The "Stay Classy, Republicans" Super Nintendo Chalmers Thread

It's cool. I loved Mark Messier as a NY Ranger, and I hated him as a Vancouver Canuck.

That's how we're supposed to approach political opinions, yes?
 
[quote name='IRHari']The 'conservative kingmaker' used to endorse 'Obamacare':

http://www.slate.com/BLOGS/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/05/06/demint-on-romneycare.aspx

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0511/DeMint_and_Romney.html

He wanted 'Romneycare' on a national level, which is basically 'Obamacare'. Once 'Obamacare' came to fruition he was apoplectic and doesn't support a 'government-centric' plan.

His position sounds quite deminted to me. Stay classy.[/QUOTE]

Yep. I've known that for a long while. It's hard to be for small government when you support the PATRIOT Act (here's also looking at you, Michelle Bachmann), too.

Paul Ryan's record is even more opposed to his rhetoric than DeMint or Bachmann.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']It's cool. I loved Mark Messier as a NY Ranger, and I hated him as a Vancouver Canuck.

That's how we're supposed to approach political opinions, yes?[/QUOTE]
Sometimes it seems that way.
 
I can't wait for UncleBob to get home from work to help identify someone on the left who is the (false) equivalent of William Temple. Bonus points if you pick someone who dresses like a theatrical jackass, too.
 
ya, thats horrible. a guy donates to a university and gives them the option to accept his terms of the donation or deny them, and they accepted them and uphold their end of the agreement. BAD MARKET.
 
I'm not surprised, FSU was the school that had football players reading at an elementary school level, they don't seem to care much about academics period.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I can't wait for UncleBob to get home from work to help identify someone on the left who is the (false) equivalent of William Temple. Bonus points if you pick someone who dresses like a theatrical jackass, too.[/QUOTE]

A.) Obama? Wait, no... he gives in to all kinds of stupid ass things without getting anything in return...
B.) I thought you were going to have me on ignore? Geesh, Myke... can't you make up your vastly-superior mind on such a simple thing?
C.) Again, I'm being told I'm supposed to defend someone who - quite obviously - is going against my previously stated stance on a subject. I swear, it's impossible for some posters on this forum to grasp the idea that I don't walk the right-wing party line. I know, I know, it's new, different and scary that there are people out there who don't fit inside of your pre-designed little boxes of how everyone should be... but really, can't you learn to adjust?
 
[quote name='Clak']I'm not surprised, FSU was the school that had football players reading at an elementary school level, they don't seem to care much about academics period.[/QUOTE]

don't need to when you can produce a student body similar to Jen Sterger...

UB - Quit being such a flip-flopper and toe the line god damnit! You need to make it easy for people to ridicule you! If nothing else that's what I've learned in the last couple weeks here.
 
[quote name='camoor']Who says trickle down doesn't work, Koch has unzipped and he's trickling all over Florida State U.[/QUOTE]

yeah these guys are so confident in their ideas that they go out of their way to suppress other viewpoints.

How are they going to promote the market when they can't even compete in the marketplace of ideas?
 
[quote name='usickenme']yeah these guys are so confident in their ideas that they go out of their way to suppress other viewpoints.

How are they going to promote the market when they can't even compete in the marketplace of ideas?[/QUOTE]

Very good point. While arguing the free market is the best option they are essentially squashing any competing ideas. So basically they only believe the free market is best for business, when it comes to ideas...well then its ok to squash any competing view point.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']Very good point. While arguing the free market is the best option they are essentially squashing any competing ideas. So basically they only believe the free market is best for business, when it comes to ideas...well then its ok to squash any competing view point.[/QUOTE]

So, I assume this deal made with this school:

A) Doesn't allow the school to accept any other donations where-in individuals with competitive (i.e.: "Liberal") ideas are allowed to set up similar arrangements.
B) Somehow makes it so that any other school would also not be allowed to set up any such programs with "Liberal" individuals?

No? You mean any group of Liberals could set up a similar deal with the school and compete in the same fashion? Or set up a similar deal with any other school and compete that way?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']So, I assume this deal made with this school:

A) Doesn't allow the school to accept any other donations where-in individuals with competitive (i.e.: "Liberal") ideas are allowed to set up similar arrangements.
B) Somehow makes it so that any other school would also not be allowed to set up any such programs with "Liberal" individuals?

