|
On March 15 2012 11:26 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2012 11:02 Miyoshino wrote:
I have never seen xDaunt win a debate on TL. It is quite funny as he keeps trying. But right here may be the first time he did. I don't try to win debates in here. No one is going to change anyone's mind. Hell, debating isn't even possible because, more often than not, people responding to me either misconstrue or simply don't understand what I post.
Thats clearly it, were not smart enough to comprehend your wisdom. The fact of the matter is, you throw out the tired rhetoric that the republican party has been flaunting, and then people post direct sources showing you its false, and you ignore us, and start another rant. Thats the actual run down of usual debates with you.
|
United States22883 Posts
He meant if Santorum is the best GOP candidate available in 2016, then Hillary will be the next president for two terms. 
|
Canada5062 Posts
Dunno about consecutive terms, but sure looks that way right now...
|
On March 15 2012 12:41 Focuspants wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2012 11:26 xDaunt wrote:On March 15 2012 11:02 Miyoshino wrote:
I have never seen xDaunt win a debate on TL. It is quite funny as he keeps trying. But right here may be the first time he did. I don't try to win debates in here. No one is going to change anyone's mind. Hell, debating isn't even possible because, more often than not, people responding to me either misconstrue or simply don't understand what I post. Thats clearly it, were not smart enough to comprehend your wisdom. The fact of the matter is, you throw out the tired rhetoric that the republican party has been flaunting, and then people post direct sources showing you its false, and you ignore us, and start another rant. Thats the actual run down of usual debates with you.
There are like five people from the other side of the isle that I actually enjoy talking to here. All of the others are so indoctrinated it's not even worthwhile trying to fight the hivemind when we're so heavily outnumbered. It's not fun to debate 10+ people at a time so we just say screw it and drop the arguments because half of the time we're too short on time to address everything that people are bringing up, and it isn't even worth it because so many people just outright refute it because it conflicts with the way that they wish to see the world, which is often inherently flawed from an analytical, conservative prespecitve.
|
Hopefully Romney wins. Real Moderate and great guy. He wants to raise minimum wage to meet with inflation etc. He wants to keep part of the healthcare bill and focus it more into preventative care.
Just so you know why more republicans hate healthcare , according to Pew Research 70% of all our costs come from self induced health risks. Like obesity, smoking, diabetes, etc.
Also Romney turned that New Hampshire state around pretty well and worked well with the legislature. I hope then the Democrats take the house and senate. Usually our government, in my opinion, works great when we have a split executive to legislative branch into different ideologies.
|
On March 15 2012 12:41 Focuspants wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2012 11:26 xDaunt wrote:On March 15 2012 11:02 Miyoshino wrote:
I have never seen xDaunt win a debate on TL. It is quite funny as he keeps trying. But right here may be the first time he did. I don't try to win debates in here. No one is going to change anyone's mind. Hell, debating isn't even possible because, more often than not, people responding to me either misconstrue or simply don't understand what I post. Thats clearly it, were not smart enough to comprehend your wisdom. The fact of the matter is, you throw out the tired rhetoric that the republican party has been flaunting, and then people post direct sources showing you its false, and you ignore us, and start another rant. Thats the actual run down of usual debates with you.
+1
I am in favor of different views because it enriches a debate and can lead to very interesting conclusions. But for the most part interpreting Republican talking points just the way Republicans would, dismissing other point of views very easily and then blaming it on lack of comprehension by the other one - give me a break. No wonder Republicans fear and attack academia so much. Maybe stop playing the victim card and the vicious rhetoric and look at why the academic world tends to be more liberal... for once without preconceived notions provided by the likes of Rush and the RNC - that alienate them further some might say.
|
On March 15 2012 17:01 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2012 12:41 Focuspants wrote:On March 15 2012 11:26 xDaunt wrote:On March 15 2012 11:02 Miyoshino wrote:
I have never seen xDaunt win a debate on TL. It is quite funny as he keeps trying. But right here may be the first time he did. I don't try to win debates in here. No one is going to change anyone's mind. Hell, debating isn't even possible because, more often than not, people responding to me either misconstrue or simply don't understand what I post. Thats clearly it, were not smart enough to comprehend your wisdom. The fact of the matter is, you throw out the tired rhetoric that the republican party has been flaunting, and then people post direct sources showing you its false, and you ignore us, and start another rant. Thats the actual run down of usual debates with you. +1 I am in favor of different views because it enriches a debate and can lead to very interesting conclusions. But for the most part interpreting Republican talking points just the way Republicans would, dismissing other point of views very easily and then blaming it on lack of comprehension by the other one - give me a break. No wonder Republicans fear and attack academia so much. Maybe stop playing the victim card and the vicious rhetoric and look at why the academic world tends to be more liberal... for once without preconceived notions provided by the likes of Rush and the RNC - that alienate them further some might say.
If you are trying to imply that progressives (not liberals...I'd like the word back thanks) are more intelligent than their opposition, because they have most of the tenureships in Academia, is base. Most of the positions in Academia are self-selected...in other words, many folks are granted spots due to ideology, not intellect. Look at Murray Rothbard, who had to languish at NYU Polytechnic for many years even though he was clearly smarter than 99% of the other economists, and while at UNLV he was consistently berated, harassed, and marginalized by his colleagues, and University staff because he was libertarian -- specifically a Voluntaryist.
I'd argue that libertarians are the smartest ideological group, but that doesn't mean much. As we see in reality, the rational arguments aren't usually the ones to come out victorious. Usually the more emotional and more violent you are, the more you succeed (Progressivism / Conservatism).
As far as the political process I see no difference between the GOP and the Dems. They're two wings of the same bird of prey. I can't count the number of times from both parties completely dismiss, ad hominem, and mischaracterize the liberal (libertarian) viewpoint.
Also...stop stealing our vocabulary.
Patrick Henry was a liberal. FDR was Progressive. Bushies are Conservatives. We need less of the FDR's and Bushies, and more of the Patrick Henry's and Harry Brownes.
|
Where did I say Dems are better? I can take back the "liberal" if you wish, don´t want to steal your vocabulary, gotta respect property rights and stuff. I just pointed out the partisan bickering, that for the most part, is this thread and the state of your politics. Might be one of the reasons nothing really gets done.
If a brilliant man gets bullied that´s sad indeed - no matter which side of the aisle he is on.
|
On March 15 2012 17:32 Doublemint wrote:
Where did I say Dems are better? I can take back the "liberal" if you wish, don´t want to steal your vocabulary, gotta respect property rights and stuff. I just pointed out the partisan bickering, that for the most part, is this thread and the state of your politics. Might be one of the reasons nothing really gets done.
If a brilliant man gets bullied that´s sad indeed - no matter which side of the aisle he is on.
Well for the most part in Europe it still retains its proper etymology and use (liberal vis a vis US libertarian), and libertarian retains its proper etymological use also (An-Syns, Mutualists, etc.). Here in the US a lot of the chaos is contributed to the fact that our political vocabulary is completely turned upside down -- Orwellian. In any event, I'd argue that plenty gets done, just not what I would like to see. They seem to never fail on their road to serfdom. TSA, DHS, Patriot Act, MCA, latest anti-1st Amendment bill (illegal to protest around politicians), troops in Uganda and all sorts of other countries, bombing countless countries and innocents, more monopolization and privilege to politically connected (aka Corporations), etc.
Partisanship is largely a facade. The two parties may disagree on some menial wedge-issue that is completely blown out of proportion, but on all the major and important issues and topics they agree 100%. This is why libertarians in either parties are derided, chased out, marginalized, and brow-beaten. They can't stand a challenge to their duopoly and privileged elitism. They like power in the State, whereas we like power in the individual where it rightfully belongs.
I don't mind the tyrant getting bullied, though I prefer exile, tar and feathering would work just as well for me. :p
|
On March 15 2012 17:44 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2012 17:32 Doublemint wrote:
Where did I say Dems are better? I can take back the "liberal" if you wish, don´t want to steal your vocabulary, gotta respect property rights and stuff. I just pointed out the partisan bickering, that for the most part, is this thread and the state of your politics. Might be one of the reasons nothing really gets done.
