 |
| Commie bastard |
Monday, January 9, 2012
That elitist bastard is trying to send my kids to college!
Santorum Attacks Obama for Promoting Higher Ed for All (Inside Higher Ed)
Rick Santorum is accusing President Obama of "snobbery" for saying that all Americans need at least some higher education, The Wall Street Journal reported. "We are leaving so many children behind,” said Santorum, whose candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination has been gaining ground of late, in New Hampshire on Saturday. "They’re not ready to go to [college.] They don’t want to go to college. They don’t need to go to college. I was so outraged that the President of the United States [said] every student should go to college." Added Santorum: "I have seven kids. Maybe they’ll all go to college. But if one of my kids wants to go and be an auto mechanic, good for him! That’s a good-paying job." As the article in the Journal noted, it is increasingly rare for political leaders to express that view, given that some higher education is now becoming necessary for many manufacturing jobs that once would not have required it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Roy's obituary in LA Times and Register: "we were lucky to have you while we did"
This ran in the Sunday December 24, 2023 edition of the Los Angeles Times and the Orange County Register : July 14, 1955 - November 20, 2...
-
Professor Olga Perez Stable Cox OCC Trumpsters/GOP A professor called Trump’s election an ‘act of terrorism.’ Then she became the vict... -
The "prayer" suit: ..... AS WE REPORTED two days ago , on Tuesday, Judge R. Gary Klausner denied Westphal, et alia ’s motion f... -
[ See 50+ comments below! ] [See follow-up: The pride of Trident U ] Oh my. Word is that Kiana Tabibzadeh , IVC Chemistr...
21 comments:
Wonder if Sir Santorum went to an accredited college? If he did, he seems not to have learned much. Sad.
How about all the stupid questions asked by Sir George (the Greek looking one) from ABC? Contraception? Come on! When we've got no jobs and a president whose failed to lead? Get serious!
Access to contraception, and the right to its use based on the fundamental right of privacy, is of supreme importance in the debate over who is fit to govern. Supporting blatant intrusion into the important personal and intimate decisions indicates the inquisitorial nature of said pretender to the throne.
By the way, Bozo, the job picture is improving and your boys are just petty obstructionists.
I think that award has already been taken by you, dear.
5:40
Your spelling sucks, women and gays already hate republicans, and you easily win the douche award you speak of.
A government attack on what religion, in particular, 5:40?
Well, 5:40, it's your theocratic pal who consistently brings up these issues. Personal freedoms and choices are far from "diversions," I'd say, and can be addressed along with other important matters. You're stuck with the guy!
Look, this is a college blog. You lay out a position, state it clearly, and then you argue for it. Merely sneering forth a view or criticism is ugly and stupid and I'm going to start deleting such things.
Oust that Obamunist in Nov!
But it's TRUE!
He has deliberately created the wasteful legislative mess that is Obamacare, and has failed as a leader. That's right, failed, failed, FAILED!
I don't see what the prob. is, bvt. You've labeled him a "commie bastard" above. Thank you...
I have done no such thing. You need an education, my friend.
Mr. Douche-on-the-brain has returned. Those fixated on all things douche should start their own blog, call it "Douche." Imagine the sophomoric fun.
Ok, sans the word "douche" seeing you hold the monopoly on its use:
Having difficulties following this thread because of all the removed posts. I must say I think deleting opposing points of view is uncollegiate, and downright SCUMMY, IMHO. I do recall seeing something about ABC and their resident democrat pundit, George S. asking setup questions about contraception, when that topic has never really been an issue in any presidential race. The post also laid out a list of real issues that could have been discussed, but weren't, and how valuable time was squandered by ABC. Why such an insightful contribution to this discussion would be removed, points to nothing short of the "echo chamber" that this blog really is. This blog has everything to do with preaching to the choir, and not much else, so if you're one of those who like being told you're correct, and smart because you generally agree, then this blog's for you.
Obviously, I do not object to the points about Stephanopolus, even though they induce sleep in me and, I suspect, in all others who read them. My objection is to unredeemed coarseness ("douche-bags," "scummy," etc.) and to the merest of name-calling ("libs"), again unredeemed to cleverness or rhetorical flourish. Is this really so difficult to understand? If you have a point, then make it, offering something recognizable as reasons or support. If you can't do that, stick with the usual right-wing blogs, or, better yet, write comments to the OC Register.
One further point: saying that you object to coarse references to "douches" is not an instance of "using" the word "douche." If you have trouble understanding that point, you might read this. A linguist will explain it to you.
You think the use of "libs" to describe a certain political persuasion is name calling? What other way should one describe those who subscribe to liberal thought?
Seriously, it seems no matter what term is used, libs always take offense to it. I've never heard of the reps (Republicans) behaving like that. Call them anything you fancy, reps, conservatives, neocons, etc... they never have a problem with it. In fact, all are proud of what they are.
Guess what, 5:47: that's because people in the other parties don't come up with sophomoric and silly names like the ones you defend and use constantly, like some high-school kid. (If you are a high school kid, which seems distinctly possible, it's still unfortunate--see below.)
I don't think you care: but your course-ness and plain dumb use of language undermines your credibility, seriously--as does your absence of supporting arguments.
If only you could be enrolled in a Critical Thinking course--but then you wouldn't, would you? (I dare you!)
MAH
Well gee, I did adderss your concerns, MAH, but it looks like your friends at bvt deleted it, not surprised. Probably means I actually made some sense.
Your first point fails to mention that people on your side of the political isle are just as guilty, what with names like teabaggers, extremists, hatemongers, and references to Hitler and the Holocaust in their discord. They publish anti George Bush books and movies that compare him to Hitler, make and burn effigies in public, etc. Then there's the destructive, violent and deadly protests, biting off fingers of people who disagree, etc... I suppose you consider this civil behavior?
I don't recall hearing about conservatives behaving like this. If you consider someone calling a socialist a socialist when they see one, as course or hurtful, then you've got very thin skin, my friend, but I don't believe that's the case it. It's more to do with shutting down the debate, which doesn't work, because it's imposible to convince people they are not seeing something they just saw.
Post a Comment