir Jacky Fisher
Posts: 21968 | Location: Hobbiton, The Shire, Middle Earth | Registered: September 27, 2004
Originally posted by ensigmatic: Oh, FFS. In the name of sanity: Why?
Perhaps it's a tactile reminder of the hell he just went through. I purchased a sewer auger from a plumber who said that "that" machine killed his father. He had other sewer augers, but he didn't want to keep THAT one simply because of its history, and seeing it reminds him of the event. Or more practically, maybe it is to prevent it from being used in any civil cases against him. I can see reasons why he might not want it around.
Demand not that events should happen as you wish; but wish them to happen as they do happen, and you will go on well. -Epictetus
Posts: 8292 | Location: Utah | Registered: December 18, 2008
Then destroy it quietly and STFU. Admitting to destroy it only intensifies the public perception that he knew he did something wrong and didn't pay the price for it.
ETA: He should be looking at that rifle saying "if I wasn't able to defend my life with this I would be dead." That rifle saved his life (or so his defense claims). Why destroy something that saved your life? It's just like in The Last Samurai when Katsumoto tells Tom Cruise that soldiers who have nightmares are ashamed of what they've done. If he really felt like he had no choice but to use deadly force then he should sleep like a baby and not be a big fat pussy about destroying the object that saved his life for symbolism/public sympathy (that he won't get).
Originally posted by Hildur: Then destroy it quietly and STFU. Admitting to destroy it only intensifies the public perception that he knew he did something wrong and didn't pay the price for it.
Yep. He should absolutely STFU and disappear for awhile.
Demand not that events should happen as you wish; but wish them to happen as they do happen, and you will go on well. -Epictetus
Posts: 8292 | Location: Utah | Registered: December 18, 2008
Originally posted by Hildur: Then destroy it quietly and STFU. Admitting to destroy it only intensifies the public perception that he knew he did something wrong and didn't pay the price for it.
Yep. He should absolutely STFU and disappear for awhile.
Again, I don't disagree with you. However, he's an 18-yr old kid. Whoever the 'responsible adults' around him are the ones who really need to shut this down. I wonder if there are people materially benefitting from his 'celebrity.'
Of course, from the very beginning, proper adult supervision would have prevented him from getting into the situation where he NEEDED to defend himself. As much as I agree that he acted in self defense, what rational adult would place a 17-yr old kid (with or without a rifle) in harm's way in the first place?
Fear God and Dread Nought Admiral of the Fleet Sir Jacky Fisher
Posts: 21968 | Location: Hobbiton, The Shire, Middle Earth | Registered: September 27, 2004
As much as I agree that he acted in self defense, what rational adult would place a 17-yr old kid (with or without a rifle) in harm's way in the first place?
I learned in the post trial interviews that Rittenhouse the DUMBASS self admitted that he was offering his armed guard services FOR FREE. While there's nothing illegal in offering highly dangerous services at no cost in the middle of a violent riot, Rittenhouse has demonstrated that he lacks sound judgment even for a 17 year old.
I'm glad he won because the importance of protecting the right to self defense is paramount but Rittenhouse is a class A DIPSHIT who needs to go away and it can't happen soon enough.
