[boyle_heights]

I don’t think BO is charismatic. He just looks charismatic compared to the others left. McCain can put you to sleep. Hillary is just as bad.

As for him winning, I also wonder how much race will play a role in how people vote in the general election.

[boyle_heights]

I don’t think BO is charismatic. He just looks charismatic compared to the others left. McCain can put you to sleep. Hillary is just as bad.

As for him winning, I also wonder how much race will play a role in how people vote in the general election.

[boyle_heights]

I don’t think BO is charismatic. He just looks charismatic compared to the others left. McCain can put you to sleep. Hillary is just as bad.

As for him winning, I also wonder how much race will play a role in how people vote in the general election.

[boyle_heights]

I don’t think BO is charismatic. He just looks charismatic compared to the others left. McCain can put you to sleep. Hillary is just as bad.

As for him winning, I also wonder how much race will play a role in how people vote in the general election.

[boyle_heights]

I don’t think BO is charismatic. He just looks charismatic compared to the others left. McCain can put you to sleep. Hillary is just as bad.

As for him winning, I also wonder how much race will play a role in how people vote in the general election.

[boyle_heights]

Nice one fat_lazy_union. haha.

[boyle_heights]

Nice one fat_lazy_union. haha.

[boyle_heights]

Nice one fat_lazy_union. haha.

[boyle_heights]

Nice one fat_lazy_union. haha.

[boyle_heights]

Nice one fat_lazy_union. haha.

[boyle_heights]

Latinos have one of the lowest home ownership rates of the various groups. Because of this the numbers can look higher than normal. Lets say 5 in 10 Latinos owns a home. Whites are at about 8 in 10. If 2 latinos had foreclosures that means 40% had issues. If 2 whites had the same issue that is 25%. Now, if the latinos and the whites were bailed out is it any different? If you want to play with the numbers you can say 40% of latinos are being bailed out while only 25% of whites are being helped out. Sure the numbers look like more latinos benefit even if the real numbers could actually be the same. It can be all about presentation.

Now if you want to talk about the bailout. Who exactly is being helped the most? Bush and the Fed didn’t really want to bail out home owners. They only changed their mind when the banks and investors started getting hit with big losses. Then they could not cut rates fast enough to help them out. I think there are more white investors than there are latinos.

As for school, sure some Latinos get into schools they probably should not be in. I am not going to deny that. The same can be said of other groups. How many wealthy families, alumni, etc get their kids into schools using their connections? Kids that many times did not deserve to be admitted. I know a few of those. Take a look at the case at UCLA. I think it is their medical school that has an investigation under way because alumni were being asked to donate money to get their kids in.

As for your 160+. Does your score mean you deserved to get in? Does their 150 mean they didn’t? I don’t know the answer to those questions. What undergraduate schools did those students attend? Unless you have two students with the same exact applications with only different scores you can’t really compare. Now if they had a 150 with top undergrad degress from say Harvard and you had a 160 with a degree from U. of Miami then I would choose those other students also. Unless you know what was on their applications how can you say that you deserved to be admitted more than them based only on a score? Now if they came from a school that was not academically strong and you did then I would say it was unfair.

[boyle_heights]

Latinos have one of the lowest home ownership rates of the various groups. Because of this the numbers can look higher than normal. Lets say 5 in 10 Latinos owns a home. Whites are at about 8 in 10. If 2 latinos had foreclosures that means 40% had issues. If 2 whites had the same issue that is 25%. Now, if the latinos and the whites were bailed out is it any different? If you want to play with the numbers you can say 40% of latinos are being bailed out while only 25% of whites are being helped out. Sure the numbers look like more latinos benefit even if the real numbers could actually be the same. It can be all about presentation.

Now if you want to talk about the bailout. Who exactly is being helped the most? Bush and the Fed didn’t really want to bail out home owners. They only changed their mind when the banks and investors started getting hit with big losses. Then they could not cut rates fast enough to help them out. I think there are more white investors than there are latinos.

As for school, sure some Latinos get into schools they probably should not be in. I am not going to deny that. The same can be said of other groups. How many wealthy families, alumni, etc get their kids into schools using their connections? Kids that many times did not deserve to be admitted. I know a few of those. Take a look at the case at UCLA. I think it is their medical school that has an investigation under way because alumni were being asked to donate money to get their kids in.

As for your 160+. Does your score mean you deserved to get in? Does their 150 mean they didn’t? I don’t know the answer to those questions. What undergraduate schools did those students attend? Unless you have two students with the same exact applications with only different scores you can’t really compare. Now if they had a 150 with top undergrad degress from say Harvard and you had a 160 with a degree from U. of Miami then I would choose those other students also. Unless you know what was on their applications how can you say that you deserved to be admitted more than them based only on a score? Now if they came from a school that was not academically strong and you did then I would say it was unfair.

