-
Posts
269 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Downloads
Recruiting - 2020
2019-2020 Football Season
Football
Entertainment
Sports
News and Business
Cloak Room
Transfer Portal
Recruiting
Events
Posts posted by bonnieblue
-
-
I actually ran around in similar circles with her in the early/mid 2010s and she's about as cool/nice as a famous person could be. It's a low bar, but she's one of the better ones.
-
2 houses to sell, 1 to buy in Austin. Do we do this now or kick the can down the road for another year?
-
Fuck, he was so talented. He could write a fucking hook. RIP
- 1
-
Betty Davis - They Say I'm Different
Fleetwood Mac - Tusk
A Tribe Called Quest - Midnight Marauders
Joy Division - Unknown Pleasures
Sonic Youth - Daydream Nation
LCD Soundsystem - This is Happening
The Clash - London Calling
Linda Ronstadt - Heart Like a Wheel
New Order - Power, Corruption & Light
Tie: Patti Smith - Horses & Jackson Browne - The Pretender
- 1
-
20 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:
Your delivery mandate must have an act of god clause, no?
Depending on the state law in play, it will depend on the specific language of the clause. Burden is on the one otherwise breaching the covenant to prove.
-
12 minutes ago, Mach 1 said:
How did those calls go? I'm a real estate developer that was just about to sign a $7MM construction loan with a hard completion date. The force majeure provision was limited with no pandemic language.
Now this lender has temporarily closed up shop and isn't funding any draws. Nice, right? I understand construction crews needing to push forward, but how long does this go on if the lenders don't fund. Hopefully this ends soon and we don't have to find out.
If they open up shop again and seek to close, make sure that FM clause has specific pandemic/COVID langugage (especially if loan docs are governed by TX or NY law), make sure all completion/commencement dates are subject to FM, and look at any MAC clauses very carefully. If you can carve out COVID out of the MAC definition (if you are otherwise performing) that would be best, if not, then make sure there is a similar limitation if you have a MAC EOD (get this deleted if possible), or "no MAC" as a condition to future draws.
- 1
-
Means testing is always a stupid idea because there are always exceptions that you can't account for. I'm sure there are plenty of people who made (relative) "bank" last year that are now on the precipice of ruin and will be very much in need of mortgage relief or a monthly stipend. Yes, they probably should've saved for a rainy day, but that judgment proves meaningless when we are trying to not irrevocably collapse our economy and push formerly prosperous groups of people into financial ruin.
- 2
-
Has Abbott said anything about this?
-
Knowing the kind of carnage this gross negligence or depraved indifference is going to wreck on US families, the names of every single one of these fucks should end up being so tarnished and reviled that they are essentially "retired" in our nomenclature. Fuck every single one of them and may all of their metaphorical "fields" be sowed with salt for the foreseeable future.
- 2
-
10 minutes ago, mchookem said:
thanks! since you've been on the interview panel... the form asks about any 'college savings plan' and gets at what she'll do with that money if she's awarded the scholarship...
we are wondering if the 'correct' or preferred answer regarding that is something like 'of course we'll still use it and just use the Terry scholarship to makeup the difference' or something along those lines?
like... would it sound better if we went ahead and used her TTF and allowed the foundation to give more money to others?
she has substantial financial need on paper (FAFSA) bc mom is a single mother and father provides zero financial support... the TTF came from me and my dad.
i don't know if i'm asking correctly... do you get what i'm asking??
also...how 'conservative' might the panel be...i mean, in terms of looking at a young person's dress, piercings, tattoos etc? she's extremely artistic (one of the reasons she chose UNT), very liberal viewpoints...her 'aesthetic' a she calls it is pretty out there... she plans to go into environmental science/ecology, but she is tremendously invested in her art for both therapeutic and teaching possibilities.
basically, do we need to have her dye her hair normal color, remove all her piercings and buy a nice suit?? lol
she will have NO trouble being memorable 😁
thanks for the tips!
We also had the TTF and applied those funds toward tuition, while the Terry funds covered the delta + all of the additional expenses. They just reduced the amount of the scholarship by the amount in our TTF plan. I can't remember if this was required or not, but I'm thinking she should say something similar. Also, she needs to emphasize that she will give back to the Foundation in the future either with her time or money. This is a self-sustaining org at this point, so this is the one interview question where there are definitely right and wrong answers.
The panel will likely be a pretty random mix of former scholars, so it's difficult to say, but I don't think it should present a problem. It wouldn't for me. As long as she's clearly bright, driven, and personable, I think she will be fine. When I went through it I received a last-minute call to interview because someone else dropped out/chose Harvard or something, so I had to come straight from soccer practice to the interview. If they were able to overlook that, she should be fine . I would still have her dress nicely for the interview, but I don't think there is a need to "neuter" her personality.
