Jump to content

Do Y'all Ever Read The Stupidity Posted In LOF??? Check Out Dopey "Renegade"!


Recommended Posts

23 hours ago, Skans said:

 

On 12/18/2020 at 4:20 PM, Renegade said:

The part I was praising is the idea that a nation's success should be measured by the happiness of it's citizens, not the size of its GDP. 

It is this statement which I took issue with, enough so that I dragged your post over here to discuss.  First, a person's "happiness" is highly subjective and resides 100% with the individual to determine what makes him or her happy. 

 

Why do you believe two statements in opposition?  I agree that an individual person (and only that person) can decide what makes them happy.  So, if a government wanted to measure the happiness of its citizens, it would have to ask them and not just assume higher GDP = more happiness.

 

23 hours ago, Skans said:

At this time, I think it is appropriate to note that there is no enumerated right to health, to housing, to education, to food or to any of these things which Communists like to pretend they have some kind of "right" to. 

 

I never called these 'rights'.  I don't believe they are 'rights'.  But, I do think it's a good idea for government to provide health, housing, education, and food to citizens under some circumstances.  If done right (and the devil is always in the details) providing these services could make more people happy than unhappy.  

 

23 hours ago, Skans said:

GDP, Gross Domestic Product, is but one indicator of a country's economic health.  It tends to go hand in hand with the availability of work inside of a country and the ability of the individuals and companies who reside within that country to make stuff that others need or desire to have.   It's simply one, of many, economic measurements.  

 

Cool.  Sounds like you agree with me.  

 

On 12/21/2020 at 8:03 AM, Skans said:

Another place where your logic breaks down is in thinking that an outside body, like government, is useful in increasing a person's happiness, let alone the happiness of all individuals.

 

So, you don't think government has an impact on your happiness?  Then, why do you spend so much time discussing politics?  If your government hikes your taxes and spends that money on a bunch of crap you don't like, I'm pretty sure you'd be unhappy about that.  I know I would be.  So, don't even try pretending government isn't "useful in increasing a person's happiness".  You've got a list of expectations you want your government to meet.  So do I.  

 

On 12/21/2020 at 8:03 AM, Skans said:

Further, your logic breaks down as I indicated above, in that a person's "happiness" may be a terrible thing for society.

 

Yes, a person's individual happiness may be bad for society.  There's always a tradeoff between individual freedom (happiness) and the demands of society.  How would you like to relate that to the discussion?

 

On 12/21/2020 at 8:03 AM, Skans said:

If all you want to do is make people happy, then force them to copious amounts of Heroin until they quickly die.  Their lives will be short, meaningless, but overall, rather blissful. 

 

Here, you're assuming your definition of happiness (high on drugs) applies to others.   But, earlier in your post, you seemed to understand that only an individual can decide what makes them happy.  In fact, most of us would not be happy if forced to die from heroin overdoses. 

 

I think you're reading between the lines of what I'm writing and expecting to find me supporting an authoritarian 'government directed' version of happiness.  That was not what I was thinking.   I don't believe authoritarian methods are required to create conditions where people have a better opportunity to achieve happiness. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Renegade said:

 

Why do you believe two statements in opposition?  I agree that an individual person (and only that person) can decide what makes them happy.  So, if a government wanted to measure the happiness of its citizens, it would have to ask them and not just assume higher GDP = more happiness.

Because, as I pointed out, it is silly to think that happiness can be measured.  Do you believe "the government" (whatever the heck that is) is going to account for the happiness of serial killers, sadists, gang bangers, junkies, clinically depressed, etc, etc, etc.? 

Quote

I never called these 'rights'.  I don't believe they are 'rights'.  But, I do think it's a good idea for government to provide health, housing, education, and food to citizens under some circumstances

If you think this is such a good idea, then why don't YOU provide these things for those people - what is moral or righteous about forcing others to do what you are not willing to do yourself?

Quote

If done right (and the devil is always in the details) providing these services could make more people happy than unhappy.  

And, if done right, allowing Ted Bundy III to murder 17 more brunettes will make that guy more happy too!  How about you give me $10 Million tax free cash, that will make me happy. 

