🚓 Conservative Elite Mitt Romney: 47% of Americans Are Hopeless Losers Who Never Wash. - Page 5

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

The former; I do not view the Democrats as democratic socialists. They do not espouse any of the key (IMO) principles of nationalization of essential industries, production and services, and their idea of a welfare state is still a long way from the typical socialist (or in most of the world, centrist) model.

I think your defining things a bit narrowly here. And let me also say that I don't think these issues are limited to Democrats in the US. I think both parties in the US have both socialist and fascist (corporatist/corporate socialism) tendencies.

But let's consider that socialism is not merely about "nationalization of essential industries, production and services" but more generally about state ownership and control of industries/markets (whether "essential" or not.) By this definition the following things are socialist to one degree or another:

• roads
• fire protection services
• police services
• the public educational system
• pretty much the entire regulatory apparatus
• air traffic control and most airports
• General Motors?

Fascism is simply another form of socialism in that it is really just one step short of full-on state ownership and control, but exists in the form of a state/corporate "partnership". In the US the following examples:

• The banking system
• The insurance industry
• The Fed
• The healthcare industry

The lines here are not always crisp and clear. Many have aspects that are "free market", some simply have the veneer of free-market-ism. But most of these have some degree of state ownership and control sometimes in cooperation with private industry corporatists. For example medicare is probably more socialist in nature and structure, but other aspects of the healthcare industry is more corporatist (state/private "partnership"). The entire banking, credit and monetary aspect of the economy is similarly a mix. The Fed is ostensibly private (but in partnership with the state.) Things like Fannie and Freddie lean more toward total government control and ownership. Then there's any bailout that almost automatically socializes those companies/industries.

Given these, I'd disagree that Democrats (and even most Republicans) in the US are not socialists (and fascists.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

And I should clarify - I'm just stating that as my opinion - I'm not claiming any kind of authority on the question.

Fair enough.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

I think he was alluding more to the possibility of a racist explanation for lack of resources in that particular situation, rather than a general condition of racism existing throughout the country. Racism is a tough issue - it does still exist in the US; it is hard to fix via legislation, and slow to fix via cultural change.

 

So I think that you are caricaturing the Democrats. No government, however left leaning, believes that economies survive by just taxing the rich.

 

He wasn't alluding. He expressly called for transitional jobs that would put up with black folks learning to dress right, show up on time and other skills they lacked. He called for them directly. It wasn't a suggestion.

 

Well if they are more left leaning they do more than tax the rich. They just confiscate all private property and declare it centrally controlled for the public interest. It's a continuum. When their ideals fail at 75% taxation it will be because those rich assholes still own too much, refuse to work harder and properly care and toil for their brother. The solution becomes central control and your own life not being your own, but your brothers. You make it sound like communism is a fiction that never existed. We've seen what happens when the 25, 50 and 75% solutions don't work. They move on to 100%.

 

I didn't realize that we were extending the discussion to include communism, but I still don't follow your reasoning - are you worrying that the Democrats are in danger of becoming communists? Very few socialist states have ever ended up progressing to communism, and the Democrats are not even socialists. While socialism and communism are both on the left, there is a huge gulf between them, primarily because socialism does not proscribe, or even deprecate, private ownership. I suspect that you and others here have never lived under a socialist government, and that there may be two consequences to that: (1) it's difficult to resolve the spectrum of implementations (2) it's difficult to appreciate that Democrats are not socialists.

 

What we are seeing is unique and new. We have large swaths of socialistic governments borrowing their way to financial ruin. Most or Europe, Japan and I suspect many would argue China (even while it claims to be communistic) all practicing advanced forms of centrally planned economies and socialist programs. Almost all are going broke. There is growing suspicion that China will soon go through a bust very similar Japan in the early 90's. Basically the only countries that seem to make it work are those who exploit their natural resources and pump wealth from the ground (see Canada and Denmark) The U.S. isn't going broke exclusively from socialistic programs. (Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, etc.) We are also going broke due to our Pax Americana policies of empire/nation building and being the cop for the world.

 

The point remains that socialists are bankrupting their various countries and when push comes to shove, they won't blame themselves but will blame the private sector. The refrain of taking more from the "rich" however they are defined is first and foremost in their thoughts. When they can't get enough from them then of course certain industries will be need to be nationalized "in the public interest." The next step in their reasoning isn't hard to fathom or follow.

