Bill O'Reilly Wants Sean Combs' Son Justin To Give Up UCLA Scholarship
June 06, 2012 12:54 am ET by Solange Uwimana
Bill O'Reilly is apparently now passing himself off as a populist. On his Fox News show Tuesday night, he waded into the made-up controversy over hip-hop mogul Sean Combs' son, Justin Combs, arguing that Justin should not have accepted a full athletic scholarship to play football for the University of California because his father is amazingly wealthy -- and also he is an Obama supporter.
First off, let's all remember that athletic scholarships are based on merit, not financial hardship. Second, it seems odd -- well, in O'Reilly's case, not so odd -- that Justin is being singled out when there are scores of student-athletes from wealthy, and famous, families who have similarly accepted merit-based scholarships. Indeed, why has there been no similar outrage over Trey Griffey, the son of baseball great Ken Griffey, Jr., who is headed to Arizona this year on a full ride?
Or better yet, as others have pointed out, the much bigger controversy should be why it costs $54,000 to attend a state university. But that's not a topic O'Reilly cared to touch.
While O'Reilly acknowledged during the segment that UCLA's athletic scholarships are not funded by the state's taxpayers but come from private donations and school ticket sales and that Justin "earned his scholarship," O'Reilly went on to claim that "with all the class warfare in play and Mr. Combs being a big liberal guy, the situation does raise some questions."
O'Reilly added:
O'REILLY: I applaud Justin Combs, number one. I mean, the kid is smart, the kid is a good athlete, the kid's stayed out of trouble -- he could be a crazy guy like so many celebrity daughters and sons are. He's not. So we gotta give him all the credit in the world.
However, his father, Diddy -- all right, once the scholarship is granted, once it was granted, and it goes in the records that the kid earned it -- should've said, you know what, we're not gonna take it. We're gonna give it to another kid, because there only are a certain amount of scholarships, even though they're corporate paid, they are limited, so they should've stepped back, paid their own way and let another kid have the scholarship.
O'Reilly went on to make his point by accusing Sean Combs of "class warfare," saying that "Diddy is one of the big class warfare guys," adding, "He's a big Obama guy." When guest Alan Colmes challenged O'Reilly by asking, "Why is he a big class warfare guy? Just 'cause he's into Obama, he's class warfare? That makes him class warfare? Just because he likes Obama?" O'Reilly replied:
O'REILLY: Yeah. Oh, yeah. He's down, as they say in the 'hood, with all of the income redistribution. OK, so let's redistribute it, Diddy. You pay and let some other kid have the scholarship.
His comments about "the 'hood" notwithstanding, this is rather rich coming from O'Reilly. The Fox host has repeatedly opposed proposals to roll back the Bush tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans, accusing Obama of "trying to demonize Americans like me who have made money the old-fashioned way, we've earned it." O'Reilly by the way never mentions that millionaire and billionaire incomes are higher than they've ever been while their taxes are the lowest they've been in more than 70 years.
So in the end, according to O'Reilly, a wealthy Obama supporter should "set a great example" so that "another kid [can] get a scholarship to UCLA because the Diddy kid doesn't need it," but requiring wealthy Americans to pay more in taxes is to "demonize" hard work. Now who's playing class warfare?
Sure, man.
"I gave the story to Lloyd Grove at the Washington Post, who called O'Reilly. O'Reilly sort of said, "Well, all I did was mix up a Polk and a Peabody, and Al has this jihad against me," et cetera. Now that's not necessarily worth writing about, but then I discovered that about a week later Robert Reno at Newsday decided to do a column about the fact that O'Reilly had claimed on several occasions to have won Peabodies and hadn't.
O'Reilly then attacked Rob Reno in the most vitriolic way, saying, basically "I never said I won a Peabody. This is a total fabrication. The man's a liar," et cetera, et cetera. And that sort of seems pathological to me, or Bill O'Reilly just felt that he could get away with it. It's sort of emblematic of him."
http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/03/06/12_franken.html
Can I say something snarky about Bill's wife leaving him for the detective now??! Lol! I'm just dying ta! Okay, JJamelle may be around, so I'm gonna behave. But I don't want to! ;-)
O'Reilly has been lucky, he's never actually worked for anything. If Fox wasn't around, or at least really "fair and balanced", he'd actually have to work, holding in that super conservative bias is tough.
