PDA

View Full Version : Where do you stand/Political Quiz



Red
04-11-2008, 01:36 AM
http://www.madrabbit.net/webrabbit/quizshow.html

I scored 33

your turn

Slavic
04-11-2008, 02:14 AM
I got a 19

The test seems very linear for my tastes

Do A Barrel Roll!
04-11-2008, 02:21 AM
It's very linear, and not very descriptive... I got a 13 by the way... BE MORE LIBERAL THAN THAT, SUCKA!

A better map (in the literal sense of the word) is http://www.politicalcompass.org, which not only includes the standard Liberal/Conservative ends, but also if you're Authoritarian (one who prefers heavy government control) and Liberitarian (one who prefers very loss/few/no government controls)

Captain Colon
04-11-2008, 02:54 AM
Questions and answers are poorly worded (seems like purposely so) to force you to give black/white answers to gray-area questions. Who do I trust more, the FBI or the IRS? How am I even supposed to answer that? Who do I trust more to collect taxes? To put that money to use effectively? Who I trust more to solve crimes? Which is more efficient in terms of manpower used for work done? No idea what criteria to use.

#10 "which would curb violent crime the most, stricter controls on guns or tougher sentences on gun crime, or both?" Since "both" is an option, "neither" should also be an option, but it's not there, effectively forcing multiple schools of opinion to choose an answer they don't like (for example "tougher sentences on all violent crime, not just gun crime, as the majority of violent crimes are committed WITHOUT a gun" or "more proactive policies to defuse violence before it occurs, whether between gangs or in the household").

#11 also gives you the option of "both" without the option of "neither," implying that it's somehow not possible to both build more prisons AND improve some of the urban decay that's taking place. Also implies that options like legalizing/decriminalizing drugs are not valid methods of reducing crime.

A shame really, cause some of the questions are good ones to think about and the answers to some of the questions are really biased, although I'll give the writer credit because he obviously tried to balance it out by including extreme points from both sides. However, as the vast majority of people are "centrist" (read: "not extremist"), that means this test is probably not going to be consistent as far as how it rates people compared to how they'd rate themselves. #18 in particular brings up an issue with health care (not necessarily in a universal health plan context, but all-around) issue I'd never thought of before. Why WOULDN'T health insurance companies offer abortion coverage (besides PR fallout as "the first health care firm to encourage baby killing")? It's a HELL of a lot cheaper than covering a kid to 26, and if made a required measure (eg. you abort baby or put it up for adoption if you can't support it) then that counts as a waiver of any benefits that child would qualify you for. Or something like that, you get what I mean I'm sure.

I got a 17, a bit more "liberal" than I'd rate myself maybe...but maybe not if you combine social and economic liberal tendencies into one line. I'm 100% social liberal do-whatever-you-want-as-long-as-you-ain't-hurtin'-nobody. Economically I'm pretty conservative as far as how much we should be spending but very liberal as far as WHERE we should be spending it, but I'm pro-cleanup and making everything more efficient so that we can retain the same level of services (or better) at the same cost or most likely lower.


Way too long an answer for a "how CONSERVATIVE r U" quiz

LitKey
04-11-2008, 03:46 AM
http://www.madrabbit.net/webrabbit/quizshow.html

I scored 33

your turn

thirty four

Italian Jew
04-11-2008, 10:22 AM
I am a 20...based on this quiz which means nothing and like Colon said, horribly worded questions.

Do A Barrel Roll!
04-11-2008, 11:03 AM
I've no idea what half of this means. Hate to sound a noob, but is there a British one? I don't even know what IRS is. >_>

I got 14 anyway.

I really have no idea what a liberal is or does, tbh, so I'll pretend it's a good thing.

To start, the "IRS" is the Internal Revenue Service. It's an operative branch of the US government that checks out taxes and such. If you cheat on your taxes, the IRS will be intimately involved.

As far as what a liberal is... Well, the best way I could describe a Liberal is someone who wants change. Liberals are usually supporters of Womens rights, race equality, and so on. It's a horrible description, as it gives the impression that conservatives DON'T like/want women's rights, but it's really a poor choice of words to use to decribe each side.

If you know American politics well enough, the Democrats are tending towards Liberalism, while the Republicans are tending towards Conservativism.

Misanthrope
04-11-2008, 02:13 PM
I got a 9...

Molotov
04-11-2008, 03:20 PM
hah! i got a 4! :thumbup:those questions are worded badly and i don't know if its that im that liberal or because everyone in my family are civil servants.

Third
04-11-2008, 04:42 PM
I scored 12, but i'm from the UK so pfft I went with what I thought & don't know too mucha bout american history... certainly know nothing about it's presidents.

Italian Jew
04-11-2008, 05:04 PM
The older ones were the better ones, with some crazies in the mix as well...a few good ones in the 1900's and some would argue recently, but depends who you ask.

zero
04-15-2008, 10:37 AM
The quiz only determines if you are a left(liberal) or right(conservative). As a libertarian, I scored a 30. Questions like who do you trust more, the IRS or FBI, are non-existant with the libertarian philosophy. It would be like asking me which eye I want to gauge out -- my left or my right.