No? You mean any group of Liberals could set up a similar deal with the school and compete in the same fashion? Or set up a similar deal with any other school and compete that way?[/QUOTE]

Good point - let's only promote the ideas that have serious money backing them.

In other words kids, throw out your critical thinking skills and enjoy the advertisements!
 
The free market fundies cannot even describe our current problems let alone find solutions. Of course they have to buy legitimacy. Remember keep cutting taxes for the richest among us and eventually they will buy the rest of us ponies.
 
So let me get this straight bob, you think this is ok because a rich liberal could also make the same deal? Are you fucking serious?

Who am I kidding, anyone in education (not working in a Christian school) in this country is automatically a liberal, pot smoking elitist warping the young minds of the country. It's a good thing folks like Koch are trying to fix that.
 
They already have Liberty Universty and Hillsdale College to promote their false religion without scrutiny. Students are bereft of critical thinking skills and information evaluation/literacy.

They are going to stack the intellectual deck with false prophets and people don't have a problem with that?

Where was Bob's consideration of schools are part of the free market when he was questioning the validity of teachers' unions?

It's not that he's contradicts himself, nasum. It's not that he has conservative views (e.g., we largely don't attack you and ramstoria individually, though you disagree often enough). It's that he's a blithering fucking pants-on-backwards-and-on-his head idiot. Which is fine, but he's smarmy about his brilliance, which is irritating.
 
They already have Liberty Universty and Hillsdale College to promote their false religion without scrutiny. Students are bereft of critical thinking skills and information evaluation/literacy.

They are going to stack the intellectual deck with false prophets and people don't have a problem with that?

Where was Bob's consideration of schools are part of the free market when he was questioning the validity of teachers' unions?

It's not that he's contradicts himself, nasum. It's not that he has conservative views (e.g., we largely don't attack you and ramstoria individually, though you disagree often enough). It's that he's a blithering fucking pants-on-backwards-and-on-his head idiot. Which is fine, but he's smarmy about his brilliance, which is irritating.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']They already have Liberty Universty and Hillsdale College to promote their false religion without scrutiny. Students are bereft of critical thinking skills and information evaluation/literacy.

They are going to stack the intellectual deck with false prophets and people don't have a problem with that?

Where was Bob's consideration of schools are part of the free market when he was questioning the validity of teachers' unions?

It's not that he's contradicts himself, nasum. It's not that he has conservative views (e.g., we largely don't attack you and ramstoria individually, though you disagree often enough). It's that he's a blithering fucking pants-on-backwards-and-on-his head idiot. Which is fine, but he's smarmy about his brilliance, which is irritating.[/QUOTE]
Wal-Mart University, man.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']So, I assume this deal made with this school:

A) Doesn't allow the school to accept any other donations where-in individuals with competitive (i.e.: "Liberal") ideas are allowed to set up similar arrangements.
B) Somehow makes it so that any other school would also not be allowed to set up any such programs with "Liberal" individuals?

No? You mean any group of Liberals could set up a similar deal with the school and compete in the same fashion? Or set up a similar deal with any other school and compete that way? [/QUOTE]

Is it a good idea or bad idea to allow money to squash opposing viewpoints?
 
[quote name='IRHari']Is it a good idea or bad idea to allow money to squash opposing viewpoints?[/QUOTE]

Naw, it's much better to squash opposing viewpoints by insulting those people with rude comments and such. :D

Seriously, though who's viewpoints are being being "squashed" here? How many other chairs does this university have relatively free reign to appoint whomever they want to?

Let's say a great researcher in the field of genetics wants to donate a crap-ton of money to some university - but part of the deal is that he wants to create a department focused on advancing genetic research. Would you object if this same guy also wanted to screen out potential heads of this department - say, he wanted to make sure that anyone put in charge didn't deny the Theory of Evolution/believe only in Intelligent Design/Creationism?

Likely not. Same thing here. "Free Market" leader wants to create a department within the university that's focused on advancing free market ideals. He wants to be able to screen candidates for people who actually believe in the good that the free market can offer.

He's not limiting the school from posting any other individuals into any other positions. Any Free Market-hating/Creationist can still become the head of some other department.
 
Trollface_1_I_CHALLENGE_YOU-s400x365-141917-535.jpg
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Naw, it's much better to squash opposing viewpoints by insulting those people with rude comments and such posting giant stupid images that disrupt the flow of conversation and provide absolutely nothing to the thread...[/quote]

ftfm
 
A good university is 100% about academic freedom. People are higher who are talented and productive, but they have free reign to do whatever research they want (as long as it's relevant to their field and making a name for themselves--i.e. getting published in good journals etc.).

Any donations to establish new departments or expand existing ones should not come with any specific stipulations on what the curriculum should be, or what topics of research should be focused on, or the money should be turned down IMO.

I mean if someone wants to donate money to start a new department in a certain area--to keep the example used above, say a genetics department in a university that lacks one. Then that's ok. But they should get no say over who is hired by to staff the unit upon creation, no say in what the curriculum is etc. beyond perhaps being at most on a board of advisors who can give feedback.

In any case, I'd be very thoroughly opposed to a university accepting money that gave an outsider (or even a single insider) say on who was hired etc. Opposed to the point that I'd be looking to move somewhere else if my University did something like that. It flies in the face of the notion of academic freedom that academia is built around, and the way people are hired (new department would be created by a college-level committee doing a search and voting, adding faculty to an existing department is done within the department with every tenure track faculty member having an equal vote on who is hired).
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Any donations to establish new departments or expand existing ones should not come with any specific stipulations on what the curriculum should be, or what topics of research should be focused on, or the money should be turned down IMO.[/quote]

I can respect that. Personally, I don't have a problem with someone donating large sums of money with the stipulation that it's used in ways they agree with, but in this instance, I can see how you take issue with it.

I mean if someone wants to donate money to start a new department in a certain area--to keep the example used above, say a genetics department in a university that lacks one. Then that's ok. But they should get no say over who is hired by to staff the unit upon creation, no say in what the curriculum is etc. beyond perhaps being at most on a board of advisors who can give feedback.
Click to expand...

I'm left wondering what your thoughts are on the Federal Government providing money for local school districts and putting various requirements on the school as far as what they much teach, the criteria behind who they hire and what goals are set...
 
I have less problems with the federal government stipulations to public schools as academic freedom doesn't apply as much there.

The goal there is more to do as much as possible to give a consistent education across all K-12 school systems in terms of preparing students to be ready to go onto college, or the least trade schools etc.

As long as stipulations are focused on achieving those standardized goals, improving the quality of teachers hired (requiring more training etc.) I don't have an issue with it at that level. But it certainly could go too far if they get too specific in what they're specifying as requirements.

Universities, especially research universities, are totally different as it's not meant to be a standard experience as every university and every major/department within a university is different. The focus is more on research than education etc.
 
Why am I doing this...

The subject matters. There is a difference between genetics and economics. Genetics is more of a hard 'black-and-white' science, econ is a mix of science, art, and bullshit.
 
[quote name='camoor']Why am I doing this...

The subject matters. There is a difference between genetics and economics. Genetics is more of a hard 'black-and-white' science, econ is a mix of science, art, and bullshit.[/QUOTE]

That is true as well. I have much less issue with stipulations on what needs covered in say College Algebra or Calculus Ietc. than say Sociology 101.

Maths, hard sciences etc. tend to have set curriculum that need covered. Other courses are much broader and just merely need to be on topic, but there are tons of different things you can cover or not while being on topic and delivering a quality course in that area.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='UncleBob']Let's say a great researcher in the field of genetics wants to donate a crap-ton of money to some university - but part of the deal is that he wants to create a department focused on advancing genetic research. Would you object if this same guy also wanted to screen out potential heads of this department - say, he wanted to make sure that anyone put in charge didn't deny the Theory of Evolution/believe only in Intelligent Design/Creationism?[/QUOTE]

I'm not convinced that Liberal economic theories vs. Conservative economic theories is analogous to Evolution vs. Creationism.
 
[quote name='IRHari']I'm not convinced that Liberal economic theories vs. Conservative economic theories is analogous to Evolution vs. Creationism.[/QUOTE]

The proper analogy would be the Slim Jim people giving 2 million to a school for their school lunch program and reserve the right to appoint a nutritionist who pushes a food pyramid made entirely of slim jims.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I have less problems with the federal government stipulations to public schools as academic freedom doesn't apply as much there.