Quote

Cool.  Sounds like you agree with me.  

I'm not too sure about that, but for now, I won't pick something over it.

Quote

So, you don't think government has an impact on your happiness? 

Government has a negative impact on my happiness.  I happen to believe that about half the country feels that way as well.   For us (half the country), less government means more happiness.

Quote

Then, why do you spend so much time discussing politics?  

I am disturbed by the direction this country is moving in.  Thus, I like to discuss these matters.  It also hones my live debating skills when it comes to matters of politics.

Quote

 

If your government hikes your taxes and spends that money on a bunch of crap you don't like, I'm pretty sure you'd be unhappy about that.  I know I would be. 

Agreed.

Quote

So, don't even try pretending government isn't "useful in increasing a person's happiness".  You've got a list of expectations you want your government to meet.  So do I.  

The only use I see in government increasing my happiness, is decreasing its footprint on society.  Less government (and government social programs) leads to my greater happiness.  There is no pretending about this.

Quote

There's always a tradeoff between individual freedom (happiness) and the demands of society. 

Freedom and happiness are not even close to being synonymous.  People can and do find happiness in bondage.  Getting high and marriage to name only two such forms of bondage which makes people happy - for a little while anyway.

Quote

How would you like to relate that to the discussion?

We are all individuals and we all find happiness in unique and different ways.  Happiness is really subjective and genuinely impossible to objectively measure.  As I've pointed out, will those doing the happiness-measuring take into account abhorrent behaviors which makes people "happy"?  I doubt it - you can bet the poll-takers will be sweeping all of that "negative happiness" stuff under the rug to somehow justify their grossly subjective model.

Quote

Here, you're assuming your definition of happiness (high on drugs) applies to others.   But, earlier in your post, you seemed to understand that only an individual can decide what makes them happy.  In fact, most of us would not be happy if forced to die from heroin overdoses. 

But, many people would be happy with an unlimited supply of Heroin.  Truly happy as they see happiness.  Well over half the country engages in some form of recreational drug use, presumably to make them "happy". Of those, about 25% (or 13% nationwide) become addicts.  For those addicts, the love of their drug of choice gives them more happiness than anything else in the world.  All you need to do to increase their happiness is to provide them with an unlimited supply of the drug of their choice.  Much cheaper than giving them food, housing, training, or even attempting to employ them. 

 

So, the question is, do you really want to find the cheapest and most effective way to increase overall happiness of the Nation?  Or, do you want to sell a Nation on YOUR brand of happiness and try to convince others of what they REALLY want in order to find happiness.  If you choose the former, then I applaud you for being honest about it.  If, however, you choose the latter, then you are nothing more than a cult groupie drinking that cult's brand of Koolaid.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Skans said:

Because, as I pointed out, it is silly to think that happiness can be measured.  Do you believe "the government" (whatever the heck that is) is going to account for the happiness of serial killers, sadists, gang bangers, junkies, clinically depressed, etc, etc, etc.? 

If you think this is such a good idea, then why don't YOU provide these things for those people - what is moral or righteous about forcing others to do what you are not willing to do yourself?

And, if done right, allowing Ted Bundy III to murder 17 more brunettes will make that guy more happy too!  How about you give me $10 Million tax free cash, that will make me happy. 

I'm not too sure about that, but for now, I won't pick something over it.

Government has a negative impact on my happiness.  I happen to believe that about half the country feels that way as well.   For us (half the country), less government means more happiness.

I am disturbed by the direction this country is moving in.  Thus, I like to discuss these matters.  It also hones my live debating skills when it comes to matters of politics.

Agreed.

The only use I see in government increasing my happiness, is decreasing its footprint on society.  Less government (and government social programs) leads to my greater happiness.  There is no pretending about this.

Freedom and happiness are not even close to being synonymous.  People can and do find happiness in bondage.  Getting high and marriage to name only two such forms of bondage which makes people happy - for a little while anyway.

We are all individuals and we all find happiness in unique and different ways.  Happiness is really subjective and genuinely impossible to objectively measure.  As I've pointed out, will those doing the happiness-measuring take into account abhorrent behaviors which makes people "happy"?  I doubt it - you can bet the poll-takers will be sweeping all of that "negative happiness" stuff under the rug to somehow justify their grossly subjective model.

