Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News

Drudge Retort

User Info

gtbritishskull

Subscribe to gtbritishskull's blog Subscribe

Menu

Special Features

Comments

Higher education. IMO, this isnt affected by tarriffs, is way passed inflation figures, so why is college so bloody expensive.
I am told teaching pay sucks, even for college professors. So, where is the reason for the higher cost and who is getting it???

#75 | POSTED BY PETROUS

Because they have to be "competitive". Public funding of Universities have been cut sharply by conservatives over the years, so those Universities need to make up the difference somewhere. The best way to do that is to attract "full-tuition" (as opposed to "in-state tuition") students. To do that they need to be "competitive". That means marketing departments, recruiting, promoting sports teams, high tech and modern infrastructure, and all the administrative overhead that those things entail.

Republicans wanted universities to act more like businesses, so they have. Instead of their goal being to "offer the best education", their goal has become "attract the most and best students".

Republicans always claim they want more things to "act like businesses". And it almost always ends up destroying a lot of the good aspects of those things (colleges, healthcare, public services).

Capitalism is a very powerful tool, but it is not the solution for everything. The problem is that conservatives have an almost religious association with Capitalism (they truly seem to think it is a "gift from god") such that they believe that the best solution to everything is unadulturated capitalism, regardless of any evidence to the contrary.

Snoofy can correct me if I'm wrong...my understanding is that Snoofy favors ZERO restrictions on abortion right up to the point of birth, even to the point of immediately after the point of birth. What I am unsure of is how many minutes have to elapse before Snoofy has a moral aversion to slaughtering a baby. Perhaps he can provide some clarity on this.

#23 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

I can't speak for Snoofy, but I am opposed to all restrictions up to the point if birth. Mainly because I haven't seen any evidence it is a problem. How many full term abortions are prevented by current law (that otherwise would have happened)? My guess is very few. And almost all of those probably SHOULD NOT be prevented (thing are "off" or actively going wrong, and there are implications for the viability of the fetus and the health if the woman).

Jeff... YOU want to put bureaucrats and politicians and judges between a woman and her doctor. You want those (mainly) white males to be dictating her health decisions and what is best for her family.

It is the same as "in person voter fraud". There is no evidence that it occurs to any significant degree, and in cases where it does occur there are almost always extenuating circumstances completely contrary to the Republican narrative (in the case of voter fraud it is usually just due to ignorance and/or mistakes made by the system).

Your argument is a very blatant "appeal to emotion". But that is how you manipulate ignorant people. You build up a morally reprehensible strawman and demand that people follow your plan or claim that they are supporting your made up scenario that there is almost no evidence occurs to any significant degree. You want to severely limit the freedoms of every woman to make the decisions they think are best for them and their families. Please quantify the societal benefit that you think is gained by confiscating more rights from about half of American citizens.

If Barr is willfully misrepresenting the critical conclusions of the report it will destroy him, and it should.

#13 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

No it won't. For one, Republicans don't care about the truth. In fact, they are actively allergic to it. There is no way that they would punish Barr for protecting Trump and misrepresenting the conclusions of the report (especially if he was able to do it without telling any actual lies).

A lawyers JOB is to misrepresent the truth in the interest of their client (without actually crossing the line into lying). That is what they get paid so much for. To put the best possible spin on your "story" (be it in a court, in a contract, etc) without breaking any laws. And they do that by not lying, while still making you draw the completely wrong conclusions from what was said.

There was a pretty clear example during the Cohen hearing. I can't remember what he was actually talking about, but he gave some fact about Trump and a Congressperson returned with a question "So, when you publicly said XXX then you were lying." And Cohen responded along the lines of "No. We intentionally worded what I said so that I did not tell any lies, but you would come to the wrong conclusions."

So, I ask you. Based upon the rumors floating around, where do you think Barr might have lied? Because as far as I can tell his summary is consistent not having told a lie even if the rumors are true. It just leads simple-minded people to draw the wrong conclusions. (Especially when Trump keeps saying that Barr's summary shows that Mueller's Report exonerates him, even though Barr's summary says no such thing)

Actually, I think Barr will get rewarded by Republicans in proportion to how bad the Mueller Report turns out to be for Trump. Because of how well he was able to show that he can play people like you.

Drudge Retort
 

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable