Supporters Plan Ronald Reagan University

[MetalBoy]

DENVER - Supporters of Ronald Reagan have begun raising money to establish a university in his name in Colorado.

Organizers hope to create a general university with medical and law schools and a graduate school of public and international policy. They want to open by 2010 with 10,000 students and 2,000 faculty members and staff.

The organizers have already received 200 acres of donated land with a view of the Rocky Mountains near Denver.

"Because he had a vision of a shining city on the hill, I want us to be on a rolling plain, looking at the Front Range," Terry Walker, the university's founding president, said Monday.

Officials plan to admit only applicants with SAT scores of 1,400 or above. A perfect SAT score is 1,600.


"I love his legacy, and I will do anything I can to perpetuate it and memorialize it," said Steve Schuck, the Colorado Springs businessman who donated the land.
woot Awesome, but I wonder if Reagan could have even gotten into the university with such ridiculously high SAT standards.

[Fintin]

F Reagan...job stealing bastard....that is all

[UkrainianAmerican]

F Reagan...job stealing bastard....that is all
Um, he sorta got US throught to the end of clod war, created a great economy, and overall was a pretty god president.

[Fintin]

well F the man.....you poser...you with your stupid anarchy in the UK....F the UK...so kiss my asshole poser.....

(heads up for dumb people...parts taken from a film)

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

Um, he sorta got US throught to the end of clod war, created a great economy, and overall was a pretty god president.
Dont you mean the cod war, that was Harold Wilson if not damn those bloody clods. ;)

[UkrainianAmerican]

Um, he sorta got US throught to the end of clod war, created a great economy, and overall was a pretty god president.
Dont you mean the cod war, that was Harold Wilson if not damn those bloody clods. ;)
Smell my fart.

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

Um, he sorta got US throught to the end of clod war, created a great economy, and overall was a pretty god president.
Dont you mean the cod war, that was Harold Wilson if not damn those bloody clods. ;)
Smell my fart.
A cheap shot but I am a cheap guy. Have you shifted any of those smokes yet. :)

[Tane Angle]

Reagan was a arrogant, heartless moron of a president. Maybe he's different as a person, but as a US President, he was horrible. It was under his watch that we abandoned the located POWs in Laos, and under his watch that we abandoned our hostages in Lebanon. Anyone have a good explanation for why we abandoned all those innocent Americans in both those nations?(heartless/moronic) We blame Clinton so easily for Somalia, so where is the blame on Reagan for the ROEs his administration mandated that forbade the Marine guards in Beirut from carrying loaded rifles, thus leaving the door open for suicide truck bombings?(moronic)

He underestimated the situation, underestimated the threat(arrogance/moronic), and it cost hundreds of lives.

And don't even get me started on Reaganomics. It was great for the wealthy, but real bad for most other people. Some people would make the argument that it took a few years for the process to work-is that why Bush Sr. wasn't re-elected?

Have a good one all, and just some thoughts...

[usa320]

Id never make it. I only score 1150 on the SAT.

I think SAT's are a poor way to judge someones academic abilities, because they only cover math and english. See math and english were my low subjects. SO it kinda ****ed me over. See i was extremely intelligent when it came to sciences, history, technology, ect.

I tink SAT's should be done away with a new series of tests that concentrate on a particular subject matter should be put in place. So if your majoring in business, then you take a business test. Or you could even take em all if you wanted to.

[hank]

Reagan was a arrogant, heartless moron of a president. Maybe he's different as a person, but as a US President, he was horrible. It was under his watch that we abandoned the located POWs in Laos, and under his watch that we abandoned our hostages in Lebanon. Anyone have a good explanation for why we abandoned all those innocent Americans in both those nations?(heartless/moronic) We blame Clinton so easily for Somalia, so where is the blame on Reagan for the ROEs his administration mandated that forbade the Marine guards in Beirut from carrying loaded rifles, thus leaving the door open for suicide truck bombings?(moronic)

He underestimated the situation, underestimated the threat(arrogance/moronic), and it cost hundreds of lives.

And don't even get me started on Reaganomics. It was great for the wealthy, but real bad for most other people. Some people would make the argument that it took a few years for the process to work-is that why Bush Sr. wasn't re-elected?

Have a good one all, and just some thoughts...

Step away from the keyboard and breathe Tane, just breathe . . . . ;)

hank

[Tane Angle]

:D Yeah, I'm still not real impressed by Ronny. :D

[Haiw]

:D Yeah, I'm still not real impressed by Ronny. :D
'not real impressed'. Geez... I suppose when you say you're impressed by someone you just mean you think they're only a regular asshat? :lol:

BTW is the thing usa320 said about the SAT scores too? About it only testing English and math skills?

