[quote]pushharder wrote:
I plan on seeing the film this week.[/quote]
Same here.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
In reality no the Party A dont have a vested interreset in keeping the poor poor, but it sounds logical when you say it like you do, to bad it doesnt have anything with reality to do.[/quote]
Care to explain?
Just saying “it has nothing to do with reality” doesn’t really make your statement true, or add at all to the conversation.
No, you aren’t listening. This is how communism starts.
On top of the fact that the Republic is set up to accommodate what you are talking about, without having to form a “people’s party”. The system works perfect, it is the citizenry that has allowed thing to get to where they are.
[quote]Because what I gathered as an outsider reading this forums for years is that neither the dems nor the repubs are doing a good job.
[/quote]
It is largely smoke blowing. People have been bitching about government since the first day of the first government. The stakes just seem higher because we are living it and the $ amounts are more. But, all in all, this is the same shit that happened 200 years ago, 2000 years ago, and will continue for another 2000.
The beauty of the Republic is the men and women making the choices are elected and want to be elected again. So they need to be moderate, and if the people keep a good mix of both parties things should move slow and end up a good mix of two or more ideals. [/quote]
-
regarding your “Party A has an incentive to keep people poor” statement/question: My explaination is that it is an absurd notion and you know it and probably posted it as a jokish retorical trick, but if you are serious, please provide evidence that the democrats are on purpose keepin the poor poor since you put it out there.
-
How those forming a new party that answers to the grasroot of said party lead to communism? ( a stateless and classless society I assume you mean by the term communism or do you mean totalitarian socialism as in soviet, the east block etc )
-
I agree in a sense that it is the citizenry that has the responsibility to right the wrong because who else than them can or will? and here I think we agree that the people can have more influence if they take the time instead of watching crap on the can. And my suggestion was for people to form a new party that better interresest them than those who allready exist, but they can offcourse try to work trough the old partys as they have or as different interrest groups have allready, like big bussiness and unions.
-
Its good for the peace of the internal affairs of a country that its politicians can meet in the middle to please all, but it doesnt mean its the best solution allways from other perspectives dependent on how you look at it.
I actually don’t think this moview would have sold many tickets had the media done their job in 2008.
[quote]florelius wrote:
In reality no the Party A dont have a vested interreset in keeping the poor poor, but it sounds logical when you say it like you do, to bad it doesnt have anything with reality to do.
[/quote]
In the US poverty was declining… right until these programs started.
Incentives are structured in a way that it does not pay off to get a job and a raise for a veeery long time if you come from the bottom.
So, intentional or not, they design laws that keep poor people poor and those poor people vote for them, which kind of explains why they are poor in the first place.
Because, as a group, they are idiots.
[quote]florelius wrote:
- regarding your “Party A has an incentive to keep people poor” statement/question: My explaination is that it is an absurd notion and you know it and probably posted it as a jokish retorical trick, but if you are serious, please provide evidence that the democrats are on purpose keepin the poor poor since you put it out there.
[/quote]
This is the real marginal tax rate in Virginia, for a working adult with two children, aka a single mother.
Notice that it dips over the 100% margin several times as she works more, meaning, she effectively takes a financial hit every time she moves up in life.
Is this a rhetorical device too?
Is this absurd?
What it looks like in terms of available money is this.
Notice that she is not making any extra money if she makes more until she gets in the 40 to 50k range and only then does it make any difference whether she works more hours, or gets promoted.
So, why do it?
[quote]florelius wrote:
- regarding your “Party A has an incentive to keep people poor” statement/question: My explaination is that it is an absurd notion and you know it and probably posted it as a jokish retorical trick, but if you are serious, please provide evidence that the democrats are on purpose keepin the poor poor since you put it out there. [/quote]
Orion did a good job of that already.
Affirmative action is also part of the problem
As to the rest of your post, one of us doesn’t understand how the American government is supposed to work.
BIll Maher? That is your expert opinion?
LOL @ a comedian who got rich off the backs of the same people he thinks he is saving from the evil rich people suddenly breaking down the work of an Ivy League college President.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
BIll Maher? That is your expert opinion?
LOL @ a comedian who got rich off the backs of the same people he thinks he is saving from the evil rich people suddenly breaking down the work of an Ivy League college President.
[/quote]
No he got rich off the backs of evil poor people
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
BIll Maher? That is your expert opinion?
LOL @ a comedian who got rich off the backs of the same people he thinks he is saving from the evil rich people suddenly breaking down the work of an Ivy League college President.
[/quote]
You ever use logos in rebuttal or always ethos? Its certainly one of the traditional methods. However if you only ever take opinions from those that are close to you then you only ever get a small piece of the story. This forum is very very far right for example. The Democrat Party is a little to the right. There is no real left in America. Obama isn’t a leftist in any meaningful sense of the word. In the vast majority of the world he’d be middle right believing in the things that allow some of a meritocracy to exist instead of the aristocracy the right wing free marketers would enjoy.
All that aside stupid to go on a show with someone that has held a grudge for 10 years and has been waiting for you to do something meaningful in that time so he can invite you on and tear you down. Certainly Bill is biased Dinesh was part of his prior show dying.
As an aside I give you double points for using Ivy League as a positive while the vast majority of the right wing seem to use that to denigrate most of their opponents. Unless of course Ivy League is good when it agrees with me bad when it doesn’t.