- 1
-
2 hours ago, mchookem said:
anybody had a kid who received a Terry Foundation scholarship?
my niece chose UNT and she's a finalist now, interview at the end of the month in Dallas.
just wondering if anybody has experience/tips for the interview?
we have a TTF for her, so she's in good shape regardless...but a 100% free ride would allow us to either invest that money for her elsewhere for when she's done with school or defer it to graduate school.
anyway...proud as hell 😊🤩
I was a Terry Foundation scholar at UT and have been an interviewer on the panel twice. Awesome, awesome program. Great community of people and the stipend (in addition to full tuition + living expenses) really allowed me the flexibility to do things like unpaid internships, LSAT prep course etc., that I definitely would not have been able to do without it.
The interview is really key because if she's already a finalist, she's cleared whatever grade threshold they had in mind. She will be in front of a panel of about 6-8 people. The interviewers range from recent grads to alums from the first Terry graduating class. I'm assuming the UNT interviewers will all be UNT grads, but I'm not 100% sure on that. As to the interview itself, I think my heavy work experience played really well in my favor, as well as the ability to bring humor to the mix. The panelists will be interviewing people pretty much non-stop all day, so the ability to be memorable is very key.
Congrats to your niece. She's a rockstar!
- 3
-
Interesting, short interview clip between Maddow and Warren on the economy/corona intersection. That our toolkit of future stimulus tools is so bare is........worrisome.
- 1
-
24 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:
Yeah it's not really fair to judge women in general as uniquely aggrieved and thin-skinned and emotionally reactionary.
After all, Amy had the humility to realize her race was run and that her value to her beliefs called her to drop and endorse the candidate with the largest chance to win and that shared her values. She did it quickly, without a lot of "look at me!", without a lot of public weeping and acting wounded. She sucked it up, smiled, and enthusiastically promoted her ideological interests no matter how she felt in the back room.
I might not agree with Klobuchar's ideological positions, but damned if I'm going to think women are overly emotionalize their political practice and behavior. Gender's not part of the equation, really.
Each of the candidates have run long, grueling campaigns and each has every right to drop out when they feel the time is right. None of them overstayed their welcome. Each of the younger candidates (Beto, Pete, Klobuchar etc.) will have other chances to run again and probably were able to get nice positions with the future Biden administration, but this was Warren's only shot and she will almost certainly need to stay in the Senate. She (and any of the other candidates) has every right to have an emotional reaction FFS.
For any supporter of the three old bags of gas left standing to judge Warren (or any woman) for being "thin-skinned and emotionally reactionary" is really rich, especially considering each of them are the most thin-skinned and emotionally reactionary candidates in the race. Bernie is all flailing unintelligible anger at every turn, Biden can't take any criticism without getting upset, and Trump is well...Trump.
- 4
-
1 minute ago, Dbeasy said:
I’m pissed off that we don’t have a woman candidate for President. Warren, Klobuchar and even Harris were better candidates than Biden or Sanders.
I know it's a weird year with very different considerations, so I'm trying not to take things too much to heart, but I'm currently convinced that the first female president will be a republican (in a few decades). And she will be a monster.
-
2 minutes ago, gmr548 said:
Warren's support is predominantly educated whites. That's a pretty weak demo for Bernie. Biden beat him there decisively. Though it's possible Biden was just winning Republicans and Warren's been hoarding all the educated progressives, I don't think it's a given that Warren supporters will move to Sanders. It will be a lot closer to 50/50 than most expect.
Bernie over Biden for this Warren voter, for what it's worth (nothing since I already voted).In my circle of educated white Warren voters, about 6/9 are pivoting to Biden. It's interesting because about half voted for Sanders in 2016. I think either his campaign has turned off a lot of people this go-round or people are just really scared of Trump winning again and are defaulting to the "safer" option.
- 1
-
3 minutes ago, Rougarou said:
But it is for Liz. So again I ask, someone smarter than me and more intune with politics, how is her still being in the race defensible strategically, practically, or otherwise.
I'm assuming it's a Scylla/Charybdis kind of thing
- 1
-
2 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:
This shouldn't be difficult - since the Centrists and the Establishment have picked Biden. Presumably they had a plan. What is it? I would like to share it with some discouraged voters right now.
Here's the plan: vote for Biden and get your friends and family to vote for Biden. And also be a volunteer poll worker. And donate money.
-
1 minute ago, MaybeACoordinator said:
Some of her supporters, including some people who are otherwise very smart, still think she is going to endorse Bernie. One of them challenged me to a bet, which I reluctantly accepted. Reluctantly only because I like the guy and I kind of like Warren and she is about to break his heart.
Her options are really tricky and she's kind of in a lose/lose here. Rightly or wrongly (I lean more toward wrongly as I think a lot of her voters would've switched to Biden), a lot of Bernie supporters are probably torches and pitchforks toward her at the moment, so what exactly does endorsing Bernie accomplish? He's most likely not going to win, so it's not like she's closer to getting any of her items in the agenda. His supporters aren't going to forgive her either. If she endorses Biden then maybe he adds a little more progressive spice to his agenda?