Here's another political quiz that defines me a bit better.

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

The political group that agrees with you most is... LIBERTARIAN
Your PERSONAL issues Score is 100%.
Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 100%.

Red
04-15-2008, 10:53 AM
The political group that agrees with you most is... LIBERTARIAN

Your PERSONAL issues Score is 80%.
Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 100%.

LegalSmash
04-15-2008, 01:28 PM
I got a 32, although I would not compare myself to jack kemp. I thought the questions were rather shallow to gauge my political leanings. They could have just asked me one question:

"Do you favor governmental involvement in private life or should people me able to make decisions at will and be held accountable for them"

phatman76
04-15-2008, 01:51 PM
I got a 34....

Bob Dole is not next to Ronald Reagan...ever

Tcp-Kill
04-15-2008, 02:07 PM
16

Bastards.

Liberal

even tho i dont live in america

Captain Colon
04-16-2008, 02:09 PM
The quiz only determines if you are a left(liberal) or right(conservative). As a libertarian, I scored a 30. Questions like who do you trust more, the IRS or FBI, are non-existant with the libertarian philosophy. It would be like asking me which eye I want to gauge out -- my left or my right.

Here's another political quiz that defines me a bit better.

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

The political group that agrees with you most is... LIBERTARIAN
Your PERSONAL issues Score is 100%.
Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 100%.
That one's even worse IMO, the questions are purposely worded to make you feel like an asshole if you don't pick the libertarian answer, or so that the libertarian answer sounds too good to be true if you don't think about it for more than 5 seconds.

zero
04-16-2008, 03:40 PM
That one's even worse IMO, the questions are purposely worded to make you feel like an asshole if you don't pick the libertarian answer, or so that the libertarian answer sounds too good to be true if you don't think about it for more than 5 seconds.

Really? I thought it was pretty accurate after showing my friends and family. My parents, who are liberals, actually showed as liberal on that quiz. It shows to because my parents strongly believe in personal freedom, where-as they believe that government should have some control over economy, large businesses, and having a safety net. Friends who are republican showed up as republican, so I thought it was pretty interesting. I was the only one who came up as libertarian and I found myself taking the defensive.

Red
04-16-2008, 03:48 PM
the questions are purposely worded to make you feel like an asshole if you don't pick the libertarian answer

I don't think it's the wording the makes people feel like assholes, rather the realization that their beliefs when compared to the logic of the libertarian ones make them feel that way.

Paul
04-16-2008, 04:26 PM
Discrimination against everyone outside of USA! :laugh:

Repeat
04-16-2008, 04:29 PM
I don't think it's the wording the makes people feel like assholes, rather the realization that their beliefs when compared to the logic of the libertarian ones make them feel that way.

Haha, Amen.


Anyway, I scored a 35.

Captain Colon
04-16-2008, 04:37 PM
I don't think it's the wording the makes people feel like assholes, rather the realization that their beliefs when compared to the logic of the libertarian ones make them feel that way.
I'm sure they just suddenly realize how much they hate freedom :001_rolleyes: But we all already know how much I hate libertarians :thumbup1: Either way I know bias when I see it, and considering it also just happens to be on a libertarian advocacy site...

I'm talking about questions like "end 'corporate welfare.'" The first thing you think of is stuff like oil companies getting subsidies while they turn record profits, but most people when they hear buzzwords like "corporate welfare" don't think of things like agriculture, an industry that in large part can't survive without some kind of subsidization and is greatly at the mercy of natural events (a single bad season would drive many farmers into bankruptcy). It just lists a couple hot-button issues that most people don't really know much about but that they've seen mentioned on the news, and isn't a good judge of your actual leanings IMO. But it might just be a case of if they knew more then their position would change.

zero
04-16-2008, 06:41 PM
But we all already know how much I hate libertarians :thumbup1: Either way I know bias when I see it, and considering it also just happens to be on a libertarian advocacy site...

I thought you believed in libertarian socialism, though.

Captain Colon
04-16-2008, 09:12 PM
Which isn't pure libertarianism by any stretch. It's closer to anarchism. Although pure libertarianism isn't really too far removed from anarchism either.

Slavic
04-17-2008, 01:57 AM
I thought you believed in libertarian socialism, though.

I follow a similar tenet. There has to be some minute controls that a regional government can fill in, but not a central one.

vinhex
04-17-2008, 03:16 AM
i got a 27 which sounds right, a bit more conservative, but not super conservative

zoL
04-28-2008, 06:59 AM
I scored a 7. I didn't know I was that conservative. I guess me not believing in affirmative action and government funded abortions means I'm more conservative? Terrible quiz.

And on the second quiz...
The political group that agrees with you most is....LIBERAL
Your PERSONAL issues Score is 80%.
Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 0%.

"Replace government welfare with private charity," I seriously in my mind cannot fathom a civilized society with that.

LegalSmash
04-28-2008, 09:30 AM
"Replace government welfare with private charity," I seriously in my mind cannot fathom a civilized society with that.


Actually, it worked quite well before we gave the unwashed masses their "gobment cheese". Churches, religious agencies, and yes, charities, provided for many of the poor, and as a plus, gave them morals. We need the poor to have those again.

