Higher Education Bill in Congress - PASSED

[Si modo]

Give us a cite that supports your opinion, si modo.

What an idiotic troll you are (the link is underlined and in blue)

No, Dogbert - one's intelligence is not established at university. It follows a normal distribution even from childhood (General Intelligence Factor). And, there IS grade inflation already at the university level. It's bad. (Just one of several articles on it)

Do try to keep up.

 

[The T]

Bingo. By this reckoning? Most college students aren't getting what they paid for.

Most students are getting exactly what they paid for. America has the strongest science and engineering programs in the world, and these programs still attract the brightest students from around the world. Those educated in American schools of science and engineering are in demand across the globe.

If a student chooses to focus his studies on the humanities, he knows exactly what he is sacrificing.

They do?

U.S. students behind in math, science, analysis says <CNN


WE may have strong science/Engineering programs...but who are getting into them?

And I think you MISSED my point.

Down to Brass tacks? The FED does NOT belong in this arena as it exists.

BACK to TOPIC.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Stats about Christian schools or universities have nothing to do with the actual subject at hand. It is merely a deflected attempt by those that believe in federal government funding and oversight.

 

[eagleseven]

Center for Education Reform - K-12 Facts

7,740 Catholic schools teach evolution to 2.4 million students every year...ensuring that the next generation of Catholics have a solid understanding of modern science and evolution.

Your point is?

That's like going to a GOP rally to learn about Liberalism.

Congratulations! You've made the most ignorant statement of the day!

What part of "Catholics support evolution" don't you understand? The Church, through its universities, hires professional evolutionary biologists, with PhDs, to further our understanding of human evolution.

Am I not writing in English?

 

[Si modo]

Stats about Christian schools or universities have nothing to do with the actual subject at hand. It is merely a deflected attempt by those that believe in federal government funding and oversight.

Too true (but I think you give the deflectors too much credit for having an actual plan of deflection).

Again, I have no issue with federal loans at all, as long as they are based on merit alone and NOT available to anyone who applies. Which does not seem to be the case, at first glance.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Stats about Christian schools or universities have nothing to do with the actual subject at hand. It is merely a deflected attempt by those that believe in federal government funding and oversight.

Too true (but I think you give the deflectors too much credit for having an actual plan of deflection).

Again, I have no issue with federal loans at all, as long as they are based on merit alone and NOT available to anyone who applies. Which does not seem to be the case, at first glance.

In my opinion, the federal government has no business handing our loans. That is what banks and other private entities are for. Federal student loans cannot be supported by the Constitution, in my opinion.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Give us a cite that supports your opinion, si modo.

What an idiotic troll you are (the link is underlined and in blue)

No, Dogbert - one's intelligence is not established at university. It follows a normal distribution even from childhood (General Intelligence Factor). And, there IS grade inflation already at the university level. It's bad. (Just one of several articles on it)

Do try to keep up.

You are applying the term "troll" incorrectly to me, but, hey, that's OK. Here is a very good definition of internet trolling: Definition of Internet Troll. You will want T and Dude to look up "hegemony".

Got to go for the evening. Good night.

 

[The T]

Give us a cite that supports your opinion, si modo.

What an idiotic troll you are (the link is underlined and in blue)

No, Dogbert - one's intelligence is not established at university. It follows a normal distribution even from childhood (General Intelligence Factor). And, there IS grade inflation already at the university level. It's bad. (Just one of several articles on it)

Do try to keep up.

You are applying the term "troll" incorrectly to me, but, hey, that's OK. Here is a very good definition of internet trolling: Definition of Internet Troll. You will want T and Dude to look up "hegemony".

Got to go for the evening. Good night.

Jake? You've been had before YOU ever got here. Good night indeed. si mondo pw3ned yer ass. Get over it and sleep it off.

 

[Si modo]

Stats about Christian schools or universities have nothing to do with the actual subject at hand. It is merely a deflected attempt by those that believe in federal government funding and oversight.

Too true (but I think you give the deflectors too much credit for having an actual plan of deflection).

Again, I have no issue with federal loans at all, as long as they are based on merit alone and NOT available to anyone who applies. Which does not seem to be the case, at first glance.