Remember, the scholarship this kid won is not paid for with tax dollars, so all Bill O'Reilly is doing here is generating fake outrage.
Take it up with the president of the university, not the president of the Unites States!
It's hard to avoid snarkiness about O'Reilly--he attracts it to himself like a moth to a flame.
OTOH, the rude dog just can't help himself from making some kind of stupid crack about "the hood", huh? Gee, I think we all live in 'hoods, unless you're lucky enough to live in the country. OR in a tony section of the Hamptons!
Anyway, little wonder that Mrs. Billo went goodbye-O! Can you imagine having that blowhard as a husband? Talk about Oyoyoy!
Some men just find it hard to keep that woman(s)
I repeat, despite the disagreement I got on another thread, O'Reilly is basically stupid, with a certain feral shrewdness.
Tactical intelligence without balance makes people act impulsively AND they tend to be cynical, always assigning bad motives to other people, but never themselves. People like him can not see the world except through their own solipsistic lense.
I just hate bullies like him! Bullies usually are very stupid people. And tend toward jealousy. And they're also THE biggest judges of others. Must be nice to get paid to basically just insult other people all the live long day though, huh?
O'Reilly is hip with it, Jack.
In the hood? You mean like the place where they yell, "Hey MF-er, I need some more iced tea."?
Mr. O'Reilly claims that the left is about wealth redistribution. The reality is that the wealth is already redistritbuted upwards under the system now. He doesn't seeem to mind that distribution, it is only when you try to distribute it downward that he has a problem. The same seems to be true when it comes to taxes. It is okay to raise them on the poor and the middle-class, but it is class warfare to raise them on corporations or the rich.
The right will play victim everytime a millionaire is asked to pay taxes or when a corporation is forced to follow environmental laws.
Wake up America
FORWARD...FORWARD...FORWARD
Only to a sanctimonoious hypiocrite like you, Bill.
See... There IS no "class warfare" go on on the Obama camp. That's just what YOU PEOPLE call the Liberal desire to go back to the Tax Brackets we had back when the Debt and the Deficit were non-issues. (Top Tier Rate of 50-70%.) (Even 90% at times.)
So... Since there's no class warfare going on, there' sno "big question" to ask here, doofus. The only question I see is why the only problem the Right seems to acknowledge is Rich People in America not having enough money.
------------------------------
IMHO
UTOPIA
That has literally never been said 'in the hood'.
Suddenly they're against a rich person keeping something they earned?
...kill me now.
It's the Universities money, they have more money than Diddy (I think about a Billion in endowment).
Oh and don't you GOP talking heads always say you gotta earn it, that Trump and Mittens didn't have their daddy's take care of them (even though they did), and this kid earns it and you gotta knock him. The hypocrisy is head spinning in this "no spin zone"
It is a way to convince the best to commit to their school. Regardless of the athletes ability to pay.
Certain college sports (like football) make money. If you have the best athletes in your program you are more likely to win, which just means you are more likely to make more money.
Full ride scholarships are given for academic achievement as well. Guess what, they give those out regardless of ability to pay as well.
Poor people or minorities that earn stuff don't deserve it.
Only fat-cat white guys that mostly inherited money or had monied families to get where they were deserve or earn it.
This meme is one of the most destructive in our history (caused two huge depressions) and yet all the repugs and way too many indies believe it and vote for more of it to happen at their expense.
Shhhhh...We know you do sweetie, we know you do. You'd never know it from the Republican policies but, we know you do.
You're really going to go with that sentence right there? After all of your (conservatives in general, not necessarily you) whining and gnashing of teeth of paying for poor people on welfare, and cries of socialism every single time the liberals want to help the lesser of those in our nation, I find it hard to believe that you guys care about sharing and giving now.
You missed the entire point of the article. Not that O'Reilly called out Sean Combs to pay for his kid's education, but that he hasn't done it for other rich people whose kids also earned scholarships. It's about consistency, and not getting a quick jab in at Obama supporters.
You don't find it obnoxiously lame to use some kid (who Billo has not claimed to support Obama) to take pot shots by proxy at the president?
How do you not see Billo's positive statements about Justin as running for cover for his clearly racist attitudes?
I offer for your review the following Bill O'Reilly classic:
HA! "The spin never stops" HA! HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!
Let's see what are some of the other news stories today? Hmmm. Oh yeah, this one!
Are you still sticking by your assertion:
But he didn't just say that, and he's being terribly hypocritical on this topic, since he's not demanded that of others. So, your pulling one part of what he said out of context, and pretended that there is nothing else to look at here, is the "spin".
And the 'compliment' you say that O'Reilly gave Diddy's son? A backhanded one if there ever was one.
The "class warfare" that exists in our nation is the richest Americans waging war against the rest of us. Liberals calling out those selfish wealthy people for being selfish isn't "class warfare". Their wealth has grown by leaps and bounds over the past 30 years, while the rest of us have seen our wages stagnant - all the while our nation has seen the greatest increases in productivity per worker in our nation's history. The way the middle class grew was via shared wealth derived from the gains created by increased productivity. That stopped in about 1980 - the wealthy and the corporations have been waging war on the working class for the past 30 years or more.
Yeah, that's addressed in the post. But they go on to mention that O'Reilly is constantly decrying "class warfare", and "he should give up something he earned because his dad is rich" is the kind of thing he would call "class warfare" if somebody else said it. So it's not so much that "the spin never stops around here", it's more that you apparently read the headline and went "Awww, this book is too hard!" and then skipped immediately to the comment section to give us exactly the level of insight and erudition we'd expect from a guy named after a Toby Keith song.
WTF does that have to do with anything! He deosn't know Mr. Coombs views on this issue nor the amount or to whom Mr. Coombs contributes his money. At least he didn't say in this segment. He doesn't know if Mr. Coombs is spending money to send other children less advatanged to school or not. He doesn't talk about the high cost of higher education. That wasn't the purpose of the segment the purpose was to smear and try and paint as hypocrite Mr. Coombs and other so-called liberals without an inkling of proof. This segment was meant to rile up and you swallowed his nonsense hook line and sinker. You are the one who needs help. showing up here time after time using multiple to screen names to get back in here . What a sickness you must have. What a tired old prune you must be.
Charity biography
Raised more than $2 million for New York schools and children suffering from HIV and AIDS in the 2003 New York Marathon
Visited a 17-year-old cancer patient at a charity tennis match.
Created a hot pink slip for charity through his clothing line, Sean John for Breast Cancer Care.
He is on the Board of Directors for the Hip-Hop Summit Action Network.
Your text to link here...
Sean “Diddy” Combs Personally Saves Boys & Girls Club Of Harlem
Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/150091/sean-diddy-combs-personally-saves-boys-girls-club-of-harlem/#KDfTiR3FOpgVvSsU.99
Your text to link here...
Or else you're simply a dishonest troll, trying to get more negative attention, which is all that trolls like you are out to 'succeed' at.
I choose the latter. You dishonestly cropped one part of what O'Reilly said, and pretended that it was all that he said. It wasn't all he said. You're criticizing us for looking at his entire comment - the fair and honest thing to do, while you chose to dishonestly praise only a portion of what he said. The sickening person who is behaving badly is you.
Trolls who don't get to push their brand of nonsense and dishonesty get peeved. That makes us happy.
Vazquez said UCLA has a "robust financial aid program," and said the money used for merit-based athletic scholarships was "entirely funded by Athletic Department ticket sales, corporate partnerships, media contracts and private donations" and "do not rely on state funds."
The money used for Combs' scholarship wouldn't affect need-based scholarships awarded to other students, he said.
"There is a big separation between financial aid based on need and how that’s funded and how athletic scholarships are funded and awarded to students," Vazquez said.
Combs' scholarship is one of about 285 the university awards to student athletes each year, Vazquez said, and will be used to pay tuition and fees along with room and board.
"Unlike need-based scholarships, athletic scholarships are awarded to students strictly on the basis of their athletic and academic ability, and not on a student's financial need," Vazquez said in a statement.
Clearly Justin earned his scholarship.... He doesn’t need to give it to anyone," read a message on Bruins Nation. "The best way he can 'give back' is by being and exemplary Bruin ... and his track record indicates he will be."
Your text to link here...
You really need help horses!
So, if you want to have a discussion regarding whether or not universities should institute means testing for the awarding scholarships (I would include all scholarships), that would be one thing. But that's not what you've done, hence you're a doosh.
You came strutting in with bluster like this, then you acted all surprised and victimized by the responses, and then you topped it off with even more insults...
"beyond help"
"great big chip on your shoulder"
"closed minded"
"hate-filled people"
"pessimistic sad sacks"
I'm looking at the responses you've gotten so far, and I don't see anyone throwing near this level of vitriol at you.
You are correct. Most here never insult me with any name calling and I apologize for all the nasty insults I have said in my other posts.
I also want to apologize for implying Bill O'Rielly had any benevolent motives regarding this subject whatsoever. I have been wrong to assume he has any good will in his obvious black heart. He is nothing but a classless creep who gives to charity solely for his benefit of tax write-offs - same as Rush Limbaugh. (And of course for the good publicity they always get from the Right Wing Media.)
I also apologize for suggesting someone who could use a helping hand should be given a college education if plausible.
And last, Bill O'Reilly is a selfish racist bigot who shouldn't be allowed to consume the air we breath.
But if you aren't being an ignorant a-hole troll, care to point out which post or posts you find so offensive?
Oh - and perhaps you would bring your superior critical thinking skills (ha!) to bear on the facts many others have pointed out, such as, if the scholarship wasn't taken by coombs, it may have gone unused? Or the fact that diddy does donate to universities - helping kids other than his get an education? Or as I asked, what about means testing for ALL scholarships? But anyhow, you are clearly a d!ck so i don't expect anything of substance from you.
As I said earlier, others never call me names and sling insults. If you don't believe me, just ask pete592!
Yes, it is ME - and only ME - who EVER insults others! GET IT!
Actually, I honestly do ponder how it is possible in this day and age there are a few dozen of you mmfa regulars who live in some sort of fantasy land where self realization is so foreign. How is it possible for you to cry and pout about me insulting while at the very same time you are doing the exact same thing? What kind of a mind refuses to see something so obvious?
I don't expect any answers to my questions. None of you will be able to even understand the issue because of those great big hypocritical blinders you all wear 24/7/365.25.
That's for realizing the points against you are so solid the only way out was to cry your way out. Complain about the force of the argument not its merits. Hey BTW you are a d!ck so it isn't really all that insulting.
People should stop feeding you.
Thank you for finally coming around........
Yes, let's. Let's talk about the fact that, once again, you don't appear to have read any of the responses to your post, and, indeed, posted this as a reply to yourself rather than to anyone who responded to you.
And you're obviously not going to read this, but we KNOW what O'Reilly said. The video and transcript are right there. We take issue with it because he's constantly denouncing that sort of rhetoric as the fictional "class warfare" when anybody else says it and/or when they're talking about a conservative.
P.S. Disagreeing with you/pointing out your stubborn refusal to read does not equal "hate".
"beyond help"
"great big chip on your shoulder"
"closed minded"
"hate-filled people"
"pessimistic sad sacks"
What exactly are you talking about? We are talking about this young man earning a scholarship, and using it. That's blatantly someone besides ourselves here. And again, coming from the conservative side of the aisle, have you even looked at what republicans have been doing or wanting to do? Cutting welfare. Cutting medicaid. Cutting social security. Cutting the social safety nets.