I would argue that the financial troubles facing governments around the world right now are overall poorly correlated with their political leaning. It's not just socialist governments borrowing their way into trouble, and there are also socialist governments that are not suffering huge debt problems, and not just your two (good) examples. I also don't see the evidence that any of those governments are blaming their private sector for the problems.

Your dire forecasts for where they go next (massive nationalization etc.) seem unfounded, almost paranoid, to me. Do you have any evidence for thinking that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

The former; I do not view the Democrats as democratic socialists. They do not espouse any of the key (IMO) principles of nationalization of essential industries, production and services, and their idea of a welfare state is still a long way from the typical socialist (or in most of the world, centrist) model.

 

I think your defining things a bit narrowly here. And let me also say that I don't think these issues are limited to Democrats in the US. I think both parties in the US have both socialist and fascist (corporatist/corporate socialism) tendencies.

 

But let's consider that socialism is not merely about "nationalization of essential industries, production and services" but more generally about state ownership and control of industries/markets (whether "essential" or not.) By this definition the following things are socialist to one degree or another:

 

• roads
• fire protection services
• police services
• the public educational system
• pretty much the entire regulatory apparatus
• air traffic control and most airports
• General Motors?

 

So I'll counter that you are defining things much too broadly. The examples that you give above are not generally regarded as indicators of socialism, and I would argue that virtually all democratic states keep those mostly under central control. Except General Motors, of course, which was not nationalized - the US Government acquired stock as part of TARP, which it intends to sell off again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Fascism is simply another form of socialism in that it is really just one step short of full-on state ownership and control, but exists in the form of a state/corporate "partnership". In the US the following examples:

 

• The banking system
• The insurance industry
• The Fed
• The healthcare industry

 

The lines here are not always crisp and clear. Many have aspects that are "free market", some simply have the veneer of free-market-ism. But most of these have some degree of state ownership and control sometimes in cooperation with private industry corporatists. For example medicare is probably more socialist in nature and structure, but other aspects of the healthcare industry is more corporatist (state/private "partnership"). The entire banking, credit and monetary aspect of the economy is similarly a mix. The Fed is ostensibly private (but in partnership with the state.) Things like Fannie and Freddie lean more toward total government control and ownership. Then there's any bailout that almost automatically socializes those companies/industries.

 

Given these, I'd disagree that Democrats (and even most Republicans) in the US are not socialists (and fascists.)

I've never seen fascism defined like that before - your threshold for authoritarianism seems to be very low - and I've never seen anyone attempt to shoehorn the two main US parties into socialist and fascist pigeonholes at the same time. You certainly have some interesting political views.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

So I'll counter that you are defining things much too broadly. The examples that you give above are not generally regarded as indicators of socialism, and I would argue that virtually all democratic states keep those mostly under central control. Except General Motors, of course, which was not nationalized - the US Government acquired stock as part of TARP, which it intends to sell off again.

Okay.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

I've never seen fascism defined like that before - your threshold for authoritarianism seems to be very low - and I've never seen anyone attempt to shoehorn the two main US parties into socialist and fascist parties pigeonholes at the same time. You certainly have some interesting political views.

Okay.

P.S. I was speaking of the economic aspects of fascism.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

So I'll counter that you are defining things much too broadly. The examples that you give above are not generally regarded as indicators of socialism, and I would argue that virtually all democratic states keep those mostly under central control. Except General Motors, of course, which was not nationalized - the US Government acquired stock as part of TARP, which it intends to sell off again.

 

Okay.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

I've never seen fascism defined like that before - your threshold for authoritarianism seems to be very low - and I've never seen anyone attempt to shoehorn the two main US parties into socialist and fascist parties pigeonholes at the same time. You certainly have some interesting political views.

 

Okay.

 

P.S. I was speaking of the economic aspects of fascism.

