U.S. Bill introduced that requires student Pell Grants to be repaid if degrees are not completed - Polidicks

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52909382]Opposed him til he started winning and then capitulated like a broken animal to anything he wanted? They only recently started opposing him since his victory.[/QUOTE] I can recall, but not in the highest resolution, per se, many different GOP runners that were put forward by a variety of different elected officials. I forget his name, but one of the better contenders was some ex-FBI or ex-CIA guy. Like, they were pushed as "the non-Trump GOP contender." But that's not the point. The point is: vilifying the opposing argument doesn't do anyone any good and should be shamed. Why this comment has a bunch of stars is beyond me. [QUOTE=archangel125;52908429]Always remember, Republicans benefit from having a less educated population; a population who believes what they're told and does what they're told, enslaved by debt, and in a state of poverty from which there is no return.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Deathking15;52909596]I can recall, but not in the highest resolution, per se, many different GOP runners that were put forward by a variety of different elected officials. I forget his name, but one of the better contenders was some ex-FBI or ex-CIA guy. Like, they were pushed as "the non-Trump GOP contender." But that's not the point. The point is: vilifying the opposing argument doesn't do anyone any good and should be shamed. Why this comment has a bunch of stars is beyond me.[/QUOTE] They support him now though.

[QUOTE=Deathking15;52909596]I can recall, but not in the highest resolution, per se, many different GOP runners that were put forward by a variety of different elected officials. I forget his name, but one of the better contenders was some ex-FBI or ex-CIA guy. Like, they were pushed as "the non-Trump GOP contender." But that's not the point. The point is: vilifying the opposing argument doesn't do anyone any good and should be shamed. Why this comment has a bunch of stars is beyond me.[/QUOTE] I mean Ted Cruz had his wife insulted, and fell in line with the rest of them. None of them actually opposed him when shit mattered, they still aren't now. You're just full of it if you really expect me to believe that other than some outliers, the GOP isn't in step with him and his administration. See the potential election of Roy Moore. And you're right, I don't agree with vilifying the enemy. But you're acting like ONLY the liberals or the left or whatever do this. That's not true. It's pretty hard for me to wrap my head around the gaps in arguments here so I'll lay out what's confusingly hypocrital about this. While you're saying all of this, the GOP still has members who support Roy Moore stating that "party is more important" so I have to ask how serious you are in your criticism of both sides of that fault?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52909659]But you're acting like ONLY the liberals or the left or whatever do this[/QUOTE] No I'm not. What sort of smoking pistol is there that leads you to that conclusion? I fucking hate the GOP and the DNC. Both should burn. But I also hate all-encompassing, sweeping generalizations that vilify opposing arguments. That's where I took my initial stand.

[QUOTE=Deathking15;52908893]Oh, I don't disagree that the GOP has an awful track record when it comes to education. But the DNC's is barely any better. How long have public teachers been treated poorly? And I would very hastily disagree with you. Just like the right, the left, has become increasingly polarized. Some Democrats and liberal are still [B]EXTREMELY[/B] communist/Marxist. Of course, this doesn't reflect most people's values, similarly to what's going on to Republicans and the "alt-right" movement.[/QUOTE] How is the democratic party marxist/communist? If anything I thought they were too conservative. [editline]20th November 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Deathking15;52908847]Why do so many people like this comment... This comment is the epitome of what's wrong with our current political climate. Vilify the opposing argument so no neutral argument can be made. What good does an opposing argument do if [I]from the start[/I] you're already saying "Well, Republicans strive to make the population less educated because it's more beneficial to them." Have the equivalent liberal bash: "Always remember, Democrats benefit from having a Marxist population; a population that believes in equity before all else, hates Capitalism, and in a state of unwavering loyalty towards the Communist cause." Doesn't sound so nice with the shoe on the over foot, doesn't it?[/QUOTE] Not all Republicans are awful but the ones currently running the party and the country are.