[UkrainianAmerican]

Tane, you have a good point about Lebanon.
However, as far as Reagonomics go, you are pretty wrong.
His tax cuts promoted economic growth (as is evident in the 90's) And the 'rich' (who earned every penny of their wealth) spent that money on products, and paid salaries to the workers in their corporations, etc.

[UkrainianAmerican]

Btw, 1150 SATs plain suck :P
(j/k)

[Tane Angle]

Well, we may disagree on the economics side, and that's fine, but to be honest, the economics isn't as important to me as the POWs and hostages. Why not rescue those we can? I'm not saying we could have rescued everyone. I'm not saying we wouldn't have risked losing dozens of men. But rescue forces are made to rescue people. Don't bother making hostage rescue units if we're not going to rescue hostages. We failed them. By electing Reagan that second time, we failed them. Sure, he had no problem with sketchy measures, like Iran-Contra, but when it comes to legal, obvious options, he says no rescue! :roll:

[UkrainianAmerican]

Well, we may disagree on the economics side, and that's fine, but to be honest, the economics isn't as important to me as the POWs and hostages. Why not rescue those we can? I'm not saying we could have rescued everyone. I'm not saying we wouldn't have risked losing dozens of men. But rescue forces are made to rescue people. Don't bother making hostage rescue units if we're not going to rescue hostages. We failed them. By electing Reagan that second time, we failed them. Sure, he had no problem with sketchy measures, like Iran-Contra, but when it comes to legal, obvious options, he says no rescue! :roll:
As for rescue operations and counter-terror missions, I read a lot about it (not to say that I am a sort of an expert, but I just want to point out a few things that seem reasonable)
During Clinton era, there were quite a few instances were special units shouldve been used (and Clinton, to his credit, supported it) But Pentagons 'top brass' always deemed those operations too risky, and practiacally refused to send in specops. TThe reason for this is that these missions carry a lot of risk. A single failure will almost certainly ruin a couple of careers, so Senior pentagon officers would pretty much do anything not to order one of the numerous, generously-funded, CT teams into action.
There is a good article at weeklystandard.com by Richard H. Shultz Jr about it.
Heres a link: http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/003/613twavk.asp

[Tane Angle]

Yes, Clinton's inaction is the main reason why I think he was also a pretty poor President. Every President since JFK (and probably many before then) has abandoned hostages and POWs. Hence my discontent with them.

[UkrainianAmerican]

Yes, Clinton's inaction is the main reason why I think he was also a pretty poor President. Every President since JFK (and probably many before then) has abandoned hostages and POWs. Hence my discontent with them.
Yeah, agreed. But perhaps some of the blame could be put on the Pentagons brass (although of course its no excuse for a US president since he is literally the Commander-in-Chief)

[Tane Angle]

Very true. I prefer the shotgun method: Blame everyone and anyone. p-) But like you said, the buck stops here (or there, rather).

[memphiz]

Very true. I prefer the shotgun method: Blame everyone and anyone. p-) But like you said, the buck stops here (or there, rather).
I like your advice :D

[Fintin]

RamblingAsshole...yet tax cuts for the rich...that then caused the working man to loose his job....listen to some 80s punk...you will get the picture....

[UkrainianAmerican]

RamblingAsshole...yet tax cuts for the rich...that then caused the working man to loose his job....listen to some 80s punk...you will get the picture....
Um, not to get arrogant on your ass, but I dont think punk rock is a good replacement for a history book :P :P :P

P.S. SOuth Park quote time!!!!: They Tooookkkkkk arrrr JOOOOOOOOB!

[Fintin]

Um, not to get arrogant on your ass, but I dont think punk rock is a good replacement for a history book :P :P :P

P.S. SOuth Park quote time!!!!: They Tooookkkkkk arrrr JOOOOOOOOB!

as a historical text...no...but as a historical social comentary....great...i think you just blew your credibility...

[UkrainianAmerican]

Um, not to get arrogant on your ass, but I dont think punk rock is a good replacement for a history book :P :P :P

P.S. SOuth Park quote time!!!!: They Tooookkkkkk arrrr JOOOOOOOOB!

as a historical text...no...but as a historical social comentary....great...i think you just blew your credibility...
SouthPark MJ: You are ignorant.

[UkrainianAmerican]

Btw, out of curiosity, do you really listen to punk-rock?

