Smart kid lives in a truck on the google campus...is paying back his college debts.

Joanimaroni wrote:So I suppose you do not understand what Pkr meant when he said,  It's a good strategy for a growing authoritarian govt to saddle the brightest citizens with enormous debt... to govt."

PkrBum wrote:I refuse to play loop de loop with an asshole that ignores relevant facts while asking obtuse and misleading questions.
Let the govt give an economics degree to anyone that can balance their checkbook. In the mean time... fuck off.

PkrBum wrote:I refuse to play loop de loop

boards of FL wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:So I suppose you do not understand what Pkr meant when he said,  It's a good strategy for a growing authoritarian govt to saddle the brightest citizens with enormous debt... to govt."

I understand what he meant there.  He's wrong, but I understand his point of view in that regard.

My question was about the alternative arrangement that doesn't saddle our best and brightest citizens with enormous debt, and I suppose you didn't understand that.  

I wanted to to get his broad categorization of that alternative policy.  Words failed him...as usual.

PkrBum wrote:I refuse to play loop de loop with an asshole that ignores relevant facts while asking obtuse and misleading questions.
Let the govt give an economics degree to anyone that can balance their checkbook. In the mean time... fuck off.

PkrBum wrote:I didn't reference some obscure ancient event pencil neck... these are recent events that we've been over countless times.

What you choose to ignore is of no interest to me.

PkrBum wrote:Boards dodges questions constantly... I'm not going to waste my time answering his or entertaining his childish demeanor.

I've gone into great detail many many times. There are probably no aspects I haven't covered. Fuck off.

Guest wrote:I won't waste any time on you... your self-delusion and denying the agenda are none of my business. Enjoy comrade.

PkrBum wrote:It's a good strategy for a growing authoritarian govt to saddle the brightest citizens with enormous debt... to govt.

boards of FL wrote:So what does that say about politicians who propose subsidized college education?  What does that say about people who oppose such an idea?

See ya later, PkrBum!

PkrBum wrote:The govt is the reason that the price of higher education is skyrocketing... it's similar to the housing bubble.

I love how you useful idiots can ignore that govt caused the problem... while begging for the govt to "fix" it.

boards of FL wrote:One more time for PkrBum.  Bernie Sanders has proposed that college education be subsidized by the federal government; meaning, if such legislation were to pass, students earning degrees would not be burdened with debt.

If it is your belief that the current system of offering loans to college students - thus burdening them with debt - is an authoritarian policy, what would you call the policy of subsidized college education being offered by Sanders?

Are you at a loss for words here?  Is this another one of those cases where you make one, one-line submission into a thread and then you're tapped out?

PkrBum wrote:You leftists are so predictable. Sit back and watch the govt fuck up a system so bad that the only option is to nationalize.

Lol... it's so easy these days. Congratulations comrade... pick up your green participation ribbon at the voting booth.

boards of FL wrote:Do you not understand the question being asked here?

If it is your belief that the current system of offering loans to college students - thus burdening them with debt - is an authoritarian policy, what would you call the policy of subsidized college education being offered by Sanders?

Can you not answer that?  

Uh oh...it's happening again.

PkrBum wrote:I refuse to play loop de loop with an asshole that ignores relevant facts while asking obtuse and misleading questions.
Let the govt give an economics degree to anyone that can balance their checkbook. In the mean time... fuck off.

Joanimaroni wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:So I suppose you do not understand what Pkr meant when he said,  It's a good strategy for a growing authoritarian govt to saddle the brightest citizens with enormous debt... to govt."

I understand what he meant there.  He's wrong, but I understand his point of view in that regard.

My question was about the alternative arrangement that doesn't saddle our best and brightest citizens with enormous debt, and I suppose you didn't understand that.  

I wanted to to get his broad categorization of that alternative policy.  Words failed him...as usual.

Why do you think he is wrong?  Try to be specific without throwing in a bunch of loquacious babble.    

boards of FL wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:So I suppose you do not understand what Pkr meant when he said,  It's a good strategy for a growing authoritarian govt to saddle the brightest citizens with enormous debt... to govt."

I understand what he meant there.  He's wrong, but I understand his point of view in that regard.

My question was about the alternative arrangement that doesn't saddle our best and brightest citizens with enormous debt, and I suppose you didn't understand that.  

I wanted to to get his broad categorization of that alternative policy.  Words failed him...as usual.

Why do you think he is wrong?  Try to be specific without throwing in a bunch of loquacious babble.    

Because 'authoritarian' is generally reserved for things that are genuinely authoritarian, particularly when we're dealing in the context of government.

A program that expands access to a college education to those who seek it by way of subsidized loans isn't authoritarian.  That is simply an example of a fair minded policy meant to provide financial aid to those who may need it should they choose to pursue a college education.  

If we're going to make the definition of 'authoritarian' as loose as PkrBum uses it, everything is authoritarian.  What isn't authoritarian?  The word loses its meaning entirely.

In the interest of effective communication, I generally try to use the standard definition of words that the vast majority of the public at large know and understand.


I suspect that if PkrBum were at Chick Fil A and they tell him that they're out of sweet tea, his response would be "Ha!  How authoritarian of you!  You're exerting force on me and making me drink something other than my preference!" (folds arms and storms off)  

Joanimaroni wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:So I suppose you do not understand what Pkr meant when he said,  It's a good strategy for a growing authoritarian govt to saddle the brightest citizens with enormous debt... to govt."

I understand what he meant there.  He's wrong, but I understand his point of view in that regard.

My question was about the alternative arrangement that doesn't saddle our best and brightest citizens with enormous debt, and I suppose you didn't understand that.  

I wanted to to get his broad categorization of that alternative policy.  Words failed him...as usual.

Why do you think he is wrong?  Try to be specific without throwing in a bunch of loquacious babble.    

Because 'authoritarian' is generally reserved for things that are genuinely authoritarian, particularly when we're dealing in the context of government.

A program that expands access to a college education to those who seek it by way of subsidized loans isn't authoritarian.  That is simply an example of a fair minded policy meant to provide financial aid to those who may need it should they choose to pursue a college education.  

If we're going to make the definition of 'authoritarian' as loose as PkrBum uses it, everything is authoritarian.  What isn't authoritarian?  The word loses its meaning entirely.

In the interest of effective communication, I generally try to use the standard definition of words that the vast majority of the public at large know and understand.


I suspect that if PkrBum were at Chick Fil A and they tell him that they're out of sweet tea, his response would be "Ha!  How authoritarian of you!  You're exerting force on me and making me drink something other than my preference!" (folds arms and storms off)  

Why do you think he is wrong?  Try to be specific without throwing in a bunch of loquacious babble.


What part of this did you not understand?

boards of FL wrote:Of course, I could have also replied as follows:

I'm not going to waste my time with this bullshit!  You right-wing nazis can ignore facts all you want!  Fuck off! I have already explained myself in detail thousands of times!  (two snaps and a twist)  (runs away)