I guess that there are some economic aspects of fascism that overlap with socialism - some fascist states have used nationalization, for example, but to rather different ends. For me the defining feature of fascism is authoritarian nationalism, and so I'm inclined to think that intent matters quite a lot in these issues.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

I'd argue that they must care about downward pressure. A permanent dependency class, even if that were what the Democrats wanted, would not keep them in power when the economy tanks. I think you may be conflating a goal with a consequence. Democrats have appeared to be more concerned than Republicans with maintaining a more generous welfare state (a goal), which I would argue comes primarily from an ideological standpoint. That will certainly have the side effect of generating more support amongst that part of the electorate who benefit from it (a consequence), but that does not mean that the goal is perpetual enlargement of the dependent class, which is not sustainable.

I'm not sure I agree.  Up until now, social programs and entitlements have not been so large that they have affected us economically.  Put simply, we could afford to keep going to public trough for these programs, which were and are big vote generators for Democrats.   They clearly have an interest in preserving their base through permanent dependency.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Can you say " Flip Flop?

 

What a bunch of hokum! This guy is so transparent.

So your claim is that he truly doesn't care about half the country?  

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

I'd argue that they must care about downward pressure. A permanent dependency class, even if that were what the Democrats wanted, would not keep them in power when the economy tanks. I think you may be conflating a goal with a consequence. Democrats have appeared to be more concerned than Republicans with maintaining a more generous welfare state (a goal), which I would argue comes primarily from an ideological standpoint. That will certainly have the side effect of generating more support amongst that part of the electorate who benefit from it (a consequence), but that does not mean that the goal is perpetual enlargement of the dependent class, which is not sustainable.

 

I'm not sure I agree.  Up until now, social programs and entitlements have not been so large that they have affected us economically.  Put simply, we could afford to keep going to public trough for these programs, which were and are big vote generators for Democrats.   They clearly have an interest in preserving their base through permanent dependency.  

As I commented earlier - there is no question that a party that is perceived to be the greater champion for welfare will benefit from the associated demographic support, but my point was that even so, that party cannot just ignore the broader economy, because a failed economy will hurt them electorally more than they gain. That has been demonstrated time after time in elections, not just in the US but around the world.

I'm not sure which programs you are including under social programs and entitlement, but welfare, healthcare, education, pensions etc. have always been a significant part of government spending, even in the US. It's a nice target to blame for the current financial situation, but the wrong one in my view. That's not to say that the money is always well spent -  you only have to look at an itemized hospital bill to realize that we have serious problems.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

I guess that there are some economic aspects of fascism that overlap with socialism - some fascist states have used nationalization, for example, but to rather different ends. For me the defining feature of fascism is authoritarian nationalism, and so I'm inclined to think that intent matters quite a lot in these issues.

I think you're misunderstanding me. Perhaps I should use the word "corporatism" instead.

Economic fascism is corporatism or corporate socialism. It is the partnership or merger of state and corporate power. It involves a number of aspects that include regulatory capture, privatization of profits and socialization of losses (e.g., bailouts). It's essentially "socialism lite." Not outright nationalization of industry, but a friendly "cooperation" that is generally anti-competitive and anti-consumer. Basically state and corporate interests aligned for their own benefit.

The broader aspect of fascism does include authoritarian nationalism to be sure, but I'm not speaking about that aspect (though, frankly, the whole anti-China, trade protectionist, "Buy American" movement is certainly nationalistic.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

I guess that there are some economic aspects of fascism that overlap with socialism - some fascist states have used nationalization, for example, but to rather different ends. For me the defining feature of fascism is authoritarian nationalism, and so I'm inclined to think that intent matters quite a lot in these issues.

 

I think you're misunderstanding me. Perhaps I should use the word "corporatism" instead.

 

Economic fascism is corporatism or corporate socialism. It is the partnership or merger of state and corporate power. It involves a number of aspects that include regulatory capture, privatization of profits and socialization of losses (e.g., bailouts). It's essentially "socialism lite." Not outright nationalization of industry, but a friendly "cooperation" that is generally anti-competitive and anti-consumer. Basically state and corporate interests aligned for their own benefit.

 

The broader aspect of fascism does include authoritarian nationalism to be sure, but I'm not speaking about that aspect (though, frankly, the whole anti-China, trade protectionist, "Buy American" movement is certainly nationalistic.)

OK - understood. I'm not a fan of corporatism in general, although I'm undecided on the merits of the bailouts. Don't confuse simple nationalism with authoritarian nationalism - those are very different beasts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

OK - understood. I'm not a fan of corporatism in general, although I'm undecided on the merits of the bailouts. Don't confuse simple nationalism with authoritarian nationalism - those are very different beasts.