If a brilliant man gets bullied that´s sad indeed - no matter which side of the aisle he is on. Well for the most part in Europe it still retains its proper etymology and use (liberal vis a vis US libertarian), and libertarian retains its proper etymological use also (An-Syns, Mutualists, etc.). Here in the US a lot of the chaos is contributed to the fact that our political vocabulary is completely turned upside down -- Orwellian. In any event, I'd argue that plenty gets done, just not what I would like to see. They seem to never fail on their road to serfdom. TSA, DHS, Patriot Act, MCA, latest anti-1st Amendment bill (illegal to protest around politicians), troops in Uganda and all sorts of other countries, bombing countless countries and innocents, more monopolization and privilege to politically connected (aka Corporations), etc. Partisanship is largely a facade. The two parties may disagree on some menial wedge-issue that is completely blown out of proportion, but on all the major and important issues and topics they agree 100%. This is why libertarians in either parties are derided, chased out, marginalized, and brow-beaten. They can't stand a challenge to their duopoly and privileged elitism. They like power in the State, whereas we like power in the individual where it rightfully belongs. I don't mind the tyrant getting bullied, though I prefer exile, tar and feathering would work just as well for me. :p
How about Newt´s new Moon colony?
I kind of agree, but I see the libertarian movement more as a much needed counterpart to the insane intrusions into people´s lives than the ultimate solution. As much sense as Ron Paul´s criticism makes, be it against Dems or Reps alike, people are afraid of his solutions - no state interference is as bad as the state dictating all/most things. You can blame their lack of education, understanding, care, the state of the partisan and sensationalist media...
But for really changing something for the better in a democracy, you need a lot of informed people that see what is wrong and don´t buy into the partisan bullshit.
|
On March 15 2012 18:04 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2012 17:44 Wegandi wrote:On March 15 2012 17:32 Doublemint wrote:
Where did I say Dems are better? I can take back the "liberal" if you wish, don´t want to steal your vocabulary, gotta respect property rights and stuff. I just pointed out the partisan bickering, that for the most part, is this thread and the state of your politics. Might be one of the reasons nothing really gets done.
If a brilliant man gets bullied that´s sad indeed - no matter which side of the aisle he is on. Well for the most part in Europe it still retains its proper etymology and use (liberal vis a vis US libertarian), and libertarian retains its proper etymological use also (An-Syns, Mutualists, etc.). Here in the US a lot of the chaos is contributed to the fact that our political vocabulary is completely turned upside down -- Orwellian. In any event, I'd argue that plenty gets done, just not what I would like to see. They seem to never fail on their road to serfdom. TSA, DHS, Patriot Act, MCA, latest anti-1st Amendment bill (illegal to protest around politicians), troops in Uganda and all sorts of other countries, bombing countless countries and innocents, more monopolization and privilege to politically connected (aka Corporations), etc. Partisanship is largely a facade. The two parties may disagree on some menial wedge-issue that is completely blown out of proportion, but on all the major and important issues and topics they agree 100%. This is why libertarians in either parties are derided, chased out, marginalized, and brow-beaten. They can't stand a challenge to their duopoly and privileged elitism. They like power in the State, whereas we like power in the individual where it rightfully belongs. I don't mind the tyrant getting bullied, though I prefer exile, tar and feathering would work just as well for me. :p How about Newt´s new Moon colony? I kind of agree, but I see the libertarian movement more as a much needed counterpart to the insane intrusions into people´s lives than the ultimate solution. As much sense as Ron Paul´s criticism makes, be it against Dems or Reps alike, people are afraid of his solutions - no state interference is as bad as the state dictating all/most things. You can blame their lack of education, understanding, care, the state of the partisan and sensationalist media... But for really changing something for the better in a democracy, you need a lot of informed people that see what is wrong and don´t buy into the partisan bullshit.
If the people were informed, then why not Self-Government? Democracy is very dangerous, unwanted, and destructive. As John Adams opined: Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.