What hate? You wrote something. A bunch of people responded to it, quite nicely and at length for some folks. I wouldn't say there was too much hate directed towards you.
This isn't the point of the story. Once again. You've missed it. The point of this story was that there have been plenty of rich kids who have received academic and or athletic scholarships, and they have taken them (rightfully so, they earned them), and we didn't hear peep one from Bill on those stories. Why? Because he's trying to use this story as a cudgel against an Obama supporter.
Maybe you should go back, and read what people wrote to your original response. Because scanning through there, I can't find one person who said anything negative about educating 2 instead of 1. And what chip?
Examples? Or do you just have a victimhood complex from being a conservative? Seems to happen quite a lot these days. I assure you, the treatment and somewhat well thought out responses people have given you here would never be the norm for us over say in Freeperville, or The Blaze, or WND. Usually, we just get people saying they'd like to kill us, with a gun.
Actually, very un true. Apparently you've never looked at and or read the comments section of just about any other website. I suggest, you take a look around. The hate even on say, CNN.com is a lot more prevalent there than it is around here. If folks come on here, make decent comments, we engage them. In a serious way. If we get a non serious response, we retort in kind. If you really want to see hate, stroll on over to The Blaze, and find an older article about Michelle Obama. That's hate my friend, not what is written out there. We're not even close.
I don't seriously understand how you get that we're pessimistic because we think that a young man who has earned an athletic scholarship shouldn't be attacked by a right wing blowhard named O'Reilly, just because of who his dad is.
That was the impetus to the responses he posted.
He's tried repeatedly since then to push this narrative every chance he gets. Of course without actually having anything to show for it it's all just bluster, get's recognized as such and ridiculed, which then makes him go into victim mode and attempt to push the narrative again! A vicious cycle if I ever saw one.
It's a good example of a subset of LDS (Liberal Derangement Syndrome, the fact that the Mormon church of Letter Day Saints which Romney belongs too is also called LDS is simply a coincidence), let's call it the MMFADS. It's just like ODS where one throws everything including the kitchen sink and does anything the can to make their opponents look bad.........even if the lies, lack of logic and underhanded means make THEM look even worse by comparison.
This "concern troll" mode of his is not new, though it has been emphasized in his more recent postings. It's no different from rabid right wingers like Beritbrats and how they never miss a chance to disparage Obama on the smallest issue due to their ODS.
yes-sir-eee. magie and ONLY magie knows what the point of any story is. Next time I'm not gonna make any comments here until you tell all of us what the point is - OK? I'll make sure I follow the rest of the kool-aid drinkers here and on MSNBC.
Oh yeah, by the by, the brietbart readers and commentators are typically not as hateful as most around here. You just refuse to accept this obvious truth. And it goes without saying the accuracy of the articles there are always 100% accurate. You should try reading them without any preconceived bias. You will agree with me. Actually, the articles here at mmfa are usually accurate as well. They just tend to be edited towards a leftist spin so I've learned to read between the lines.
Look up a poster called Dave around these parts, he's a perfect example of what the right generally think about welfare to the poor. To sum it up: "They should work harder to get rich so that they don't need to receive these handouts".
Yes Comb's dad could have paid his way into that college sure enough, but the guy earned the scholarship through his own merit, what's wrong with him taking it?
O'Rielly is being 2 faced while saying this on one hand while disparaging the poor and saying they should earn their own way on the other. Why can't the rich (all of them) hand out "scholarships" to these people as well?
So in other words, he earned the scholarship.
I'm confused. I thought the conservative mantra was that if you earned it, you should keep it and that it was class warfare to take it away from them and give it to people who didn't.
So, it's class warfare to expect someone whose income is primarily from his stock portfolio to pay more than 15% in taxes while expecting the working class to pay 30%+. But it's also class warfare to give a scholarship based on merit to a rich kid.
I remember when Bill did a petty little bit years ago on his show about a photograph of one of Combs' entourage holding up an umbrella to shade him from the hot sun.
