Creating Terrorists, Why do we continue to do it?

[ScummyD]

Right, **** those educational standards for higher learning!

Sorry you feel that way.

 

[ScummyD]

I like it how when Z3n gets thrashed on a point he resorts to using the meaningless "Thanks" option and refrains from further posts. :lamo

 

[Z3n]

Let me google that for you

again......

 

[ScummyD]

again......

Oh, there he is.

Hey, now it's down to one word. :lol:

What's a matter, no where to go after being nuked??? :lamo

 

[Z3n]

Oh, now seven words. :lamo

What's a matter, no where to go after being nuked??? :lamo

Ok pal. You keep belittling education, but also use it as a scapegoat and insult the "intelligence" people have. Offering no explanation where said "intelligence" comes from, you continually assault any avenue of intelligence that may be present.

The Tu Quoque Fallacy. oke

 

[ScummyD]

Ok pal. You keep belittling education, but also use it as a scapegoat and insult the "intelligence" people have. Offering no explanation where said "intelligence" comes from, you continually assault any avenue of intelligence that may be present.

The Tu Quoque Fallacy. oke

Ah yes, hide behind the dictates of formal logic in a casual discussion wherein you just got torn apart. :lamo Whatever makes you feel a little better.

You made a false claim. I blew you out of the water. Just sack up and admit you were wrong already.

 

[Z3n]

Ah yes, hide behind the dictates of formal logic in a casual discussion wherein you just got torn apart. :lamo Whatever makes you feel a little better.

Again, scapegoating my lack of "intelligence" or formal knowledge of said matter, and then belittling any and all attempt at positing formal denounciations of said logic. :ws

 

[ScummyD]

:ws

I don't think Catawba would appreciate that.

 

[Catawba]

Again, scapegoating my lack of "intelligence" or formal knowledge of said matter, and then belittling any and all attempt at positing formal denounciations of said logic. :ws

Yes, shame on you Z for utilizing your education and logic in your debates. That is totally unfair, and I must say a very elitist approach!

 

[ScummyD]

im sure not trusting GED americans with the future of anything.

That's funny, because it is the the supposed educated elite that have led us to the sad state of affairs of where we are today!

thats not true at all.

Just to drive the final nail into the coffin here in case there was any doubt.

"As has been true in recent Congresses, the vast majority of Members (95%) of the 111th Congress
hold university degrees.

Congressional Research Service​

And to confirm that, yes, most American presidents went to institutions of higher learning you can consult page 194 of Joseph Nathan Kane's Facts About the Presidents.

NEXT!!!

 

[Catawba]

Just to drive the final nail into the coffin here in case there was any doubt.

"As has been true in recent Congresses, the vast majority of Members (95%) of the 111th Congress
hold university degrees.

Congressional Research Service​

And to confirm that, yes, most American presidents went to institutions of higher learning you can consult page 194 of Joseph Nathan Kane's Facts About the Presidents.

NEXT!!!

Thanks Scummy! I think we all understand now exactly where you are coming from there! :shock:

 

[ScummyD]

And this just in:

Obama's education of little use to his presidency

By: Noemie Emery
Examiner Columnist
January 13, 2010

David Brooks notes that in the last year, something dire has happened: The public has turned decisively against the "educated classes" and all of their works. At the same time, it has also moved against Barack Obama, who began his term with approval ratings that bumped up against 70, and have now sunk to the high to mid-40s, with "strongly disapprove" ratings that rival those of George W. Bush at his worst.

[Washington]Noemie Emery: Obama's education of little use to his presidency | Washington Examiner Examiner[/url]​

Expect now to hear the elitists and their lickspittles to prove their elitist credentials by deriding the American public as a bunch of hicks and hayseeds that don't know what is best for their own lives and so need the statists to act as their parental figure through the force of Big Government intrusion.

 

[justabubba]

And this just in:

Obama's education of little use to his presidency

By: Noemie Emery
Examiner Columnist
January 13, 2010

David Brooks notes that in the last year, something dire has happened: The public has turned decisively against the "educated classes" and all of their works. At the same time, it has also moved against Barack Obama, who began his term with approval ratings that bumped up against 70, and have now sunk to the high to mid-40s, with "strongly disapprove" ratings that rival those of George W. Bush at his worst.