I am personally for a hard limit on the # of kids based on your income, despite the unconstitutionality of the idea. I'm personally tired of welfare shaniquas/peggy sue with the 6 kids.

Red
04-28-2008, 10:37 AM
I am personally for a hard limit on the # of kids based on your income, despite the unconstitutionality of the idea. I'm personally tired of welfare shaniquas/peggy sue with the 6 kids.

agreed

zoL
04-28-2008, 11:43 AM
Actually, it worked quite well before we gave the unwashed masses their "gobment cheese". Churches, religious agencies, and yes, charities, provided for many of the poor, and as a plus, gave them morals. We need the poor to have those again.

Worked quite well? Where did you come up with that? The poor have always been treated like a different species before any government intervention.


I am personally for a hard limit on the # of kids based on your income, despite the unconstitutionality of the idea. I'm personally tired of welfare shaniquas/peggy sue with the 6 kids.

That won't solve any problems. People won't listen, and the government isn't going to be killing children any time soon. We need a better funded and better quality education system.

A good movie you should check out is Idiocracy. It kind of believes what you said, but it's a comedy Hollywood movie, not some documentary.

zero
04-28-2008, 01:15 PM
That won't solve any problems. People won't listen, and the government isn't going to be killing children any time soon. We need a better funded and better quality education system.


...but, but, think of the children! :)

Want a better funded and better quality education system? Privatize it.

LegalSmash
04-28-2008, 01:26 PM
^ i agree.

I've seen the movie, it is hilarious.

We havent had a large scale war where we hold a draft. That usually thins out the retard babies the working class have been busily shitting out by the truckload.

The church, the mosque, and the syna... wait, no the jews dont... ALL treat the poor with Alms. If I was ever to be a good catholic I would tithe 10% of my pre tax income... but Im a bad catholic... so ixnay to that

zoL
04-28-2008, 01:35 PM
...but, but, think of the children! :)

Want a better funded and better quality education system? Privatize it.

How does that help the poor?

zero
04-28-2008, 01:36 PM
How does that help the poor?

Sounds like a welfare issue, not a schooling issue to me.

Red
04-28-2008, 01:44 PM
Sounds like a welfare issue, not a schooling issue to me.

agree

LegalSmash
04-28-2008, 02:22 PM
now, a lulzy intermission, brought to you by Chris Hansen. This is what the public school system results in... LOL
jazY7cLfHr0

junkie
04-28-2008, 04:08 PM
I got a 18. Maybe it was because I just got up, but those questions were worded terribly and I had to read them twice before I figured out what they were asking..

EvInReaLife
04-28-2008, 04:36 PM
I scored 18

jeN
04-28-2008, 04:59 PM
17 but I'm also a dumbass who doesn't understand politics. :D

PotshotPolka
04-28-2008, 07:19 PM
18
My most trusted branch of the government: CIA

zoL
04-28-2008, 07:59 PM
Sounds like a welfare issue, not a schooling issue to me.

So the poor go to shit box schools which no colleges and employers will take, and the rich will keep going to the most prestigious schools. Being born "smart" is not the way this country needs to go. Everyone should have an equal starting ground from birth. Your way would only lead to dictatorship.

LegalSmash
04-28-2008, 08:10 PM
No, we currently have lovely programs that pulls middle class kids from good schools, shoves ignorant trash into other schools to "equal out" and "magnet schools" which supposedly offer a quality education at the risk of getting almost raped in the ass in the hood. Thanks to good old fashioned liberal guilt. Thank God the supreme court saw through that farce and kicked it in the nuts.

Privitizing would plausibly work here, teachers could get a salary more commensurate with their performance, as opposed to the "Average" according to the district they are in. Incentivize good performance, rather than basically paying for mediocrity, is a benefit. Further, it saves the tax payer, expecially those that didnt want to produce small humans from having to pay for their eventual and likely inevitable failures.

Also, you should take into account that there are many MANY people that DONT need to go to college, and would be perfectly fine with trade school, in some cases doing BETTER with an HVAC license or a mechanics certificate than they would with a "multicultural history" degree from State School 18.

Educating people should be a privileged right, not a natural right, something the imbecile can take for granted if they so desire, because for every one of these fucktards that drop out anyway, they lower the quality of the educational experience for the rest of the kids.

PotshotPolka
04-28-2008, 09:12 PM
No, we currently have lovely programs that pulls middle class kids from good schools, shoves ignorant trash into other schools to "equal out" and "magnet schools" which supposedly offer a quality education at the risk of getting almost raped in the ass in the hood. Thanks to good old fashioned liberal guilt. Thank God the supreme court saw through that farce and kicked it in the nuts.

Privitizing would plausibly work here, teachers could get a salary more commensurate with their performance, as opposed to the "Average" according to the district they are in. Incentivize good performance, rather than basically paying for mediocrity, is a benefit. Further, it saves the tax payer, expecially those that didnt want to produce small humans from having to pay for their eventual and likely inevitable failures.