Possibly they are, but there's an underlying badness (in my opinion) to both. The former is frequently used as a lever to establish the latter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

OK - understood. I'm not a fan of corporatism in general, although I'm undecided on the merits of the bailouts. Don't confuse simple nationalism with authoritarian nationalism - those are very different beasts.

 

Possibly they are, but there's an underlying badness (in my opinion) to both. The former is frequently used as a lever to establish the latter.

Agreed - but fascism has always had a hard time thriving in a truly multicultural environment, so I have few concerns about it arising in the US any time soon. I think that the development of fascism also relies on good information control, which is becoming almost impossible with the internet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

Agreed - but fascism has always had a hard time thriving in a truly multicultural environment, so I have few concerns about it arising in the US any time soon. I think that the development of fascism also relies on good information control, which is becoming almost impossible with the internet.

Those are both interesting claims. Why do think that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

Agreed - but fascism has always had a hard time thriving in a truly multicultural environment, so I have few concerns about it arising in the US any time soon. I think that the development of fascism also relies on good information control, which is becoming almost impossible with the internet.

 

Those are both interesting claims. Why do think that?

The first - aside from the fact that multicultural fascism seems to be an oxymoron, because it has not thrived in multicultural societies even where it has reared its head. I've not seen it much discussed, but I have tended to assume that this is because of a lack of coherent ethnic nationalism on which to build the foundation.

The second is purely speculation on my part, but if you look at the common examples of the development of fascism, from its roots in Italy onwards, it seemed to include a significant element of disinformation and deception by the parties involved. I find it hard to see how that could happen these days in the lands of the open internet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

The first - aside from the fact that multicultural fascism seems to be an oxymoron, because it has not thrived in multicultural societies even where it has reared its head.

Hmmm...so the existence of multiculturalism is the reason fascism has failed to prevail in societies where it has been tried and failed? Do you have examples?

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

The first - aside from the fact that multicultural fascism seems to be an oxymoron, because it has not thrived in multicultural societies even where it has reared its head.

 

Hmmm...so the existence of multiculturalism is the reason fascism has failed to prevail in societies where it has been tried and failed? Do you have examples?

Not been tried and failed - where a noticeable fascist movement arose but failed to gain extensive support. The obvious examples would be the UK and the US. And I don't know if that is the reason, I'm just noting that it has not worked in multicultural environments.

Are your questions driven by curiosity, or do you disagree and are trying to back me into a corner on this one?

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

Not been tried and failed - where a noticeable fascist movement arose but failed to gain extensive support.

Okay. My poor choice of wording.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

The obvious examples would be the UK and the US. And I don't know if that is the reason, I'm just noting that it has not worked in multicultural environments.

Okay.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

Are your questions driven by curiosity

Yes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

Not been tried and failed - where a noticeable fascist movement arose but failed to gain extensive support.

 

Okay. My poor choice of wording.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

The obvious examples would be the UK and the US. And I don't know if that is the reason, I'm just noting that it has not worked in multicultural environments.

 

Okay.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

Are your questions driven by curiosity

 

Yes.

OK - well this is a bit of a monologue - what do you think?

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

OK - well this is a bit of a monologue - what do you think?

I haven't thought much about the cultural authoritarian nationalism fascism that much to be honest. I think politicians have become more subtle than Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini.

I do see that economic fascism (a.k.a. corporatism/corporate socialism) has taken hold in both of those countries.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

OK - well this is a bit of a monologue - what do you think?

 

I haven't thought much about the cultural authoritarian nationalism fascism that much to be honest. I think politicians have become more subtle than Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini.

I do see that economic fascism (a.k.a. corporatism/corporate socialism) has taken hold in both of those countries.

More subtle because they have to be, I suspect, when their words are dissected in real time by the news channels, and then fact checked to death.

The rise of the huge multi-national corporate entities with budgets that rival small governments has definitely furthered corporate influence over governments, but that's not really corporatism per se, so I guess I don't really see that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

The rise of the huge multi-national corporate entities with budgets that rival small governments has definitely furthered corporate influence over governments, but that's not really corporatism per se, so I guess I don't really see that.

