Sanders just submitted college for all bill.

[Ringel05]

Heck if one looks at the job market, required Bachelor degrees are the new high school diplomas and have been for quite a while, especially with government jobs. Given that, while I'm not necessarily for or against it, it makes sense to provide schooling up through the first four years of college.

No, it doesn't.

Depends on one's perspective, don't it.........

No.

......I bet you even walk on water.........

You can too, if it's cold enough.

I don't have to wait for it to freeze...... I know where the stones are......... just under the surface.........

 

[Unkotare]

No, it doesn't.

Depends on one's perspective, don't it.........

No.

......I bet you even walk on water.........

You can too, if it's cold enough.

I don't have to wait for it to freeze...... I know where the stones are......... just under the surface.........

That's your problem, no stones.

 

[Conservative65]

"College for all" is the education equivalent of printing money to make everyone a millionaire.

Just sayin'.

Is that what "High School for all"is?

We want people to be able to read and function in society. That's not what college is designed to do.

 

[Ringel05]

Depends on one's perspective, don't it.........

No.

......I bet you even walk on water.........

You can too, if it's cold enough.

I don't have to wait for it to freeze...... I know where the stones are......... just under the surface.........

That's your problem, no stones.

Oh they're there, but now I have to strap the damn things to my knees, in ten years they might reach my ankles........

 

[Conservative65]

Government says you have to be insured. That is not running healthcare
You have a choice of where you get insurance, your doctors, pharmacy

That is not running healthcare

When the government says you have to buy a product you don't want to buy, it's control. When the government can tell you the policy you have you no longer can buy because it doesn't meet standards set by the GOVERNMENT, it's control.

You say all the GOVERNMENT regulations on what has to be a part of it isn't control yet putting restrictions on abortion is controlling a woman's body. Can't work both ways except when Liberals are involved.

Government says YOU are responsible for being covered. It means we are tired of bailing out your ass when you can't pay your medical bills.

It is called personal responsibility

When the government makes the rules about what the coverage must include, it's control.

I'm tired of bailing out those who aren't responsible, too. Your answer is to involved the government, as usual. Mine is don't bail them out. If they aren't responsible enough to do what they should be doing, let them go without.

Government makes rules on how fast you can drive, how you build your house and how you can raise your kids

It's part of belonging to a civilized society

You both suck at negotiating the social contract.

The social contract doesn't involve those of us who provide for ourselves being forced to provide for those who think it's owed to them.

 

[Conservative65]

Yet you support Obamacare. If you say that isn't the government running healthcare, you're a retard.

Government says you have to be insured. That is not running healthcare
You have a choice of where you get insurance, your doctors, pharmacy

That is not running healthcare

When the government says you have to buy a product you don't want to buy, it's control. When the government can tell you the policy you have you no longer can buy because it doesn't meet standards set by the GOVERNMENT, it's control.

You say all the GOVERNMENT regulations on what has to be a part of it isn't control yet putting restrictions on abortion is controlling a woman's body. Can't work both ways except when Liberals are involved.

Government says YOU are responsible for being covered. It means we are tired of bailing out your ass when you can't pay your medical bills.

It is called personal responsibility

When the government makes the rules about what the coverage must include, it's control.

I'm tired of bailing out those who aren't responsible, too. Your answer is to involved the government, as usual. Mine is don't bail them out. If they aren't responsible enough to do what they should be doing, let them go without.

Government makes rules on how fast you can drive, how you build your house and how you can raise your kids

It's part of belonging to a civilized society

It's part of the government controlling. That they've convinced you about the society part shows you're willing to grab your ankles and take it in the ass from them. Not surprised.

 

[rightwinger]

"College for all" is the education equivalent of printing money to make everyone a millionaire.

Just sayin'.

Is that what "High School for all"is?

We want people to be able to read and function in society. That's not what college is designed to do.

Typical conservative stuck in the 19th century

 

[Conservative65]

"College for all" is the education equivalent of printing money to make everyone a millionaire.

Just sayin'.

Is that what "High School for all"is?

We want people to be able to read and function in society. That's not what college is designed to do.

Typical conservative stuck in the 19th century

That you thing someone who didn't create a child is more responsible for that child's education than the one who did is the typical Liberal mentality. It matters not what century.

If the little bastard's own parents won't do for him/her, it's not my place to do for him/her. I thought you believed in personal responsibility. Guess not since you support someone other than the kid's parents being responsible for funding their education.