[Fintin]

Btw, out of curiosity, do you really listen to punk-rock?

punk rock died with joey...RIP....actualy punk died when U2 re-revolutionized music....but yes i do listen to punk...i listen to lots of music...

[UkrainianAmerican]

Btw, out of curiosity, do you really listen to punk-rock?

punk rock died with joey...RIP....actualy punk died when U2 re-revolutionized music....but yes i do listen to punk...i listen to lots of music...
Ehh, I lost respect for U2 after I heard Bloody Sunday.
I still dont get why entertainers feel the need to insert (lefty) politics in their work.
If I want their opinion on politics, I will watch then on a news channel giving an interview. :roll:

[Fintin]

Ehh, I lost respect for U2 after I heard Bloody Sunday.
I still dont get why entertainers feel the need to insert (lefty) politics in their work.
If I want their opinion on politics, I will watch then on a news channel giving an interview. :roll:

for Bono, The Edge, and the other members of U2, its not just entertainment, its art, it is a representation of themselves...for a while U2 didnt give interview as themselves...it was a huge act....so they only way they could truely express their view was in their art....im just guessing but you dont seem to have an artistic bone in your body...no offence....but when you are an artist, you express everything you feel in your art...even political views...

[UkrainianAmerican]

Ehh, I lost respect for U2 after I heard Bloody Sunday.
I still dont get why entertainers feel the need to insert (lefty) politics in their work.
If I want their opinion on politics, I will watch then on a news channel giving an interview. :roll:

for Bono, The Edge, and the other members of U2, its not just entertainment, its art, it is a representation of themselves...for a while U2 didnt give interview as themselves...it was a huge act....so they only way they could truely express their view was in their art....im just guessing but you dont seem to have an artistic bone in your body...no offence....but when you are an artist, you express everything you feel in your art...even political views...
Yep, couldn't agree more with you there. I have a complete lack of anything remotely resembling creativity.
However, as a consumer (entertainment one in this case) my opinion regarding politics built into entertainment still holds true in my opinion. For one it is consumers like me (although of course people have different opinions) who determine what Bono is going to eat for breakfast (so to speak)

[Fintin]

see...its not entertainment...its art...and at this point i think bono can eat what ever he damn well pleases....

[UkrainianAmerican]

see...its not entertainment...its art...and at this point i think bono can eat what ever he damn well pleases....
WEll that depends who you ask. For me music is entertainment. In other words I listen to it to relax. And I dont wanna hear any political stuff even if its a pro-american, pro-zionist message.

[Fintin]

WEll that depends who you ask. For me music is entertainment. In other words I listen to it to relax. And I dont wanna hear any political stuff even if its a pro-american, pro-zionist message.

but you cant say its bad if it has politics in the lyrics...yesterday before the concert i spoke with the band...alot of bands write the actual music first, then write lyrics that fit...so you end up having to sometimes just write what fits....even if its not the exact message your trying to get across...i havent ever sat down with U2 so i dont know how they do it...thats how Guster does it though....still totaly amazed at how sweet the show was

[UkrainianAmerican]

WEll that depends who you ask. For me music is entertainment. In other words I listen to it to relax. And I dont wanna hear any political stuff even if its a pro-american, pro-zionist message.

but you cant say its bad if it has politics in the lyrics...yesterday before the concert i spoke with the band...alot of bands write the actual music first, then write lyrics that fit...so you end up having to sometimes just write what fits....even if its not the exact message your trying to get across...i havent ever sat down with U2 so i dont know how they do it...thats how Guster does it though....still totaly amazed at how sweet the show was
Well personally I like typical 'massconsumer' bands like G-unit (50cent) cuz he isnt rapping about how he is getting oppressed by the Whites (as hes riding in his bentley), and his lyrics are quite hilarious.

[Fintin]

i try and stay clear of mass market stuff....do i own some of it yes....but most bands just let the machine carry them compleatly....i like to fined the stuff that your next door neighbor has never heard of...its more pure...

[UkrainianAmerican]

i try and stay clear of mass market stuff....do i own some of it yes....but most bands just let the machine carry them compleatly....i like to fined the stuff that your next door neighbor has never heard of...its more pure...
Well, I guess to each, his own. :)

[FallenAngel]

BTW is the thing usa320 said about the SAT scores too? About it only testing English and math skills?

Yes and no. The regular SAT only tests your math scored and english scores. But that covers a lot of ground- reading comprehension, literature analysis, spelling, grammar, definitions, contextual questions, etc. while the math covers everything from "What shape is this" to Calculus.

Some school allow you to mix and match your best math score with your best english score to create your *BEST* score. Some colleges only allow you to submit your scores from the same sitting. (most kids take the SATs three or four times to improve their odds.)

The SATII- which many will say is a better test- includes those two to a lesser degree, plus a THIRD subject of your choice (from different languages, history, government, a variety of sciences...) and an essay which is technically part of the english portion. This is usually taken once or twice.

There's also the ACT which I am completely unfamiliar with. Most people I've talked to said it's similar- but slightly easier- than the SATII.

My best SAT score came from my last (read: 3rd) try at the test. A 1380 combined score. :D That's pretty good. The "average" is 1000 +/- a hundred.

[UkrainianAmerican]

BTW is the thing usa320 said about the SAT scores too? About it only testing English and math skills?

Yes and no. The regular SAT only tests your math scored and english scores. But that covers a lot of ground- reading comprehension, literature analysis, spelling, grammar, definitions, contextual questions, etc. while the math covers everything from "What shape is this" to Calculus.

Some school allow you to mix and match your best math score with your best english score to create your *BEST* score. Some colleges only allow you to submit your scores from the same sitting. (most kids take the SATs three or four times to improve their odds.)

The SATII- which many will say is a better test- includes those two to a lesser degree, plus a THIRD subject of your choice (from different languages, history, government, a variety of sciences...) and an essay which is technically part of the english portion. This is usually taken once or twice.

There's also the ACT which I am completely unfamiliar with. Most people I've talked to said it's similar- but slightly easier- than the SATII.

My best SAT score came from my last (read: 3rd) try at the test. A 1380 combined score. :D That's pretty good. The "average" is 1000 +/- a hundred.
Yeah 1380 is good. I took it only once and got a 1330.

[Haiw]

What are those SAT scores for then anyway? I mean, we have for example a CITO test hereto determine to which level of high-school we go, but what is the SAT for?

[Fintin]

there are two tests SAT and ACT they are just basicly to show what you learned in highschool...some schools only accept the results from one or the other...most both...there is a big fight over which is the better test...basicly the higher you score the better schools you can get into, and the more scholorship money you can get....

[FallenAngel]

What are those SAT scores for then anyway? I mean, we have for example a CITO test hereto determine to which level of high-school we go, but what is the SAT for?

They are "Scholastic Aptittude Test" and, as said, it basically determines the amount of information you learned in highschool on the most basic of levels (hence the few subjects). The higher the score, the chances of you getting into a higher-level college increase (GPA, extracirricular activities, disciplinary record, etc. also factor in.) since there are several levels of college (usually something like this: Community College < City College < State College < University)

The national average is around a 1000 give or take a 100 points each year. I know in southern california though, the average is around 800 for the same reason they can't have a high school exit exam. The kids of illegal (and some legal) immigrants can not speak english at all. The schools are already over crowded due to the influx of immigrants (mostly illegals) so the schools just pass the kids on to the next grade when they don't learn anything. When they tried to give a high school exit exam (an exam you have to pass to graduate.) they found that a large majority of white kids could pass (those in the "nicer" neighborhoods) and the blacks and latinos failed horribly (~80% could not pass) the liberals cried bigotry and so now there's no test and these kids who know nothing, can not even speak english and have no real value to society except to drain resources are graduated because that's the PC thing to do.

For (public) highschool, you just go to the one nearest you. Unless you go to a private (read: usually religiously affiliated) school like I did in which case you apply to it just like you would apply to college. Why? Because- in southern california at least- private school students are far and above the public school system students education wise. Granted there are exceptions, but they are not common enough to warrent anything more than a mention.

And don't be so sure about those scholarships. I was denied because I am a straight, white middle class guy. My ethnicity has not been "oppressed" in the past 200 years, My family is responsible and self-sufficient, and I am not a homo......so that means I get zero from the government (f*cking egalitarian liberal bastards).

[MaDuce]

What are those SAT scores for then anyway? I mean, we have for example a CITO test hereto determine to which level of high-school we go, but what is the SAT for?
Since the standerd for A differs from teacher to teacher they have a standerdized test. There is two components Verbal(english) and math They are importent but not more then your grades most of the time. Some schools require SAT 2's witch are on certain subjects (English lit), (Biology),(US History) etc...

[Haiw]

Don't you have like...different levels of highschool that give you acces to different levels of follow-up college or university?

[Fintin]

Don't you have like...different levels of highschool that give you acces to different levels of follow-up college or university?

kinda...unofficioly....if you go to a privet school...that is respected by colleges...you have a better chance....or if you go to a really good public school...but if you go to public school in inner city detriot...your screwed...unless you go to cass tech...which is the model school for detroit...