[Washington]Noemie Emery: Obama's education of little use to his presidency | Washington Examiner Examiner[/url]​

Expect now to hear the elitists and their lickspittles to prove their elitist credentials by deriding the American public as a bunch of hicks and hayseeds that don't know what is best for their own lives and so need the statists to act as their parental figure through the force of Big Government intrusion.

being neither elite nor a sycophant you did not expect to hear from me. too bad.
what brooks misunderstands (or misrepresents) and which emery wrongly echoed is the belief that the American public is now against those who are educated. what we see is a widening chasm between the haves and the have-nots. by and large the haves are the more educated and the have-nots tend to be less educated.
it is that comparative advantage which has diminished the economic opportunity of American workers with limited skills. the high school graduate, who once could become an auto worker or the like, with a stable career, decent salary and a fixed pension with benefits, no longer has such expectations. those jobs have migrated to other places where labor costs are such that Americans are priced out of the market. compound that with a the failure to enforce our immigration laws, allowing illegals to fill entry level positions requiring no education, at a lower cost than minimum wage, and that low/no-skilled American worker has no place to go for work. add to all of this an economic environment where our nation has used the taxes of the wage earner to re-capitalize the banks so that they can invest in dubai, singapore, beijing or seoul, rather than make loans with less profitability to America's small businesses and the small businesses - America's economic engine - must cut staff. those most expendable are those with the least skills.
so what the OP and brooks and emery see, uneducated Americans hurting, is the symptom. misguided government policies - especially those of the dicknbush era, like the 'starve the beast' policy, as advocated by the likes of the OP, brooks and emery - are the actual problem causing the resulting malaise now before us

 

[ScummyD]

being neither elite nor a sycophant you did not expect to hear from me. too bad.
what brooks misunderstands (or misrepresents) and which emery wrongly echoed is the belief that the American public is now against those who are educated. what we see is a widening chasm between the haves and the have-nots. by and large the haves are the more educated and the have-nots tend to be less educated.
it is that comparative advantage which has diminished the economic opportunity of American workers with limited skills. the high school graduate, who once could become an auto worker or the like, with a stable career, decent salary and a fixed pension with benefits, no longer has such expectations. those jobs have migrated to other places where labor costs are such that Americans are priced out of the market. compound that with a the failure to enforce our immigration laws, allowing illegals to fill entry level positions requiring no education, at a lower cost than minimum wage, and that low/no-skilled American worker has no place to go for work. add to all of this an economic environment where our nation has used the taxes of the wage earner to re-capitalize the banks so that they can invest in dubai, singapore, beijing or seoul, rather than make loans with less profitability to America's small businesses and the small businesses - America's economic engine - must cut staff. those most expendable are those with the least skills.
so what the OP and brooks and emery see, uneducated Americans hurting, is the symptom. misguided government policies - especially those of the dicknbush era, like the 'starve the beast' policy, as advocated by the likes of the OP, brooks and emery - are the actual problem causing the resulting malaise now before us

duplicate...

 

[ScummyD]

being neither elite nor a sycophant you did not expect to hear from me. too bad.
what brooks misunderstands (or misrepresents) and which emery wrongly echoed is the belief that the American public is now against those who are educated. what we see is a widening chasm between the haves and the have-nots. by and large the haves are the more educated and the have-nots tend to be less educated.
it is that comparative advantage which has diminished the economic opportunity of American workers with limited skills. the high school graduate, who once could become an auto worker or the like, with a stable career, decent salary and a fixed pension with benefits, no longer has such expectations. those jobs have migrated to other places where labor costs are such that Americans are priced out of the market. compound that with a the failure to enforce our immigration laws, allowing illegals to fill entry level positions requiring no education, at a lower cost than minimum wage, and that low/no-skilled American worker has no place to go for work. add to all of this an economic environment where our nation has used the taxes of the wage earner to re-capitalize the banks so that they can invest in dubai, singapore, beijing or seoul, rather than make loans with less profitability to America's small businesses and the small businesses - America's economic engine - must cut staff. those most expendable are those with the least skills.
so what the OP and brooks and emery see, uneducated Americans hurting, is the symptom. misguided government policies - especially those of the dicknbush era, like the 'starve the beast' policy, as advocated by the likes of the OP, brooks and emery - are the actual problem causing the resulting malaise now before us

What you missed is the fact that for all of Obama's education he has only succeeded in running the country into the ground even farther.:lol:

And as you even admit yourself, "misguided government policies" are the problem. :lamo The same misguided policies put in place by the educated elite. You even cite Bush, an attendee of the Harvard Business School. :lamo:lamo

Thanks for making my case. :lamo

 

[justabubba]

What you missed is the fact that for all of Obama's education he has only succeeded in running the country into the ground even farther.:lol:

And as you even admit yourself, "misguided government policies" are the problem. :lamo The same misguided policies put in place by the educated elite. You even cite Bush, an attendee of the Harvard Business School. :lamo:lamo

Thanks for making my case. :lamo

share with us what an uneducated person would have done instead; which actions would have avoided our present economic circumstances?
this should be rich

 

[Catawba]

this should be rich

I know I'm looking forward to it!