In my opinion, the federal government has no business handing our loans. That is what banks and other private entities are for. Federal student loans cannot be supported by the Constitution, in my opinion.

That's a good point, however I think some of those ideological differences we were discussing yesterday may manifest right now.

As I believe it is in the best interest of the country to have the most educated citizenry as is possible (not to all because that is just not possible considering distribution of traits), I take on almost a commie approach to this. Personally, I would like to see anyone who is bright not only get that good education, but get it for free (too much to ask for, so I'll take the loans); but I want a strict triage of who gets in based on merit alone...period. Poor? Doesn't matter as long as you are bright. Rich? Doesn't matter as long as you are bright. It is in our national security interests to have as many as highly educated as possible, especially in the sciences and applied sciences.

But, if it's not done right, it can seriously fuck up a lot - quality of education, budget, agency regulation f-ups, etc.

Pretty radical, eh?

 

[The T]

Center for Education Reform - K-12 Facts

7,740 Catholic schools teach evolution to 2.4 million students every year...ensuring that the next generation of Catholics have a solid understanding of modern science and evolution.

Your point is?

That's like going to a GOP rally to learn about Liberalism.

Congratulations! You've made the most ignorant statement of the day!

What part of "Catholics support evolution" don't you understand? The Church, through its universities, hires professional evolutionary biologists, with PhDs, to further our understanding of human evolution.

Am I not writing in English?

The problem I see here is that you mentioned a Religious component. Some have a tendancy to filter automatically these things out for Religion doesn NOT belong in any discussion, no matter the topic...*even RELIGION* itself...

 

[eagleseven]

Bingo. By this reckoning? Most college students aren't getting what they paid for.

Most students are getting exactly what they paid for. America has the strongest science and engineering programs in the world, and these programs still attract the brightest students from around the world. Those educated in American schools of science and engineering are in demand across the globe.

If a student chooses to focus his studies on the humanities, he knows exactly what he is sacrificing.

They do?

U.S. students behind in math, science, analysis says <CNN

The article is discussing K-12 public education, not University.

WE may have strong science/Engineering programs...but who are getting into them?

Mostly Indians and Chinese, mixed in with the nerds from American highschools.

And I think you MISSED my point.

Down to Brass tacks? The FED does NOT belong in this arena as it exists.

BACK to TOPIC.

The far more important question is: "Why does college cost so much?"

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Too true (but I think you give the deflectors too much credit for having an actual plan of deflection).

Again, I have no issue with federal loans at all, as long as they are based on merit alone and NOT available to anyone who applies. Which does not seem to be the case, at first glance.

In my opinion, the federal government has no business handing our loans. That is what banks and other private entities are for. Federal student loans cannot be supported by the Constitution, in my opinion.

That's a good point, however I think some of those ideological differences we were discussing yesterday may manifest right now.

As I believe it is in the best interest of the country to have the most educated citizenry as is possible (not to all because that is just not possible considering distribution of traits), I take on almost a commie approach to this. Personally, I would like to see anyone who is bright not only get that good education, but get it for free (too much to ask for, so I'll take the loans); but I want a strict triage of who gets in based on merit alone...period. Poor? Doesn't matter as long as you are bright. Rich? Doesn't matter as long as you are bright. It is in our national security interests to have as many as highly educated as possible, especially in the sciences and applied sciences.

But, if it's not done right, it can seriously fuck up a lot - quality of education, budget, etc.

Pretty radical, eh?

You might as well start drinking Pepsi and eating handfuls of circus peanuts. Someone needs a constitutional spanking and it isn't me.

Instead of bastardizing the foundation of the Republic further, how about working within in to pass an amendment via Article V? While I disprove of federal loans, if the Constitution was properly ratified, I couldn't rightfully complain about that aspect.

I resent my tax dollars being used to help fund loans. What is the point of saying one honors the Constitution, if one decides on the other hand to not follow it, because it is not convenient to their pragmatic beliefs? That is a recipe for mob rule Si.

 

[Si modo]

In my opinion, the federal government has no business handing our loans. That is what banks and other private entities are for. Federal student loans cannot be supported by the Constitution, in my opinion.

That's a good point, however I think some of those ideological differences we were discussing yesterday may manifest right now.