The goal there is more to do as much as possible to give a consistent education across all K-12 school systems in terms of preparing students to be ready to go onto college, or the least trade schools etc.

As long as stipulations are focused on achieving those standardized goals, improving the quality of teachers hired (requiring more training etc.) I don't have an issue with it at that level. But it certainly could go too far if they get too specific in what they're specifying as requirements.

Universities, especially research universities, are totally different as it's not meant to be a standard experience as every university and every major/department within a university is different. The focus is more on research than education etc.[/QUOTE]

Perfectly understandable.

And I agree, I don't believe the university should have taken the money under these conditions.

But I don't think the conditions are unreasonable. Just was we've discussed in the charity thread, when we donate money, we should have a right to know where and how that money is going to be used. This guy just donated enough money that he was able to convince the recipient that the deal was worth the amount of control he was going to get in return.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']1) "Okay, class. I hope everybody's been keeping up with their reading, because there's going to be a pop quiz today. But first, a word about Pepsi Cola."[/QUOTE]

tee hee...
 
Weren't most of those people voted in because of their fearmongering about 'Obamacare'? 'death panels'

I think they should apologize for that first before asking for apologies from anyone else.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Weren't most of those people voted in because of their fearmongering about 'Obamacare'? 'death panels'

I think they should apologize for that first before asking for apologies from anyone else.[/QUOTE]

The important part is that the Republican fearmongering consisted almost entirely of lies. Meanwhile the Dem "attacks" consisted of the truth, Republicans voted en masse to basically kill Medicare.

The quotes in the link are so full of doubletalk I don't even know where to begin.
 
I was under the impression that it's fairly standard to attach stipulations on large donations especially if it comes from an estate, but that most people generally don't. And by stipulations, I mean making sure that it goes towards a certain department or building, not tailoring the curriculum. It's one thing to fund a class on "Art and It's Relationship to Advertising" and another to have a class praising Atlus Shrugged in a goddamn business school, although, I shouldn't really be that surprised...LOLZ
 
I don't have a problem with people attaching stipulations. It's their right to try if they're making big donations.

I just think Universities should turn down the money if it's something that doesn't fit with in the university's strategic plan, or it's a request that is unreasonable like choosing who is hired etc., too much control over curriculum etc.

Some of the presidents interviewed said they would, and do, sometimes turn down donations for those reasons. But I worry that many will agree to things they shouldn't in this age of state's continuing to slash higher education budgets.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This should probably be in a 'Stay Classy Democrats' (we're long overdue for that thread) but here goes:

The DSCC has been tweeting up a storm for the past few days about what a "great candidate" Joe Donnelly is and, bizarrely the keep juxtaposing it with tweets about the shame of former DREAM Act co-sponsor Dick Lugar (R-IN) backing out of his support for the bill, which was just reintroduced in both Houses of Congress, by Obama-shill Dick Durbin in the Senate and by Howard Berman (who represents a newly Hispanic-majority L.A. district) in the House. Last time the bill came up it passed narrowly in the Democratic-controlled House, 216-198, only 8 Republicans voting for it (all but 3 no longer serving) and 38 conservative Democrats crossing the aisle in the other direction to vote against it. One of the anti-DREAM team was, of course, DSCC "great candidate" Joe Donnelly. Hold in your mind for a moment that another was Donnelly's fellow Blue Dog, Jim Matheson.
Click to expand...
http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2011/05/how-dsccs-great-recruit-joe-donnelly.html

Stay classy.
 
[quote name='IRHari']This should probably be in a 'Stay Classy Democrats' (we're long overdue for that thread) but here goes:[/QUOTE]

My guess is, those who commonly find themselves on the opposite side of the Democratic Party know well enough not to attempt to take outrageous examples of stupid behavior and pin it on an entire large group of people.

[quote name='dmaul1114']I just think Universities should turn down the money if it's something that doesn't fit with in the university's strategic plan, or it's a request that is unreasonable like choosing who is hired etc., too much control over curriculum etc.[/QUOTE]

This we can agree on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top