Also, you should take into account that there are many MANY people that DONT need to go to college, and would be perfectly fine with trade school, in some cases doing BETTER with an HVAC license or a mechanics certificate than they would with a "multicultural history" degree from State School 18.

Educating people should be a privileged right, not a natural right, something the imbecile can take for granted if they so desire, because for every one of these fucktards that drop out anyway, they lower the quality of the educational experience for the rest of the kids.

Can you say busing?

zoL
04-28-2008, 09:58 PM
No, we currently have lovely programs that pulls middle class kids from good schools, shoves ignorant trash into other schools to "equal out" and "magnet schools" which supposedly offer a quality education at the risk of getting almost raped in the ass in the hood. Thanks to good old fashioned liberal guilt. Thank God the supreme court saw through that farce and kicked it in the nuts.

I don't see how this has to do with anything besides needing a reform of public school systems. The system as it is now is a joke, no one disagrees with that. I do agree with not putting people into certain places because of anything to do with race, sex, income, etc. unless they want to. Forcing kids from one school to another to make it diverse if fucked up.


Privitizing would plausibly work here, teachers could get a salary more commensurate with their performance, as opposed to the "Average" according to the district they are in. Incentivize good performance, rather than basically paying for mediocrity, is a benefit. Further, it saves the tax payer, expecially those that didnt want to produce small humans from having to pay for their eventual and likely inevitable failures.

Performance based really shouldn't be stressed. It would only lead to more standardized testing and teachers being pissed off which is always the case. Which isn't a great learning environment. Performance based without standardized testing would be wonderful, but it won't happen with the teachers union around.

I'm pro-union as pro-union comes, but the teachers union has to go. It's the biggest trash pit in the world. No one gets into teaching for the money, they do it because they believe what they're doing is the right thing. Teachers striking is the most fucked up thing one can do and it helps no one besides the teachers pockets. Fuck the teachers union and fuck the teachers.

You're right it's not the tax payers fault for so many peoples mistakes, but having more dumb people around isn't good for anyone.


Also, you should take into account that there are many MANY people that DONT need to go to college, and would be perfectly fine with trade school, in some cases doing BETTER with an HVAC license or a mechanics certificate than they would with a "multicultural history" degree from State School 18.

So poor people can only work trade jobs? This is clearly what you're trying to say but doing it in a not so derogatory way. People should have the right from birth to actually have a chance to go to an elite school, and not just be forced to go into trade because they weren't born into wealth.


Educating people should be a privileged right, not a natural right, something the imbecile can take for granted if they so desire, because for every one of these fucktards that drop out anyway, they lower the quality of the educational experience for the rest of the kids.

Educating should be a natural right by all means. Poor parents would have their kids not go to school and have them work to support the family. We can't have morons running the country, but I guess we're already too late.

Also, I don't know how you can't see that poor people will be left behind in your ideas. I guess it's the typical right-wing way, "fuck everyone besides myself."

Egalitarianism > *.

LegalSmash
04-28-2008, 11:31 PM
Educating should be a natural right by all means. Poor parents would have their kids not go to school and have them work to support the family. We can't have morons running the country, but I guess we're already too late.

Also, I don't know how you can't see that poor people will be left behind in your ideas. I guess it's the typical right-wing way, "fuck everyone besides myself."


Actually no, I grew up quite poor, I'm an immigrant's child as well. Nice of you to assume otherwise, but your new here, so I'll just chalk it up to your ignorance of all things.


Teachers Unions are crap, as are a great many teachers, who get into it as a "try it out" thing. Very few teachers these days get into it because they are "all about the kids". They want the steady paycheck, allegedly lazy schedule (3 mos off a year) and a chance at moving up to "education admin", but no one likes to mention that because it makes them sound like the self righteous, college bandwagon libertard elitists that most of them are. I know this bc many of my own friends do this because they dont want to get into corp america yet. My gf was a teacher for 5 years, who did it bc she actually cared, even she agrees with these ideas, and tbh, many of my ideas re teaching come from her own experiences, and those of several of my relatives who have been teachers in the South Fla school system, NY, and Cali.






Quote:
Originally Posted by LegalSmash View Post
Also, you should take into account that there are many MANY people that DONT need to go to college, and would be perfectly fine with trade school, in some cases doing BETTER with an HVAC license or a mechanics certificate than they would with a "multicultural history" degree from State School 18.
So poor people can only work trade jobs? This is clearly what you're trying to say but doing it in a not so derogatory way. People should have the right from birth to actually have a chance to go to an elite school, and not just be forced to go into trade because they weren't born into wealth.

Actually, if you would have read the entire statement before going on your half cocked rant, you would realize that I didnt mention anything re: poverty or class there... no mention of poor on that standalone statement, but you arent really thinking, rather, just typing in a manner that your mouth is open and shit is falling all over the keyboard... A FINE education you must be receiving at Amherst. I hope the parents are not paying too much for it, or that you havent borrowed too much for it.

