TheShiznit Posted August 27, 2007 Share Posted August 27, 2007 U of I kicks NIU's ass in chemistry, biology, physics, all fields of engineering, math, computer science, medicine, and, um, most other programs that aren't geared towards teaching high school or working at Starbucks. My uncle is a partner in a law firm in Chicago and he sure as hell didn't go to NIU. U of I is also ranked much higher overall than NIU. Your general statement that NIU has "more rigorous acceptance standards" than U of I is a massive pile of bullchit that just about everybody who grew up in Illinois would call you on. So, now that your dishonesty is apparent, there really isn't much of a reason for me to continue. WOW...you are a friggin retard. I said that within the different school within the ENTIRE institution.....the major I had..two fold....had more rigorous acceptance standards than U of I cause it ranked higher....you surely can't read. It wasn't a general statement you arse....go back and re-read it. That is 100% of your problem....YOU CAN'T READ!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted August 27, 2007 Share Posted August 27, 2007 And with all due respect, in 1994, NIU was the MOST EXPENSIVE state school to attend in the school in which I was applying. More rigorous acceptance standards than that of U of I. These are my exact words above. Within the University, there are different schools....really didn't think I had to explain this to someone purportedly with a Ph.D.....and the particular school....within the NIU institutuion....had more rigorous acceptance standards than U of I. So, again...go ask vanna to buy a vowel cause you don't have a fricken clue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted August 27, 2007 Share Posted August 27, 2007 (edited) And with all due respect, in 1994, NIU was the MOST EXPENSIVE state school to attend in the school in which I was applying. More rigorous acceptance standards than that of U of I. These are my exact words above. Within the University, there are different schools....really didn't think I had to explain this to someone purportedly with a Ph.D.....and the particular school....within the NIU institutuion....had more rigorous acceptance standards than U of I. So, again...go ask vanna to buy a vowel cause you don't have a fricken clue. Political Science is in the School of Liberal Arts and Sciences, no? That loses to U of I as well - the acceptance standards in those schools in 1994 weren't even close. Can't say much about NIU's business school (Accounting), but I don't believe that they have separate admissions standards (like U of I does for LAS and Engineering). Either way, U of I is WAY more prestigious in overall undergraduate education. As for their law schools, my understanding is that U of I's isn't all that, but I do know that NIU's doesn't touch U of C, Northwestern, or Chicago-Kent. Thought that I didn't know anything about the area and its universities, huh? Wrong again. Thanks for playing... Edited August 27, 2007 by Bill Swerski Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeeR Posted August 27, 2007 Share Posted August 27, 2007 Well I'm glad this thread didn't get off track or anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunther Posted August 27, 2007 Share Posted August 27, 2007 Well I'm glad this thread didn't get off track or anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted August 27, 2007 Share Posted August 27, 2007 Well I'm glad this thread didn't get off track or anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kraftykraft Posted August 27, 2007 Share Posted August 27, 2007 (edited) As they say on other internet forums--"IBTL" (thats "in before the lock" for those of you who speak English) Edited August 27, 2007 by kraftykraft Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted August 27, 2007 Share Posted August 27, 2007 (edited) Political Science is in the School of Liberal Arts and Sciences, no? That loses to U of I as well - the acceptance standards in those schools in 1994 weren't even close. Can't say much about NIU's business school (Accounting), but I don't believe that they have separate admissions standards (like U of I does for LAS and Engineering). Either way, U of I is WAY more prestigious in overall undergraduate education. As for their law schools, my understanding is that U of I's isn't all that, but I do know that NIU's doesn't touch U of C, Northwestern, or Chicago-Kent. Thought that I didn't know anything about the area and its universities, huh? Wrong again. Thanks for playing... Did I say any of that stuff you pompous f'n d!ckhead. There were certainly a limited number allow into the CPA program at Northern as it is/was considered to be top in its field in Illinois. Also, the Poly/Sci school was top ranked(when I was there I think top 20 or 40...can't remember) in the Nation. I then said that I did some research and found that NIU Law