Jump to content

Huckleberry

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    11888
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    20

Posts posted by Huckleberry

  1. I agree it's a reasonable conversation. It's more than reasonable, it absolutely needs to happen.

    I disagree that limiting it to public colleges and universities will prevent the bubble from growing larger and larger. For crying out loud right now Texas A&M has a plan to grow to 80,000 students just so they can have more athletic donors in 20 years. What do you think is going to happen to universities around the nation when they find out that they are guaranteed payment for anyone they admit?

    • Like 1
  2. 4 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

    The requirement that graduates "retain employment associated with the degree for a minimum number of years after graduation" (or what? they pay back the cost of obtaining their degree?) will lead to similar issues that obtain in the current system.  

    Yes, or else they owe the cost (or a prorated portion of the cost) of the degree.

    Why do you think that just flat out paying for everyone's university education is going to fix the current problem that you have correctly identified (the higher education bubble)? If we pay for everyone's university education the bubble is only going to get worse.

  3. 10 minutes ago, Goo Punch said:

    yes it is. 17 might be old enough for some (see: most) to know better than that, but it's not beyond the age where age can no longer be an excuse. ask anyone who works with high school kids- there are plenty of 17 year-old boys, particularly athletes, who do and say completely idiotic and even seemingly hateful things when in reality there was no hate behind the statements; more ignorance and youth. and while it's entirely possible that there was hate behind his words when he said them, it's also possible that in six years time, having grown up and become a professional who works in an environment with different races and ethnicities, that he's since lost that hate and gained some perspective and understanding. 

     

    i also think that 17 is an interesting age in the way it's perceived by people who haven't been 17 more than a decade now. if you picture or imagine a 16 year-old you probably picture a kid; but something about that age of 17 (perhaps because it's the age of consent in most states?) causes most of us to picture something more resembling an adult, when the fact is that there are plenty of 17 year-olds our there (and again particularly male athletes) who are still immature to a pretty ridiculous degree.

     

    in short, 17 is both old enough to know better and young enough to not realize/understand the impact of your words.

    No, I picture 17-year-olds. Again, I have one and I am around them a lot.

    17 is too old to use youth as an excuse for that behavior. That behavior happens at 17 because you're an asshole. This isn't a 7-year-old just repeating what they heard.

    I think I've made it pretty clear over the years here and on other boards that I think the "back in my day" logic that many older people use is stupid and wrong. I recognize that we were all young once, so I can understand a 17-year-old boy jumping from a moving vehicle or doing some other incredibly stupid thing to impress his friends or a girl. But a 17-year-old boy sending out racist shit is doing that because he thinks it's okay to do that. And there are many (actually most of them) 17-year-olds who understand that it's not okay. That means the ones who do it are racist, not young and dumb.

    I recognize it's completely possible that Hader has changed into a better person. I hope that's the case. That doesn't mean he wasn't a racist piece of shit when he was 17. He needs to stop his apology right after the "that doesn't reflect who I am now and I'm sorry for what I said." Proceeding to try to excuse his own behavior because he was 17 was wrong.

    • Like 1
  4. Just now, Fozzz said:

    You can either provide free higher education, restrict higher education to the wealthy and upper-middle class, or allow access through the inflation of an enormous student debt bubble (our chosen solution) that will eventually wreck the economy if left unaddressed.

    Or you could do some of the other things we've mentioned in the thread that you haven't read yet.

  5. 1 minute ago, Eastwood said:

    The absolutely fantastic thing about moderates and these 2018 midterms is that you don't have to modify your platform at all. Myself, a moderate who has not voted once since 2012, is voting D purely as a means to the end of what is happening today. I'm not alone, either. A lot of my peers are doing the same. My mind won't be easily changed, but creating some sort of litmus test for those such as myself who have thinner skin will run them off. A lot of these protest votes will probably evaporate after 2020 if status quo is restored, which is another problem for another day.

    Exactly. It's not like the Democratic Party has to actually change their platform toward the middle to get this chunk of voters in the 2018 and 2020 elections. Hammer home that you're not monsters who are separating families, you're not in Putin's pocket, and that you will fight (or oust in 2020) Trump every step of the way.

    It doesn't require moving toward a centrist platform to be the Not Trump party.

  6. The real reason is you can't do it. I've given you an out where you don't even have to find an actual post but merely point out what my liberal ideas are. You still can't do it. All the hand waving isn't tricking anyone, slorch. Try again.

    1 hour ago, Huckleberry said:

    Point out my liberal posts. Alternatively, simply explain what you think are my liberal ideas.

     

    • Like 1
  7. 4 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

    I think the question is how you decide who gets into a university.  And what education that university provides.

    I briefly touched on it but part of my preferred system would be a requirement to obtain and retain employment associated with the degree for a minimum number of years after graduation. I would also have entrance exams, socioeconomic factors, high school performance in terms of class rank and standardized tests, etc. that required a minimum level of performance in order to be eligible. The biggest issue with paying for everyone's university education is that very soon anyone with a high school diploma would be accepted into a university somewhere.