[QUOTE=Deathking15;52908893]Oh, I don't disagree that the GOP has an awful track record when it comes to education. But the DNC's is barely any better. How long have public teachers been treated poorly? And I would very hastily disagree with you. Just like the right, the left, has become increasingly polarized. Some Democrats and liberal are still [B]EXTREMELY[/B] communist/Marxist. Of course, this doesn't reflect most people's values, similarly to what's going on to Republicans and the "alt-right" movement.[/QUOTE] Most of the left moved pretty centre because the GOP fell of the right side of the cliff into empty shallow pit of obstructionism. GOP profits from the polarization for votes of the gullible and poorly educated, tax-cuts for their rich donors which all comes at the cost of the country as a whole.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;52911036]How is the democratic party marxist/communist? If anything I thought they were too conservative.[/QUOTE] That's been the trend since the mid 1900's, a lot of (very liberal) college professors (or in other terms, scholars) are communist/marxist apologists who still believe, to this day, Communism is a viable form of government and every iteration of it so far hasn't been "real communism." I'm not saying that "All Democrats are commies and marxists who want to see the end of the Western world." Neither am I saying "All Republicans are alt-right neo-nazis who want to create a white-only state in the USA." I was simply voicing my displeasure with the vilification of [B]all[/B] Republicans because the currently [I]"elected"[/I] ones are pretty awful. In my opinion, it's not a party thing, it's a generation/culture thing. But, there's also something to be said about voting along party lines and gerrymandering. [QUOTE=Lambeth;52911036]Not all Republicans are awful but the ones currently running the party and the country are.[/QUOTE] Right. And just like the GOP, the DNC was/is also filled with corruption and every other shitty attribute under the sun. How do you think they managed to lose the 2016 elections?

[QUOTE=sgman91;52908961]I mean, this is just actual nonsense. Poor people are more likely to vote democrat than any other income block ([url]http://www.people-press.org/2009/05/21/section-1-party-affiliation-and-composition/[/url]). I could easily say that democrats want to keep people poor so that they're dependent on the teat of democrat sponsored welfare. (I wouldn't say that for the vast majority of democrats because I am able to put myself in other people's shoes and not automatically assume evil intent.)[/QUOTE] If I'm not mistaken it's less "poor people vote Democrat" and more "urban poor tend to vote Democrat". Hell out of the 10 states that receive the most welfare 7 of them voted Trump in 2016, and one of the other 3 was Maine which split it's vote.

[QUOTE=Deathking15;52911104]That's been the trend since the mid 1900's, a lot of (very liberal) college professors (or in other terms, scholars) are communist/marxist apologists who still believe, to this day, Communism is a viable form of government and every iteration of it so far hasn't been "real communism." I'm not saying that "All Democrats are commies and marxists who want to see the end of the Western world." Neither am I saying "All Republicans are alt-right neo-nazis who want to create a white-only state in the USA." I was simply voicing my displeasure with the vilification of [B]all[/B] Republicans because the currently [I]"elected"[/I] ones are pretty awful. In my opinion, it's not a party thing, it's a generation/culture thing. But, there's also something to be said about voting along party lines and gerrymandering.[/QUOTE] I don't really care what any one individual democrat thinks, more what the party hews to ideologically as a whole. And they're like discount republicans. You can find an apologist for basically anything under the sun these days. :disgust: [QUOTE]How do you think they managed to lose the 2016 elections?[/QUOTE] Misinformation unlike what we've ever seen before and a republican party that is intellectually and morally dead inside. And sure, democratic party corruption, but I don't think the GOP have shown themselves to be a whole lot better in the past year.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;52911166]I don't really care what any one individual democrat thinks, more what the party hews to ideologically as a whole. And they're like discount republicans. You can find an apologist for basically anything under the sun these days. :disgust: Misinformation unlike what we've ever seen before and a republican party that is intellectually and morally dead inside. And sure, democratic party corruption, but I don't think the GOP have shown themselves to be a whole lot better in the past year.[/QUOTE] Aye, I agree, it's all a shitshow. The only thing that's changing is the color of the shit. Again, I just want to avoid "libtard" and "neo-nazi" generalizations. They do no good.