had placed quite a few graduates into Prosecutorial jobs in the collar counties and around the state. Nowhere did I say that you could compare Kent with U of C or even Northwestern. Hell I almost went to John Marshall cause they turn out GREAT litigators. I either wanted to be a prosecutor or a litigator....turned out investments is my game. But hell since you know everything and put words in peoples mouth.....you are doing a fine job speaking for both of us I guess. Again....if you are going to NIU for computer science....it is for a reason. Besides if you were really good wouldn't you have went to Iowa State??? Hear their NASA program is top notch...but I bet the rest of the university is quite suspect compared to the GENERAL nature in which you like to compare things. Edited August 27, 2007 by TheShiznit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted August 27, 2007 Share Posted August 27, 2007 (edited) Did I say any of that stuff you pompous f'n d!ckhead. Oh, wow, can't hold our liquor, eh? I didn't claim that you compared Kent to Northwestern or U of C. I'd suggest that you put the bottle down and dig your head out of your ass. This may come as a shock to you, but going to a "higher-ranked" undergraduate program really doesn't necessarily that much, as you learn the same basic material at all of the major universities/colleges. The one major difference is the level of competition that you're going against for grades, and the competition at U of I is going to be higher than that at NIU. Having a 3.8 GPA in Poly Sci from NIU doesn't exactly trump a 3.5 GPA in the same program at Harvard. When you enter a graduate/professional program, THAT'S where the level of material that you're learning differs between institutions. And LOL and Iowa State supposedly sucking at everything outside of computer science. They have a Top 40 chemistry program (graduate), for starters. And from what I hear, their standards for undergraduate admission are a lot higher than NIU's. Edited August 27, 2007 by Bill Swerski Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donutrun Jellies Posted August 27, 2007 Share Posted August 27, 2007 As they say on other internet forums--"IBTL" (thats "in before the lock" for those of you who speak English) Thread gun out of ammo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted August 27, 2007 Share Posted August 27, 2007 BB tried and soundly lost when he tried to redicule my comparison of the potential impacts of both their crimes. You're an idiot. There's no comparison between the two situations. Libby went to jail in an investigation where it was found that no crime was committed and the special council actively ignored the person who actually leaked the information despite being provided with his name early on in the investigation. Figure that one out, genius. And if I am not mistaken (and I'm not), Libby did no more than what Former President Clinton did (and didn't receive any criminal penalties). To think you whipped me in any way, shape, or form and then come here to crow about it in this thread only shows how truly igorant you really are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted August 27, 2007 Share Posted August 27, 2007 Scooter lied to cover up the outing of a CIA agent that was tracking WMD. It prevented(obstructed) getting the real criminals and endangered the lives of all the CIA agents in that covert unit. We don't know if any were killed. They both lied but that's where the similarities end. Talk about your lies.... Plame was not covert, and hadn't been for 6 years prior to being involved in the scheme to submarine Bush. There were no "real criminals" and no covert CIA agents were named. Where in the hell are you getting your information? CNN? Katie Couric (sp?). Democratic headquarters? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted August 27, 2007 Share Posted August 27, 2007 You're an idiot. There's no comparison between the two situations. Libby went to jail in an investigation where it was found that no crime was committed and the special council actively ignored the person who actually leaked the information despite being provided with his name early on in the investigation. Figure that one out, genius. And if I am not mistaken (and I'm not), Libby did no more than what Former President Clinton did (and didn't receive any criminal penalties). To think you whipped me in any way, shape, or form and then come here to crow about it in this thread only shows how truly igorant you really are. You will lose soundly and that is why you run like the sissy that you are. Libby never went to jail, but his conviction stands as he only had his sentence commuted versus pardoned. Now, if you would like to talk in "fact-land" about this....we can start a seperate thread....but heretofore....I would like to stick to the question posed by some other poster and extrapolated by myself and others.....the fact that