I am much more inclined to city-State republicanism if the State is to exist at all. The more local and individual the power the greater. A better understanding of the Rights of Man, and where they come from is sorely needed as well. The State does not grant you rights, it takes them from you. No more faith in that institution -- we need far less of it.
|
Bot edit.
User was banned for this post.
|
Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
Churchill.
See, I can play too .
That state does both, grant you rights and takes some of them away. It´s a bit more complicated than you make it out to be, and though I will concede that the idea of smaller governmental bodies instead of big nations like the ones we got now is an interesting thought, you will have to leave the civilized world(as long as it can sustain itself at least) with a couple of libertarian buddies to live in such a community.
|
On March 15 2012 18:13 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2012 18:04 Doublemint wrote:On March 15 2012 17:44 Wegandi wrote:On March 15 2012 17:32 Doublemint wrote:
Where did I say Dems are better? I can take back the "liberal" if you wish, don´t want to steal your vocabulary, gotta respect property rights and stuff. I just pointed out the partisan bickering, that for the most part, is this thread and the state of your politics. Might be one of the reasons nothing really gets done.
If a brilliant man gets bullied that´s sad indeed - no matter which side of the aisle he is on. Well for the most part in Europe it still retains its proper etymology and use (liberal vis a vis US libertarian), and libertarian retains its proper etymological use also (An-Syns, Mutualists, etc.). Here in the US a lot of the chaos is contributed to the fact that our political vocabulary is completely turned upside down -- Orwellian. In any event, I'd argue that plenty gets done, just not what I would like to see. They seem to never fail on their road to serfdom. TSA, DHS, Patriot Act, MCA, latest anti-1st Amendment bill (illegal to protest around politicians), troops in Uganda and all sorts of other countries, bombing countless countries and innocents, more monopolization and privilege to politically connected (aka Corporations), etc. Partisanship is largely a facade. The two parties may disagree on some menial wedge-issue that is completely blown out of proportion, but on all the major and important issues and topics they agree 100%. This is why libertarians in either parties are derided, chased out, marginalized, and brow-beaten. They can't stand a challenge to their duopoly and privileged elitism. They like power in the State, whereas we like power in the individual where it rightfully belongs. I don't mind the tyrant getting bullied, though I prefer exile, tar and feathering would work just as well for me. :p How about Newt´s new Moon colony? I kind of agree, but I see the libertarian movement more as a much needed counterpart to the insane intrusions into people´s lives than the ultimate solution. As much sense as Ron Paul´s criticism makes, be it against Dems or Reps alike, people are afraid of his solutions - no state interference is as bad as the state dictating all/most things. You can blame their lack of education, understanding, care, the state of the partisan and sensationalist media... But for really changing something for the better in a democracy, you need a lot of informed people that see what is wrong and don´t buy into the partisan bullshit. If the people were informed, then why not Self-Government? Democracy is very dangerous, unwanted, and destructive. As John Adams opined: Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. I am much more inclined to city-State republicanism if the State is to exist at all. The more local and individual the power the greater. A better understanding of the Rights of Man, and where they come from is sorely needed as well. The State does not grant you rights, it takes them from you. No more faith in that institution -- we need far less of it.
So do you have any examples of self-goverments that's been less dangerous, unwanted and destructive than any democracy? By that standard, all kinds of goverment are suicidal.
|
The vibe i get from Libertarians is the following:
Big goverment is bad because i myself do not controll it alone!
You tend mask it by saying it is taking away your freedom/right... But seriously, it's just "meh, can't do what i want and i have to follow orders/decisions"of the majority/law".
|
On March 15 2012 18:13 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2012 18:04 Doublemint wrote:On March 15 2012 17:44 Wegandi wrote:On March 15 2012 17:32 Doublemint wrote:
Where did I say Dems are better? I can take back the "liberal" if you wish, don´t want to steal your vocabulary, gotta respect property rights and stuff. I just pointed out the partisan bickering, that for the most part, is this thread and the state of your politics. Might be one of the reasons nothing really gets done.