[QUOTE=Anderan;52911148]If I'm not mistaken it's less "poor people vote Democrat" and more "urban poor tend to vote Democrat". Hell out of the 10 states that receive the most welfare 7 of them voted Trump in 2016, and one of the other 3 was Maine which split it's vote.[/QUOTE] I was responding to the ridiculous claim that GOP wants to keep people in poverty because they're essentially slave masters to the poor. I'm sure the urban poor lean more heavily democrat, but that doesn't change the general point that the poor lean further democrat than any other income quintile. As far as pure stats go, the poorer the average person is, the worse off the GOP is. The democrats make off far better than the GOP by keeping people poor, especially in urban areas. [editline]20th November 2017[/editline] About the welfare: what stat are you talking about exactly? There are quite a few different ways to measure things and there's really no way for me to respond without knowing exactly which you're talking about. (I think you're talking about the amount of federal aid given to states as a percentage of their total spending, but please correct me if I'm wrong.)

For now here's a different link discussing the 7 statesthat have the most food stamp recipients per capita [url]https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2015/01/17/cheat-sheet-states-with-most-food-stamps/21877399/[/url] Also there's this, which shows traditionally red states have a higher dependency on federal aid [url]https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/[/url] [url]https://taxfoundation.org/states-rely-most-federal-aid/[/url]

[QUOTE=Deathking15;52911104]That's been the trend since the mid 1900's, a lot of (very liberal) college professors (or in other terms, scholars) are communist/marxist apologists who still believe, to this day, Communism is a viable form of government and every iteration of it so far hasn't been "real communism." I'm not saying that "All Democrats are commies and marxists who want to see the end of the Western world." Neither am I saying "All Republicans are alt-right neo-nazis who want to create a white-only state in the USA." I was simply voicing my displeasure with the vilification of [B]all[/B] Republicans because the currently [I]"elected"[/I] ones are pretty awful. In my opinion, it's not a party thing, it's a generation/culture thing. But, there's also something to be said about voting along party lines and gerrymandering. Right. And just like the GOP, the DNC was/is also filled with corruption and every other shitty attribute under the sun. How do you think they managed to lose the 2016 elections?[/QUOTE] Marx very clearly identified the steps to reach communism as well as the conditions of it. Literally no country has ever come close. You can't dismiss he comments of scholars WHO ARE FUCKING SPECIALISTS IN THE GODDAMN FIELD because you don't like what they have to say. That is backfire effect bullshit and deep down you know it. This "my ignorance is equal to your education" shit is killing us.

[QUOTE=GunFox;52911409]Marx very clearly identified the steps to reach communism as well as the conditions of it. Literally no country has ever come close. You can't dismiss he comments of scholars WHO ARE FUCKING SPECIALISTS IN THE GODDAMN FIELD because you don't like what they have to say. That is backfire effect bullshit and deep down you know it. This "my ignorance is equal to your education" shit is killing us.[/QUOTE] If we're gonna make that appeal. Marxism is basically dead among economist academics and is a minority belief amongst sociologists (and marxist sociology =/ marxist econ.) In history, historical materialism is considered bullshit like any historicism. His post was pretty terrible since most academics are liberal and not marxists/communists tho but yeh.

[QUOTE=GunFox;52911409]Marx very clearly identified the steps to reach communism as well as the conditions of it. Literally no country has ever come close. You can't dismiss he comments of scholars WHO ARE FUCKING SPECIALISTS IN THE GODDAMN FIELD because you don't like what they have to say. That is backfire effect bullshit and deep down you know it. This "my ignorance is equal to your education" shit is killing us.[/QUOTE] I never made the claim that most are. Most aren't. The part of my comment you don't seem to like was directed towards the confusion surrounding my mockery of the original comment I didn't like by overgeneralizing the DNC as a bunch of Communists and Marxists. Specifically, It was a follow-up to Lambeth's question about how he thought the DNC was actually typically considered pretty conservative by global standards. And if you don't believe any country has come close to "real communism," what do you consider the USSR, China, Cambodia, Venezuela, Vietnam, etc? Additionally, I fail to see why my attack against these professors is warranting a rebuttal. We all know how many tens of millions, if not, hundreds of millions of people died as a result of the failed communist states in Russia and China specifically, no? Why would you want to defend anyone defending the USSR and China? At least in terms of total death count, the implementation of the Communist state is the worst thing to happen in the history of mankind.

[quote=Deathking15]if you don't believe any country has come close to "real communism," what do you consider the USSR, China, Cambodia, Venezuela, Vietnam, etc?[/quote] I have two watches. Both are labeled 'Rolex'. One has imprecise, staggered, movements of the second ticker. The other is smooth and articulate. Are they both 'real' because they're labeled 'Rolex'? You can come very close to making a Rolex and still not make a Rolex; that 'very close to Rolex' Rolex is still fake and not real. One of them is a deception; a name slapped on to a thing that it doesn't actually represent. Even if it was made with the best of intentions, if you didn't follow all the same procedures, use all the same materials, and have the same motion and movement of a Rolex then you weren't making a Rolex to begin with. [quote=Deathking15]Additionally, I fail to see why my attack against these professors is warranting a rebuttal. We all know how many tens of millions, if not, hundreds of millions of people died as a result of the failed communist states in Russia and China specifically, no? Why would you want to defend anyone defending the USSR and China? At least in terms of total death count, the implementation of the Communist state is the worst thing to happen in the history of mankind.[/quote] We all know that the Nazis killed millions of people not because of a failed state or flawed interpretation/execution of a utopian idea that still has yet to ever be properly exercised in reality but because of ideology, no? Why would you want to defend anyone defending the RNC/GOP who defend and rub shoulders with Nazis? At least in terms of intent, the Nazi party is the worst thing to happen in the history of mankind. Also: [B][I]WHATABOUT[/I][/B].

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52912104]I have two watches. Both are labeled 'Rolex'. One has imprecise, staggered, movements of the second ticker. The other is smooth and articulate. Are they both 'real' because they're labeled 'Rolex'? You can come very close to making a Rolex and still not make a Rolex; that 'very close to Rolex' Rolex is still fake and not real. One of them is a deception; a name slapped on to a thing that it doesn't actually represent. We all know that the Nazis killed millions of people not because of a failed state or flawed interpretation/execution of a utopian idea that still has yet to ever be properly exercised in reality but because of ideology, no? Why would you want to defend anyone defending the RNC/GOP? At least in terms of intent, the Nazi party is the worst thing to happen in the history of mankind. Also: [B][I]WHATABOUT[/I][/B].[/QUOTE] Okay, but in your given analogy, you don't have two watches with "one that functions as intended and one that does not," you have a variety of watches that all don't "work as intended" and no watch that "does." Also, how does "intent" play any role in this? Are you trying to say that China and the USSR didn't [I]intend[/I] to kill the (combined) hundreds of millions of people? That it was just accidental?

[QUOTE=Deathking15;52912124]Okay, but in your given analogy, you don't have two watches with "one that functions as intended and one that does not," you have a variety of watches that all don't "work as intended" and no watch that "does." Also, how does "intent" play any role in this? Are you trying to say that China and the USSR didn't [I]intend[/I] to kill the (combined) hundreds of millions of people? That it was just accidental?[/QUOTE] Yeah, we do have one watch that does. The one that Marx blueprinted. The problem is that nobody is willing to actually follow his blueprint - that means of all the variations on that blueprint none of them are actually Marxist. "How does intent play any role in this" are you serious? [quote]Are you trying to say that China and the USSR didn't intend to kill the (combined) hundreds of millions of people? That it was just accidental?[/quote] I'm saying that the Nazis have it as their mission statement to literally kill everyone that's not them. China and the USSR didn't make it their mission statement to 'kill millions'. Their mission statement was 'The Rich Must Have Power over the Common Masses'. Is it their fault for following Marx's blueprint for a 'time traveling delorean' whose critical part is a mishmashed idea that doesn't really work in reality 'a flux capacitor'? Yes. Is it their fault for installing an atom-bomb to 'make up for not having a flux capacitor'? Yes. Does that mean they built Marx's time traveling delorean when they set that a-bomb off? No. We can debate on whether or not those deaths were accidental (as in 'they didn't even suspect that many would die') -- but it [I]wasn't[/I] their objective. To even further analogize: Would Dr. Brown in Back to the Future 'intend to kill millions of people' when his nuclear-powered time machine detonated in a nuclear fireball, wiping out the city and its surroundings? No - he [I]intended[/I] to travel back some seconds in time; that his (highly experimental, only vaguely logical, powered-by-a-thing-that-can't-be-fully-explained) machine failed and caused a catastrophic event wasn't the purpose of the machine or his experiment. That said, would he still be held responsible for 'damning the consequences' and having a 'reckless and wanton disregard for who or what might be impacted by his fever-dream mad-scientist desire to travel back and forth in time even when he knew all of history was at stake whenever he did so'? Absolutely.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52912136]Yeah, we do have one watch that does. The one that Marx blueprinted. The problem is that nobody is willing to actually follow his blueprint - that means of all the variations on that blueprint none of them are actually Marxist. "How does intent play any role in this" are you serious? I'm saying that the Nazis have it as their mission statement to literally kill everyone that's not them. China and the USSR didn't make it their mission statement to 'kill millions'. Their mission statement was 'The Rich Must Have Power over the Common Masses'. Is it their fault for following Marx's blueprint for a 'time traveling delorean' whose critical part is a mishmashed idea that doesn't really work in reality 'a flux capacitor'? Yes. Is it their fault for installing an atom-bomb to 'make up for not having a flux capacitor'? Yes. Does that mean they built Marx's time traveling delorean when they set that a-bomb off? No. We can debate on whether or not those deaths were accidental (as in 'they didn't even suspect that many would die') -- but it [I]wasn't[/I] their objective.[/QUOTE] [url]https://youtu.be/HXBjVau1w7Y?t=2m40s[/url]