But, many people would be happy with an unlimited supply of Heroin.  Truly happy as they see happiness.  Well over half the country engages in some form of recreational drug use, presumably to make them "happy". Of those, about 25% (or 13% nationwide) become addicts.  For those addicts, the love of their drug of choice gives them more happiness than anything else in the world.  All you need to do to increase their happiness is to provide them with an unlimited supply of the drug of their choice.  Much cheaper than giving them food, housing, training, or even attempting to employ them. 

 

So, the question is, do you really want to find the cheapest and most effective way to increase overall happiness of the Nation?  Or, do you want to sell a Nation on YOUR brand of happiness and try to convince others of what they REALLY want in order to find happiness.  If you choose the former, then I applaud you for being honest about it.  If, however, you choose the latter, then you are nothing more than a cult groupie drinking that cult's brand of Koolaid.

 

 

- Democrat National Socialism/Communism -

1bcf1d95a8c34f44fcf9f0c3b6d8bb54--politi

  • Haha 1
  • Thumb up 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

22 hours ago, Skans said:

If you think this is such a good idea, then why don't YOU provide these things for those people - what is moral or righteous about forcing others to do what you are not willing to do yourself?

 

That's a fair question that deserves a good answer. 

 

Anarchy is the only society/government that does not "force others" to do things they don't want to do.   I'm going to assume that you reject anarchy as a good model for our society.  Government services like traffic laws, common defense, and police protection for life and property are generally helpful (and contribute to happiness).  These are not all 'rights'.  No one has a right to sensible traffic laws.  But, we choose to have them and we choose to collect money (taxes) to enforce them and we don't really care if a few oddballs aren't happy about that.  On the average, these services make our life easier.

 

We, the people (collectively), have the right to decide what we want government to do.  Maybe we want publicly funded education (for example)...maybe we don't.  But we have the right to decide that through our elected representatives.  There will always be some who disapprove of our government's actions, no matter what those actions are.  Bless their hearts, but that's no reason not to do what needs to be done.

 

Of course, there are Constitutional limits on what the majority can do.  I absolutely, 100% support the Constitution, word for word, as those words were understood at the time they were written.  If we don't like what it says, then there are legal (Constitutional) ways to amend the Constitution.  Tyranny of the majority is a real thing to to be feared.  

 

So, why don't I provide free education to others all by myself instead of trying to pass a law that makes you help me?  I can't afford it by myself.  I can give a few people free education, but not everyone.   That's sort of like me asking a conservative why they don't defend the border all by themselves.   Why do they need my taxes to build a border wall (or an aircraft carrier)?  

 

23 hours ago, Skans said:

Government has a negative impact on my happiness.  I happen to believe that about half the country feels that way as well.   For us (half the country), less government means more happiness.

 

It's far more complicated than "less" or "more" government.  But, I'll accept your point that this is a good generalization of the main fault line between liberals and conservatives at the moment.  

 

23 hours ago, Skans said:

The only use I see in government increasing my happiness, is decreasing its footprint on society.  Less government (and government social programs) leads to my greater happiness.  There is no pretending about this.

 

You want to decrease government's footprint on society?  Should we start with the police?  courts?  enforcement of contract law?  national defense?  road maintenance?  Are you honestly going to tell me that decreasing these government activities would cause you greater happiness?  Tell me you don't want government to lock up Antifa when they're destroying private property.  I won't believe you.    My point is that government can increase your happiness as well as decrease it.  

 

23 hours ago, Skans said:

We are all individuals and we all find happiness in unique and different ways.  Happiness is really subjective and genuinely impossible to objectively measure.  As I've pointed out, will those doing the happiness-measuring take into account abhorrent behaviors which makes people "happy"?  I doubt it - you can bet the poll-takers will be sweeping all of that "negative happiness" stuff under the rug to somehow justify their grossly subjective model.

 

I'll start discussing "how" if you're willing to admit that the "why" question has been answered.  There's no point in arguing over how it could be done if you don't want to do it in the first place.