If a brilliant man gets bullied that´s sad indeed - no matter which side of the aisle he is on. Well for the most part in Europe it still retains its proper etymology and use (liberal vis a vis US libertarian), and libertarian retains its proper etymological use also (An-Syns, Mutualists, etc.). Here in the US a lot of the chaos is contributed to the fact that our political vocabulary is completely turned upside down -- Orwellian. In any event, I'd argue that plenty gets done, just not what I would like to see. They seem to never fail on their road to serfdom. TSA, DHS, Patriot Act, MCA, latest anti-1st Amendment bill (illegal to protest around politicians), troops in Uganda and all sorts of other countries, bombing countless countries and innocents, more monopolization and privilege to politically connected (aka Corporations), etc. Partisanship is largely a facade. The two parties may disagree on some menial wedge-issue that is completely blown out of proportion, but on all the major and important issues and topics they agree 100%. This is why libertarians in either parties are derided, chased out, marginalized, and brow-beaten. They can't stand a challenge to their duopoly and privileged elitism. They like power in the State, whereas we like power in the individual where it rightfully belongs. I don't mind the tyrant getting bullied, though I prefer exile, tar and feathering would work just as well for me. :p How about Newt´s new Moon colony? I kind of agree, but I see the libertarian movement more as a much needed counterpart to the insane intrusions into people´s lives than the ultimate solution. As much sense as Ron Paul´s criticism makes, be it against Dems or Reps alike, people are afraid of his solutions - no state interference is as bad as the state dictating all/most things. You can blame their lack of education, understanding, care, the state of the partisan and sensationalist media... But for really changing something for the better in a democracy, you need a lot of informed people that see what is wrong and don´t buy into the partisan bullshit. If the people were informed, then why not Self-Government? Democracy is very dangerous, unwanted, and destructive. As John Adams opined: Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. I am much more inclined to city-State republicanism if the State is to exist at all. The more local and individual the power the greater. A better understanding of the Rights of Man, and where they come from is sorely needed as well. The State does not grant you rights, it takes them from you. No more faith in that institution -- we need far less of it.
OK... where do rights come from, then?
|
On March 15 2012 10:34 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2012 10:16 Whitewing wrote:On March 15 2012 08:45 xDaunt wrote:
Did you miss the part where he was giving speeches in other countries during which he kept apologizing for America's past "bad acts," even when those acts often had nothing to do with the country he was in? Hell, it was so bad that the Japanese made a point of communicating to the administration that Obama better not apologize for the atomic bomb (and it is generally believed that he intended to do so).
That never happened, Obama never did that, and it's a complete fabrication that he did. Numerous fact checkers have looked into it and found it to be completely made up. The communique from wikileaks was made up, too, then?
Hello? Are you blind? Did you even read my post? Or, rather, are you going to keep ignoring factual evidence that shows your claim he went on a apology tour is an outright lie? Here, let me quote myself:
On March 15 2012 08:45 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +
And I didn't know Obama went on a "World Apology tour". I do recall him introducing himself to World Leaders and connecting with the international community.
Did you miss the part where he was giving speeches in other countries during which he kept apologizing for America's past "bad acts," even when those acts often had nothing to do with the country he was in? Hell, it was so bad that the Japanese made a point of communicating to the administration that Obama better not apologize for the atomic bomb (and it is generally believed that he intended to do so).
"Did you miss the part where the claim that Obama went around the world apologizing was rated a "Pants on fire" lie by Politifact.com (see here), and a "four pinocchios" lie by the Washington Post's fact checker (the maximum amount, see here)? It's just not true."
On March 15 2012 11:26 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2012 11:02 Miyoshino wrote:
I have never seen xDaunt win a debate on TL. It is quite funny as he keeps trying. But right here may be the first time he did. I don't try to win debates in here. No one is going to change anyone's mind. Hell, debating isn't even possible because, more often than not, people responding to me either misconstrue or simply don't understand what I post.
No, people understand what you post perfectly fine. When they proceed to debunk what you write, you ignore the evidence, as shown in this very conversation where you chose to ignore my post and the evidence that was presented to you, and went on to repeat your claim which had been established to be a lie.
|
On March 15 2012 11:26 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2012 11:02 Miyoshino wrote:
I have never seen xDaunt win a debate on TL. It is quite funny as he keeps trying. But right here may be the first time he did. I don't try to win debates in here. No one is going to change anyone's mind. Hell, debating isn't even possible because, more often than not, people responding to me either misconstrue or simply don't understand what I post.
Well I've certainly refined my own views in thread. Maybe not a complete change of opinion but certainly a shifting of it. I certainly would never want to say that I could never be convinced of another point of view. Also other people who are less decided can view the thread to see for themselves. And it's fun.
I certainly didn't mean to misconstrue what you said. I asked for clarification of what you believe about what being pro-American is, and basically you responded in contrast to democrats. I was trying to understand how you take their actions to be not pro-American or even anti-American. It sounds like you're implying that democrats aren't pro-American and you shouldn't be too surprised when people get angry at such divisive talk. If I'm mischaracterizing you please correct me. By all means.
|
On March 15 2012 11:26 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2012 11:02 Miyoshino wrote:
I have never seen xDaunt win a debate on TL. It is quite funny as he keeps trying. But right here may be the first time he did. I don't try to win debates in here. No one is going to change anyone's mind. Hell, debating isn't even possible because, more often than not, people responding to me either misconstrue or simply don't understand what I post.
See this is the problem, we are very open to changing our minds. We come to this thread to hear differing opinions, and when one side makes a much more compelling argument we follow it, and know why. "I've seen the data, I know the counterpoints, I know why I think this is right".
YOU are projecting your own weakness onto others. YOU are not going to change YOUR mind, and expect that we will do the same. This is why you are the joke of an entire website, YOU ignore facts, YOU ignore evidence, YOU ignore the systematic unraveling of post after post of drivel and expect that we do the same. We don't. You just don't make a very good case when half of your data is a simply untrue. You base your views on lies and have convinced yourself that we are doing the same. Maybe we aren't. Maybe most of the time you are just wrong, please at least consider it.
|
On March 15 2012 07:21 Pillage wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2012 06:24 Vega62a wrote:
May I ask a question of the Republicans in this thread?
Though it was not what he said, why would it be controversial that Obama would want everyone to go to college? Considering that this narrative would come with the implication that they should also have the fiscal means to do so, through assistance and lowered tuition? Sure I'll give you my take on it. For me the concern is that we'll be using taxpayer money to educate people in whatever they want. Now before you go on a rant, consider the whole point of education, it's to gain a set of skills. People like to fluff it up about being about learning and discovering yourself, and it can be that, but one must be able to take out concrete, applicable things to the professional world, including private and public jobs that keep the world running. What's concerning is to see is college students like in the OWS rallies who were fiscally irresponsible, and picked a major that is in low demand (it didn't teach them enough skills) in the professional world who are now unemployed or working fast food / other min wage shit jobs. The issue is when you introduce government into the equation, no field of study can be refused, because that's just how government works, they give you a choice to do what you want. So now we'll see an explosion of people going to college which can lead to a heavy over saturation of the market, thus wasting all of the money that was supposed to set them up for a job where they're financially independent from the government. That is my concern. As an anectode, the reasons outlined above are the reason I picked a hard ass, but very applicable major in college. I want to maximize the skills I develop so I stand a great chance at getting hired. Applicable, difficult majors allow you to do this. A degree in underwater basket weaving does not.
This is an example of a reasonable fiscally conservative idea which has lived in a bubble and failed to be informed of the way the world moves around them. The thing you don't realize is that government already pays a ton for university. It's heavily subsidized, and that's one of the reasons that pushing for amnesty for college graduates has made so much sense - taxpayers pay A LOT for every single student who goes through the university system, so why would we spend that money educating future leaders?
I understand your idea about low-skill jobs, but here's another truth - if you even want an office job, the kind of job that you're going to hate for the rest of your life but is going to pay you a decent living wage, you need to have a college degree. Is it a skill-based degree? No. The idea is more that to an employer, a college graduate is more likely to be serious-minded, hardworking, and less flighty (that last especially in this age of crippling student debt). Is that universally true? Of course not. But it's a better indicator than you think.
As an aside, the "degree in underwater basket weaving," line is a silly republican straw man intended to demonize the liberal arts, and you know it. We can do better than that.
On March 15 2012 07:22 Focuspants wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2012 06:24 Vega62a wrote:
May I ask a question of the Republicans in this thread?
Though it was not what he said, why would it be controversial that Obama would want everyone to go to college? Considering that this narrative would come with the implication that they should also have the fiscal means to do so, through assistance and lowered tuition? I am a liberal Canadian, not the group youre looking for a response from, but heres my take on it. I am in university currently, and it really isnt for everyone. Academics doesnt appeal to everyone, and academia isnt everyones strongsuit. Furthermore, society couldnt function purely off of college grads. Many degrees are highly theoretical, whereas many jobs are entirely technical. You really do need all types to make the world go round. With that said, everyone with the drive, desire, and the grades to get into college, should most certainly have the means to do so. We have very affordable, heabily subsidized tuition here, as well as many grants, as well as no interest student loans, which are all at the disposal of every citizen. If the only factor keeping someone from going to school is that they cant afford it, and this ends up preventing them from going, society has failed that person. Poverty is a terrible thing, and whether you want to argue whether or not its poor peoples faults or not based on a case by case basis, I personally believe having a structure in place that takes care of the poor, whether or not some people take advantage of it, and allows them to have the neccessities of life, health care and a good education, is extremely important so that those that are truly working hard to escape poverty do not remain trapped, sick, and uneducated. College should be accessible to all who have shown they WANT to be there, and to those who have worked hard enough in school to show they DESERVE to be there.
I entirely agree with you. I don't think that university is for everybody - technical training like machine work isn't suited to a 4 year program, and folding those sorts of foci into a university system would be problematic. But I think that anybody with the motivation to go to college should be able to do so, with no economic factors barring their entry. I was more curious to discern why Republicans were so opposed to the notion that everyone should be able to attend University if they so chose. Some, I'm sure, were so cynical that they thought Obama was promising a new law punishing those who didn't attend college, or looking down on people with 2-year technical training.
On March 15 2012 08:03 Signet wrote:
I guess you deleted this following part, but I think it is actually helpful if you want to understand why conservatives feel the way they do about college/academia/scientists/etc. I'm responding because, while I'm very socially liberal now, for most of my life I was a conservative Republican, so maybe I can bridge the gap a little?
I deleted it because after I wrote it I realized it was condescending, which was not the tone I wanted to set. I'll address your response, though  Most of it was explanation, and I'll accept that without debate. You would know better than I would - I grew up in the inner city, so our backgrounds are very different. But this one idea is one I wanted to touch on.
I think a liberal can understand the concept of being frightened about the possibility of exposure (especially widespread exposure by teenagers) to a different ideology being frightening. Imagine if the overwhelming majority of college professors held social views similar to Santorum and Bachmann, and college campuses were overrun not by sex-craving fraternities but by fundamentalist Westboro Baptist knockoffs. Suddenly they're a terrifying place, and the fact that so many of our children end up going there is troubling.
I disagree with this. Being afraid of being surrounded by new ideas with which you may disagree, is neither a liberal nor a conservative idea - it's the idea of somebody with a very narrow mind (not a stupid person, but one whose mind is narrow). Would I wrinkle my nose (and likely vomit profusely) if, at the university I attended, the protestors that everybody laughed at had been protesting for equal treatment of gays instead of against it? Absolutely. I may have even disliked it so much after a few years that I'd have transferred schools, although I doubt it (even at one of the most liberal colleges in the country there was a healthy and active College Republicans chapter). But I certainly wouldn't have been afraid of the intellectual experience it would give me. It likely would not have changed my mind about much, (I think the only way social conservatism can survive is through the medium of religion - I can't see any reasoning person with no biblical context trying to tell me that gay marriage is immoral and will invalidate traditional marriage - and I'm a reluctant atheist) but it would have made me think, and probably understand better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