Hard to say, but at least she got to outlast Bloomberg after removing his spine at the debate.
- 1
-
12 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:
I see her endorsing Bernie way before she does Biden. She has already said Joe is not the answer. Doubt she can really backtrack that statement much.
Twist - she gives a double endorsement to Bloomberg and Tulsi. #boom
-
8 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:
Literally never heard of Matt Stoller in my life. I am not a subscriber to Chapo Trap House.
But please, guys, keep telling me all about the Sanders movement because all it does is reveal the carefully curated toxic social media worlds you've created for yourselves to fester in.
I follow what you're saying here in terms of Biden and Sanders as individual leaders, but the huge difference is the larger machine they will build.
Bernie's movement is wide and consists of grassroots advocacy. Biden's is going to be like Obama's, a thin band of extremely rich, largely work financiers. Another huge factor is who they put into positions of power. Like Barack, Joe will put Goldman Sachs in charge of the treasury and fiscal policy. He'll put healthcare execs (or their lackeys) in charge of that kind of policy.
The current Democratic establishment doesn't build a bench. Bernie will.
Pathetic recovery, David.
Tell the class what you thought you were setting up. Don't lie.
No he doesn't.
I have concerns with both on these points.
-Positions of power: obviously some concern with Biden (as noted above), concerns with Bernie as I'm not a fan of many he surrounds himself with either. Hopeful both will listen to their better angels.
-Bench/movement: Bern's movement is awesome, but both need to be willing to allow space on the bench for moderates (Bernie) and progressives (Biden) or the bench won't be big enough to get anything done.
Again, don't know anything, but they both can probably be better than what we have now, so let's just hope we can get everyone else to think so too.
-
3 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:
Will except for the fact that Biden has a history of selling out people to corporate interests.
I mean, I did say "completely".
I don't think he's going to be some progressive warrior, but I think he would seek to get some progressive items accomplished given the temperature of this election. Inversely, although I think Bernie has great positions on progressive issues, he's not going to be able to get very many of them enacted given the makeup of congress and his stance on the filibuster. So while they have very different stances on the issues, I think the actual outcomes of their hypothetical presidencies aren't going to look too dissimilar (which is why you should vote (and convince your friends to vote) for either if they get the nomination). I'm not telling progressives to vote for Biden in the primaries or vice versa, just eventually get your act together for the nominee in the general as either one probably won't be too bad (although both will be worse than Liz, obviously 😋).
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
Vote your conscience in the primary, vote blue in the general. That's it. Stop trying to play pundit, because no one has any idea how this will play out one way or another. This will be a game of incredibly small margins. Bernie may turn some additional people out, Joe might too. Bernie may scare some people away, Joe might not inspire them to go vote. Bernie is not going to be able to turn the US into a socialist haven where all of his wish list items will suddenly become true. He might get one big thing done. Joe is not going to completely sell the people out to corporate interests and will actually probably succeed in making some incremental progressive gains. No one has any clue what the correct path is for a dem victory, and either lane will be 10,000x better than what will happen if Trump wins. So stop bickering like children and just vote and get your neighbors/family/friends to vote.
- 12
-
6 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:
She is absolutely the best option. Misogyny isnt just a GOP thing though.
It's too bad we she can't step in as like the COO to Biden's bloviating figurehead. Enact his moderate agenda, but add a little progressive spice to it. Actually get things done, plug the holes in the state dept etc.
-
2 minutes ago, Tuco said:
There is a decent chance she is helping Bernie. Warren's play may be to stay in, collect some delegates, but basically block the lanes that would let Klobacher gain enough supporters to be viable in some areas. Bernie wins the plurality in a crowded field. She'll collect the delegates she can, and then drop out before the convention, endorsing Bernie and directing her delegates to vote for him. Maybe she gets a VP slot out of it, despite the effect on the Senate.
1. Warren is not stupid. She knows she won't get the nomination.
2. Warren sincerely believes in (most of) the things she advocates for.
3. Ideologically, she is closest to Bernie. It seems fairly obvious if the choice is between Bernie, Biden, or Bloomberg (the only three with any real shot right now), she'd pick Bernie in a heartbeat.
4. Of her supporters who do so because of the progressive agenda, many of them will switch to Bernie anyway because he is obviously the only viable avenue to get a President who will push the progressive agenda.
5. Not all of Warren's supporters would default to Bernie along ideological lines. Some are turned off by the Bernie Bros and will go to Biden or Bloomberg, and many may find supporting a woman is more important than supporting the progressive agenda.
Also, if Warren drops out, who else is going to keep biting at Bloomberg's heels and reminding everyone how terrible he is? I could see her campaign now evolving into a "spite store" against Bloomy.
Amy Coney Barrett
in Cloak Room
Posted
If this all does come to pass, women should be able to request that docs remove the clump of cells at whichever stage they wish, immediately give it up for adoption to the state, and let Mother Nature take it from there, with the state paying all costs to keep it alive. No one’s body should be used against their will to sustain someone else’s life.