[boyle_heights]

Latinos have one of the lowest home ownership rates of the various groups. Because of this the numbers can look higher than normal. Lets say 5 in 10 Latinos owns a home. Whites are at about 8 in 10. If 2 latinos had foreclosures that means 40% had issues. If 2 whites had the same issue that is 25%. Now, if the latinos and the whites were bailed out is it any different? If you want to play with the numbers you can say 40% of latinos are being bailed out while only 25% of whites are being helped out. Sure the numbers look like more latinos benefit even if the real numbers could actually be the same. It can be all about presentation.

Now if you want to talk about the bailout. Who exactly is being helped the most? Bush and the Fed didn’t really want to bail out home owners. They only changed their mind when the banks and investors started getting hit with big losses. Then they could not cut rates fast enough to help them out. I think there are more white investors than there are latinos.

As for school, sure some Latinos get into schools they probably should not be in. I am not going to deny that. The same can be said of other groups. How many wealthy families, alumni, etc get their kids into schools using their connections? Kids that many times did not deserve to be admitted. I know a few of those. Take a look at the case at UCLA. I think it is their medical school that has an investigation under way because alumni were being asked to donate money to get their kids in.

As for your 160+. Does your score mean you deserved to get in? Does their 150 mean they didn’t? I don’t know the answer to those questions. What undergraduate schools did those students attend? Unless you have two students with the same exact applications with only different scores you can’t really compare. Now if they had a 150 with top undergrad degress from say Harvard and you had a 160 with a degree from U. of Miami then I would choose those other students also. Unless you know what was on their applications how can you say that you deserved to be admitted more than them based only on a score? Now if they came from a school that was not academically strong and you did then I would say it was unfair.

[boyle_heights]

Latinos have one of the lowest home ownership rates of the various groups. Because of this the numbers can look higher than normal. Lets say 5 in 10 Latinos owns a home. Whites are at about 8 in 10. If 2 latinos had foreclosures that means 40% had issues. If 2 whites had the same issue that is 25%. Now, if the latinos and the whites were bailed out is it any different? If you want to play with the numbers you can say 40% of latinos are being bailed out while only 25% of whites are being helped out. Sure the numbers look like more latinos benefit even if the real numbers could actually be the same. It can be all about presentation.

Now if you want to talk about the bailout. Who exactly is being helped the most? Bush and the Fed didn’t really want to bail out home owners. They only changed their mind when the banks and investors started getting hit with big losses. Then they could not cut rates fast enough to help them out. I think there are more white investors than there are latinos.

As for school, sure some Latinos get into schools they probably should not be in. I am not going to deny that. The same can be said of other groups. How many wealthy families, alumni, etc get their kids into schools using their connections? Kids that many times did not deserve to be admitted. I know a few of those. Take a look at the case at UCLA. I think it is their medical school that has an investigation under way because alumni were being asked to donate money to get their kids in.

As for your 160+. Does your score mean you deserved to get in? Does their 150 mean they didn’t? I don’t know the answer to those questions. What undergraduate schools did those students attend? Unless you have two students with the same exact applications with only different scores you can’t really compare. Now if they had a 150 with top undergrad degress from say Harvard and you had a 160 with a degree from U. of Miami then I would choose those other students also. Unless you know what was on their applications how can you say that you deserved to be admitted more than them based only on a score? Now if they came from a school that was not academically strong and you did then I would say it was unfair.

[boyle_heights]

Latinos have one of the lowest home ownership rates of the various groups. Because of this the numbers can look higher than normal. Lets say 5 in 10 Latinos owns a home. Whites are at about 8 in 10. If 2 latinos had foreclosures that means 40% had issues. If 2 whites had the same issue that is 25%. Now, if the latinos and the whites were bailed out is it any different? If you want to play with the numbers you can say 40% of latinos are being bailed out while only 25% of whites are being helped out. Sure the numbers look like more latinos benefit even if the real numbers could actually be the same. It can be all about presentation.

Now if you want to talk about the bailout. Who exactly is being helped the most? Bush and the Fed didn’t really want to bail out home owners. They only changed their mind when the banks and investors started getting hit with big losses. Then they could not cut rates fast enough to help them out. I think there are more white investors than there are latinos.

As for school, sure some Latinos get into schools they probably should not be in. I am not going to deny that. The same can be said of other groups. How many wealthy families, alumni, etc get their kids into schools using their connections? Kids that many times did not deserve to be admitted. I know a few of those. Take a look at the case at UCLA. I think it is their medical school that has an investigation under way because alumni were being asked to donate money to get their kids in.

As for your 160+. Does your score mean you deserved to get in? Does their 150 mean they didn’t? I don’t know the answer to those questions. What undergraduate schools did those students attend? Unless you have two students with the same exact applications with only different scores you can’t really compare. Now if they had a 150 with top undergrad degress from say Harvard and you had a 160 with a degree from U. of Miami then I would choose those other students also. Unless you know what was on their applications how can you say that you deserved to be admitted more than them based only on a score? Now if they came from a school that was not academically strong and you did then I would say it was unfair.

[Author]

Posts