[QUOTE=Deathking15;52912157][url]https://youtu.be/HXBjVau1w7Y?t=2m40s[/url][/QUOTE] Uh, no, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying 'Utopias are utopian. They don't have an actual place in reality - when people try to change them to try and make them fit in reality they don't work. They didn't work to begin with, besides, as they require things beyond our ability to control or produce - but changing any part of a utopia (who are incredibly fragile by definition) instantly makes it not a utopia and you are no longer seeking that utopia as envisioned'. So, no, I'm saying that 'If I were Stalin' I'd say 'no, fuck that, that's just a theoretical model that's never even been tested in reality which purports to create an utopia - which nobody has ever made in the history of mankind that we have record of. I'm not willing to make my people subject to a grand experiment on such scales without testing it out on a smaller scale first'. Good job putting words in my mouth though, you totes understood exactly what I was going after. And, yes, I still hold that nobody's actually achieved what Marx blueprinted because nobody's followed his blueprint and made it into a reality. [I]I don't think anyone ever will because it's a Utopia and Utopias don't work because they always assume everyone will just 'go along with the system'[/I] but that's besides the point.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52912172]Uh, no, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying 'Utopias are utopian. They don't have an actual place in reality - when people try to change them to try and make them fit in reality they don't work. They didn't work to begin with, besides, as they require things beyond our ability to control or produce - but changing any part of a utopia (who are incredibly fragile by definition) instantly makes it not a utopia and you are no longer seeking that utopia as envisioned'. So, no, I'm saying that 'If I were Stalin' I'd say 'no, fuck that, that's just a theoretical model that's never even been tested in reality which purports to create an utopia - which nobody has ever made in the history of mankind that we have record of. I'm not willing to make my people subject to a grand experiment on such scales without testing it out on a smaller scale first'.[/QUOTE] Oh I apologize, I thought you were arguing a different point.

[QUOTE=Deathking15;52912175]Oh I apologize, I thought you were arguing a different point.[/QUOTE] I can't even comprehend what point you think I was arguing, given what I was writing.