  8. 1 minute ago, BrickHorn said:

    Maybe true, but “college should only be for those who can afford it” is a highly inefficient solution.  College education benefits society the most when it enhances the skills of students who demonstrate an aptitude for useful careers.  Family wealth is not a good indicator of aptitude.  

    Inexpensive public education allowed a more efficient market for higher education, compared to the old days of pricy private education available only to the children of wealth.  Training was made available to excellent students regardless of wealth, thus removing an obstacle that prevented matching talent with market needs. In some ways, we’ve overdone it by subsidizing training in relatively useless areas of study.  And due to overgrowth and bloated administration, public education is no longer cheap.  But that doesn’t mean that free or low cost public education isn’t optimal, if limited to useful fields of study and filtered for aptitude.  

    I completely agree with everything you've said here. I support public assistance for higher education, the part where I disagree with some here is the idea that the policy should cover free university education for anyone who gets in to a university.

    • Like 2
  9. 9 minutes ago, slorch said:

     You were so receptive of my feedback  and call outs of favoritism  when you said you could be an objective moderator on the shag, I am sure you would be more willing to be convinced at this time, right?

    Keep trying, slorch. This is your standard play, lob an accusation with exactly zero supporting evidence and hope nobody notices. Well the problem is that everyone notices.

    Go ahead, I'll keep asking.

    1 hour ago, Huckleberry said:

    Point out my liberal posts. Alternatively, simply explain what you think are my liberal ideas.

     

  10. 9 minutes ago, Lurch said:

     


    Sometimes we build a 6 lane highway when we only needed 4. We have 3 firehouses when we only needed 2. We give some people an education that they won’t fully leverage.

    Meanwhile, at rush hour traffic moves a bit more quickly, during a disaster we have more emergency responders on scene and when a welder suddenly decides to own and run his own business he understands quickbooks.

    Just because a solution isn’t ideally efficient doesn’t mean it’s an inherently bad idea.

     

    More lanes doesn't make traffic move more quickly, it actually increases traffic. This example cuts right to the heart of how government just paying for more stuff because we think it should help frequently backfires. So yes, actually, an inefficient solution may very well be an inherently bad idea.

  11. 17 is plenty old enough not to do that stuff. I remember being 17 and I specifically remember which of my peers might have said something like that. It's not because they were 17, it's because they were the racists and homophobes that you knew.

    I happen to have a 17-year-old right now, too. That's not young enough to use age as an excuse for that kind of behavior.

    • Like 2
  12. 20 hours ago, Clob94 said:

    Yes, I COULD assume that my language won't offend anyone or I could use a modicum of civility and not not cuss like a sailor until I knew it wouldn't offend people......

    You think sh!t and a$$ are somehow not cussing? The offensive part of profanity is the idea of the word. Using a symbol, especially one that looks as close as possible to the real letter, doesn't mean you didn't cuss, it just means you're being a baby about it.

  13. Interesting. @slorch was on the thread liking multiple posts just now but didn't find the time to reply to my post.

    20 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

    Point out my liberal posts. Alternatively, simply explain what you think are my liberal ideas.

    Got anything yet?

  14. 2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

    78% of people supporting free public university tuition does not mean that they do not support free tuition for 2-year or trade schools

    That is a completely disingenuous conclusion to draw.

    You are reaching so bad now that I know even you realize what a joke this performance has become. At no point did I say that those in favor of free public university tuition would not also support 2-year or trade school tuition coverage. It's obvious that they would support covering those less expensive options if they're in favor of covering university costs. I never drew the conclusion that you're claiming, I never posted the conclusion that you're claiming, you are merely shouting things you made up in your head to convince yourself you're right. You're basically the Donald Trump of this forum at this point.

    What the discussion is about is whether or not taxpayers should cover free university tuition and other costs for anyone that wants it. One of the other possibilities, which I in fact support, is instead to cover costs of post-high school education of some sort for those who meet certain academic requirements in high school and are then compelled to use that education for some number of years after the covered education is complete. Going back to the mechanic example, if we cover two years of education for that job after high school then the recipient would be required to work as an auto mechanic for 2 or 3 years after graduation. There could also be tuition assistance for 4-year universities for those who hit certain marks on entrance exams, etc. But that is different than covering full public university costs for everyone.

    In the end you and I actually agree on most aspects of higher education costs but you're too foolish to realize it because you just want to argue with everyone who doesn't declare themselves a progressive. You know, just like everyone was explaining to you about your litmus test for voting Democrat.

    • Like 1
  15. 1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

    Who said that it was only about 4-year universities? Please answer that question. (You won't)

    The poster to whom I initially responded, who stated

    1 hour ago, Js1 said:

    78% support free public university tuition

    That is what the discussion was about when you decided to inject your particular brand of LOOK AT ME into the middle of the conversation. What were you saying about how I "won't" be able to answer the question?