As for my statement, we need LESS imbeciles walking around with a 4 year liberal arts degree that is about as useful as tits on Rosie O'Donnel. It dilutes the value of a degree when everyone and their brother is essentially tossed one. This goes the same for inflating everyone's GPA to the point where having a 4.0 means nothing. Guess what though, in college, it only goes to 4.0... leading to much "it didnt really matter" feelings, and drinking, and drugging, and "my parents are not here so I .... drop out" syndrome.

Another sad reality that you fail to mention, maybe its because you either are not yet done with school: most out of college jobs do not have tremendous earning potential for the majority of graduates. The average salary tossed up on the yahoo reports are VASTLY over inflated. Additionally, the overbloating of the "college educated crowd" has created a market where EVERYONE with the SAME degree in (communications, criminology, history, business (without specialized component), sociology, multicultural bullshit design, religion, and everything else guidance counselors flippantly suggest to a 17-18 year old kid in their offices during application season) are fighting for. This means that the guy getting out of college is getting an even SHORTER end of the stick than ever because of the oversaturation of the markets they are trying to get into. If you dont believe it, look at the trends since 1980 to now on worker benefits and how they have plummeted. Why pay for something when some sap will do it cheaper and for less benefits?

Trades on the other hand, offers a greater earning potential with less debt-load upon the student, because the technical degree (computer tech, welding, mechanical, etc. HVAC) are things people NEED, including the mocha latte sucking Obama blowing white liberal guilt crowd that know the mating rituals of the "fuckawee indians" but cannot figure out how to change the oil in their pretentious "green" car.

These people also have the option of starting their own businesses... of services, again, which people NEED. I know 4 guys from HS that are HVACs in Miami Fl, and let me tell you, they have been making more money in the past 5 years than I will coming out fresh out of law school unless I sign my life over to a "biglaw" 70 hour a week firm. People arent going to go into the phone book for a "northwest native american history major" for info on indians, they are going to go to the library... people ARE going to get the phone book and call Juanito Sanchez, HVAC technician to fix their AC when its 90 degrees out at 2 AM and no wind in May on SW 142 Ave in Miami.

I never said "just poor people" should do trades. I said less people need to go to college, in that every horse-shit guidance counselor should not herd every kid in the school to a 4 year university, without even considering the debt involved with higher education, the work involved, or for that matter, the effects on the person's life should they not be successful at the profession they chose (lots of people finish college and are total ass at their chosen profession or cant find a job in that field, resulting in lots of starbucks baristas with a 4-6 year degree... mmmm, grad student made coffee... deliciously ironic.) My valedictorian graduated Cum Laude out of Harvard, he is a fucking Borders' Book Store Cashier... WAY TO GO CRIMSON!!!

Believe it or not, we still have need of cops, firemen, orderlies, car mechanics, welders, HVAC technicians, Ship operators, riggers, repairmen, and a PLETHORA of other very stable, very lucrative careers that allow a person to earn a comfortable living and not mire themselves in student loan debt for the majority of their middle life.

There was no statement of segregation-like splitting of "rich - college/ poor -trade school in my statement". You should learn to read, interpret, THEN say something, because I find your "left wing, say a bunch of baseless, unfounded, emotionally based rubbish and retreat" skills lacking.

Stop, think, breathe, consider, type... dont they teach that at nice, elitist Amherst?

Good Boo-Boo, Sit.

PotshotPolka
04-29-2008, 05:50 AM
Holy fuck that was long, forums aren't term papers lol.

zoL
04-29-2008, 06:32 AM
Actually no, I grew up quite poor, I'm an immigrant's child as well. Nice of you to assume otherwise, but your new here, so I'll just chalk it up to your ignorance of all things.

I didn't assume anything. Under your beliefs you would be a janitor at a fast food restaurant because you wouldn't have been given a fair shot at birth.



Teachers Unions are crap, as are a great many teachers, who get into it as a "try it out" thing. Very few teachers these days get into it because they are "all about the kids". They want the steady paycheck, allegedly lazy schedule (3 mos off a year) and a chance at moving up to "education admin", but no one likes to mention that because it makes them sound like the self righteous, college bandwagon libertard elitists that most of them are. I know this bc many of my own friends do this because they dont want to get into corp america yet. My gf was a teacher for 5 years, who did it bc she actually cared, even she agrees with these ideas, and tbh, many of my ideas re teaching come from her own experiences, and those of several of my relatives who have been teachers in the South Fla school system, NY, and Cali.

Cool.


Actually, if you would have read the entire statement before going on your half cocked rant, you would realize that I didnt mention anything re: poverty or class there... no mention of poor on that standalone statement, but you arent really thinking, rather, just typing in a manner that your mouth is open and shit is falling all over the keyboard... A FINE education you must be receiving at Amherst. I hope the parents are not paying too much for it, or that you havent borrowed too much for it.

Just because you intrepret things differently than I doesn't make you a smarter human being. You calling me ignorant is a sign is clearly ironic. I know you didn't say anything about poor people, I clearly interpreted it that way because you were giving hints that poor people should be looking at trades and to just fuck off when it comes to rich people education.

Nah, I'm on a free ride, thanks for caring though.