 

Should government be evaluated based on whether or not it makes people happier?   If we can find a way to measure happiness, wouldn't that make a better scorecard for our success than GDP?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/23/2020 at 10:00 AM, Renegade said:

 

 

 

That's a fair question that deserves a good answer. 

 

Anarchy is the only society/government that does not "force others" to do things they don't want to do.   I'm going to assume that you reject anarchy as a good model for our society.  Government services like traffic laws, common defense, and police protection for life and property are generally helpful....

You get no argument from me here.

Quote

We, the people (collectively), have the right to decide what we want government to do. 

I agree with this.  However, "government", specifically our Federal Government, has taken on a life of its own.  It is bloated.  It is inefficient.  There are no checks on the huge bureaucracy.   The Federal Government has become a warehouse to put blacks and pay them large salaries for doing what does not need to be done (ref. affirmative action).  We, the people, did not and do not choose to have such a bloated Federal Government.  I would bet that 100% of informed people, if they took the time to actually study just how unnecearily bloated our government is, they would all wretch with the stench of pure waste.  

 

Our Federal Government employs 2,098,913 people.  There is another 14,840,000 full time State and Local government employees in this nation.  And, yet another  5,000,000 part time state government employees.  That's over 20,000,000 non-elected government bureaucrats.  Yes, government is exponentially bloated and no voters actually voted for this. 

Quote

I absolutely, 100% support the Constitution, word for word, as those words were understood at the time they were written.  If we don't like what it says, then there are legal (Constitutional) ways to amend the Constitution.  Tyranny of the majority is a real thing to to be feared.  

I am in 100% agreement with you on this.  However, you and I likely disagree on how to read the 2nd Amendment.

Quote

So, why don't I provide free education to others all by myself instead of trying to pass a law that makes you help me?  I can't afford it by myself. 

Then, don't force others to vote on something so stupid as "free secondary education" that none of us can afford, either as individuals or as a society.  If you won't give out of your own pocket, then I believe you do not have the right to force others to give out of theirs.  This is called "extortion" and "shakedown". 

Quote

I can give a few people free education, but not everyone. 

Then, start with that.  Lead by example.  Show us how you are willing to sacrifice, before you demand that others sacrifice for you!

Quote

That's sort of like me asking a conservative why they don't defend the border all by themselves. 

We did and we were stopped by your government.  We would be more than happy and capable of ding this.  In fact, I would volunteer 3 weeks of my life annually to do this.  So would about half this country. 

Quote

Why do they need my taxes to build a border wall (or an aircraft carrier)?  

I would be fine with a privately funded border wall.

Quote

You want to decrease government's footprint on society?  Should we start with the police?  courts?  enforcement of contract law?  national defense?  road maintenance? 

Yes to all of those.   And, yes to much, much much more.

Quote

Are you honestly going to tell me that decreasing these government activities would cause you greater happiness? 

Absolutely.

Quote

Tell me you don't want government to lock up Antifa when they're destroying private property. 

I don't want them locked up.  I want them swiftly executed.  I want individuals in the cities which are being destroyed given soverign immunity from defending their property and their lives by any means feasible.  And to save tax dollars on executing the law breakers, volunteer executioners may apply via an internet portal. 

Quote

I won't believe you.   

It's not that you don't believe me.  You do not like my solutions; let's be honest here.

Quote

Should government be evaluated based on whether or not it makes people happier?   

No, it should not.  It should be evaluated based on the basic needs enumerated in one of your very first statements.  Need versus Happiness.  Individuals have the right to pursue their own individual happiness and their lofty dreams.  Government simply should provide a very basic infrastructure and defense for us to do so. 

Quote

If we can find a way to measure happiness, wouldn't that make a better scorecard for our success than GDP?

Again, no.  Government does not exist to make individuals "more happy". 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, EltonJohnson said:

 

 

It is  pretty easy to  read and  pretty clear IMO

Mine as well.  But, that doesn't mean that leftists don't attempt to find way to justify their gun bans using the 2nd A.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I haven't posted on NHB much in recent years, so my positions may be confusing.  I'm not a Democrat or a Republican; neither a 'by the book' liberal nor conservative (thus the name Renegade).  Just because I support government funded college education, that doesn't mean I'm against charter schools.  Just because I'm against privatizing Social Security, that doesn't mean I'm in favor of raising the minimum wage.  I take every issue as a unique and independent puzzle to solve.  And sometimes I still change my mind.  

 

23 hours ago, Skans said:

I agree with this.  However, "government", specifically our Federal Government, has taken on a life of its own.  It is bloated.  It is inefficient.  There are no checks on the huge bureaucracy.   The Federal Government has become a warehouse to put blacks and pay them large salaries for doing what does not need to be done (ref. affirmative action).  We, the people, did not and do not choose to have such a bloated Federal Government.  I would bet that 100% of informed people, if they took the time to actually study just how unnecearily bloated our government is, they would all wretch with the stench of pure waste. 

 

Our Federal Government employs 2,098,913 people.  There is another 14,840,000 full time State and Local government employees in this nation.  And, yet another  5,000,000 part time state government employees.  That's over 20,000,000 non-elected government bureaucrats.  Yes, government is exponentially bloated and no voters actually voted for this. 

 

I had the chance to observe our federal government up close for many years.   I will concede that the federal government is absolutely the most inefficient/wasteful organization I've ever seen.  But, it's also highly effective in some cases.  Our military, for example, is inefficient and wasteful but when it comes time to fight they do it very well.  The federal government (even when inefficient) is still the right choice to perform functions (defense, the courts, FDA, EPA, etc.) that can't be trusted to private organizations.  Some could and should be privatized (the FAA for example).

 

Why do you want to bring race into this?  Here are the stats on  minorities in the federal government:   "The Federal Workforce is 18.1 percent Black, 8.4 percent Hispanic, 5.6 percent Asian, 0.4 percent Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, 1.7 percent American Indian/Alaska Native, 1.2 percent Non-Hispanic/Multi-Racial, and 64.7 percent White. Minorities as a whole constituted 35.3 percent of the Federal Workforce." FEDweek.com.   Blacks are 13.4% of the US population.  Why should I care about a 4.7% disparity in employment?

 

In any case, saying 'government is too big' is not a counterargument.  I've made no claim that government needs to be bigger or even that it should not get smaller.  It might get bigger if it focused on helping us be happy, but that's not guaranteed.  If enough people would be made happy by a smaller government (you seem to think that number is 100%), then that's what we'd get.

 

23 hours ago, Skans said:

I am in 100% agreement with you on this.  However, you and I likely disagree on how to read the 2nd Amendment.

 

I support all of the Constitution, including the 2nd Amendment.  Here's a thread from the LO forum where I repeatedly argued in favor of the right to bear arms:  The Second Amendment.    

 

On 12/28/2020 at 7:55 AM, Skans said:

Then, don't force others to vote on something so stupid as "free secondary education" that none of us can afford, either as individuals or as a society.  If you won't give out of your own pocket, then I believe you do not have the right to force others to give out of theirs.  This is called "extortion" and "shakedown". 

 

I realize this is one of my more liberal views.  Let me explain my thoughts.

 

I believe in equal opportunity, not equal outcomes.  I want every child in America to have the opportunity to achieve what their character and ability will allow them to achieve.  If the next generation's Einstein is born to a poor single mom in south Chicago or rural West Virginia, I want that child to have a chance at a first-rate education.  Children are born innocent and should not be made to suffer for the mistakes of their parents.  We can break the cycle of poor begets poor by providing opportunity for all.

 

We would all benefit from this.  Millions of children do not grow up to achieve their full potential.  How many people with the potential to become great scientists, entrepreneurs, doctors, and  leaders end up under-achieving due to a lack of educational opportunity?   The future of the nation depends on educating our children today.  I'm not saying everyone needs to go to the Ivy League.  We need more plumbers too.  But, a person's education should be bounded by their ability to learn, not their ability to pay.

 

Providing free education through grade 12 has been very successful.  But, it's not enough in today's high tech world.  We don't need more burger flippers and broom pushers.  We need data scientists and doctors and chemists.   An educated workforce is essential to prosperity.

 

What do you mean by "won't give out of your own pocket"?  Of course I'll give out of my own pocket!  I'd be a hypocrite if I asked you to pay without paying myself.

 

My support for publicly funded higher education shouldn't be interpreted as a blank check for colleges.  They've already jacked up their costs and peddled useless degrees to students who don't have the ability or the interest to learn anything useful.  A check from the taxpayers should come with strings attached.  Colleges must actually teach  students to do something productive.  

 

On 12/28/2020 at 7:55 AM, Skans said:

Yes to all of those.   And, yes to much, much much more.

 

I never would have pegged you as a "defund the police" supporter.  I am not.  Without the police and courts, we would be left with vigilante justice which would soon devolve into gang vs. gang street warfare.  Earlier, you said you understood that anarchy wasn't a desirable form of government.  Did you change your mind?

 

On 12/28/2020 at 7:55 AM, Skans said:

I don't want them locked up.  I want them swiftly executed.  I want individuals in the cities which are being destroyed given soverign immunity from defending their property and their lives by any means feasible.  And to save tax dollars on executing the law breakers, volunteer executioners may apply via an internet portal. 

 

I'm hoping this is just hyperbole.  As much as I detest the rioting and looting, you can't shoot people for lifting a television.  

 

On 12/28/2020 at 7:55 AM, Skans said:

Again, no.  Government does not exist to make individuals "more happy". 

 

The founders said our government exists to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.   That sounds like happiness to me. 

 

Personally, my complaint with government is not that my taxes are too high, but that those taxes aren't spent in accordance with my priorities.  IF government would spend my taxes wisely (most happiness per dollar spent) then I wouldn't mind paying my taxes.  On the other hand, when government spends my money on things that don't make me happy (like spending $2.4 trillion to invade Iraq) then I'm absolutely against 'big government'. 

 

For the price of the Iraq war, we could have offered free college.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Renegade said:

 

I haven't posted on NHB much in recent years, so my positions may be confusing.  I'm not a Democrat or a Republican; neither a 'by the book' liberal nor conservative (thus the name Renegade).  Just because I support government funded college education, that doesn't mean I'm against charter schools.  Just because I'm against privatizing Social Security, that doesn't mean I'm in favor of raising the minimum wage.  I take every issue as a unique and independent puzzle to solve.  And sometimes I still change my mind.  

Fair enough. If you havent noticed, my attacks are addressed to what you said, not to you personally. 

1 minute ago, Renegade said:

I had the chance to observe our federal government up close for many years.   I will concede that the federal government is absolutely the most inefficient/wasteful organization I've ever seen.  But, it's also highly effective in some cases.  Our military, for example, is inefficient and wasteful but when it comes time to fight they do it very well. 

You don't get too much disagreement with me there.

1 minute ago, Renegade said:

Why do you want to bring race into this? 

I don't want to.  Affirmative Action brings race into this.  There is a disproportionate number of blacks and minorities working for the US government as well as state and local governments because of this.  Government has become another form of welfare and reparations for blacks.  What I have said is accurate and worthy of discussion.  As a White Man, it is nearly impossible to be considered for many government jobs.

1 minute ago, Renegade said:

Here are the stats on  minorities in the federal government:   "The Federal Workforce is 18.1 percent Black, 8.4 percent Hispanic, 5.6 percent Asian, 0.4 percent Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, 1.7 percent American Indian/Alaska Native, 1.2 percent Non-Hispanic/Multi-Racial, and 64.7 percent White. Minorities as a whole constituted 35.3 percent of the Federal Workforce." FEDweek.com.   Blacks are 13.4% of the US population.  Why should I care about a 4.7% disparity in employment?

Sorry, I do not believe these statistics.  I believe they are skewed much higher.  Further, you do not account for women, who are also considered minorities.   In any event, when looked at across Federal, State and Local governments, the Black number is much higher due to Affirmative Action.

1 minute ago, Renegade said:

I support all of the Constitution, including the 2nd Amendment.  Here's a thread from the LO forum where I repeatedly argued in favor of the right to bear arms:  The Second Amendment.    

Read it - it seems that you do support an individual's right to keep and bear arms. Kudos to you!

1 minute ago, Renegade said:

I believe in equal opportunity, not equal outcomes.  I want every child in America to have the opportunity to achieve what their character and ability will allow them to achieve.  If the next generation's Einstein is born to a poor single mom in south Chicago or rural West Virginia, I want that child to have a chance at a first-rate education.  Children are born innocent and should not be made to suffer for the mistakes of their parents.  We can break the cycle of poor begets poor by providing opportunity for all.

 

We would all benefit from this.  Millions of children do not grow up to achieve their full potential.  How many people with the potential to become great scientists, entrepreneurs, doctors, and  leaders end up under-achieving due to a lack of educational opportunity?   The future of the nation depends on educating our children today.  I'm not saying everyone needs to go to the Ivy League.  We need more plumbers too.  But, a person's education should be bounded by their ability to learn, not their ability to pay.

 

Providing free education through grade 12 has been very successful.  But, it's not enough in today's high tech world.  We don't need more burger flippers and broom pushers.  We need data scientists and doctors and chemists.   An educated workforce is essential to prosperity.

Now, you are just regurgitating talking points.  Biden proposes to have community college offered "for free".  But, neither you nor Biden seem to know much about this. First, Community College is all but free now.  Easily affordable by anyone who wants to attend.  Second, the biggest problem with Community College is that 70% of the people attending have low motivation, lower intelligence, and cannot self-regulate themselves when it comes to learning any topic above the 6th grade level.  Many of these people simply do not belong in higher education or even in a class room setting.  They should be learning trades.  There should be apprentice programs where people get paid a nominal amount or even nothing at all until they demonstrate proficiency; combined with some formal education in the particular trade.  Instead of this, School administrators continue to try and pitch things like "Engineering for Dummies" in community college settings simply to glom onto more government dollars.  Its all a HUGE SCAM.  We, the people are getting scammed and so are the so-called "students". 

 

1 minute ago, Renegade said:

My support for publicly funded higher education shouldn't be interpreted as a blank check for colleges.  They've already jacked up their costs and peddled useless degrees to students who don't have the ability or the interest to learn anything useful. 

Agreed with the 2nd statement of your; but you have just proven that more funding for higher education is in fact a blank check for colleges.  It's a scam and a worthless waste of money.  EVERYONE should be personally invested in their higher education.

1 minute ago, Renegade said:

A check from the taxpayers should come with strings attached.  Colleges must actually teach  students to do something productive.  

Blah, blah, blah blabady blah bullshit!

1 minute ago, Renegade said:

I never would have pegged you as a "defund the police" supporter. 

I support organized vigilantism when people are rioting, raping, pillaging en mass.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/29/2020 at 9:56 AM, Skans said:

I don't want to.  Affirmative Action brings race into this.  There is a disproportionate number of blacks and minorities working for the US government as well as state and local governments because of this.  Government has become another form of welfare and reparations for blacks.  What I have said is accurate and worthy of discussion.  As a White Man, it is nearly impossible to be considered for many government jobs.

 

Do you have any evidence, statistics, or facts to support your opinion?  

 

Federal employees (in 2016) were 58.2% male and 63.6% white (OPM).   Mathematically, your statement above about the poor "White Man" is unsupportable.  If you understand the math, at least 37% of federal employees are both white and male.  According to Wikipedia, the general US population is 49.3% male and 73.0% white.  So, about 36% of the population is both white and male.  It looks like the federal government counts Hispanics as 'minorities' (presumably to boost their diversity stats) while the Wikipedia stats (which come from the Census Bureau) count Hispanics as white (which is scientifically accurate).  Therefore, an apples-to-apples comparison would show that white males are over-represented in federal government employment.  If anyone is "warehoused" on federal employment, it is the white male.

 

On 12/29/2020 at 9:56 AM, Skans said:

Sorry, I do not believe these statistics.  I believe they are skewed much higher.  Further, you do not account for women, who are also considered minorities.   In any event, when looked at across Federal, State and Local governments, the Black number is much higher due to Affirmative Action.

 

Women are accounted for.  Why don't you believe the statistics?  This data was published in 2018 (during the Trump administration) and describes conditions during the Obama era.  Do you have contradictory data?  Or, are you just putting your hands over your ears when you hear something you don't agree with?

