prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,297
|
Post by prhoya on Sept 5, 2015 10:45:11 GMT -5
Nice non-sequitur. The answer to Mrs. Clinton's criminality is not to throw stones at the Tea Party. But whatever makes you happy ... At the end of the day, the e-mail issue will sort itself out, in a good or a bad way for you. Sit tight. Btw, who do you pick to win the Republican candidacy and which Democrat candidate would you rather he/she face?
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Sept 5, 2015 10:55:55 GMT -5
Unfortunately it has already proven to be a bad thing for the country.
As for my personal preferences, I don't see a major party candidate out there that I believe to be worthy of the office. As the only outsider on the race who seems to be of a serious mind, I like Ben Carson on the GOP side though I am sadly sure he will not be the nominee.
On the Democrat party side, I am firmly convinced Hillary does not get to the post. After that maybe it is Uncle Joe with the wink and the nod from the President
The greatest intrigue here is how far Mr. Obama is willing to go to torpedo Madame Clinton.
Pass the popcorn.
|
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,297
|
Post by prhoya on Sept 5, 2015 11:42:00 GMT -5
Unfortunately it has already proven to be a bad thing for the country. As for my personal preferences, I don't see a major party candidate out there that I believe to be worthy of the office. As the only outsider on the race who seems to be of a serious mind, I like Ben Carson on the GOP side though I am sadly sure he will not be the nominee. On the Democrat party side, I am firmly convinced Hillary does not get to the post. After that maybe it is Uncle Joe with the wink and the nod from the President The greatest intrigue here is how far Mr. Obama is willing to go to torpedo Madame Clinton. Pass the popcorn. As of today, IMO the general feeling regarding both side's candidates is: is that really it? As for Hillary, she will fight to the end and be in the primary. Will she win the post? We'll see, but have we seen all the Democratic candidates? It will make for some pretty interesting/disturbing viewing. Would you like some butter with that popcorn? Some chocolate?
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Sept 5, 2015 11:47:19 GMT -5
Hillary now sorry for "confusion" caused by enail server. English translation: I am sorry I got caught breaking the law and wish I did not have to account for my unlawful actions. How's the Tea Party doing these days? Are they going to cost the Republican Party another election and then excuse it by saying it was someone's fault? Who said anything about the Tea Party?
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Sept 13, 2015 12:25:52 GMT -5
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Sept 14, 2015 15:08:40 GMT -5
Bernie Sanders' Facebook PostI think universal higher education is stupid, but it appears that Bernie is at least smart enough to use a photo of Healy Hall on this post.
|
|
SirSaxa
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 15,620
|
Post by SirSaxa on Sept 14, 2015 18:05:51 GMT -5
Bernie Sanders' Facebook PostI think universal higher education is stupid, but it appears that Bernie is at least smart enough to use a photo of Healy Hall on this post. What a surprise. Here's what Bernie's position is. I have no idea how anyone could find it "Stupid". "Any student, regardless of his or her background or income, who has the ability and desire, will be able to get the education they need and the education they deserve." Not only is that an enlightened goal for a highly advanced society, it is also in the best interests of the society to have a more educated and productive populace.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Sept 15, 2015 16:28:00 GMT -5
Bernie Sanders' Facebook PostI think universal higher education is stupid, but it appears that Bernie is at least smart enough to use a photo of Healy Hall on this post. What a surprise. Here's what Bernie's position is. I have no idea how anyone could find it "Stupid". "Any student, regardless of his or her background or income, who has the ability and desire, will be able to get the education they need and the education they deserve." Not only is that an enlightened goal for a highly advanced society, it is also in the best interests of the society to have a more educated and productive populace. What is meant by "the education they need" and the "education they deserve"? That's just a bunch of hippy dippy baloney. As I understand it, Sanders wants to make four-year public colleges and universities tuition-free. The unintended consequences of that are enormous. What about private institutions? How will they compete? Should all college age students be going to a university? Wouldn't it make more sense to focus our limited resources on to help states and school districts provide a fuller range of opportunities at the high school and college levels, such as professional credentials, apprenticeships and high-school career academies? And speaking of resources, it's estimated that his plan would cost $70 billion per year, which is more than twice what the federal government already spends on Pell grants. Where's the money going to come from? No one disagrees that it's in the "best interests of the society to have a more educated and productive populace." Just like no one disagrees that it's in the best interests of society to have a healthier populace, but is more government control over health care the way to do it? And one big issue no one speaks of: do we want more government involvement in higher education? For example, Sanders' bill would require institutions to reduce their reliance on adjunct professors. Is that a good thing? Some of my best classes at GU and GULC were taught by adjuncts.
