George W Bush Early Investment Career?
[quote=BondGuy]Strangely, Bush’s only business success was acheived in the same way he governs the land - screw the little guy so the fat cats can get rich. Or in this case more rich. Gotta say, at least the guy is consistant.[/quote] Blah, blah, blah "screw the little guy" blah, blah, blah....I'm unaware of any new legislation passed so that Arlington could redevelop a run down part of town with a new ball park as an anchor, but your horrible tail sure doesn't seem to ring true, especially given how the residents of Arlington enjoy their ball park. BTW, Bush was the managing partner, not a strap hanger along for the ride.
[quote=BondGuy]I read about the Bush-rangers dealings long before he ran for prez. It seemed very slimly to me. He made out but at the expense of the less fortunate.When he first ran for prez thought Oh boy this is gonna be a mess. Well, that's after i thought why not run Jeb?[/quote] As if you, a hyper-partisan Democrat, were ever going to consult a balanced source or view Bush in any manner other than the way you have.
Whoa, I guess I should have expected that to be a bomb waiting to expload…
So does anyone know what Bush did on the street or that this position in the film did not occur?
Regarding my “belief” of Stone, I think similarly little of him as a political blow hard. I saw the film out of curiosity, not to watch in enjoyment as Stone attempts to “get in a parting shot.” All in all it was a mediocre piece of entertainment and subpar piece of history.
On a side note, not sure about the time of W’s enrollment, but here’s how Yale undergraduate admissions are processed today:
More or less 10% of applicants will be admitted, a high percentage of which will actually enroll. The pool is narrowed in “stages.” In the first of which, some characteristics can get someone in the “no” pile or “yes” pile, at which point upon receipt of a yes the application goes to a discussion among the members of the admissions department, perhaps with representatives from elsewhere including the faculty or student body. Repeat until the number needed to fill those anticipated vacancies is arrived at.
The legacies have an advantage in the above situation in that they automatically advance to the “group discussion” and can not be eliminated without this procedure, while an unaffiliated applicant may be denied admission at the earlier stage. The former director of admissions at Yale (now at Stanford) indicated that around eight applicants would bypass both sections of the review and get rubber-stamped based on information from the development (fundraising) office of the university.
There are about 6000 undergrads at Yale, necessitating around 1500 new enrollments as freshmen annually. In order to arrive at this figure, it is necessary to admit 2000 or so. (A wait list is often employed but not every year.)
With 8 out of 2000 student totally “walking” in and a little under half of the applicant pool (this is actually a DECREASE from earlier years) with at least single legacy status (both parents alum would be a double legacy although no further “formal” consideration for more than one) it would certainly make it increasingly difficult for one of the just under 20k applicants (more or less by year) to get one of 2000 offers of admission.
Legacy admission is alive and well and will not go away. Larry Summers indicated while at Harvard that he believed legacy was an integral part to maintaining school loyalty and culture although the argument can easily be made that it indirectly benefits white applicants. I am consistent in my opposition of both affirmative action and legacy admission. An appropriate resolution would be to ban the practice from public institutions and restrict federal funding to private institutions who wish to employ a legacy based admissions criteria.