As for my statement, we need LESS imbeciles walking around with a 4 year liberal arts degree that is about as useful as tits on Rosie O'Donnel. It dilutes the value of a degree when everyone and their brother is essentially tossed one. This goes the same for inflating everyone's GPA to the point where having a 4.0 means nothing. Guess what though, in college, it only goes to 4.0... leading to much "it didnt really matter" feelings, and drinking, and drugging, and "my parents are not here so I .... drop out" syndrome.

Having more smart people around cannot hurt a country. Businesses will chose the right candidates for their companies job. Failures will fail. They'll be forced to take upon a different career path. I don't pity for their failures, but I do recognize that they are apart of this society, and should be treated as human beings.


Another sad reality that you fail to mention, maybe its because you either are not yet done with school: most out of college jobs do not have tremendous earning potential for the majority of graduates. The average salary tossed up on the yahoo reports are VASTLY over inflated. Additionally, the overbloating of the "college educated crowd" has created a market where EVERYONE with the SAME degree in (communications, criminology, history, business (without specialized component), sociology, multicultural bullshit design, religion, and everything else guidance counselors flippantly suggest to a 17-18 year old kid in their offices during application season) are fighting for. This means that the guy getting out of college is getting an even SHORTER end of the stick than ever because of the oversaturation of the markets they are trying to get into. If you dont believe it, look at the trends since 1980 to now on worker benefits and how they have plummeted. Why pay for something when some sap will do it cheaper and for less benefits?

Look to my previous statement.


Trades on the other hand, offers a greater earning potential with less debt-load upon the student, because the technical degree (computer tech, welding, mechanical, etc. HVAC) are things people NEED, including the mocha latte sucking Obama blowing white liberal guilt crowd that know the mating rituals of the "fuckawee indians" but cannot figure out how to change the oil in their pretentious "green" car.

They do offer great careers for people wanting them. All I'm saying is at birth everyone should be given a chance to do what they want.


These people also have the option of starting their own businesses... of services, again, which people NEED. I know 4 guys from HS that are HVACs in Miami Fl, and let me tell you, they have been making more money in the past 5 years than I will coming out fresh out of law school unless I sign my life over to a "biglaw" 70 hour a week firm. People arent going to go into the phone book for a "northwest native american history major" for info on indians, they are going to go to the library... people ARE going to get the phone book and call Juanito Sanchez, HVAC technician to fix their AC when its 90 degrees out at 2 AM and no wind in May on SW 142 Ave in Miami.

I'm not disagreeing with you what so ever in these last two paragraphs. Look at my previous post.


I never said "just poor people" should do trades. I said less people need to go to college, in that every horse-shit guidance counselor should not herd every kid in the school to a 4 year university, without even considering the debt involved with higher education, the work involved, or for that matter, the effects on the person's life should they not be successful at the profession they chose (lots of people finish college and are total ass at their chosen profession or cant find a job in that field, resulting in lots of starbucks baristas with a 4-6 year degree... mmmm, grad student made coffee... deliciously ironic.) My valedictorian graduated Cum Laude out of Harvard, he is a fucking Borders' Book Store Cashier... WAY TO GO CRIMSON!!!

Being an overachiever in academics isn't a guarantee for success in the real world. If s/he fails at his/her degree then so be it. Just because it says Harvard on a diploma doesn't mean they're the perfect candidate for a job. They surely have more opportunities, but their individual performance will decide. Also, I would rather a bunch of people with Bachelor's Degrees working in non-skilled "labor" than a bunch of felons and drop outs.


Believe it or not, we still have need of cops, firemen, orderlies, car mechanics, welders, HVAC technicians, Ship operators, riggers, repairmen, and a PLETHORA of other very stable, very lucrative careers that allow a person to earn a comfortable living and not mire themselves in student loan debt for the majority of their middle life.

You get my picture, or should, now.


There was no statement of segregation-like splitting of "rich - college/ poor -trade school in my statement". You should learn to read, interpret, THEN say something, because I find your "left wing, say a bunch of baseless, unfounded, emotionally based rubbish and retreat" skills lacking.

Stop, think, breathe, consider, type... dont they teach that at nice, elitist Amherst?

Good Boo-Boo, Sit.

There was no statement regarding that, I can read, see what I'm doing now. Your beliefs would absolutely have that effect. If you cannot see this, I'm sorry, but I absolutely think it would.

What is baseless and unfounded? Sorry for having emotions? I guess I'll be a rock like the rest of you.

Yeah, a shit box state school in the most liberal state with an endowment of less than $150 million is elitist. Hahaha. Now that is hysterical.

You calling me ignorant for having different beliefs than you only shows your true colors. You should work on speaking to people in the real world instead of behind computers. Unless this is where you take out your frustration because you cannot do so in person, maybe you lack the power you want at home? I would recommend a career change if this is the case, try being a police officer or a gun wielding member of the federal government. Or you could stick with law, and hope you get the call up to be a judge before it's too late.

zero
04-29-2008, 09:30 AM
So the poor go to shit box schools which no colleges and employers will take, and the rich will keep going to the most prestigious schools. Being born "smart" is not the way this country needs to go. Everyone should have an equal starting ground from birth. Your way would only lead to dictatorship.