 

[rightwinger]

"College for all" is the education equivalent of printing money to make everyone a millionaire.

Just sayin'.

Is that what "High School for all"is?

We want people to be able to read and function in society. That's not what college is designed to do.

Typical conservative stuck in the 19th century

That you thing someone who didn't create a child is more responsible for that child's education than the one who did is the typical Liberal mentality. It matters not what century.

If the little bastard's own parents won't do for him/her, it's not my place to do for him/her. I thought you believed in personal responsibility. Guess not since you support someone other than the kid's parents being responsible for funding their education.

Not worth arguing with an anarchist

 

[Conservative65]

"College for all" is the education equivalent of printing money to make everyone a millionaire.

Just sayin'.

Is that what "High School for all"is?

We want people to be able to read and function in society. That's not what college is designed to do.

Typical conservative stuck in the 19th century

That you thing someone who didn't create a child is more responsible for that child's education than the one who did is the typical Liberal mentality. It matters not what century.

If the little bastard's own parents won't do for him/her, it's not my place to do for him/her. I thought you believed in personal responsibility. Guess not since you support someone other than the kid's parents being responsible for funding their education.

Not worth arguing with an anarchist

Not thinking that it's the government's place to tell me to do for a kid what their own parents won't do for them doesn't make me an anarchist. It makes me pragmatic.

Educating you is like trying to educate a communist. It's impossible.

 

[Unkotare]

When the government says you have to buy a product you don't want to buy, it's control. When the government can tell you the policy you have you no longer can buy because it doesn't meet standards set by the GOVERNMENT, it's control.

You say all the GOVERNMENT regulations on what has to be a part of it isn't control yet putting restrictions on abortion is controlling a woman's body. Can't work both ways except when Liberals are involved.

Government says YOU are responsible for being covered. It means we are tired of bailing out your ass when you can't pay your medical bills.

It is called personal responsibility

When the government makes the rules about what the coverage must include, it's control.

I'm tired of bailing out those who aren't responsible, too. Your answer is to involved the government, as usual. Mine is don't bail them out. If they aren't responsible enough to do what they should be doing, let them go without.

Government makes rules on how fast you can drive, how you build your house and how you can raise your kids

It's part of belonging to a civilized society

You both suck at negotiating the social contract.

The social contract doesn't involve those of us who provide for ourselves being forced to provide for those who think it's owed to them.

It does. Unfortunately so sometimes, but it does.

 

[Arianrhod]

When it comes to fire protection, EVERYONE pays for the protection EVERYONE gets.

Really? So much for your "Welfare queen" premise, then, huh?

 

[Conservative65]

When it comes to fire protection, EVERYONE pays for the protection EVERYONE gets.

Really? So much for your "Welfare queen" premise, then, huh?

Not hardly. The welfare queen still gets many things for which she doesn't pay and comes from the pot to which she doesn't contribute.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Same logic applies to second grade

Now think about that for a second.


....

Apparently he thinks the purpose behind learning the second grade is the same as for college. With some of those that get in college now requiring remedial classes, I can see where he would make that mistake.

The principle is the same....why should you pay for educating someone else's kid?

Not when the purpose of each isn't the same.

I shouldn't pay to educate someone else's kid. I'm not the one that produced someone else's kids. That, alone, means it's not my place to do a damn thing for them. NOTHING.

You take the point too far. 'Free' college is a very bad idea, but if your house was burning down you'd want the fire department to come. Why should your neighbors pay to save your house?

Because keeping the fire department ready and operating at all times benefits them if it's THEIR house that catches fire instead. Also, the fire in my house quite possibly might spread to theirs.

Now tell me what direct benefit I get from educating someone else's kid.

 

[Conservative65]

Now think about that for a second.


....

Apparently he thinks the purpose behind learning the second grade is the same as for college. With some of those that get in college now requiring remedial classes, I can see where he would make that mistake.

The principle is the same....why should you pay for educating someone else's kid?

Not when the purpose of each isn't the same.

I shouldn't pay to educate someone else's kid. I'm not the one that produced someone else's kids. That, alone, means it's not my place to do a damn thing for them. NOTHING.

You take the point too far. 'Free' college is a very bad idea, but if your house was burning down you'd want the fire department to come. Why should your neighbors pay to save your house?

Because keeping the fire department ready and operating at all times benefits them if it's THEIR house that catches fire instead. Also, the fire in my house quite possibly might spread to theirs.

Now tell me what direct benefit I get from educating someone else's kid.

They won't tell you a direct benefit. They'll speculate that it will mean someone will get a better job and then pay taxes. There's no proof to that claim but they will claim it.

As far as your concern about your house catching if fire starts in another one, that is true. While I don't know your living situation and won't speculate, the way some houses are built so close together today, if the fire department has a working fire at one, they easily have a working fire in at least one more.

 

[Arianrhod]

When it comes to fire protection, EVERYONE pays for the protection EVERYONE gets.

Really? So much for your "Welfare queen" premise, then, huh?

Not hardly. The welfare queen still gets many things for which she doesn't pay and comes from the pot to which she doesn't contribute.

So is it EVERYONE who pays for fire protection or not?

 

[Conservative65]

When it comes to fire protection, EVERYONE pays for the protection EVERYONE gets.

Really? So much for your "Welfare queen" premise, then, huh?

Not hardly. The welfare queen still gets many things for which she doesn't pay and comes from the pot to which she doesn't contribute.

So is it EVERYONE who pays for fire protection or not?

But not everyone provides all sorts of other things.

Another disingenuous post by another Liberal asshole. When those baby mamas quit producing bastards they can't feed and expect the rest of us to do for them, I'll quit calling them welfare queens.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Apparently he thinks the purpose behind learning the second grade is the same as for college. With some of those that get in college now requiring remedial classes, I can see where he would make that mistake.

The principle is the same....why should you pay for educating someone else's kid?

Not when the purpose of each isn't the same.

I shouldn't pay to educate someone else's kid. I'm not the one that produced someone else's kids. That, alone, means it's not my place to do a damn thing for them. NOTHING.

You take the point too far. 'Free' college is a very bad idea, but if your house was burning down you'd want the fire department to come. Why should your neighbors pay to save your house?

Because keeping the fire department ready and operating at all times benefits them if it's THEIR house that catches fire instead. Also, the fire in my house quite possibly might spread to theirs.

Now tell me what direct benefit I get from educating someone else's kid.

They won't tell you a direct benefit. They'll speculate that it will mean someone will get a better job and then pay taxes. There's no proof to that claim but they will claim it.

As far as your concern about your house catching if fire starts in another one, that is true. While I don't know your living situation and won't speculate, the way some houses are built so close together today, if the fire department has a working fire at one, they easily have a working fire in at least one more.

In southern Arizona, it's largely a factor of how incredibly dry it is here nearly all year. All it takes for a fire to spread is a few sparks blowing around. It's why fireworks and trash-burning are so heavily regulated here. We've even had years when the official city fireworks display on the 4th of July was canceled because the fire hazard rating was so high. The fire department pretty routinely details someone to spray down the roofs of the neighboring houses in a fire to make sure they don't catch a flaming cinder.

 

[Unkotare]

Now think about that for a second.


....

Apparently he thinks the purpose behind learning the second grade is the same as for college. With some of those that get in college now requiring remedial classes, I can see where he would make that mistake.

The principle is the same....why should you pay for educating someone else's kid?

Not when the purpose of each isn't the same.

I shouldn't pay to educate someone else's kid. I'm not the one that produced someone else's kids. That, alone, means it's not my place to do a damn thing for them. NOTHING.

You take the point too far. 'Free' college is a very bad idea, but if your house was burning down you'd want the fire department to come. Why should your neighbors pay to save your house?

Because keeping the fire department ready and operating at all times benefits them if it's THEIR house that catches fire instead. Also, the fire in my house quite possibly might spread to theirs.

Now tell me what direct benefit I get from educating someone else's kid.

You really can't work this one out for yourself?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Apparently he thinks the purpose behind learning the second grade is the same as for college. With some of those that get in college now requiring remedial classes, I can see where he would make that mistake.

The principle is the same....why should you pay for educating someone else's kid?

Not when the purpose of each isn't the same.

I shouldn't pay to educate someone else's kid. I'm not the one that produced someone else's kids. That, alone, means it's not my place to do a damn thing for them. NOTHING.

You take the point too far. 'Free' college is a very bad idea, but if your house was burning down you'd want the fire department to come. Why should your neighbors pay to save your house?

Because keeping the fire department ready and operating at all times benefits them if it's THEIR house that catches fire instead. Also, the fire in my house quite possibly might spread to theirs.

Now tell me what direct benefit I get from educating someone else's kid.

You really can't work this one out for yourself?

The direct benefit to me of total strangers sitting in "Perspectives in Pop Culture" classes on my dime?

No, I'm really going to need some help here.