|
|
SirSaxa
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 15,620
|
Post by SirSaxa on Sept 16, 2015 14:30:34 GMT -5
What is meant by "the education they need" and the "education they deserve"? That's just a bunch of hippy dippy baloney. As I understand it, Sanders wants to make four-year public colleges and universities tuition-free. The unintended consequences of that are enormous. What about private institutions? How will they compete? Should all college age students be going to a university? Wouldn't it make more sense to focus our limited resources on to help states and school districts provide a fuller range of opportunities at the high school and college levels, such as professional credentials, apprenticeships and high-school career academies? And speaking of resources, it's estimated that his plan would cost $70 billion per year, which is more than twice what the federal government already spends on Pell grants. Where's the money going to come from? No one disagrees that it's in the "best interests of the society to have a more educated and productive populace." Just like no one disagrees that it's in the best interests of society to have a healthier populace, but is more government control over health care the way to do it? And one big issue no one speaks of: do we want more government involvement in higher education? For example, Sanders' bill would require institutions to reduce their reliance on adjunct professors. Is that a good thing? Some of my best classes at GU and GULC were taught by adjuncts. Thanks for your response KC. Once again you have illustrated the views of the right, the party of "No we can't", "That would be too hard" and the old chestnut "we can't afford it". We have had public education in this country since the 1600s. Some might think publicly available post secondary school education would have become a priority by now -- 400 years later, given all the advances in our society, technology and science and the fact we are no longer an agrarian-based economy. The Republicans never want to invest in anything, not infrastructure, not education, not health care, not improving our nation. But when it comes to catastrophic military adventures or senseless tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy, why not a single Republican will ask how those things will be paid for. I used to work with some people like you, always telling everyone else why we couldn't do things. Those folks never advanced the cause, lowered costs, increased sales or improved customer relations.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Sept 16, 2015 14:41:45 GMT -5
What is meant by "the education they need" and the "education they deserve"? That's just a bunch of hippy dippy baloney. As I understand it, Sanders wants to make four-year public colleges and universities tuition-free. The unintended consequences of that are enormous. What about private institutions? How will they compete? Should all college age students be going to a university? Wouldn't it make more sense to focus our limited resources on to help states and school districts provide a fuller range of opportunities at the high school and college levels, such as professional credentials, apprenticeships and high-school career academies? And speaking of resources, it's estimated that his plan would cost $70 billion per year, which is more than twice what the federal government already spends on Pell grants. Where's the money going to come from? No one disagrees that it's in the "best interests of the society to have a more educated and productive populace." Just like no one disagrees that it's in the best interests of society to have a healthier populace, but is more government control over health care the way to do it? And one big issue no one speaks of: do we want more government involvement in higher education? For example, Sanders' bill would require institutions to reduce their reliance on adjunct professors. Is that a good thing? Some of my best classes at GU and GULC were taught by adjuncts. Thanks for your response KC. Once again you have illustrated the views of the right, the party of "No we can't", "That would be too hard" and the old chestnut "we can't afford it". We have had public education in this country since the 1600s. Some might think publicly available post secondary school education would have become a priority by now -- 400 years later, given all the advances in our society, technology and science and the fact we are no longer an agrarian-based economy. The Republicans never want to invest in anything, not infrastructure, not education, not health care, not improving our nation. But when it comes to catastrophic military adventures or senseless tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy, why not a single Republican will ask how those things will be paid for. I used to work with some people like you, always telling everyone else why we couldn't do things. Those folks never advanced the cause, lowered costs, increased sales or improved customer relations. And you have beautifully illustrated the Left's position that the government should provide all things to all people. You favor a nanny state. Good for you . Some don't. [
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Sept 16, 2015 14:44:05 GMT -5
And you have beautifully illustrated the Left's position that the government should provide all things to all people.
You favor a nanny state. Good for you .
Some don't.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Sept 16, 2015 16:22:19 GMT -5
What is meant by "the education they need" and the "education they deserve"? That's just a bunch of hippy dippy baloney. As I understand it, Sanders wants to make four-year public colleges and universities tuition-free. The unintended consequences of that are enormous. What about private institutions? How will they compete? Should all college age students be going to a university? Wouldn't it make more sense to focus our limited resources on to help states and school districts provide a fuller range of opportunities at the high school and college levels, such as professional credentials, apprenticeships and high-school career academies? And speaking of resources, it's estimated that his plan would cost $70 billion per year, which is more than twice what the federal government already spends on Pell grants. Where's the money going to come from? No one disagrees that it's in the "best interests of the society to have a more educated and productive populace." Just like no one disagrees that it's in the best interests of society to have a healthier populace, but is more government control over health care the way to do it? And one big issue no one speaks of: do we want more government involvement in higher education? For example, Sanders' bill would require institutions to reduce their reliance on adjunct professors. Is that a good thing? Some of my best classes at GU and GULC were taught by adjuncts. Thanks for your response KC. Once again you have illustrated the views of the right, the party of "No we can't", "That would be too hard" and the old chestnut "we can't afford it". We have had public education in this country since the 1600s. Some might think publicly available post secondary school education would have become a priority by now -- 400 years later, given all the advances in our society, technology and science and the fact we are no longer an agrarian-based economy. The Republicans never want to invest in anything, not infrastructure, not education, not health care, not improving our nation. But when it comes to catastrophic military adventures or senseless tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy, why not a single Republican will ask how those things will be paid for. I used to work with some people like you, always telling everyone else why we couldn't do things. Those folks never advanced the cause, lowered costs, increased sales or improved customer relations. You're so interested in making your point, you didn't even read what I wrote. I never said "No we can't" or "That would be too hard." To paraphrase, I asked"should we do it" and "what price is too much?" See the part where I said this: Going to Georgetown or Frostburg State or even community college isn't for everyone, nor should it be. Instead of proposing something that makes a lot of people feel good and costs a ton of money, I think we should focus on doing something that gets the best return on our investment. But you go ahead and support Bernie Sanders, who has replaced Lee Majors as the new 18 Trillion Dollar Man. I used to work with some people like you, always telling everyone else why we couldn't do things. Those folks never advanced the cause, lowered costs, increased sales or improved customer relations. Yes, because all the successful business people are such liberals.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Sept 16, 2015 16:51:59 GMT -5
Man oh man Sanders is such an idiot, talking about spending money on universal access to higher education and things like that. That's literally government doing everything for you! He wants to spend money so recklessly!
He should follow the Republican model of spending countless billions on unnecessary wars, pharmaceutical company giveaways, tax cuts for the already wealthy, TARP, military expenditures the military doesn't even want, stuff like that!
It's so stupid that he thinks he's elected to serve the people of the country instead of the special interests.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Sept 17, 2015 8:49:04 GMT -5
Quick thoughts on the debate:
- Goodbye Trump. Maybe not immediately, but I think he finally crossed the line of being taken seriously, and it looked really bad. Once half the debate is cringing in embarrassment for you, it's hard to recover. Also it looked wonderful telling a high-power female CEO she's beautiful (to make up for your earlier insult) and constantly trying to high-five the black neurosurgeon next to you.
- Fiorina kind of seems like she takes charisma lessons from satan, but she dominated that whole thing. It actually felt like she was cheating when she first started referencing policy and past because everyone else was happy to hide behind platitudes. Granted, she seems to have some insane ideas and issues with the truth, but that's not unique to her up there. She seems to be the only adult up there, running on something besides 'I want to be president.'
- Bush still hasn't figured a way to convert all that money into anyone caring. Aw shucks yeah my family keeps messing up the world and I hired the same advisers, but everyone else is using them too so what's the diff?!
- Carson seems so calm that his ideas (when he actually has any besides "we'll figure it out") don't come across as insane as they are.
- Cruz really seems to want to shore up the "I want a sniveling, egotistical creep as president" demographic, but it's hard to see how that translates beyond...whoever likes him.
- Rubio seems like off-brand Republican breakfast cereal. That may have played in 2008, but either embrace the crazy or get out in today's GOP.
- Paul, similar to Fiorina, is someone I don't agree with, but at least they are actually talking about policy things they believe matter.
- Kasich thought he was running for President. This is the Republican primary, cooperation and not going it alone comes across as "I will install armed United Nations agents in every living room to enforce political correctness."
- Walker is really proud that he didn't let protesters change his mind. That's all I've really gotten out of him the last two debates.
- Christie has the appeal of warm milk that's been sitting on the counter since 9/11
- Huckabee just keeping his name out there for future media opportunities.
All in all I'd say it was a pretty great episode of Monday Night Raw
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,450
|
Post by TC on Sept 17, 2015 10:11:27 GMT -5
And speaking of resources, it's estimated that his plan would cost $70 billion per year, which is more than twice what the federal government already spends on Pell grants. Where's the money going to come from? The $70 billion comes from a FTT he plans to impose on stock and derivative trades, which could raise somewhere in the range of $135B a year.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Sept 17, 2015 11:01:59 GMT -5
And speaking of resources, it's estimated that his plan would cost $70 billion per year, which is more than twice what the federal government already spends on Pell grants. Where's the money going to come from? The $70 billion comes from a FTT he plans to impose on stock and derivative trades, which could raise somewhere in the range of $135B a year. 1. So it will still cost $70B. 2. Raising taxes to the tune of $135B a year is good? 3. "Could raise somewhere in the range of..." That sounds solid. My guess is a tax of that nature might alter the behavior of those who make such trades.
|
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,393
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Sept 17, 2015 18:19:56 GMT -5
Quick thoughts on the debate: - Goodbye Trump. Maybe not immediately, but I think he finally crossed the line of being taken seriously, and it looked really bad. Once half the debate is cringing in embarrassment for you, it's hard to recover. Also it looked wonderful telling a high-power female CEO she's beautiful (to make up for your earlier insult) and constantly trying to high-five the black neurosurgeon next to you. - Fiorina kind of seems like she takes charisma lessons from satan, but she dominated that whole thing. It actually felt like she was cheating when she first started referencing policy and past because everyone else was happy to hide behind platitudes. Granted, she seems to have some insane ideas and issues with the truth, but that's not unique to her up there. She seems to be the only adult up there, running on something besides 'I want to be president.' - Bush still hasn't figured a way to convert all that money into anyone caring. Aw shucks yeah my family keeps messing up the world and I hired the same advisers, but everyone else is using them too so what's the diff?! - Carson seems so calm that his ideas (when he actually has any besides "we'll figure it out") don't come across as insane as they are. - Cruz really seems to want to shore up the "I want a sniveling, egotistical creep as president" demographic, but it's hard to see how that translates beyond...whoever likes him. - Rubio seems like off-brand Republican breakfast cereal. That may have played in 2008, but either embrace the crazy or get out in today's GOP. - Paul, similar to Fiorina, is someone I don't agree with, but at least they are actually talking about policy things they believe matter. - Kasich thought he was running for President. This is the Republican primary, cooperation and not going it alone comes across as "I will install armed United Nations agents in every living room to enforce political correctness." - Walker is really proud that he didn't let protesters change his mind. That's all I've really gotten out of him the last two debates. - Christie has the appeal of warm milk that's been sitting on the counter since 9/11 - Huckabee just keeping his name out there for future media opportunities. All in all I'd say it was a pretty great episode of Monday Night Raw Carly lied up and down last night. Your Christie line is hilarious!
|
|
SaxaCD
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,401
|
Post by SaxaCD on Sept 17, 2015 22:24:57 GMT -5
The $70 billion comes from a FTT he plans to impose on stock and derivative trades, which could raise somewhere in the range of $135B a year. 1. So it will still cost $70B. 2. Raising taxes to the tune of $135B a year is good? 3. "Could raise somewhere in the range of..." That sounds solid. My guess is a tax of that nature might alter the behavior of those who make such trades. I'm horrified that you wouldn't trust Obama on matters of fiscal responsibility. I sense some hidden racism there somewhere. And treason, too!
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Sept 17, 2015 23:11:40 GMT -5
Quick thoughts on the debate: - Goodbye Trump. Maybe not immediately, but I think he finally crossed the line of being taken seriously, and it looked really bad. Once half the debate is cringing in embarrassment for you, it's hard to recover. Also it looked wonderful telling a high-power female CEO she's beautiful (to make up for your earlier insult) and constantly trying to high-five the black neurosurgeon next to you. - Fiorina kind of seems like she takes charisma lessons from satan, but she dominated that whole thing. It actually felt like she was cheating when she first started referencing policy and past because everyone else was happy to hide behind platitudes. Granted, she seems to have some insane ideas and issues with the truth, but that's not unique to her up there. She seems to be the only adult up there, running on something besides 'I want to be president.' - Bush still hasn't figured a way to convert all that money into anyone caring. Aw shucks yeah my family keeps messing up the world and I hired the same advisers, but everyone else is using them too so what's the diff?! - Carson seems so calm that his ideas (when he actually has any besides "we'll figure it out") don't come across as insane as they are. - Cruz really seems to want to shore up the "I want a sniveling, egotistical creep as president" demographic, but it's hard to see how that translates beyond...whoever likes him. - Rubio seems like off-brand Republican breakfast cereal. That may have played in 2008, but either embrace the crazy or get out in today's GOP. - Paul, similar to Fiorina, is someone I don't agree with, but at least they are actually talking about policy things they believe matter. - Kasich thought he was running for President. This is the Republican primary, cooperation and not going it alone comes across as "I will install armed United Nations agents in every living room to enforce political correctness." - Walker is really proud that he didn't let protesters change his mind. That's all I've really gotten out of him the last two debates. - Christie has the appeal of warm milk that's been sitting on the counter since 9/11 - Huckabee just keeping his name out there for future media opportunities. All in all I'd say it was a pretty great episode of Monday Night Raw Carly lied up and down last night. Your Christie line is hilarious! I'm shocked -- SHOCKED -- that you didn't like any Republican candidate.
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Sept 18, 2015 6:34:14 GMT -5
What is meant by "the education they need" and the "education they deserve"? ::Sigh:: How do you not know this already? After your chosen college or university kills the recently-deformed and murderously psychotic Harvey Dent, the college or university has to go on the run. And we will chase it. Because it's the education we deserve, but not the one we need right now.
|
|