 

[Z3n]

I know I'm looking forward to it!

Especially when for some reason intelligence is of paramount importance to ad hom arguments for him, but any education or claimed intelligence is invalid as it's a product of an unintelligent source? :rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl

 

[Tom Jones]

What you missed is the fact that for all of Obama's education he has only succeeded in running the country into the ground even farther.:lol:

And as you even admit yourself, "misguided government policies" are the problem. :lamo The same misguided policies put in place by the educated elite. You even cite Bush, an attendee of the Harvard Business School. :lamo:lamo

Thanks for making my case. :lamo

I agree - Obama doesn't have a clue as to what he is doing - his latest is to hit the banks with fees so they will start lending people money.

The Dems are total morons, which is why we are in financial trouble to begin with.

When the Dems took control of the house and senate in the beginning of 2007 everything started to go down hill from there, now with the addition of Obama - timber.

Anyway - the morons went from telling the banks to give loans to people who didn't even qualify, which is why the foreclosure rate is the worst in history, and they jocked people's credit in the process, but now they are telling the banks to give loans again or they are going to hit them with fees.

First, the morons, the Dems, obviously didn't even bother to think that one out because the banks will just pass the cost of any fees put on them on to consumers - geez, a lot of good that edumacation did Obama.

Second, the banks aren't lending not because they don't want to, which is what the Dems think, and which is why they want to fine them with fees if they don't loan more - the banks aren't lending because half the people's credit is jocked - those people are in no mood to apply for credit - and the other half of the people do not want to take a loan in fear of the same thing happening to them.

The morons, the Dems, don't have a clue that what they did to the economy has craploads of people out of work, in the hole, and craploads of people who are very scared to venture anywhere (taking loans, etc) with the economy in the condition that it is in.

Those morons, the Dems, have over 20 million people unemployed in this country, and that's not counting all the illegal aliens they let in, and they don't realize that most people who are hanging onto to their joobs are doing so with furloughs, cuts in pay, and threat of layoff - all while the jerks who caused it have given themselves nice raises and added perks like you read about.

The Dems who have caused this mess the country is in are the dumbest bunch of arrogant assholes in the history of this country.

Since they took control in 2007 they not only have jocked the economy, they have damn near ruined America with their retarded, trapped in the 70's facism - now the government owns, paid for with taxpayer's money, banks, auto manufacturing companies, and now giving away more taxpayer's money trying to own health care.

The ones who need an education are the ones who vote for such arrogant corruption.

 

[justabubba]

while i had invited scummyd to give us an uneducated perspective, thanks for stepping up in his stead
that justification for exculpating the republicans from blame was brilliant [/s]

 

[cpwill]

So are the Christian cultural references many Americans draw on.

and christian fundamentalism, too, is a modern phenomena

 

[cpwill]

share with us what an uneducated person would have done instead; which actions would have avoided our present economic circumstances?
this should be rich

Which U.S. president ranks as America's greatest depression fighter?

Not the fabled Franklin Delano Roosevelt, since unemployment averaged 17 percent through the New Deal period (1933–1940). What banished high unemployment was the conscription of 12 million men into the armed forces during World War II. FDR actually prolonged high unemployment: he tripled taxes; he signed laws that made it more expensive for employers to hire people, made discounting illegal, and authorized the destruction of food; and he launched costly infrastructure projects like the Tennessee Valley Authority that became a drag on states receiving TVA-subsidized electricity.

America's greatest depression fighter was Warren Gamaliel Harding. An Ohio senator when he was elected president in 1920, he followed the much praised Woodrow Wilson— who had brought America into World War I, built up huge federal bureaucracies, imprisoned dissenters, and incurred $25 billion of debt.