That's not what I am talking about. I think I explained what I mean by corporatism in a previous post. I won't be repeating myself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

They get government help also so they are part of that 47%.

 

Some, yes. Not all though I'm sure.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

You went to school once right?

 

Yes.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

You're part of our present.

 

Yes. Thanks for stating the obvious.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

The idea that those 47 % are just made up of people who don't want to work is laughable at best.

 

I was curious about your statement "college students who are our future". What do you mean by that statement?

Oh for ****'s sake! You know what I meant by that. We don't need to get into one of your thread derailing, circular logic dilemmas! ( eyes roll if they could )

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

I'd argue that they must care about downward pressure. A permanent dependency class, even if that were what the Democrats wanted, would not keep them in power when the economy tanks. I think you may be conflating a goal with a consequence. Democrats have appeared to be more concerned than Republicans with maintaining a more generous welfare state (a goal), which I would argue comes primarily from an ideological standpoint. That will certainly have the side effect of generating more support amongst that part of the electorate who benefit from it (a consequence), but that does not mean that the goal is perpetual enlargement of the dependent class, which is not sustainable.

 

I'm not sure I agree.  Up until now, social programs and entitlements have not been so large that they have affected us economically.  Put simply, we could afford to keep going to public trough for these programs, which were and are big vote generators for Democrats.   They clearly have an interest in preserving their base through permanent dependency.  

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Can you say " Flip Flop?

 

What a bunch of hokum! This guy is so transparent.

 

 

So your claim is that he truly doesn't care about half the country?  

If that's not the case and he really didn't mean that ( when it was spelled out pretty clearly ) How the hell can you trust anything else he says ( And I do mean anything )?

When he takes forever to retract his statement ( when he originally stood by it ) it erodes his credibility to nothing! And I don't want a man with zero credibility in the Whitehouse. Obama may not be perfect but he's a hell of a lot better than that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

You know what I meant by that.

Actually, I don't. College students aren't my future. Are they your future?

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

You know what I meant by that.

 

Actually, I don't. College students aren't my future. Are they your future?

Educated young people that can compete with countries like China are our future. They get educated to the proper level in a college. They are all our futures ( or maybe you don't a **** about what happens after you're dead. ). If you don't understand that you only show your ignorance or your lack of caring. Either way you end up  looking pretty dumb. Is that really how you feel MJ? Really because wow!

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Educated young people that can compete with countries like China are our future.

Well I guess I don't have this fixation or fetish about "competing with China" (whatever that means). I hope the people of China become more educated as well and help to create more liberty and value in the world (whether just in China or across the world.) I think it will be wonderful if these young people become educated enough to increase the amount of liberty in our world and decrease the amount of destruction. If they become educated well enough to produce and create value (no matter what side of some meaningless line on a map they live on.) In those senses, I wish the young people all the best. In that sense they can make the world a better place in the future, that's true.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

They get educated to the proper level in a college.

Maybe. Sometimes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

They are all our futures ( or maybe you don't a **** about what happens after you're dead. ). If you don't understand that you only show your ignorance or your lack of caring. Either way you look pretty dumb.

Well thanks for sharing your opinion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Educated young people that can compete with countries like China are our future.

 

Well I guess I don't have this fixation or fetish about "competing with China" (whatever that means). I think it will be wonderful if these young people become educated enough to increase the amount of liberty in our world and decrease the amount of destruction. If they become educated well enough to produce and create value (no matter what side of some meaningless line on a map they live on.) In those senses, I wish the young people all the best. In that sense they can make the world a better place in the future, that's true.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

They get educated to the proper level in a college.

 

Maybe. Sometimes.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

They are all our futures ( or maybe you don't a **** about what happens after you're dead. ). If you don't understand that you only show your ignorance or your lack of caring. Either way you look pretty dumb.

 

Well thanks for sharing your opinion.

They're the up and coming super power that's going to completely replace us if we let them So you don't care about that ok.

Offer an alternative.

It's not just my opinion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

They're the up and coming super power that's going to completely replace us if we let them So you don't care about that ok.

I'm concerned about any nation as a super power. I wish there to not be any.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Offer an alternative.

To college?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

It's not just my opinion.

I see. Whatever.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

They're the up and coming super power that's going to completely replace us if we let them So you don't care about that ok.