Your entire paragraph is absurd and makes a ton of assumptions. I don't even know where to start. A privatized industry eventually leads to dictatorship? Huh?

LegalSmash
04-29-2008, 10:05 AM
^ Indeed. I am going to get back to this later, last exam ever tomorrow.

This guy's post reminds me of Captain Colon's screechy rant back in Feb against me.

ZoL Strategy to logic: flail arms like autistic child.

zoL
04-29-2008, 01:07 PM
Your entire paragraph is absurd and makes a ton of assumptions. I don't even know where to start. A privatized industry eventually leads to dictatorship? Huh?

Privatized industry means the rich get richer and the poor get poorer until there is ultimately one person on top. The length of time for that to happen would be very long, but it would happen. Rich = power. I don't know why I have to say that, but I did because I don't think you're the best chess player in the world.

zoL
04-29-2008, 01:11 PM
^ Indeed. I am going to get back to this later, last exam ever tomorrow.

This guy's post reminds me of Captain Colon's screechy rant back in Feb against me.

ZoL Strategy to logic: flail arms like autistic child.

Nice one. You're childish insults are pathetic. What law school would accept an immature person like yourself?

Slavic
04-29-2008, 01:38 PM
Doesn't matter if you are poor or rich, if you fail your classes you fail your classes, if you pass your classes you pass your classes. If you grew up poor in a city and fought to be the best in your high school because you knew how hard your upbringings are, guess what, you'd probably be giving scholarships out your ass to go to college. Thats why State/Federal/Independent scholarships and grants exist. They are to help the less fortunate who have proven that they are competent enough to succeed despite their upbringing.

I know plenty of rich kids going to University, but their dumb unmotivated asses are only taking the most basic of introductory classes because they can't take the workload. These kids will fail. Costs are not an issue for the poor that go to college, if they deserve to go to college. College should be only for those who display the abilities to succeed and pull a good degree.

On the subject of trade schools, i'd have to say they are one of the best investments for those who do not wish to go to college. I have several friends who went to trade schools, a few also received certifications from local colleges, and are making good money and have careers open to them that are just as beneficial as the ones i have open.

I grew up lower middle class. I am a bright student, but I lack initiative. This is why I'm only going to a community college. There are poorer kids with better ambitions than me riding on grants to go to Uni. Social class isn't as big a factor as you are making it out to be. Except when applying to top Ivy Leagues, from my understanding, they are purely dynastic.

PotshotPolka
04-29-2008, 02:23 PM
Privatized industry means the rich get richer and the poor get poorer until there is ultimately one person on top. The length of time for that to happen would be very long, but it would happen. Rich = power. I don't know why I have to say that, but I did because I don't think you're the best chess player in the world.

Umm... yeah. Don't get pissy at Legal because he actually BRINGS data and evidence to the table, this is just a step away from blatant flaming, and the word that you would be looking for is Monopoly, o yeh wise one, it was deemed illegal in the U.S. nearly 100 years ago.

zero
04-29-2008, 02:58 PM
Privatized industry means the rich get richer and the poor get poorer until there is ultimately one person on top. The length of time for that to happen would be very long, but it would happen. Rich = power. I don't know why I have to say that, but I did because I don't think you're the best chess player in the world.

You're the one that said, "We need a better funded and better quality education system." The only way you will ever get this is when the education system is forced to compete against each other. The public education system will never have this, period. As for educating the poor, thats a welfare issue, not a schooling issue.

As for your argument, it's a typical misconception against capitalism. An unregulated capitalisic system won't necessarily be dominated by monopolies.

Some seriously heavy reading, if you are really, really bored :
http://www.mises.org/rothbard/mes/chap10a.asp

Another article that might be a little lighter :
http://www.promethea.org/Misc_Compositions/PrometheanCapitalism/Monopolies.html

The bottom line is that as long as there is competition without any outside force (the government), you cannot have monopolies. What I don't understand is that people are afraid of a monopolies (with good reason, I might add), yet they give all this power to a central federal government which is, by definition, a monopoly, as is the public education system.

Captain Colon
05-01-2008, 04:32 PM
As for your argument, it's a typical misconception against capitalism. An unregulated capitalisic system won't necessarily be dominated by monopolies.
Then show us an unregulated capitalistic system where that didn't happen.


What I don't understand is that people are afraid of a monopolies (with good reason, I might add), yet they give all this power to a central federal government which is, by definition, a monopoly, as is the public education system.
Because the government is [theoretically] bound by law to do things a certain way. What's going to stop a private company from injecting whatever it wants into the curriculum, especially if they're the only affordable option in an area? Your second link seems to claim that a monopoly can only exist if the business threatens consumers to force them to do businesses with them...it seems to neglect the fact that most consumers are either STUPID or don't care enough to effect change. See: gas prices, attempted boycotts of china.

zoL
05-01-2008, 04:41 PM
Then show us an unregulated capitalistic system where that didn't happen.

None of us have any facts or figures like PotshotPolka seems to think his bud has. It's all based on what we believe and what we've seen with our own two eyes.