[QUOTE=Deathking15;52912086] And if you don't believe any country has come close to "real communism," what do you consider the USSR, China, Cambodia, Venezuela, Vietnam, etc? Additionally, I fail to see why my attack against these professors is warranting a rebuttal. We all know how many tens of millions, if not, hundreds of millions of people died as a result of the failed communist states in Russia and China specifically, no? Why would you want to defend anyone defending the USSR and China? At least in terms of total death count, the implementation of the Communist state is the worst thing to happen in the history of mankind.[/QUOTE] DICTATORSHIPS. Literally could not be less communism. People's Republic of China is also not actually a republic. The Democratic people's republic of Korea? Not democratic. The Union of the Soviet Socialists Republic? Not a republic. Socialist Republic of Vietnam? Nope. Republic of Cuba? Seriously? Do I have to keep doing this? Communism, at its most basic form, means that the people all collectively own the means of production. A single party socialist state that controls everything from the top down is diametrically opposed to the concept of communism. Calling yourself communist is a tactic to build support from the proletariat and, ironically, accomplish the same thing that capitalism does: convince them that they are acting in their own interest, when they are actually acting against themselves. [QUOTE=thelurker1234;52911433]If we're gonna make that appeal. Marxism is basically dead among economist academics and is a minority belief amongst sociologists (and marxist sociology =/ marxist econ.) In history, historical materialism is considered bullshit like any historicism. His post was pretty terrible since most academics are liberal and not marxists/communists tho but yeh.[/QUOTE] Marxism was not Marx. Marx literally lived long enough to see the rise of Marxism and call bullshit on it. Conflict theory is the product of Marx. It is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a minority belief among sociologists.

[QUOTE=GunFox;52913061]DICTATORSHIPS. Literally could not be less communism. People's Republic of China is also not actually a republic. The Democratic people's republic of Korea? Not democratic. The Union of the Soviet Socialists Republic? Not a republic. Socialist Republic of Vietnam? Nope. Republic of Cuba? Seriously? Do I have to keep doing this? Communism, at its most basic form, means that the people all collectively own the means of production. A single party socialist state that controls everything from the top down is diametrically opposed to the concept of communism. Calling yourself communist is a tactic to build support from the proletariat and, ironically, accomplish the same thing that capitalism does: convince them that they are acting in their own interest, when they are actually acting against themselves. Marxism was not Marx. Marx literally lived long enough to see the rise of Marxism and call bullshit on it. Conflict theory is the product of Marx. It is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a minority belief among sociologists.[/QUOTE] Ah yes, the great moment when marx took his entire body of work, and called it bullshit. You're taking that quote well out of context. It was a jab at French socialist parties. Marxism IS his body of work, and derived ideas thereof. When I mentioned Economists and Sociologists, they are REJECTING most of his work intentionally because it's [B]wrong[/B], not rejecting something that isn't his work. Stuff like the labor theory of value, tendency for the rate of profit to fall, the utter lack of empiricism, etc.. They're not respected in the economics community anymore, but pretty much any socialist economist still around tries to save his work by throwing out the bullshit and replacing it with newer bullshit. Such as the neo-marxians of the 20th century. Anyways. I'm happy you defined your ideology as perfection, and can thus shift any problems of it onto other factors. These countries weren't ran by socialists who wanted to build a socialist society, followed by failure and being forced to turn away from said ideals.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52913364]Ah yes, the great moment when marx took his entire body of work, and called it bullshit. You're taking that quote well out of context. It was a jab at French socialist parties. Marxism IS his body of work, and derived ideas thereof. When I mentioned Economists and Sociologists, they are REJECTING most of his work intentionally because it's [B]wrong[/B], not rejecting something that isn't his work. Stuff like the labor theory of value, tendency for the rate of profit to fall, the utter lack of empiricism, etc.. They're not respected in the economics community anymore, but pretty much any socialist economist still around tries to save his work by throwing out the bullshit and replacing it with newer bullshit. Such as the neo-marxians of the 20th century. Anyways. I'm happy you defined your ideology as perfection, and can thus shift any problems of it onto other factors. These countries weren't ran by socialists who wanted to build a socialist society, followed by failure and being forced to turn away from said ideals.[/QUOTE] Marx wasn't discarding his whole work at all, he was pointing out that the political ideology behind Marxism wasn't his work. Marx saw communism as an inevitability. He saw inequality as inherent instability in any system, so he he envisioned a stable system and the logical conclusion of capitalism. My concern isnt with communism, but rather that what you are saying is objectively wrong. Again, I want to emphasize because people don't understand this, communism was just what Marx saw as the logical conclusion to the inequality behind capitalism. He was wrong, at the very least, about the timeline, but conflict theory is essentially the only theory from a classical theorist that has held up to the test of time.