[quote]groo wrote:
However if you only ever take opinions from those that are close to you then you only ever get a small piece of the story. [/quote]
I take my opinions from people who live and work in the arena. Not entertainers.
Whats-his-face worked in politics, has an Ivy League education and is the president of a higher learning institution. I tend to side with his view over a comedian, who for lack of a better phrase, lies to people’s face while doing what it is he champions against.
Sorta like Michael Moore. Hates Capitalism, yet gets rich from it… I don’t see either of these guys donating large sums of their evil capitalist dollars to Occupy…
I think you are fooling yourself, or you don’t spend a lot fo time in colleges or on social media.
Dude there has always been the have’s and the have not’s, always, throughout human history. Never has there not been this situation. The power is always in the hands of the Have’s.
This ideal of people are equal, extending to economic terms is impossible and prevents freedom.
People are not equal. We are equal in the eyes of the law, in that we all have the same god/nature given rights, but other than that, we are not equal. You get out what you put in.
Stupid? Maybe. But that doesn’t change the fact that Bill is a comedian.
No, I have respect for people from Ivy League schools, always have. Agree or disagree with me, it doesn’t matter. The course material is largely the same college to college, but the network, which includes professors and admin, is very much better at Ivy League.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
BIll Maher? That is your expert opinion?
LOL @ a comedian who got rich off the backs of the same people he thinks he is saving from the evil rich people suddenly breaking down the work of an Ivy League college President.
[/quote]
No he got rich off the backs of evil poor people[/quote]
Correct. Isn’t that what he yells at the right for doing all the time?
Counting beans I didn’t know you were Chuck Norris!!! 
Wife kinda looks like a vampire.
I don’t really care what Chuck’s view on the situation is either if it makes you feel better.
Unless he has qualifications that I’m un-aware of.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
- regarding your “Party A has an incentive to keep people poor” statement/question: My explaination is that it is an absurd notion and you know it and probably posted it as a jokish retorical trick, but if you are serious, please provide evidence that the democrats are on purpose keepin the poor poor since you put it out there. [/quote]
Orion did a good job of that already.
Affirmative action is also part of the problem
As to the rest of your post, one of us doesn’t understand how the American government is supposed to work.[/quote]
Whenever you hit him with statistics that refute his point he hides behind a copy of Das Kapital to reaffirm his beliefs.
Meh…
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
No, I have respect for people from Ivy League schools, always have. Agree or disagree with me, it doesn’t matter. The course material is largely the same college to college, but the network, which includes professors and admin, is very much better at Ivy League.
[/quote]
I had better professors at a state school for undergrad than I did at Columbia for grad school. And the former cost almost nothing while the latter has me saddled like donkey.
In the end, the Ivy League leaves you with the same education you’d have gotten at a small public liberal arts college. But employers fawn over the name and in certain situations connections abound.
That said, it is ridiculous for anyone to use the term Ivy League as a derogatory moniker. College is good, good colleges are good.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
No, I have respect for people from Ivy League schools, always have. Agree or disagree with me, it doesn’t matter. The course material is largely the same college to college, but the network, which includes professors and admin, is very much better at Ivy League.
[/quote]
I had better professors at a state school for undergrad than I did at Columbia for grad school. And the former cost almost nothing while the latter has me saddled like donkey.
In the end, the Ivy League leaves you with the same education you’d have gotten at a small public liberal arts college. But employers fawn over the name and in certain situations connections abound.
That said, it is ridiculous for anyone to use the term Ivy League as a derogatory moniker. College is good, good colleges are good.[/quote]
Interesting.
Was there a tenure difference between the two sets of professors?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
No, I have respect for people from Ivy League schools, always have. Agree or disagree with me, it doesn’t matter. The course material is largely the same college to college, but the network, which includes professors and admin, is very much better at Ivy League.
[/quote]
I had better professors at a state school for undergrad than I did at Columbia for grad school. And the former cost almost nothing while the latter has me saddled like donkey.
In the end, the Ivy League leaves you with the same education you’d have gotten at a small public liberal arts college. But employers fawn over the name and in certain situations connections abound.
That said, it is ridiculous for anyone to use the term Ivy League as a derogatory moniker. College is good, good colleges are good.[/quote]
Interesting.
Was there a tenure difference between the two sets of professors?[/quote]
I think the real difference, and it sounds funny to say this disparagingly, was that Columbia Journalism School attracts some of the best people from the field. With that kind of success comes an arrogance that you can barely believe. And an extremely astute investigative journalist may not be a great professor–in fact, he/she is probably more comfortable sitting up all night in a cold lonely archive going through decades-old legal documents than in front of a classroom giving a lecture. Whereas in my undergraduate school, I had real professors. Still learned a lot in grad school, but I would probably tell my own hypothetical kids to think long and hard about the Ivy League if that were an option.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
An extremely important movie is coming this summer - - It is simply called “2016”. The speaker here is Dinesh D’Souza, college president in New York and author of many New York Times best sellers. [/quote]
Get the fuck out of here. A college president that isn’t a liberal?
I guess it is just teh faculty then.[/quote]
He’s also a Christian Apologist that crushed a few New Atheist heros. Just FYI.
P.S. He works at King College for what it is worth.