Italian Jew
05-01-2008, 07:26 PM
Undeniable proof that an unregulated capitalistic system will be overrun with monopolies...


http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/2275/1427133635f1d706e8e9oks0.jpg



:rlol::rlol::rlol:

LegalSmash
05-01-2008, 07:26 PM
Im drafting my response: brb.

zero
05-02-2008, 10:05 AM
Then show us an unregulated capitalistic system where that didn't happen.


Show me a country or nation, ever, that has used a true capitalistic system.



Because the government is [theoretically] bound by law to do things a certain way. What's going to stop a private company from injecting whatever it wants into the curriculum, especially if they're the only affordable option in an area?


Competition and an open/free market will stop this. If theres only one private company in my area, whats to stop me from starting a competing company? In today's system, it would be the government.

You mention a private company injecting whatever they want into a curriculum, yet the government (which, by the way, has influence from lobbyists and interest groups) is doing the exact thing. You act as if one organization has more legitimacy than the other.



.it seems to neglect the fact that most consumers are either STUPID or don't care enough to effect change.


This is true, and yet, we want these same people to have monopolic control over the education system, as it stands today?

Italian Jew
05-02-2008, 01:49 PM
The company could buy out your company or totally annihilate you in sales so you would run out of business, or even that they might come to your shack of a business and smash your lemonade stand into the ground.

Monopolies can be good or bad, but I really wouldn't want one guy controlling an entire industry nor would I want the government in complete control. Any middle ground in the air today?

zero
05-02-2008, 02:18 PM
The company could buy out your company or totally annihilate you in sales so you would run out of business, or even that they might come to your shack of a business and smash your lemonade stand into the ground.


If I refuse, how will the competition buy me out? If they can annihilate me in sales, then I need to change my business strategy or risk going out of business. This is all apart of an open economy. As for you latter statement, that would be a threat on my personal property and should thus, be against the law. Also, in an open market where there are multiple companies competing, that would be bad PR. What company would want that?

As for bullying, isn't that what the government is doing today??



Monopolies can be good or bad, but I really wouldn't want one guy controlling an entire industry nor would I want the government in complete control. Any middle ground in the air today?

I agree, which is why it boggles my mind that people would support the monopolic education system we have today which obviously suffers from all of the problems of an organization with a monopoly — bureaucratic inefficiency due to lack of competition, exploitation, abusive practices, etc.

People argue against a monopoly, but then turn to an organization that IS a monopoly to solve their problems.

Italian Jew
05-02-2008, 02:32 PM
The mafia has its ways of getting positive PR after getting rid of certain undesirable businesses. Never doubt the business savvy of an Italian organization with lots of money, guns, and persuasion.

If you do go out of business, then there would only be one company left...a monopoly. If they don't buy you out, then they will buy others out, thus giving them a better percentage of the market which would lead them to becoming a monopoly by dominating the market. Your assumptions are valid if the companies would play by the rules, which many do not even with government interaction.

You can't trust politicians nor corporate leaders completely, so why give either all of the control?

zero
05-02-2008, 02:34 PM
You can't trust politicians nor corporate leaders completely, so why give either all of the control?

Agreed. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Captain Colon
05-02-2008, 03:54 PM
So then what's wrong with the option to choose between public and private?

zero
05-02-2008, 04:20 PM
So then what's wrong with the option to choose between public and private?

To me, this would be a step in the right direction. Unfortunately, the government, as it stands today, wants complete and total control of the education system. Aren't homeschoolers even having issues with this?

Italian Jew
05-02-2008, 04:22 PM
Yeah, it can't be one type all the time. Everything will need some form of regulation to prevent any illegal activities, but the government shouldn't have any control over an industry or market unless it is necessary and certain situations would call for intervention. You can get both the benefits of each system instead of worrying about the cons.

As far as I understand it, home schooling cannot be prevented. I think it is fair if you want a private education, you can stay at home and get it or go to a private institution. The government should just make sure what is being taught is what should be taught, meaning to pass the equivalent of a certain grade, the home school student would need to learn at least what public school students learn. They might be doing this now, but I don't know how effective it is.

zero
05-02-2008, 04:22 PM
Wait...you guys are talking about nationalised versus privatised industries/companies here, right...?

I'm fairly confused.


Well, it originally started in regards to me saying something about privatizing education, which eventually evolved into private industries/companies... all from a political quiz. How the fuck did we get here again?

To me, its all the same. Private industry vs public industry... it doesn't matter if its healthcare, school, housing, food, etc.

Captain Colon
05-02-2008, 04:23 PM
Because arguing about politics is stupid and makes you stupid. It's a vicious cycle :sad:

zoL
05-02-2008, 07:04 PM
I think Wal-Mart is a good example of how a free market is fucked up.

Italian Jew
05-02-2008, 07:20 PM
I think your mom is an example of how a free market is fucked up!

lol, j/k :rlol:

Just wanted to feel special and add...:laugh:

Slavic
05-03-2008, 09:14 AM
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y78/gagegararge/ThreadDirection.jpg

Italian Jew
05-03-2008, 12:53 PM
*cough* Window-licker. *cough*

Don't be hatin'

http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/2765/monkeywindowlickerhv8.jpg