As I believe it is in the best interest of the country to have the most educated citizenry as is possible (not to all because that is just not possible considering distribution of traits), I take on almost a commie approach to this. Personally, I would like to see anyone who is bright not only get that good education, but get it for free (too much to ask for, so I'll take the loans); but I want a strict triage of who gets in based on merit alone...period. Poor? Doesn't matter as long as you are bright. Rich? Doesn't matter as long as you are bright. It is in our national security interests to have as many as highly educated as possible, especially in the sciences and applied sciences.

But, if it's not done right, it can seriously fuck up a lot - quality of education, budget, etc.

Pretty radical, eh?

You might as well start drinking Pepsi and eating handfuls of circus peanuts. Someone needs a constitutional spanking and it isn't me.

Instead of bastardizing the foundation of the Republic further, how about working within in to pass an amendment via Article V? While I disprove of federal loans, if the Constitution was properly ratified, I couldn't rightfully complain about that aspect.

I resent my tax dollars being used to help fund loans. What is the point of saying one honors the Constitution, if one decides on the other hand to not follow it, because it is not convenient to their pragmatic beliefs? That is a recipe for mob rule Si.

I think this commie idea is not even close to a mob rule idea, rather it is quite elitist. The commies definitely had their elitist practices and this is one of them.

The reason I am comfortable with this one is we already have government funding of education entrenched. As such, reform of that to an efficient program is much easier than abolishment and starting anew with an amendment in the interest of Constitutional purity, IMO. The impurity is already present. But I understand the need for such purity with respect to mob rule. I'm going with a combination of pragmatism with security interests.

 

[garyd]

One needs to understand evolutionary theory to do modern science to exactly the same extent one needs to know how tires are made in order to drive a car.

 

[eagleseven]

One needs to understand evolutionary theory to do modern science to exactly the same extent one needs to know how tires are made in order to drive a car.

Do you want the old antibiotic that won't work against your newly evolved bacterial infection?

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

That's a good point, however I think some of those ideological differences we were discussing yesterday may manifest right now.

As I believe it is in the best interest of the country to have the most educated citizenry as is possible (not to all because that is just not possible considering distribution of traits), I take on almost a commie approach to this. Personally, I would like to see anyone who is bright not only get that good education, but get it for free (too much to ask for, so I'll take the loans); but I want a strict triage of who gets in based on merit alone...period. Poor? Doesn't matter as long as you are bright. Rich? Doesn't matter as long as you are bright. It is in our national security interests to have as many as highly educated as possible, especially in the sciences and applied sciences.

But, if it's not done right, it can seriously fuck up a lot - quality of education, budget, etc.

Pretty radical, eh?

You might as well start drinking Pepsi and eating handfuls of circus peanuts. Someone needs a constitutional spanking and it isn't me.

Instead of bastardizing the foundation of the Republic further, how about working within in to pass an amendment via Article V? While I disprove of federal loans, if the Constitution was properly ratified, I couldn't rightfully complain about that aspect.

I resent my tax dollars being used to help fund loans. What is the point of saying one honors the Constitution, if one decides on the other hand to not follow it, because it is not convenient to their pragmatic beliefs? That is a recipe for mob rule Si.

I think this commie idea is not even close to a mob rule idea, rather it is quite elitist. The commies definitely had their elitist practices and this is one of them.

The reason I am comfortable with this one is we already have government funding of education entrenched. As such, reform of that to an efficient program is much easier than abolishment and starting anew with an amendment in the interest of Constitutional purity, IMO. the impurity is already present.

Si,
When the Constitution is ignored by the very people entrusted to preserve, protect, uphold it, it leads to mob rule.

Yes, the impurity is already present. Why should we enable said impurity to get even worse? That makes no sense to me. Using your reasoning, if the government is funding something you don't agree with per the Constitution, it should just keep doing that, because the impurity is already there.

I doubt you practice such a philosophy in your personal life. Why do you advocate such for the foundation of this Republic?

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

James Madison

 

[garyd]

Evolved or just now exist in higher numbers within that microbes population? By the way no one argues small changes within a species do not occur over time so drop the strawman please.

 

[Si modo]

You might as well start drinking Pepsi and eating handfuls of circus peanuts. Someone needs a constitutional spanking and it isn't me.

