Donald Trump run off stage in NC by Black Lives Matters

[The True Adonis]

So a B average for an English Lit degree at Yale at $85,000 a year tuition is okay and forgivable?

But a person with a C+ average in biomedical engineering at MIT gas to pay their own way??

I would do away with GPA requirements at public institutions.  The GI bill does not have GPA requirements for instance.


Also, Yale is a Private University which can charge whatever they want because it is private. I don't really care what they charge.  I am speaking of Public options.

[The True Adonis]

What does this have to do with your Adult Daycare concept?

I don't care if someone studies Engineering or Computer Science.....as long as it is not a 100% handout using taxpayer money

You seem to think some degrees are useless and others are not.  However, you only have your opinion and no data.  Furthermore, how do you determine what is useless and what is not?

[Walter Sobchak]

I would do away with GPA requirements at public institutions.  The GI bill does not have GPA requirements for instance.


Also, Yale is a Private University which can charge whatever they want because it is private. I don't really care what they charge.  I am speaking of Public options.

You also seem to think the cost of education will remain constant once the government makes tuition free.

Absurd

[Walter Sobchak]

You seem to think some degrees are useless and others are not.  However, you only have your opinion and no data.  Furthermore, how do you determine what is useless and what is not?

Simple....if the student is not willing to make that investment in themselves with education, then why the hell should the taxpayer?

[The True Adonis]

Simple....if the student is not willing to make that investment in themselves with education, then why the hell should the taxpayer?

What exactly do you mean here?

[pellius]

How do you figure?  He has the younger demographic vote overwhelmingly over Hillary.  He is polling WAY higher than Obama was at this point in 08.  People really do not like Hillary for many reasons.  With Bernie, you can't not like him, you can only dislike his political positions.  He is the real deal and hides behind no facade.  Extremely intelligent.

And Pellius, I already answered you, but I guess you chose to ignore the post so I figure you would just do the same again. 

Sorry, I must have missed it. Can you direct me to the link/thread? I admit that I don't know a lot about him and would like to know his appeal. He is considered a Socialist which means bigger government and more control over our lives. Are you a Socialist? Do you support a bigger government?

[pellius]

That's the thing, Trump talks a good game, but I rarely hear an ACTUAL PLAN come from him.

All he's doing is catering to what people want to hear. However, making the actual change is a whole other issue.

Deport illegal immigrants. Build a wall. Wage war against ISIS and actually fight it. lower corporate tax rates, China will have to open their markets to the US as we have opened it to them or face tariffs....

What is Hillary's plan? Obama has no plan for combating Islamic terrorist. He doesn't seem to even acknowledge that they are our enemy.

[pellius]

What politician doesn't tell people what they want to hear?

Other than an unsuccessful one.

Hillary Clinton windsocks so much on every issue you cannot even begin to tell where she even stands on an issue.

Trump does. He says a lot of things that many people don't like and consider an outrage, even by other Republicans. But it is also what makes him popular to many as well.

The difference between Trump and Hillary is that Trump isn't afraid of pissing off his base whereas Hillary caters to them. Even talking with a Southern twang when in the South.

[chaos]

Deport illegal immigrants. Build a wall. Wage war against ISIS and actually fight it. lower corporate tax rates, China will have to open their markets to the US as we have opened it to them or face tariffs....

What is Hillary's plan? Obama has no plan for combating Islamic terrorist. He doesn't seem to even acknowledge that they are our enemy.

Obama is an islamic sympathizer, no secret.

[pellius]

This is the thing, they all have "plans" like the plans you're referring to. Anyone can spout off a plan like that. But actually putting a plan into action and developing a policy or program is a whole other story. You can have the best plan in the world, but you also need a way to accomplish that plan. He has not specifically stated how he would accomplish each plan, i.e., the ins and outs of each plan. For instance, "improve the education system." Great, but what does this plan actually look like? Hows he going to accomplish it? How does one go about improving education? Right now, these are very superficial plans. I must admit that I do not follow politics, but if Trump is elected, it will be interesting to see how he goes about addressing each plan. You list about 10 plans--we shall see how many actually get accomplished if he is elected.

He supports school vouchers, lowering corporate taxes, eliminating the death tax, any couple earning less than 50 grand pays NO taxes. He supports going to war with ISIS. Supporting and arming the Kurds as well as intensifying the bombing campaign. Obama's strikes are just token efforts.

Name a Democratic candidate that has gives specific plans of action?

[The True Adonis]

Sorry, I must have missed it. Can you direct me to the link/thread? I admit that I don't know a lot about him and would like to know his appeal. He is considered a Socialist which means bigger government and more control over our lives. Are you a Socialist? Do you support a bigger government?