 

I'm concerned about any nation as a super power. I wish there to not be any.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Offer an alternative.

 

To college?

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

It's not just my opinion.

 

I see. Whatever.

So you're for all countries being equal ( the only way to do that is a world government but we're not there yet. I do hope for it someday ).

There was no other alternative. Either quit wasting my time or answer the question.

It's still not as you say just my opinion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

So you're for all countries being equal ( the only way to do that is a world government but we're not there yet. I do hope for it someday ).

Actually, I'm for countries disappearing altogether. The rest of your statement is a non sequitur.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

There was no other alternative. Either quit wasting my time or answer the question.

I was just clarifying. Well there are a lot of alternatives to college. Trade schools for certain skills and professions. Apprenticeships. Starting a business. College is not the one-size-fits all solution to becoming educated.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

It's still not as you say just my opinion.

I see. Whatever.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

So you're for all countries being equal ( the only way to do that is a world government but we're not there yet. I do hope for it someday ).

 

Actually, I'm for countries disappearing altogether. The rest of your statement is a non sequitur.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

There was no other alternative. Either quit wasting my time or answer the question.

 

I was just clarifying. Well there are a lot of alternatives to college. Trade schools for certain skills and professions. Apprenticeships. Starting a business. College is not the one-size-fits all solution to becoming educated.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

It's still not as you say just my opinion.

 

I see. Whatever.

Just like High School used to be a good enough education trade schools while still useful for many aren't enough for the general population in order to compete in the world that is our future. And yes that includes China ( which I'm not totally comfortable with due to their ideology and the thought of them taking our place as the world's leader ). Anyway in the future we'll need more than trade schools just like a person can't depend on just High school anymore. And yes I work for a college and what I'm seeing is a lot of students opting for their Masters instead of a just a Bachelors degree. The pay check associated with either is the biggest reason to be sure but also advancement is another. It's a changing world and if one wants to keep up one has to adapt. A good portion of our kids are going to want more than a trade school. Training in science is very important because those are the type of jobs that will be needed to stay competitive. Compared to other countries ( like China ) we're actually behind in this area.

Education is very important for our future and it starts young.

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-08-25/us/students.science.math_1_math-and-science-fourth-and-eighth-graders-math-scores?_s=PM:US

Just don't complain the next time I do that ( whatever ) to you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Just like High School used to be a good enough education trade schools while still useful for many aren't enough for the general population in order to compete in the world that is our future.

Maybe. Maybe not. Writing them off so quickly is somewhat narrow thinking.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Anyway in the future we'll need more than trade schools just like a person can't depend on just High school anymore

I didn't even suggest that those would be the only solution. I was simply suggesting that there are (and should be) a variety of options in educating one's self.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Education is very important for our future and it starts young.

Yes, I know. Are done with the bumper stickers now?

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Just like High School used to be a good enough education trade schools while still useful for many aren't enough for the general population in order to compete in the world that is our future.

 

Maybe. Maybe not. Writing them off so quickly is somewhat narrow thinking.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Anyway in the future we'll need more than trade schools just like a person can't depend on just High school anymore

 

I didn't even suggest that those would be the only solution. I was simply suggesting that there are (and should be) a variety of options in educating one's self.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Education is very important for our future and it starts young.

 

Yes, I know. Are done with the bumper stickers now?

Sorry I only deal with reality on this subject.

No MJ the future will have trades people but what's important is jobs that require a higher education. Tradesmen will still exist but they won't be leading the country in what it requires to be competetive. It's not 1950 anymore when that could work. Trust me the world is changing fast.

I do believe in educating one's self but there's a definite limit in what one can do without the benifit of a professional. Just like anything else these days. It's the way the world has become. It's much more technical these days. It's like sure you can defend yourself in a million dollar law suit by educating yourself in the law but would that be wise? I don't think so.

This is just a cheap shot. I'm surprised!  Couldn't you think of anything else?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Sorry I only deal with reality on this subject.

Sorry to hear that your vision of "reality" has a one-size-fits-all, you can have any color you want so long as it's black view of education. Sad.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

No MJ the future will have trades people but what's important is jobs that require a higher education. Tradesmen will still exist but they won't be leading the country in what it requires to be competetive. It's not 1950 anymore when that could work. Trust me the world is changing fast.