Instead of bastardizing the foundation of the Republic further, how about working within in to pass an amendment via Article V? While I disprove of federal loans, if the Constitution was properly ratified, I couldn't rightfully complain about that aspect.

I resent my tax dollars being used to help fund loans. What is the point of saying one honors the Constitution, if one decides on the other hand to not follow it, because it is not convenient to their pragmatic beliefs? That is a recipe for mob rule Si.

I think this commie idea is not even close to a mob rule idea, rather it is quite elitist. The commies definitely had their elitist practices and this is one of them.

The reason I am comfortable with this one is we already have government funding of education entrenched. As such, reform of that to an efficient program is much easier than abolishment and starting anew with an amendment in the interest of Constitutional purity, IMO. the impurity is already present.

Si,
When the Constitution is ignored by the very people entrusted to preserve, protect, uphold it, it leads to mob rule.

Yes, the impurity is already present. Why should we enable said impurity to get even worse? That makes no sense to me. Using your reasoning, if the government is funding something you don't agree with per the Constitution, it should just keep doing that, because the impurity is already there.

I doubt you practice such a philosophy in your personal life. Why do you advocate such for the foundation of this Republic?

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

James Madison

Really, I do agree with what you say in principle. Most definitely.

However (and you just knew that a 'however' was coming up ), I can justify this pragmatism to meet an obligation that is outlined in the Constitution - protection of our system (the premise that a citizenry where those who are able are as highly educated as possible is necessary to national security). It comes to my priorities. If we go with Constitutional purity (amend to allow for governement funded education) and still meet that security need, then it seems we must do far more radical reform to meet that need with a major time lag waiting for states' ratification. If we accept that impurity (government funded education) and go with an efficiency reform of education, the reform is far less complicated. And, start work on an amendment for the purists (which I usually am) while not losing an education edge.

Using the household analogy, if I have guests coming over in half an hour, I will vacuum the room, but I won't move the furniture. I'll save that for later.

 

[KittenKoder]

This is just more reaching and taking control of our lives. Bad move, bringing the final straw closer everyday.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

I think this commie idea is not even close to a mob rule idea, rather it is quite elitist. The commies definitely had their elitist practices and this is one of them.

The reason I am comfortable with this one is we already have government funding of education entrenched. As such, reform of that to an efficient program is much easier than abolishment and starting anew with an amendment in the interest of Constitutional purity, IMO. the impurity is already present.

Si,
When the Constitution is ignored by the very people entrusted to preserve, protect, uphold it, it leads to mob rule.

Yes, the impurity is already present. Why should we enable said impurity to get even worse? That makes no sense to me. Using your reasoning, if the government is funding something you don't agree with per the Constitution, it should just keep doing that, because the impurity is already there.

I doubt you practice such a philosophy in your personal life. Why do you advocate such for the foundation of this Republic?

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

James Madison

Really, I do agree with what you say in principle. Most definitely.

However (and you just knew that a 'however' was coming up ), I can justify this pragmatism to meet an obligation that is outlined in the Constitution - protection of our system (the premise that a citizenry where those who are able are as highly educated as possible is necessary to national security). It comes to my priorities. If we go with Constitutional purity (amend to allow for governement funded education) and still meet that security need, then it seems we must do far more radical reform to meet that need with a major time lag waiting for states' ratification. If we accept that impurity (government funded education) and go with an efficiency reform of education, the reform is far less complicated. And, start work on an amendment for the purists (which I usually am) while not losing an education edge.

Using the household analogy, if I have guests coming over in half an hour, I will vacuum the room, but I won't move the furniture. I'll save that for later.

Yes, I knew a "however" or a "but" was coming.

I can't believe you are putting forth such a tepid retort Si. You can do much better than trying to tell me federal funding is a must, because it is national security. Playing the emotional rationalization card with me will not work Si. If you want to wrestle with me, you will have to do better than that.

Using your Pepsi laden rationale , the political whores in Washington as well as the hack employers can call any pet project of theirs national security interest and see to federal funding. Oh, wait. They are already doing that. Where does the madness end Si?

I come over to your house, and I tell you that what I want to do is of national security and I have a right to some of your money. What will you tell me? Do I have a right to your money?