There is no P.Diddy molehill that O'Reilly won't try to make into a mountain.
Well, Bildo, as they say in "da hood", you're an as*hole.
It's worse than Cockney slang.
Boy, that Bill is one hep cat! Next he'll be saying "23 Skidoo!" and "Dig that chick, she's like, real nervous!"
O'Reilly knows how to bring in the young folks. Assuming they were young folks around 1935, that is.
Does that doofus have any idea what year this is?
In fact, it's sometimes difficult to wade through all the articles here screaming about legacy admissions and children of wealthy bankers receiving scholarships to Wharton.
Because, you know, Media Matters is so fixated on that super-real-no-fakes class warfare we're waging against you guys. In fact, I'm on leave as we speak, and am being shipped back to the front lines of the war in NYC later this week. I just hope I don't forget my war training before I get there. Because, you know, it's, like, real war, man.
Why?
Because, in both of those cases, universities don't give out athletic scholarships based on how much money or who your parents are. What they do is award athletic prowess and performance.
So suck it.
Diddy is a one percenter you effin' moron.
And I'm not talking about Capital Gains, so don't even put that in the equation!
Then you are not talking about fairness then are you?
This was posted a whole FIVE minutes after his first post asking for a response. My friends, you can't make this stuff up. There really are people living among us who think like this. I know, it is scarey to think about it but it is what it is. Hopefully the few dozen who write and post here are the majority of these types of poor mentally dysfunctional people - where logic takes a back seat to any liberal cause.
For what it's worth, this troll honestly feels sorry for you folks. It must be horrible to be such a SMALL minority of the general population. I'd say you are probably somewhere around 0.000000000000001% of normal thinking Americans. Heck, even brietbart has hundreds and hundreds of comments to their articles vs the few dozen written here.
But, carry on troops! Stay with it. You're bound to change somebody's mind eventually.
Really, BeerBreath you came back with that whiny little rant. Nice of you to cry off topic. Try addressing the issue, fu(ktard.
Do you really think that that money that is hard earned with callused hands and a sweaty brow should have taxes taken out at a higher rate then Money earned through no work at all. Say it out loud and tell me again how fair that sounds.......
The answer to your question is no, I don't think hard earned money should be taxed at more than money earned in the market and such.
Actually, I don't know what you think I'm defending or not. My point from the beginning of this whole thread was I thought it was nice for O'Rielly to suggest the plausibility of funding of another person the chance to go to a great school (UCLA). I never once denounced Combs or his son. I never once said the son should not accept the scholarship. I never said anything derogatory towards either of them. (Sorry, I'm whining again. See, the way it works is I whine, and you folks never do. Even when you say the exact same things. It's never sniveling or complaining - it's me always whining don't ya know.)
Back to your issue of capital gains or whatever. I believe cap gains should be taxed at a higher level even though it hurts our economy by reducing investments. I also believe those that make big bucks should pay more in taxes - again even though it hurts our economy. These are basic decency in my book. I also believe Warren Buffet should stop fighting the IRS over the $1,000,000,000.00 he owes in back taxes. He should be paying MORE than his secretary in taxes. Same with the DOW companies and such. It is downright disgusting and UN-American for them to pay nothing in taxes. Before I went broke because of cheating contractors I had paid over $90,000.00 in taxes for years 2006,7, and 8. Granted this was way more than normal because I had to use most of my IRA which caused my income to skyrocket those years (wouldn't have happened if I hadn't had to pay for stuff my contractors should have done.)
I also think President Obama honestly appears to be a very mice guy. His family too. If I still drank I'd rather have a beer with him over almost any republican. I can ID much more with him than the other guys. My problem with him is his policies. I'd also rather shoot the bull with Bill Clinton too. In fact I'd say most democrats are much more personable than
republicans.
Now, I've stated a few "non-republican" things which I have no problem stating since they are true. I have no problem giving people the benefit of the doubt by putting myself in their shoes. That's why I find so many of you to be close minded and accusatory with often down-right filthy comments about me (whining alert!). I admit to being a proud conservative with many friends and family who admit to being proud liberals. But they never reduce themselves to the lowest common denominator of insults. I debate them all the time and none of us call each other names (we don't consider saying someone is "closed minded" or "stubborn" to be name calling.)