I've not denied any of that. That's a straw man. I simply pointed out that there are other avenues of education for some. And even for the so-called "higher education" (which you are using synonymously with "college education") there are still other pathways. Try to use your imagination (or did your college education beat that out of you?)

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

I do believe in educating one's self but there's a definite limit in what one can do without the benifit of a professional.  Just like anything else these days. It's the way the world has become.

No, not really. That's a lie that professional educators tell to trick people into paying them for educations they can get on their own. Apparently you bought that lie.

I'm not sure I'd take educational advice from from a man who has made two spelling errors in this post alone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

It's like sure you can defend yourself in a million dollar law suit by educating yourself in the law but would that be wise? I don't think so.

Maybe. Maybe not. I suspect incompetence runs at the same percentages in the legal profession as any other. But it was nice you to immediately run to the extreme to make your case. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

This is just a cheap shot. I'm surprised!  Couldn't you think of anything else?

It was simply an observation of your bumper-sticker-esque statement. Don't like such comments, the stop making simplistic and obvious statements.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Sorry I only deal with reality on this subject.

 

Sorry to hear that your vision of "reality" has a one-size-fits-all, you can have any color you want so long as it's black view of education. Sad.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

No MJ the future will have trades people but what's important is jobs that require a higher education. Tradesmen will still exist but they won't be leading the country in what it requires to be competitive. It's not 1950 anymore when that could work. Trust me the world is changing fast.

 

I've not denied any of that. That's a straw man. I simply pointed out that there are other avenues of education for some. And even for the so-called "higher education" (which you are using synonymously with "college education") there are still other pathways. Try to use your imagination (or did your college education beat that out of you?)

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

I do believe in educating ones self but there's a definite limit in what one can do without the benefit of a professional.  Just like anything else these days. It's the way the world has become.

 

No, not really. That's a lie that professional educators tell to trick people into paying them for educations they can get on their own. Apparently you bought that lie.

 

I'm not sure I'd take educational advice from from a man who has made two spelling errors in this post alone.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

It's like sure you can defend yourself in a million dollar law suit by educating yourself in the law but would that be wise? I don't think so.

 

Maybe. Maybe not. I suspect incompetence runs at the same percentages in the legal profession as any other. But it was nice you to immediately run to the extreme to make your case. 

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

This is just a cheap shot. I'm surprised!  Couldn't you think of anything else?

 

It was simply an observation of your bumper-sticker-esque statement. Don't like such comments, the stop making simplistic and obvious statements.

This :

Is just..........wow!  It's almost as bad as when someone says Evolution or Global Warming isn't real! Wow!

And about the spelling I'm not an instructor so you can feel safe. Spelling has always been a short coming with me and I'll admit it. Everyone has a short comings even you it seems because you fail to see ( or don't want to see ) the obvious ( and that's on many things ).

As far as failings I'm sure there's others because this applies to everyone. Yes even you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

This :

 

Is just..........wow!  It's almost as bad as when someone says Evolution or Global Warming isn't real! Wow!

Ahhh...argumentum de incredulity. Well done.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Everyone has a short comings even you it seems because you fail to see ( or don't want to see ) the obvious ( and that's on many things ).

You mean that I fail to see things as you see them. Or I see beyond what you see. That's not the same thing as failing to see the obvious. I'm able to imagine more than the simplistic "everyone needs to go to college" and " you can't do X without help from an 'expert'."  What a terribly limited perspective to think like that. It's also an insult to the many great autodidacts the world has known.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

 

If that's not the case and he really didn't mean that ( when it was spelled out pretty clearly ) How the hell can you trust anything else he says ( And I do mean anything )?

 

When he takes forever to retract his statement ( when he originally stood by it ) it erodes his credibility to nothing! And I don't want a man with zero credibility in the Whitehouse. Obama may not be perfect but he's a hell of a lot better than that.

So wait..you're saying that any politician that admits a mistake cannot be trusted?  As for "taking forever" to retract his statement, that is not true.  He explained it initially, and then explained it further more recently.  That doesn't matter to you though.  You're content to use it to support the Mitt the Vampire narrative in support of your political agenda.  

Whenever anybody quotes Jon Stewart or David Letterman is when I just walk away...