Harding inherited Wilson's mess— in particular, a post–World War I depression that was almost as severe, from peak to trough, as the Great Contraction from 1929 to 1933 that FDR would later inherit. The estimated gross national product plunged 24 percent from $91.5 billion in 1920 to $69.6 billion in 1921. The number of unemployed people jumped from 2.1 million to 4.9 million.

Harding had a much better understanding of how an economy works than FDR. As historian Robert K. Murray wrote in The Harding Era, the man who would become our 29th president "always decried high taxes, government waste, and excessive governmental interference in the private sector of the economy. In February 1920, shortly after announcing his candidacy, he advocated a cut in government expenditures and stated that government ought to 'strike the shackles from industry. . . . We need vastly more freedom than we do regulation.' "

One of Harding's campaign slogans was "less government in business," and it served him well. Harding embraced the advice of Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon and called for tax cuts in his first message to Congress on April 12, 1921. The highest taxes, on corporate revenues and "excess" profits, were to be cut. Personal income taxes were to be left as is, with a top rate of 8 percent of incomes above $4,000. Harding recognized the crucial importance of encouraging the investment that is essential for growth and jobs, something that FDR never did.

...Federal spending was cut from $6.3 billion in 1920 to $5 billion in 1921 and $3.2 billion in 1922. Federal taxes fell from $6.6 billion in 1920 to $5.5 billion in 1921 and $4 billion in 1922. Harding's policies started a trend. The low point for federal taxes was reached in 1924; for federal spending, in 1925. The federal government paid off debt, which had been $24.2 billion in 1920, and it continued to decline until 1930.

Conspicuously absent was the business-bashing that became a hallmark of FDR's speeches. Absent, too, were New Deal-type big government programs to make it more expensive for employers to hire people, to force prices above market levels, or to promote cartels and monopolies.

With Harding's tax and spending cuts and relatively non-interventionist economic policy, GNP rebounded to $74.1 billion in 1922. The number of unemployed fell to 2.8 million— a reported 6.7 percent of the labor force— in 1922. So, just a year and a half after Harding became president, the Roaring Twenties were underway. The unemployment rate continued to decline, reaching an extraordinary low of 1.8 percent in 1926. Since then, the unemployment rate has been lower only once in wartime (1944), and never in peacetime...

 

[Catawba]

Historical rankings of United States Presidents ~

"In political science, historical rankings of United States Presidents are surveys conducted in order to construct rankings of the success of individuals who have served as President of the United States. Ranking systems are usually based on surveys of academic historians and political scientists or popular opinion. The rankings focus on the presidential achievements, leadership qualities, failures and faults (such as corruption)."

"George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin D. Roosevelt are consistently ranked at the top of the lists. Often ranked just below those three are Presidents Thomas Jefferson and Theodore Roosevelt."
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_United_States_Presidents]Historical rankings of United States Presidents - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

FDR in fact is the only president ever to be elected to 4 terms!

 

[cpwill]

Historical rankings of United States Presidents ~

"In political science, historical rankings of United States Presidents are surveys conducted in order to construct rankings of the success of individuals who have served as President of the United States. Ranking systems are usually based on surveys of academic historians and political scientists or popular opinion. The rankings focus on the presidential achievements, leadership qualities, failures and faults (such as corruption)."

"George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin D. Roosevelt are consistently ranked at the top of the lists. Often ranked just below those three are Presidents Thomas Jefferson and Theodore Roosevelt."
Historical rankings of United States Presidents - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

FDR in fact is the only president ever to be elected to 4 terms!

well, yeah, nobody ever said that keeping the country impoverished while keeping huge numbers of Americans dependent upon your administration on a weekly basis wasn't a smart political strategy; we just point out that it was a devastating economic one.

 

[Tom Jones]

Historical rankings of United States Presidents ~

"In political science, historical rankings of United States Presidents are surveys conducted in order to construct rankings of the success of individuals who have served as President of the United States. Ranking systems are usually based on surveys of academic historians and political scientists or popular opinion. The rankings focus on the presidential achievements, leadership qualities, failures and faults (such as corruption)."

"George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin D. Roosevelt are consistently ranked at the top of the lists. Often ranked just below those three are Presidents Thomas Jefferson and Theodore Roosevelt."
Historical rankings of United States Presidents - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

FDR in fact is the only president ever to be elected to 4 terms!

I believe FDR is overrated. He's a good reason to go with term limits for presidents - but they shouldn't have limited it to two - three would be OK - then we could have voted in Bush for another one.

Lincoln, Washington, Jefferson, and Teddy Roosevelt were good ones too.