Surely you don't think people should be allowed to steal from the poor so they can be rich? Imagine if the propaganda you speak of were that you haven't been robbed and you believed it.
Texashiker
Lifer
- Dec 18, 2010
- 18,811
- 198
- 106
Stealing from the poor? WTF are you talking about
There is some stuff going around saying everyone should support a 70% tax on the rich. One is a meme that says something like, "Do you make 10 million a year? Then you should support the 70% tax."
That is an example of a democracy. Chances are the vast majority of the people are going o support a tax on the rich, because they are not rich. They are going to use their collective vote to tax a certain demographic.
Once the government spends the 70% they will be to more revenue sources. Then everyone making 1 million gets taxed at 70% Then everyone making $100,000. Eventually we reach the majority, who will refuse to raise their own taxes.
So if the majority refuses to raise their own taxes, why are they so eager to raise taxes on everyone else?
How much did Bernie pay in taxes? I do not remember the exact amount, but his tax rate was pretty low.
Elizabeth Warren, what is her tax proposal? I am pretty she is not going to tax herself at 70%.
If people like Bernie want to tax everyone else, he should first set the example and go first.
We should not tax anyone to pay for other peoples stuff. Whether it is mortgage interest write offs, state and local taxes... etc, stop taxing people to pay for other peoples stuff.
Should we offer free college? Of course we should. But it should not be paid for by taxing a certain demographic.
For example, tax Exxon to pay for engineers to go to college.
Tired of typing.
While nuclear isn't a short term solution for us (isn't a serious viable fix for our current and impending climate change problems, although it could help but it won't be allowed to as its too costly and no one wants it near them) it is absolutely necessary for humanity's long term survival in the universe. There's absolutely issues with it, but we will need it. Should there be a catastrophic volcanic eruption, meteor strike, or other event that causes us to not get adequate sunlight for an extended period of time to grow food, nuclear is about the only technology that could feasibly meet our energy needs that wouldn't exacerbate the problem those situations caused. And if we want to venture to space, nuclear is very likely the only viable long term energy production that could sustain it. And yes, nuclear energy production needs to advance and evolve if it has any hope of meeting even its non-pie in the sky (fusion) potential.
I disagree, some of that is pretty alarming to me. Sure some if it was long ago, and he seems open to changing his stances (a very good thing that should be lauded), he also has a clear trend of thinking before he actually learns about issues, or of starting from a very misplaced origin of the foundations of his knowledge. I think that's true of his general demeanor with regards to policy in general, and why even though I'd agree with his ideas (when properly vetted), I was troubled at how he'd push them out before seeming to have bothered looking to see if that would even do anything about the actual problem. He'd often formulate policy with no plan behind it (that tended to come later, like medicare for all). To me, that's not how you govern. You look at issues thoroughly, then talk with experts and see if there's any small changes that could help short term, while you consider long term changes that are properly informed. His, was basically upheaval and sort it out later, which is an awful lot like Turmp (which is why the Russian propaganda was able to get the Bernie Bros to favor Turmp and a lot of feedback that Bernie appealed to many Turmp supporters too). It just happened that a decent amount of them either had strong support due to success elsewhere (socialized health care), and/or he got people to look into it and formulate solid plans to work towards those ideas. But a good deal of that seems almost to be blind luck.
Nuclear has issues (and most of the ones you cited are true for pretty much every other means of energy production), but its clearly better than fossil fuels and is really the only long term viable "baseline load" providing means of energy production. It needs to improve though, absolutely, and who knows if it will ever live up to its potential (fusion reactors). And renewable energy is both a lot more viable and absolutely should be a key part of energy as well (I'd certainly have no issue if it was the majority and if we can find ways of having it consistently provide 100% of the energy for regions where it is especially effective).