  16. 32 minutes ago, slorch said:

    Hahahaha.

     

    Never stop being you, bro.

     

     

    Sure, you have posted conservative thoughts.  However, you are neither a conservative nor centrist poster.  Your denial, and that of others, of such is part of the problem with this forum.

    Point out my liberal posts. Alternatively, simply explain what you think are my liberal ideas.

  17. Just now, bad_teammate said:

    Tell us what we "need", strong daddy.

    A young man who wants to be an auto mechanic does not need to attend a 4-year university, and certainly doesn't need to have it paid for by taxpayers. A young woman who wants to be a welder (I actually know a high school girl who welds and is considering that profession, it's awesome) also does not need to attend a 4-year university. It's a pretty simple concept, most people who aren't just playing a shtick on the internet are easily able to understand it.

  18. 13 minutes ago, Lurch said:

     


    I don’t believe anyone has suggested “everyone goes to a university”. Unlike K-12, the proposal is to make it free for those that want it.

     

    And when it's free for those that want it then millions will want it who don't need it. We will all pay for unnecessary tuition costs that the graduate (or dropout) never utilizes after leaving school.

  19. 46 minutes ago, slorch said:

    Oh damn...burn on the internet.

     

    You are sooooo right.  Conservative POVs are embraced on Surly.  That’s why there are so many posters willing to share them...

     

    I frequently post conservative points of view on Surly. The problem is that you don't know what conservative means.

    • Like 1
  20. 1 minute ago, pyrohornIII said:

    I think there needs to be a system in place that recognizes and rewards efforts (grades, attendance, public service) to gain entry into higher education.  I don't think it was ever "whoever wants to go to college can" argument.    I think that kind of program would just foster more Trump University scams.

     

    The entire "everyone goes to a university" idea is awful. Not everyone needs to go to a university. While the social movement to value education is wonderful, there's no reason for someone who wants to be a mechanic, for example, to think he has to go to college. Like many good ideas the movement to send everyone to college has gone too far.

    • Like 4
  21. 1 minute ago, Js1 said:

    Your second sentence is good.  You don't have to join the party.  Please stay out of our primaries though. :)

    Brisket, for example, God love him, said he is probably done with even voting in GOP primaries. The concern is too many GOP-turned-indie voters going into Dem primaries and choosing the more moderate candidates. 

    I support moving to a closed primary system everywhere. These are private political parties and they should be able to limit the selection of their candidates for the general elections to party members only.

    I've been pretty clear that I don't see myself ever becoming a Democrat but I have no issue with the party becoming more progressive. Two parties who are actually ideologically opposed is healthier for the nation than these two corporate parties we have now. Well, it would actually add to the divisiveness but that's only because we're a nation of morons who have completely lost the concept of disagreeing respectfully. I mean look at me now, I'm respectful toward you even though 2 of your 5 stated policy goals are terribad.

    • Like 2
  22. 9 minutes ago, Js1 said:

    Stop making me agree with you BT!

    Centrists/former-GOP-turned-independent while waiting for the GOP to regain sanity-not Trumpers are going to end up shifting the Democrats right so in 2, 6, and 8 years, they can go back to screaming BoTh SiDeS aRe ThE sAmE!!!! and "We don't have 2 parties, we just have 1 party that doesn't represent us!" A bunch of fiscal conservatives throwing their loads in with the Democrats aren't going to help accomplish progressive agenda items.

    The grassroots are trying to move the party left, to actually be the progressive party, but they're facing headwinds from the corporatist centrists trying to triangulate into the middle.  Those former-GOP-turned-independents will just wait until Sasse/Flake or someone "normal" retakes a hold of the GOP and suddenly, they're back to being Republicans!

    The goal shouldn't be to moderate the Democrats nationally (locally is totally different, but even the conservative Democrats didn't budge on dismantling the ACA or protections for LGBT or minorities), it should be to get ACTUALLY ELECTED REPUBLICANS on board with the notion that Trump is compromised, he's a traitor, he's antithesis to American values and institutions and bipartisanly work to get him impeached, removed or defeated. From within their own party.

    59% support Medicare-for-All

    78% support free public university tuition

    66% raising the minimum wage and 59% support $12/hour (48% support $15/hour)

    80% want campaign finance reform to get dark money out of politics

    78% want tougher Wall Street regulations, rules and enforcements

    Maybe, just maybe, the Democrats focus on electing progressive candidates (where they can) who agree with these things.  Instead of centrist dinosaurs who hem and haw and check their bank accounts to make sure Super PAC 1 and Lobbyist Firm 2's checks cleared.

    If you're agreeing with b_t then you should be questioning yourself, not the people you're arguing with.

    Good news for you is that some of us planning to vote Democrat have no plans to join the party and try to move it anywhere. We're all on the same page.

    And I agree with 2-1/2 of your 5 ideas, so there's that.

×
×
  • Create New...