the crime Libby was convicted has/had far worse implications for this nation than what Vick has admitted to.....seems like a very simple anectdotal comparison....I am surprised you and Bill refuse to see reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted August 27, 2007 Share Posted August 27, 2007 (edited) You will lose soundly and that is why you run like the sissy that you are. Libby never went to jail, but his conviction stands as he only had his sentence commuted versus pardoned. Now, if you would like to talk in "fact-land" about this....we can start a seperate thread....but heretofore....I would like to stick to the question posed by some other poster and extrapolated by myself and others.....the fact that the crime Libby was convicted has/had far worse implications for this nation than what Vick has admitted to.....seems like a very simple anectdotal comparison....I am surprised you and Bill refuse to see reason. Okay, genius. Riddle me this. It was known very early on that Armitage leaked the information about Plame. That being the case - why didn't Armitage get grilled & then thrown in a Federal pen, despite "outing" a "covert" CIA agent? This was a witch hunt right from the start (and instigated with Plame/Wilson as major players in a "get Bush at all costs" agenda), with the target being the Whitehouse. Same as the Clinton/Lewinski bullsh!t in that there was no crime other than that upon exhaustive investigation after it was clear there was no crime. Libby fell on the sword, even though he didn't need to, since there obviously was no crime. The only difference between this BS & the Clinton/Lewinski BS, is that Clinton didn't get sentenced even though he very clearly broke the law. Edited August 27, 2007 by Bronco Billy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted August 27, 2007 Share Posted August 27, 2007 Okay, genius. Riddle me this. It was known very early on that Armitage leaked the information about Plame. That being the case - why didn't Armitage get grilled & then thrown in a Federal pen, despite "outing" a "covert" CIA agent? This was a witch hunt right from the start (and instigated with Plame/Wilson as major players in a "get Bush at all costs" agenda), with the target being the Whitehouse. Same as the Clinton/Lewinski bullsh!t in that there was no crime other than that upon exhaustive investigation after it was clear there was no crime. Libby fell on the sword, even though he didn't need to, since there obviously was no crime. The only difference between this BS & the Clinton/Lewinski BS, is that Clinton didn't get sentenced even though he very clearly broke the law. Better not mess with him, Billy. He was on the debate team at the prestigious Northern Illinois University. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted August 27, 2007 Share Posted August 27, 2007 (edited) Talk about your lies.... Plame was not covert, and hadn't been for 6 years prior to being involved in the scheme to submarine Bush. There were no "real criminals" and no covert CIA agents were named. Where in the hell are you getting your information? CNN? Katie Couric (sp?). Democratic headquarters? Copy of the executive Summary filed by Patrick Fitzgerald(Bush Appointee) on or around May 29, 2007. The executive summary was part of Plame's workfile at the CIA and you can find it anywhere online. If you wish to start another thread....so be it....but you will lose when even the director of the CIA ahs said she was covert....now Libby can't be charged because the law states he has to have knowledge of her covert status before he leaked it....something which is VERY hard to prove....that is why Armitage was never prosecuted....he told the investigators the truth up front and said he never knew....I guess it passed the smell test. But when Libby LIED you give him a pass.....When Vick lies...time to throw him to the dogs...pardon the pun. Again here is the summary: On 1 January 2002, Valerie Wilson was working for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) as an operations officer in the Directorate of Operations (DO). She was assigned to the Counterproliferation Division (CPD) at CIA Headquarters, where she served as the Chief of a CPD component with responsibility for weapons proliferation issues related to Iraq. While assigned to CPD, Ms. Wilson engaged in Temporary Duty (TDY) travel overseas on official business. She traveled at least seven times to more than ten countries. When traveling overseas, Ms. Wilson always traveled under a cover identity--sometimes in true name and sometimes in alias--but always using cover--whether official or non-official cover (NOC)--with no ostensible relationship to the CIA. At the time of the initial unauthorized disclosure in the media of Ms. Wilson's employment relationship with the CIA on 14 July 2003, Ms. Wilson was a covert CIA employee for whom the CIA was taking affirmative measures to conceal her