The thing you're not understanding on GMO labeling is the label is essentially "teaching the controversy", where people are trying to push it as an agenda and not based on legitimate science. The GMO issue is more complex than that (the patents and practices of the corporations that push a lot of that stuff like Monsanto fighting that glyphosphate is cancer causing in high exposure like for instance farmers and their families when they live right next to sprayed crops; the good old "banana republic" corporate exploitation of underdeveloped countries; and other stuff, are completely different issues from the validity of GMOs being unhealthy for you), but they've tried to frame it in that way in order to trigger irrational thinking by pushing fear and uncertainty. And because of it, its actually pushing people away from healthier food alternatives because they believe GMO stuff is unhealthy for you. Fresh (or even canned or frozen) GMO produce is far healthier for you than "natural" cookies and cereals and other stuff that can be "all natural GMO free". And there's little to no science showing any difference in health affects of GMO versus non-GMO produce. (Now, the argument that GMOs have enabled excessive crop production, which fueled abundance of cheap highly processed foods, that's a different argument altogether). Like I said, its a complex issue, but a label on food of it being GMO or not has basically nothing to do with it and won't solve anything at all while very probably leading to issues due to misinformation and ignorance. Not that it will matter as just like "HFCS free" "gluten free" and other trendy stupid crap, companies will likely add a sticker or add "non-GMO" to their containers of their own volition. Absolutely no need to force it via regulation.
That stuff has largely been co-opted by the crazed right wingers. They have come to dominate the crazy psuedosicence junk that used to be pushed by the fringe left, and so its getting mainstream appeal with conservatives. They're the ones primarily pushing anti-vaccine junk these days. They're the ones schilling bullshit vitamins and male enhancement crap to their legions of idiots. That stuff still exists as a fringe on the left (and has expanded some just due to the overall popularity, so absolutely it does transcend politics), but the right wingers are pushing it more than anyone these days, which makes sense as it fits the rest of their craziness and rejection and ignorance of legitimate science.
Yeah that's BS. Not totally, but it there was a fad kind of mentality with regards to pseudoscience crap, but it was generally fringe on the left, and these days the right wing has taken it from fad to full on psychosis.
I'm not a huge Bernie fan myself, although I agree with many policies he pushes. Like I mentioned earlier, I'm not a fan of his method of policy making, and this shows he has a long history of rather poor judgement with regards to how he goes about formulating opinions. Its a testament that with time he seems to have gained some wisdom, but he's still operating too much like how he apparently always has. You noticed it in his awareness of black and other minority issues (which I think he did improve on; and many people took it more that he felt economic inequality was the bigger issue but I think simply, he just didn't have a good understanding of issues that blacks were facing - and kinda lucked out that well yeah economics is a big issue they and other minorities face). I guess I could take or leave him, as I'm not wild about many aspects of him, but overall I think he's ok, and he's shown that he will listen and inform himself (and most importantly find people to inform and build his ideas into realistic policy), so I'm not too concerned that he'd start pushing junk science (let along legislate it). I also think he'd absolutely compromise by taking controversial (by that I don't mean what dipshit conservatives find controversial which is everything these days) things he might personally believe and shelving them in exchange for positive overall progress for people as a whole.
I disagree, some of that is pretty alarming to me. Sure some if it was long ago, and he seems open to changing his stances (a very good thing that should be lauded), he also has a clear trend of thinking before he actually learns about issues, or of starting from a very misplaced origin of the foundations of his knowledge. I think that's true of his general demeanor with regards to policy in general, and why even though I'd agree with his ideas (when properly vetted), I was troubled at how he'd push them out before seeming to have bothered looking to see if that would even do anything about the actual problem. He'd often formulate policy with no plan behind it (that tended to come later, like medicare for all). To me, that's not how you govern. You look at issues thoroughly, then talk with experts and see if there's any small changes that could help short term, while you consider long term changes that are properly informed. His, was basically upheaval and sort it out later, which is an awful lot like Turmp (which is why the Russian propaganda was able to get the Bernie Bros to favor Turmp and a lot of feedback that Bernie appealed to many Turmp supporters too). It just happened that a decent amount of them either had strong support due to success elsewhere (socialized health care), and/or he got people to look into it and formulate solid plans to work towards those ideas. But a good deal of that seems almost to be blind luck.
Nuclear has issues (and most of the ones you cited are true for pretty much every other means of energy production), but its clearly better than fossil fuels and is really the only long term viable "baseline load" providing means of energy production. It needs to improve though, absolutely, and who knows if it will ever live up to its potential (fusion reactors). And renewable energy is both a lot more viable and absolutely should be a key part of energy as well (I'd certainly have no issue if it was the majority and if we can find ways of having it consistently provide 100% of the energy for regions where it is especially effective).
The thing you're not understanding on GMO labeling is the label is essentially "teaching the controversy", where people are trying to push it as an agenda and not based on legitimate science. The GMO issue is more complex than that (the patents and practices of the corporations that push a lot of that stuff like Monsanto fighting that glyphosphate is cancer causing in high exposure like for instance farmers and their families when they live right next to sprayed crops; the good old "banana republic" corporate exploitation of underdeveloped countries; and other stuff, are completely different issues from the validity of GMOs being unhealthy for you), but they've tried to frame it in that way in order to trigger irrational thinking by pushing fear and uncertainty. And because of it, its actually pushing people away from healthier food alternatives because they believe GMO stuff is unhealthy for you. Fresh (or even canned or frozen) GMO produce is far healthier for you than "natural" cookies and cereals and other stuff that can be "all natural GMO free". And there's little to no science showing any difference in health affects of GMO versus non-GMO produce. (Now, the argument that GMOs have enabled excessive crop production, which fueled abundance of cheap highly processed foods, that's a different argument altogether). Like I said, its a complex issue, but a label on food of it being GMO or not has basically nothing to do with it and won't solve anything at all while very probably leading to issues due to misinformation and ignorance. Not that it will matter as just like "HFCS free" "gluten free" and other trendy stupid crap, companies will likely add a sticker or add "non-GMO" to their containers of their own volition. Absolutely no need to force it via regulation.
That stuff has largely been co-opted by the crazed right wingers. They have come to dominate the crazy psuedosicence junk that used to be pushed by the fringe left, and so its getting mainstream appeal with conservatives. They're the ones primarily pushing anti-vaccine junk these days. They're the ones schilling bullshit vitamins and male enhancement crap to their legions of idiots. That stuff still exists as a fringe on the left (and has expanded some just due to the overall popularity, so absolutely it does transcend politics), but the right wingers are pushing it more than anyone these days, which makes sense as it fits the rest of their craziness and rejection and ignorance of legitimate science.
Yeah that's BS. Not totally, but it there was a fad kind of mentality with regards to pseudoscience crap, but it was generally fringe on the left, and these days the right wing has taken it from fad to full on psychosis.
I'm not a huge Bernie fan myself, although I agree with many policies he pushes. Like I mentioned earlier, I'm not a fan of his method of policy making, and this shows he has a long history of rather poor judgement with regards to how he goes about formulating opinions. Its a testament that with time he seems to have gained some wisdom, but he's still operating too much like how he apparently always has. You noticed it in his awareness of black and other minority issues (which I think he did improve on; and many people took it more that he felt economic inequality was the bigger issue but I think simply, he just didn't have a good understanding of issues that blacks were facing - and kinda lucked out that well yeah economics is a big issue they and other minorities face). I guess I could take or leave him, as I'm not wild about many aspects of him, but overall I think he's ok, and he's shown that he will listen and inform himself (and most importantly find people to inform and build his ideas into realistic policy), so I'm not too concerned that he'd start pushing junk science (let along legislate it). I also think he'd absolutely compromise by taking controversial (by that I don't mean what dipshit conservatives find controversial which is everything these days) things he might personally believe and shelving them in exchange for positive overall progress for people as a whole.
They're not addressed because nuclear didn't get the consistent gradual evolution that it should have. It got stuck decades in the past, while research focused on pie in the sky stuff (fusion, etc). That changed some and they've been building better reactors, but now it cost so much money just to even consider (and orders of magnitude more to even begin to build and then to finish) and fossil fuels were artificially cheap for so long that it killed nuclear's economic viability a lot. And then renewables have started to do that.
The good news is that I think through extensive simulation, they did find that fusion should be feasible (such that it won't take more energy to start and sustain than it outputs as the situation with it currently is). The bad news is we're nowhere close to making that a reality. Newer reactor types have potential to greatly improve the waste (and meltdown) situation (not eliminate it though like fusion should theoretically be able to), but many of that is still in the research stages (although some of it has been proven in working reactors).
Well without nuclear there's a good likelihood that we won't live to be able to open that tomb, so I'd prefer that over dooming the human race.
I want to applaud you for being open about your knowledge. I'm not going to claim to be an expert or anything, but the general consensus that I've gotten over the years from real scientists is that, yes, nuclear is flawed, but it is still likely the best solution for humankind's long term energy needs. I think there's general optimism about renewables (especially recently), but looking long term, nuclear energy production is still key to long term human survival (and that's ignoring that technically the energy we get via the sun is nuclear energy).
The thing is, if we abandon it we'll doom ourselves as when we'll need it most, we'll have probably lost a lot of the basic knowledge of building and sustaining a simple reactor, let alone the more sophisticated (and safer) kinds that we're really only just starting to develop well enough.
And then of course the massive hump we'll have to overcome to get to fusion. Certainly, we have obstacles and nuclear needs to improve and we need to try and make sure that it is used for good and not weapons. But if we abandon it, it simply won't be able to.
I think its great that is is being discussed and that people have genuine concerns, but I also think those concerns are not entirely up to date.
As I pointed out in my other response, that (the commercial aspect, the accounting issues, lies) is no different from basically any and all energy (and most public and private enterprises) in general, so singling that out seems odd to me. I'm also not entirely sure what you seem to be referencing in regards to that either. Meanwhile I can cite basically every privately operated public energy/utility system as suffering from those issues, let alone situations like Enron, Exxon knowing about climate change, using fossil fuel extraction as an economic weapon, BP oil spill, pollution from and by fossil fuels and related objectively having harmed more people than nuclear. And a good amount of that stuff happens with renewables, and would happen no matter what we used as our energy. We could have some near perfect energy source and it'd still get manipulated and twisted as people broker for power over others.
Thank you for typing. My point may be hard to explain. We don't tax people who make over 10 million at 70 percent, but we used to back in the Golden Days of American economic equality when the whole country was doing better. But then people who had money went to Washington and told us how unfair that is, that they didn't really like being robbed to pay for other people's stuff. So they put out the message and now there are millions and millions of people who have little to nothing except the feeling of dignity that they don't steal. So that is what the fuck I am talking about. They robbed you of government services and gave you a bucket full of useless pride that you're an honest self provider who would never steal. You got robbed and are even happy with the deal.
How many less people do you think would be making 10 million a year to be taxed at 70 percent, leaving them 30% of how many millions over 10 million that would be if say, all of the tug boats in the world ceased to operate because the government couldn't keep the waterways open.
It is the structure of society itself that allows people to amass great wealty. Those who benefit most from it should pay the most to support it so that others can also live better lives. Imagine a world where there were billions of people and only one person had any money. Are you going to say to him, kind and most virtuously industrial Sir, may I have something to eat?
The topic depresses me precisely because I realise I used to be so much better-informed about it than I now am. Not only do I suspect my brain just isn't what it once was - I realise I've long-forgotten most of the maths and science I once knew pretty well - but also the nuclear-power issue has mostly dropped out of the news since the '80s when it was a live controversy. At some point it seems as if everyone stopped arguing about it (more recently of course all issues have been discarded in favour of a monomaniacal preoccupation with Brexit...if they can keep extending the deadline we might become a country that does nothing else but argue over the topic, forever...we will become Brexitland).
I do think, though, that the opaqueness of the accounting, and the secrecy and sneakiness over safety concerns has been a bit more pronounced with nuclear. And that is mainly to do with the links it has inevitably had to the nuclear weapons business.
(One small incident that has always stuck in my mind was how a radiation leak at Sellafield reprocessing plant was officially declared in press-releases to have 'dispersed over the sea'...only much later was it publicly pointed out that they were referring to the North Sea not the Irish Sea, meaning it had first travelled across the breadth of the country).
I remember shifting my attitude to nuclear after Chernobyl. Not to mention the frequent 'incidents' at Sellafield. I also wonder about how long Uranium supplies will last anyway - I've heard it's 200 years _at current levels of consumption_ but presumably far less if we shift to using more nuclear power?
And I am unconvinced fission is a long-term answer to anything, both because of the waste problem and the fact that it's not renewable...but I can see that, given the pressing issue of climate-change, it might be a necessary stop-gap fix before renewables become truly usable (which I guess requires much better battery technology?). Again, it's a complicated technical question, not an ideological one, and I don't know enough to be sure what I think. But I take your point about the argument for maintaining the skill-base for nuclear technology, and continuing to improve that technology, that's another complicating factor.
Fusion is of course a great answer in theory, but famously is eternally 'ten years away'.
Last edited:
Would it be too much trouble if I could get a GMO label on my food so I can avoid buying stuff that can survive growing in Roundup? Help yourself, eat all the Roundup you want, but just allow me to avoid it by accurate labeling?
Brainonska511
Lifer
- Dec 10, 2005
- 29,623
- 15,186
- 136
How does a generic GMO label help you with the that? Different crops can have different genes altered. Not all GMOs are glyphosate-resistant. Some produce BT toxin (something that organic growers spray on their crops), or encode for ringspot virus resistance (e.g., Hawaiian papaya), or could have any number of other commercial- or consumer-beneficial traits.