For the life of me I still don't understand what O'Rielly said could be considered to be so horrible by so many of you.
Really?
Again, really? First, racism much? Secondly, redistribution? I thought you just agreed with me that the rich weren't taxed high enough. Which is it BeerBelly, the redistribution rhetoric or the truth, that they are not taxed high enough? You seem to be a contradiction in terms. But hey, so is the term Religious Right; right?
Regarding what O'Rielly said, I figure he was just trash talking about the "hood" and such. I honestly don't think he's a racist. Look at the charities he gives to that support minorities. And just because I think wealthy people should pay more in taxes than those that don't make the big bucks does not mean I agree or disagree with income redistribution (note I didn't say the "rich" aren't taxed high enough).
Well, I guess I must finally reply to one of your pathetic posts conger.
WHINE ALERT! I never said the brietbart posters are "kind". I said they are not nearly as insulting as those who post here. This is a fact and can be verified if you'd have the courage to research it. Please stop lying about what I said. WHINE ALERT!
WHINE ALERT! Also, can you link me to an article at breitbart that is not truthful? WHINE ALERT!
Never said you did, simply said you had agreed with me. Of course you agree with income redistribution. Like, let me invest your money and if it hits then well both make money and if it doesn't then I'll keep some of that money you lost and only I hit. That's the kind of redistribution the Right likes, Upward. The kind where they make money on others peoples risk all the while going unchecked by a "deregulated" Gubment. Its Dirty on that side and you wish to associate yourself with that? The "Fairness" of a good Tax structure stifles the greed of the Right, so they simply refuse to let us have one. Plain and simple stubborn greedy rich good ole boys club. And guys like you think your a member or can be some day, but that is not their intention and you seem smart enough to know that.
BTW How long were you a Socialist (Sailor)?
I loved serving my Country and still do. I wonder why your side thinks that it's a crime, to work for the government that is, all the while they work for the government they keep telling everyone shouldn't employ anyone, if it were up to them. I guess as long as they get thiers, Fu(k everybody else.
damn it!
Because that's fair.
It's not fair for all people to pay an equal rate - that wouldn't be fair.
Apparently you don't understand what "fair" is. We give handicapped people close parking places in parking lots - because that's fair to give them an advantage there due to physical disadvantages they have elsewhere. We reserve seats in the front of the bus for them too, because it's fair to them to deny that advantage to everyone else.
Treating everyone equally isn't fair. Recognizing that people aren't all equal is the FAIR thing to do.
I have no problems if they ARE equal, but saying that one who is poor should pay the same as one who is right, is like saying a disabled man has to win the 100 meter sprint with the same timing as the best sprinter on the planet.
People are not equal financially, therefore they CANNOT pay equally, and it is fair for some to pay more than others.
How does a rich person's kid get a financial need scholarship? They lie on the forms or get close to those who make the decisions. I went to a division III school which does not allow athletic scholarships. Yet the all-American swimmer in my dorm whose father was an orthopedic surgeon and whose mother was an anesthesiologist received financial assistance on the basis of "need" while many whose parents were working two jobs were unable to get assistance.
Did we mock Shrub for having attended Yale? You betcha. He never could have gotten in if daddy wasn't a legacy and the head of the CIA. If Shrub had lived in Ohio when attending college, he would have been rejected by Ohio University (open admissions).
My point here is that people that EARN things like scholarships should be proud to accept them. People in general congratulate people on accomplishments like these, irregardless of how much money their families have.
I think the folks commenting here have given BO credit (if that's what you'd call it) for running this story.
Considering his 40-plus years of producing such slime, this story oozes with the putrid stench of Roger Ailes.
Bill you a D-bag plain and simple. Go Fu(k yourself Sir.
I say, "Goodbye and good riddance" to the old bigoted white boys club.