intelligence relationship to the United States. Now, if you have evidence past May 29,2007 that can refute the CIA's listing her as covert in their own documents in memorandum filed by a US Attorney....then I implore you to do so....until then....you are the one who is lying. And please....if you want a source.....use google. I will do the same for you. Edited August 27, 2007 by TheShiznit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted August 27, 2007 Share Posted August 27, 2007 Okay, genius. Riddle me this. It was known very early on that Armitage leaked the information about Plame. That being the case - why didn't Armitage get grilled & then thrown in a Federal pen, despite "outing" a "covert" CIA agent?well, I posted a reply that explained this before you posted...but I will answer again. Armitage didn't lie to Fitzgerald...it was that simple. He told Fitzgerald he was ONE of the TWO sources that Bob Novak had....that confirmation thing is a B!tch. Armitage told Fitzgerald that he did not know that Plame was covert...and under the law the leaking person has to know the covert status to be prosecuted. Simply put....he didn't lie.This was a witch hunt right from the start (and instigated with Plame/Wilson as major players in a "get Bush at all costs" agenda), with the target being the Whitehouse. Same as the Clinton/Lewinski bullsh!t in that there was no crime other than that upon exhaustive investigation after it was clear there was no crime.It was.....Fitzgerald is an appointee of this adminstration....what possible motive does he have to go after Libby....accept to do his job. Me thinks you are too conspiracy oriented....you probably think Bush stole Florida....what cockamame idea is that. Libby fell on the sword, even though he didn't need to, since there obviously was no crime. The only difference between this BS & the Clinton/Lewinski BS, is that Clinton didn't get sentenced even though he very clearly broke the law.Sure he did....and he lost his law license the same as Libby. Granted Libby lied in an investigation about national security and clinton lied to a grand jury investigating consensual sex with an inturn....while both crimes....one has a little more weight...or implications than the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted August 27, 2007 Share Posted August 27, 2007 Better not mess with him, Billy. He was on the debate team at the prestigious Northern Illinois University. Yep and you overpaid for you education...allegedly.....if you still go around and voluntarily appear this ignorant. Please quit before the University calls and requests their degree back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted August 27, 2007 Share Posted August 27, 2007 From a CNN interview of Wilson - and this is CNN, mind you: From the July 14 edition of CNN's Wolf Blitzer Reports: BLITZER: But the other argument that's been made against you is that you've sought to capitalize on this extravaganza, having that photo shoot with your wife [in the January 2004 Vanity Fair magazine], who was a clandestine officer of the CIA, and that you've tried to enrich yourself writing this book and all of that. What do you make of those accusations, which are serious accusations, as you know, that have been leveled against you? WILSON: My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity. Nice work, genius. BTW - could you please answer the very simple question about why Armitage is not sentenced & in jail? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vet Posted August 27, 2007 Share Posted August 27, 2007 BTW - could you please answer the very simple question about why Armitage is not sentenced & in jail? Because he's white. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted August 27, 2007 Share Posted August 27, 2007 You guys are all homophobes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cliaz Posted August 27, 2007 Share Posted August 27, 2007 When will you all learn that in the United States of America if you are White and/or Christian you are looked down on and should be ashamed of yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted August 27, 2007 Share Posted August 27, 2007 This is not at all the argument I expected when I clicked on this thread....am I in the right place or did someone alter the link? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Irish Doggy Posted August 27, 2007 Share Posted August 27, 2007 Meet the new Fantasy Football message board, same as the old Tailgate message board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted August 27, 2007 Share Posted August 27, 2007 Meet the new Fantasy Football message board, same as the old Tailgate message board. Some idiots refuse to be ignored, and let their stupidity spill into other forums. It would be rude not to accomodate them & show all forums that they post in just how brainless they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts