First democrat debate

[realibrad]

Dude, you are trying to prove you aren't a conservative...do you think posts where you criticize Ronnie for not being conservative enough accomplishes that goal?

Your premise seems to be that because he has some ideas that you label as conservative he is a conservative. Could it not be that he is an I because he holds both?

Are you trying to find the True Scotsman?

 

[dank69]

Your premise seems to be that because he has some ideas that you label as conservative he is a conservative. Could it not be that he is an I because he holds both?

Are you trying to find the True Scotsman?

I'm saying that if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

 

[Svnla]

Dude, you are trying to prove you aren't a conservative...do you think posts where you criticize Ronnie for not being conservative enough accomplishes that goal?

I criticized Reagan several times because that HUGE amnesty was wrong as I criticized liberals/Democrats when they did wrong. You were the one that labeled me as "conservative". I posted several posts per your request and specs and now those were about "not being conservative enough" so they would not count? Seriously?

Your premise seems to be that because he has some ideas that you label as conservative he is a conservative. Could it not be that he is an I because he holds both?

Are you trying to find the True Scotsman?

No kidding. When I posted my cricitals about Democrats AND Republicans, he said only posts about Republicans/conservatives and now those were not good enough because they were only about "not conservative enough". Darn if you do and darn if you don't. LOL.

Well, I had been labeled as an old and angry white dude that live in a broken down trailer in the deep South, hate all minorities, able to send nasty private messages that never exist. LOL @ some of the assumptions from posters in this site about me. Hint, several members in this site met me in person at an ATOT meet and those labels are so far from the truth.

 

[dank69]

I criticized Reagan several times because that HUGE amnesty was wrong as I criticized liberals/Democrats when they did wrong. You were the one that labeled me as "conservative". I posted several posts per your request and specs and now those were about "not being conservative enough" so they would not count? Seriously?

Yes, seriously.

I guess if I say Obama should have implemented Universal Healthcare instead of the ACA that would be evidence that I'm not a liberal?

 

[Genx87]

I actually liked what Sanders mostly had to say. He got a little over the top on Climate change. But really enjoyed him smacking down O Malley on sensible gun control laws. I also liked Jim Webb quite a bit. Felt he understood most of the issue pretty well. Clinton was loathsome worthy. O'Malley felt like he wasnt very deep on the issues. Just a bunch of talking points. The old guy on the right comes off as a nice guy. But he didnt really leave an impression with me. Obviously as I cant even remember his name nor be bothered to look it up.

I could actually vote for Webb or Sanders. Which is more than I can say about any of the other jackoffs running including every Republican minus Rand Paul.

 

[realibrad]

I actually liked what Sanders mostly had to say. He got a little over the top on Climate change. But really enjoyed him smacking down O Malley on sensible gun control laws. I also liked Jim Webb quite a bit. Felt he understood most of the issue pretty well. Clinton was loathsome worthy. O'Malley felt like he wasnt very deep on the issues. Just a bunch of talking points. The old guy on the right comes off as a nice guy. But he didnt really leave an impression with me. Obviously as I cant even remember his name nor be bothered to look it up.

I could actually vote for Webb or Sanders. Which is more than I can say about any of the other jackoffs running including every Republican minus Rand Paul.

Rand Paul is meh. He is selling out to get the republican vote. He says he is a Libertarian but then pushes for things like anti gay marriage bills. I don't see anything good from the Rs right now.

 

[AznAnarchy99]

I actually liked what Sanders mostly had to say. He got a little over the top on Climate change. But really enjoyed him smacking down O Malley on sensible gun control laws. I also liked Jim Webb quite a bit. Felt he understood most of the issue pretty well. Clinton was loathsome worthy. O'Malley felt like he wasnt very deep on the issues. Just a bunch of talking points. The old guy on the right comes off as a nice guy. But he didnt really leave an impression with me. Obviously as I cant even remember his name nor be bothered to look it up.

I could actually vote for Webb or Sanders. Which is more than I can say about any of the other jackoffs running including every Republican minus Rand Paul.

How could you forget about this.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/lincoln-chafee-awkward_561dcec2e4b028dd7ea5b5fa

 

[Ausm]

Anyone else notice how much more civilized this debate was than the republican freak shows.

It's great T.V. tho watching the implosion of the GOP.

 

[Ausm]

If you watch both the Republican and Democratic debate back to back and still vote for the R's.....LMAO.

 

[MongGrel]

It's great T.V. tho watching the implosion of the GOP.

Watching the GOP is to much like watching an episode of Honey Boo Boo.

I think I did that once, for about 10 seconds.

 

[MongGrel]

Well, I had been labeled as an old and angry white dude that live in a broken down trailer in the deep South, hate all minorities, able to send nasty private messages that never exist. LOL @ some of the assumptions from posters in this site about me. Hint, several members in this site met me in person at an ATOT meet and those labels are so far from the truth.

I'm a angry old white dude that lives south myself.

Sometime people just call the like they see them, even if Dank wasn't referring to you at the time.

I'm saying that if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

 

[dank69]

I'm a angry old white dude that lives south myself.

Sometime people just call the like they see them, even if Dank wasn't referring to you at the time.

I'm pretty sure Svnla is Asian. Korean maybe?

 

[MongGrel]

I'm pretty sure Svnla is Asian. Korean maybe?

Had never really dwelled on it really, I suppose.

No need to I guess.

I personally try not to stereotype people one way or another on here, believe it or not.

 

[Svnla]

Yes, seriously.

I guess if I say Obama should have implemented Universal Healthcare instead of the ACA that would be evidence that I'm not a liberal?

In your OWN words

pull up 5 posts of yours criticizing only conservatives or Republicans

That's it. No other qualification or requirement. Just posts that be critical of Republicans/conservatives ONLY and not just D and/or R.

I did post several posts of mine that were critical of Republicans/conservatives only. You can't accept the facts. Unless you have something new to say, this matter is closed. Let the readers be the judges.

I'm a angry old white dude that lives south myself.

Sometime people just call the like they see them, even if Dank wasn't referring to you at the time.

The only thing matters to me is the fact/truth. Labels/name callings/assumptions are just opinion and not factual. A bit funny sometime.

 

[dank69]

In your OWN words



That's it. No other qualification or requirement. Just posts that be critical of Republicans/conservatives ONLY and not just D and/or R.

I did post several posts of mine that were critical of Republicans/conservatives only. You can't accept the facts. Unless you have something new to say, this matter is closed. Let the readers be the judges.



...

You are ignoring the whole reason I asked. I accused you of being a conservative. You said you weren't. I asked for those posts to support your claim that you are an independent and not a conservative. The posts you dug up support my claim that you are a conservative. In those posts you are criticizing the GOP (mostly Reagan) for not being conservative enough. Those are not the posts of a person who is independent. They are the posts of a person who is significantly more conservative than Reagan.

 

[fleshconsumed]

Using your hypothetical scenario, that still leaves 4 years to make $27000. Between work-study offers, summer jobs, and internships, I don't see that as unaffordable. That doesn't even take into consideration that you're only counting subsidized loans and neglecting the existence of unsubsidized loans, which will cover even more of the difference.

Are you trying to purposefully be that daft? Looks like yes, I was actually wrong on the loans amount. If you include unsubsidized Stafford loans the total limit for the first 4 years is 27K. However, I also underestimated tuition rates, so lets recalculate.

Base tuition at University of Illinois for four years is 48K. It's a lot higher if you take engineering degree by the way, 17K a year for resident or 68K for 4 years. That does not include fees, books, food, transportation and living expenses. The campus fees are actually ~$3600, although ~$600 of those are health insurance that can be waived if the student is on parents insurance. So that's $15K a year at minimum. Plus another $1K a year for books, plus another $2K for food (if the student is frugal, lives on rice and beans, does not eat out, or socialize with other students at all). That's $18K a year for base or $23K a year for engineering student and these amounts DO NOT include transportation or living expenses. If the student is lucky and can commute from his parents home to the college he'll only spend another $1K a year on gas and or metra/bus tickets. If he's unlucky and he comes from rural illinois, he'll have to rent and that's going to be $500/month or about $5000 a year.

Bottom line is the total cost for a 4 year degree from University of Illinois ranges from $76K for a non-engineering degree if the student can live with his parents to a whooping $112k for an engineering degree if the student has to rent a room for 10 months of the year.

Subtracting $27K a given student can take out in Stafford loans for the duration of the 4 year degree, this leaves him having to bring to the table anywhere from $49K for a "basic" read social science degree to $85K for Engineering degree. And remember, that's ON TOP of the Stafford loans.

So please, tell us how that's not "unaffordable"? You can cite anecdotal evidence or fringe cases where students luck out with grants all you want, those are in the minority. Most students will not be that lucky.

AFAIK, the top private and Ivy League schools will pretty much give you a free ride if you can get accepted and if you have financial issues. Example.

Yes, they'll give full rider to exceptionally bright students, I already said that in my previous post. However, what about bright but not exceptionally bright students from middle class who can't get a full rider? Those students are shut out of Ivy League schools because they can't pay tuition and a kid from wealthy family can. How is it good for society when an average student with money gets accepted because he can pay tuition, but a bright student from middle class has to settle for second tier school because his family doesn't have the money? That is incredibly inefficient and bad strategy in general. Best and brightest minds should go to the best schools, money and family connections should not be a factor there.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I could just as easily say that Chicago is an overpriced shithole and that you're cherry-picking as much as me. Many students begin their first two years at a community college and transfer up at a later point. Scholarships and grants aren't nearly as rare as you seem to imply, and I did the legwork of using U of I's financial aid estimator, using a family with average income in Chicago (about $43,000/yr apparently), average sized family of 4, with one child attending college.

Looks like between that, loans, and a temporary job, covering it shouldn't be an issue. Per the main header on their site, nearly three quarters of students receive financial aid, and considering that it's still a fairly prestigious school where wealthier families would not be ashamed to send their children (and therefore not receive aid), I think it checks out.

Now, you do your part and show me specific numbers detailing the supposed-many students that cannot attend or have to drop out of a public university.