 

On 12/29/2020 at 9:56 AM, Skans said:

Now, you are just regurgitating talking points.  Biden proposes to have community college offered "for free".  But, neither you nor Biden seem to know much about this. First, Community College is all but free now.  Easily affordable by anyone who wants to attend.  Second, the biggest problem with Community College is that 70% of the people attending have low motivation, lower intelligence, and cannot self-regulate themselves when it comes to learning any topic above the 6th grade level.  Many of these people simply do not belong in higher education or even in a class room setting.  They should be learning trades.  There should be apprentice programs where people get paid a nominal amount or even nothing at all until they demonstrate proficiency; combined with some formal education in the particular trade.  Instead of this, School administrators continue to try and pitch things like "Engineering for Dummies" in community college settings simply to glom onto more government dollars.  Its all a HUGE SCAM.  We, the people are getting scammed and so are the so-called "students". 

 

If Community College is so cheap, then you shouldn't mind making it free.

 

Do you have a source for your 70% statistic or did you just make it up?  

 

Where I live, Community College does teach trades.  I agree with you that some people aren't cut out for higher learning and we need more people in trades.  If I was making the rules, everyone would get free education with conditions.  For example, each education program must have rigorous standards of performance and it must lead to employment.  If the 'graduates' from a program aren't able to find employment, that institution would lose its eligibility to receive taxpayer dollars.

 

I like your idea of apprentice programs.  That needs to be part of my 'free education' plan.  This is why I like arguing with people.  I get to steal their best ideas and add them to my collection.

 

On 12/29/2020 at 9:56 AM, Skans said:

Agreed with the 2nd statement of your; but you have just proven that more funding for higher education is in fact a blank check for colleges.  It's a scam and a worthless waste of money. 

 

We're screwing it up badly right now, but it doesn't have to be that way.  Yes, public funding for higher education could become a blank check.  If Democrats write the law without input from Republicans, it might end up that way.  Republicans and conservatives need to ask themselves "how can we make this work" instead of "how can we sabotage this".   Most of our best legislation (Social Security, Clean Air Act, Civil Rights Act, etc.) was passed with bipartisan support after compromising and taking input from all sides.  On the other hand, when you make the Democrats do it all by themselves, you get the Affordable Care Act.

 

On 12/29/2020 at 9:56 AM, Skans said:

Blah, blah, blah blabady blah bullshit!

 

For the purposes of our discussion, do you mind translating this?  

 

On 12/29/2020 at 9:56 AM, Skans said:

I support organized vigilantism when people are rioting, raping, pillaging en mass.

 

Don't you have a job?  Most of us are too busy to do our own policing around the clock.  That's why we hire a professional police force.  I can't afford my own crime lab.  I don't have a jail in my basement.  And, if I decide you're guilty, you just might disagree with me.  Who would decide which of us was right?   Organized crime would love your 'plan'.   "Defund the Police" is a terrible idea.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/17/2020 at 7:37 AM, Skans said:

Renegade - When someone like Bezos spends $250 million to buy a business (Washington Post, for example) that spending doesn't create any additional strain on the environment.  On the other hand, if I give a homeless person $20, they're likely to buy something like a sweater or a meal.  As much as they deserve and need that, there is environmental impact.

 

(You can't make this shit up, folks - only in the Communists Only Room, where @SpyCar panders to this kind of utopian communist stupidity.)

 

Like I've been saying, LF's idiot leftists don't seem to understand how a communist dictatorship is really going to view them ... treat them.

 

Quote

Renegade - I love the concept of focusing on happiness ....]

 

The communist dictatorship will eventually just drug people to make them happy ... ala THX1138

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/31/2020 at 8:41 PM, BeAChooser said:

 

The communist dictatorship will eventually just drug people to make them happy ... ala THX1138

I think that is where most governments are heading - communist or not communist.  In a few more years it will be so easy to get the masses addicted to a cheap chemical and then use that addiction to control their happiness, their pain, their death.  Laws won't even be needed to make people compliant.

 

See, Marx had it all wrong, and the stone cold truth was in front of that dumb drunken sloth all the time - Opium (Chemicals) is the Opiate of the masses.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...