You aren't working with a correct definition of socialism.

[pellius]

One soldier, one year: $850,000 and rising. By Larry Shaughnessy.
Keeping one American service member in Afghanistan costs between $850,000 and $1.4 million a year, depending on who you ask. But one matter is clear, that cost is going up.Feb 28, 2012
One soldier, one year - CNN Security Clearance

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/28/one-soldier-one-year-850000-and-rising/

Bull shit!

"the amount of money spent in Afghanistan for a year and dividing it up by the number of soldiers."

Not an accurate portrayal. There's a difference between the cost of war: planes, tanks, missiles..., and the cost of keeping a soldier in the field. It's a dishonest argument because if we remove one soldier from the field it's not going to save us a million bucks.

[TuHolmes]

Obama is an islamic sympathizer, no secret.

I don't think he's a sympathizer but I do think he's too chicken shit to call a duck a duck.

That's what I don't get.

If any group of people does something bad to others, and it's primarily that group, it's certainly not wrong to say so.

The truth is a bitch to a lot of people in this day and age it seems.

[pellius]

The other hilarious takeaway here is what Walter and his friends answers were.................... .....................Soc ialism.

Go in the military, the largest Socialist entity of our government, in order to get a GI bill- another Socialist program thanks to FDR.

Hilarious.

You can't make this shit up.

This where the issue of the what the role of government is under out Constitution. Our Constitution states that one of the roles of our government is to provide for the common defense and national security. In fact, it is the only function that is MANDATORY:

"National defense is the only mandatory function of the national government. Most of the powers granted to Congress are permissive in nature. Congress is given certain authorities but not required by the Constitution to exercise them."

National defense and protecting our citizenry is the most important role of our government. Providing for their education is not a function of our government.

[TuHolmes]

That may be true and I'm willing to concede that from the original constitution, however, you must admit that the cost of war has skyrocketed.

Remember, the original founding fathers didn't want a standing army and thought it should all be militia based, but of course that's not the case now.

Right or wrong, the world and the requirements have changed.

Would the US be able to truly have zero government involved in other areas? Could it survive?

We could try, but I doubt it would be feasible in today's world.

[The True Adonis]

This where the issue of the what the role of government is under out Constitution. Our Constitution states that one of the roles of our government is to provide for the common defense and national security. In fact, it is the only function that is MANDATORY:

"National defense is the only mandatory function of the national government. Most of the powers granted to Congress are permissive in nature. Congress is given certain authorities but not required by the Constitution to exercise them."

National defense and protecting our citizenry is the most important role of our government. Providing for their education is not a function of our government.

Nothing in the Constitution about a permanent standing army. (something that would leave the Founders aghast.)

 



    The Congress shall have Power To ...raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years....
    Article I, Section 8, Clause 12

[pellius]

You aren't working with a correct definition of socialism.

Perhaps you can educate me. I understand it to mean that it is about public and not private ownership. Prices are not set by market forces but determined and set by an outside authority (usually government). For example, the minimum wage is a socialist policy because a third party determines the price for a service (a worker) rather than the actual buyer or seller. Rent control would be another example of a socialist policy.

I am against it because I believe in liberty. In any transaction between a buyer and a seller, whether the commodity is selling/buying shoes or selling/buying labor; it should be the decision of the actual parties involved.

[The True Adonis]

Perhaps you can educate me. I understand it to mean that it is about public and not private ownership. Prices are not set by market forces but determined and set by an outside authority (usually government). For example, the minimum wage is a socialist policy because a third party determines the price for a service (a worker) rather than the actual buyer or seller. Rent control would be another example of a socialist policy.

I am against it because I believe in liberty. In any transaction between a buyer and a seller, whether the commodity is selling/buying shoes or selling/buying labor; it should be the decision of the actual parties involved.

How about you educate yourself.  I don't want you to believe me.  Research for yourself and bring me your findings. 

Here is a start:
Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system.

[The True Adonis]

Perhaps you can educate me. I understand it to mean that it is about public and not private ownership. Prices are not set by market forces but determined and set by an outside authority (usually government). For example, the minimum wage is a socialist policy because a third party determines the price for a service (a worker) rather than the actual buyer or seller. Rent control would be another example of a socialist policy.

I am against it because I believe in liberty. In any transaction between a buyer and a seller, whether the commodity is selling/buying shoes or selling/buying labor; it should be the decision of the actual parties involved.

Oh really?

So you think Bill Gates should be allowed to buy every single power company in say, Rhode Island and then charge, 100,000 per year for electricity per customer if he wants.  Lets pretend he has no interest in making money because he does not need it.  He wants to prove your theory of "Liberty. any transaction between a buyer and a seller, whether the commodity is selling/buying shoes or selling/buying labor; it should be the decision of the actual parties involved."

"You're right, I did lose a million dollars last year. I expect to lose a million dollars this year. I expect to lose a million dollars next year. You know, Mr. Thatcher, at the rate of a million dollars a year, I'll have to close this place in... 60 years."

[pellius]

That may be true and I'm willing to concede that from the original constitution, however, you must admit that the cost of war has skyrocketed.

Remember, the original founding fathers didn't want a standing army and thought it should all be militia based, but of course that's not the case now.

Right or wrong, the world and the requirements have changed.

Would the US be able to truly have zero government involved in other areas? Could it survive?

We could try, but I doubt it would be feasible in today's world.

Yes, the cost of war has gone up considerably in a sense. It has not gone up in terms of lives lost because of technical advancement and military capabilities and safety. It is way more safer today to be a fighter pilot than it was in WW2. The amount of pilots that died just in training missions in WW2 is just staggering.

Also, it could be because of the way we fight wars now. We fight with one arm tied behind our backs and are more concerned with political correctness and world opinion than actually winning.

The reason we get involved in other areas of the world (addressing a point brought up by another poster) is because many things that happen outside our country will effect us. When Hussein invaded Kuwait, an ally, he threatened the worlds oil supply. I know people make the argument that is it worth our soldiers dying for oil. Well, we need oil to survive. Everything you have in your house right now, including your house, needed oil and fuel to get there. Oil is life in our society.

[The True Adonis]

Yes, the cost of war has gone up considerably in a sense. It has not gone up in terms of lives lost because of technical advancement and military capabilities and safety. It is way more safer today to be a fighter pilot than it was in WW2. The amount of pilots that died just in training missions in WW2 is just staggering.

Also, it could be because of the way we fight wars now. We fight with one arm tied behind our backs and are more concerned with political correctness and world opinion than actually winning.

The reason we get involved in other areas of the world (addressing a point brought up by another poster) is because many things that happen outside our country will effect us. When Hussein invaded Kuwait, an ally, he threatened the worlds oil supply. I know people make the argument that is it worth our soldiers dying for oil. Well, we need oil to survive. Everything you have in your house right now, including your house, needed oil and fuel to get there. Oil is life in our society.

[The True Adonis]

Yes, the cost of war has gone up considerably in a sense. It has not gone up in terms of lives lost because of technical advancement and military capabilities and safety. It is way more safer today to be a fighter pilot than it was in WW2. The amount of pilots that died just in training missions in WW2 is just staggering.

Also, it could be because of the way we fight wars now. We fight with one arm tied behind our backs and are more concerned with political correctness and world opinion than actually winning.

The reason we get involved in other areas of the world (addressing a point brought up by another poster) is because many things that happen outside our country will effect us. When Hussein invaded Kuwait, an ally, he threatened the worlds oil supply. I know people make the argument that is it worth our soldiers dying for oil. Well, we need oil to survive. Everything you have in your house right now, including your house, needed oil and fuel to get there. Oil is life in our society.

[The True Adonis]

[pellius]

Nothing in the Constitution about a permanent standing army. (something that would leave the Founders aghast.)

 
    The Congress shall have Power To ...raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years....
    Article I, Section 8, Clause 12

By ending it there you seem to imply it's only good for two years. It is true that this is the only clause related to the military that puts a time limit on appropriations but this does not imply that it cannot extend those limits which congress does constantly. Congress could very well withhold funding for our involvement in Afghanistan.

But your argument is beside the point I was making. It was about the role of government. It's not an issue whether it's more expensive to have a soldier in the military or using that money to pay for other people's education. It is the role of the government to provide for the national security and protect our citizens and their rights here and abroad. Whether it's to protect them from being invaded by a hostile nation or to protect them from someone building a tire factory right next door to you. It is not the role of the government to provide for a person's education. (Of course when I say "government provides" I mean tax payers.)

And just for the sake of clarity and to more fully understand your position: Are you against having a military force supported by the tax payers?  

[pellius]

How about you educate yourself.  I don't want you to believe me.  Research for yourself and bring me your findings. 

Here is a start:
Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system.

I ask because you seem to have a different understanding of Socialism than I do. But reading your "Here's a start" it seems we have the same understanding. You do believe in SOCIAL ownership and DEMOCRATIC control which preclude private ownership and free market.

TA, we're just having a discussion and debate here. I'm just trying to understand your position, world view, and reasoning -- maybe even learn something. No need to get so hostile. I'm not attacking you. Disagreement and clarification is not an attack. You use to be able to control your emotions in a debate but seem to have gotten more ornery with age.