Two side notes, 1) nothing like treating farmers like they're morons who don't know how to follow label directions on a pesticide or grow their crops; 2) any residue that might remain on your food is orders of magnitude below the safety limits, which are already set an order of magnitude below the level required to cause an effect in the most sensitive animal. You'd have to eat hundreds of pieces of produce in a single sitting to even approach that daily safety limit, let alone the leveled that caused an effect in the most sensitive animal.
Texashiker
Lifer
- Dec 18, 2010
- 18,811
- 198
- 106
For the sake of disscussion let's say people making over 1 million a year were taxed at 70 percent. Forget ten million, let's make it one million. Let's go full blown ISM (socialism, fascism, communism) and tax all the high earners.
Where would the money go?
Education
Personally, I would like to see free higher education for everyone. How many people would take advantage of it? In all honesty, how many people would get a degree in a useful field and become productive members of society?
Too many people have been told to "follow their dreams" and got degrees in fields they will never be able to find gainful employment.
For example, a local teacher has a masters degree in art history. With what she makes as a teacher it would take decades to pay back her student loans. Enter the wealthy grandparents who paid for her education.
Contrast that to a guy I know who went to college on his GI bill and got a degree in diesel mechanics. Straight out of school he went to work for GE making diesel engines for trains and tugboats. Look up EMD Locomotive engines, they put out 3k - 4k horsepower. The tugboats I worked on had those types of engines, He started out making more than twice as much as the teacher, and the teacher had several years of teaching behind her.
Both people spent someone elses money, just one went to where the money was at. In a few years the guy will be making six figures with stock options, while the teacher will be making $34k - $40k a year.
Several years ago I read an article about a lady who was getting either a masters of phd in literature. She had over $100k in student debt, and was only able to find part time work in a museum. I tried finding the article again but can't.
So if we collect all that money and throw it into the education system, what is going to happen to it?
When men came back from WW II and used their GI bill to go to college, a lot of them went into law, engineering, professors, geologist... etc. Those degrees were used to build the interstate highway system, dam projects of the 1960s and 1970s, NASA.... etc.
For the sake of discussion let's say we dump 50,000 mechanical engineers on the market tomorrow, where are they supposed to go to work? Let's say 20,000 chemical engineers.
Will they go to other countries to find work, kinda like what happened when the USSR fell? China has some of the largest construction projects the world has ever seen, such as the Three gorges Dam. While at the same time our bridges and roads are falling apart.
Infrastructure
Rather than sending people to college for free, why not use the money to rebuild our infrastructure? For that we do not need college educated people.
However, we already pay taxes on every gallon of gasoline sold in the United States. Where is that money going?
If we wanted to help end income inequality, why not teach people a skill through construction projects and on the job training? We could probably spend decades rebuilding our highways and bridges. A lot of the places that built sections for bridges during the interstate highway system are no longer around. First we would have to rebuild the steel mills, then ship the steel, build the bridge sections... etc. We are talking decades of work.
For some reason people think throwing money into the education system would fix everything? Not when people would get degrees in art history when we need workers to help build our railroads, bridges, pipelines, and highways.
Tired of typing
dank69
Lifer
- Oct 6, 2009
- 37,616
- 33,335
- 136
I'd love to hear what you think we should replace Democracy with. I'm hoping it isn't the usual tripe about Democracy vs. Republic but I'm 99% certain it is because you don't understand the issue. I'm also 99% certain that your love of Democracy rises and falls depending on how much power liberals have at the moment.
Texashiker
Lifer
- Dec 18, 2010
- 18,811
- 198
- 106
A limited republic, just like what we have now.
For a real democracy to work people would be able to read above an 8th grade level, which is what the average reading level is in the USA.
For a democracy to work, certain groups would need protection from the majority.
Limits would have to be put on spending. Look to our national debt for example.
What happens when uneducated people vote in mass? People like hillary win the popular vote. All hillary had to do was promise certain things to certain groups, and she won the popular vote.
For example, hillary promised equal pay for women, when we already have laws for that. But making false promises helped her win votes from women,
dank69
Lifer
- Oct 6, 2009
- 37,616
- 33,335
- 136
@Texashiker What do you think a world without ‘art and culture’ would look like? Is it in the Humanities departments in colleges that the real mental tools required to keep democracy functioning properly are to be acquired? What do you suppose the expression, ‘Man does not live by bread alone’ means? Where did a so called dumb fuck like you acquire the intellectual skills to easily defeat dank in an argument, at least in my opinion. It looks to me like his brain got a lot more tired a lot quicker than your fingers did.
Are you saying he likes to troll? I have a rule, I just broke, never to do that.
dank and I are prison buddies bonded by breaking rocks out of rage. Maybe we just need longer chains so we can pound more rocks to get a real view of a world turned to dust. In a world of dust there are no more rocks around one’s heart if one has been thorough about the pounding.
PS: I also broke a new rule I am trying to instanciste into conscious awareness. Never start a reply with, ‘ are you saying’. Nobody ever is.
dank69
Lifer
- Oct 6, 2009
- 37,616
- 33,335
- 136
TH is not interested in learning which is why he cut that part out of my post when he quoted me and then said exactly what I said he was going to say. The tripe about democracy vs. republic has been discussed many times here already for anyone interested.
Texashiker
Lifer
- Dec 18, 2010
- 18,811
- 198
- 106
logical fallacy - I never said "life without art or culture." Nice try on twisting my words though.
People get into liberal studies, run up massive college debt, the complain they need socialism to pay their bills. When Bernie was running in 2016 some students were intreviewed who said just that.
Rhetorical question you do not need to answer, what do we need more of, plumbers, or feminist art history degrees?
Some of Bernies ideas are good, but a blanket statement like free college needs to be reigned in. We need more electricians, plumbers, machinest.... and less liberal art majors who can not find a job.
Some decent information here:
https://www.thoughtco.com/republic-vs-democracy-4169936
The problem in a two party system in a Republic style democracy seems to be that because of the cost to run and be elected requires huge sums of money rather than a reputation of virtue it once had, the philosophy favoring the rich becomes embedded in law. Corporations are people and money is speech? You have got to be kidding...........
Texashiker
Lifer
- Dec 18, 2010
- 18,811
- 198
- 106
You want to see what a democracy looks like? Read through this thread - https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/measles-outbreak-in-washington-state.2560662/
Example of the majority taking rights away from the minority.
dank69
Lifer
- Oct 6, 2009
- 37,616
- 33,335
- 136
I know, I know. All those people lost their freedom to not have their kids and other loved ones killed by other people's stupidity. Hopefully the leaders correct that situation.
Oh wait, that's an example of the minority taking away the rights of the majority, which for some reason you think is preferable.
Or we need more jobs for art historians. Also I think the minute we have a surplus of plumbers electricians and machinists, you will need a PhD in those fields to get a license. If you don't know what makes life worth living, if your understanding of happiness and joy are missing, if you lack real wisdom, your system of values get screwed up. A utilitarian understanding of life at it's foundation is appropriate and meaningful, but there is more to a rich and meaningful life than having pipes that work. If you live in a world of outhouses you may dream of plumbing as the highest good, but when you have that you may find other things for which to hope.
Liberal ideas and thinking can only exist when the human being is free of want and fear. Conservatism is a fear that what little one conceives one's self as having will be taken away. For you, it seems, it's your fear of being kept from getting rich. This fear can easily be played. Liberal thinking can free you of that fear but you no doubt have seen how it's not so easy to reason with people in a state of fear. Ever see a kid, a kid from the city especially, freak out at the sight of a chicken? I still have a scar on my ankle jumping a barbed wire fence when a young steer in the field I was in started to frisk.
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,522
- 20,161
- 146
Let me draw you a picture of how absurd it is to label harmless things for irrational fears:
Texashiker
Lifer
- Dec 18, 2010
- 18,811
- 198
- 106
To quote a feminist, their body, their choice.
I very much subscribe to Maslow's Hierarchy. However, just because someone is "free from want or fear" does not mean they will obtain higher thought, or appreciate the arts.
Let's say Bernie gets his free higher education, which I hope so. Some people, being the lazy creatures they are, will gravitate towards easy degrees.
A great number of people who qualify for welfare also quailify for free college. Yet we have families who have been on welfare for generations.
If nothing else, I hope Bernie stirs the progressive pot and get some of the GOP onboard.
dank69
Lifer
- Oct 6, 2009
- 37,616
- 33,335
- 136
If you think that is comparable then why do you support one and oppose the other?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter