**** Best Typical liberal study.
Yesterday at 9:47am · Like
**** Clifton When does it become a liberal study vs a conservative study? Is it because it comes from an educated source that makes it liberal or because it comes from a northern school? Why can't we look at research & glean some of the realities from them without making it a conversation about right vs left?
Yesterday at 10:00am · Like · 1
**** Best From the title on.
Yesterday at 10:04am · Like
**** Clifton Name calling to rebuff a point of view has NO substance & harkens to grade school days of calling someone a "poo poo head" rather than debate a perspective. It is dismissive of another's point of view based solely on emotion rather than facts. It is part of what tears this country apart at the seams. I have friends on both the right & left, but without fail, on a consistent basis it is my friends on the right that resort to this type of discourse. It makes me sad.
Yesterday at 10:07am · Like · 2
**** Best What? Off on a tangent?
Yesterday at 10:08am · Like
**** Clifton From the title on? Judging a book by its cover? Again, no substance to rebuff any of the points made
Yesterday at 10:09am · Like
**** Best Have some toast.
Yesterday at 10:10am · Like
**** Clifton Not really a tangent. Just looking for some substance to dismiss something other than name calling
Yesterday at 10:11am · Like
**** Best So, you are trying to restrain yourself from name calling. OK, some credit to you then.
Yesterday at 10:13am · Edited · Like
**** Clifton Have some toast? That sounds like a conservative diversion tactic to me
How's that for name calling - great now I've sunk to your level - lol
Yesterday at 10:13am · Like
**** Best You're almost verging on a tangent to a tangent at this point.
Yesterday at 10:15am · Like
**** Lauber I think conservatives think an oligarchy is a good thing, Elliot.
Yesterday at 10:15am · Like
**** Best WOW! Tell me more of what you think.
Yesterday at 10:16am · Like
**** Lauber No thanks.
Yesterday at 10:17am · Like
**** Clifton **** Lauber, you could be correct.
Yesterday at 10:21am · Like
**** Lauber The also seem to be attacking higher education as being for liberal elites.
Yesterday at 10:22am · Like
**** Best Now you 2 geniuses know what all conservatives think. LOL!
Yesterday at 10:23am · Like
**** Lauber No ****, only what the politicians that you choose to represent you think.
Yesterday at 10:24am · Like
**** Clifton Well, **** Best, since you won't give any discourse of substance, I guess we have no real choice but to guess
Yesterday at 10:24am · Like
**** Lauber It makes no difference to the oligarchy, which political party us lowlifes belong to. They would, however, prefer that we vote Republican, to hasten the day when their control is absolute.
Yesterday at 10:27am · Like
**** Best I can tell that you both already have preconceived conclusions that no amount of reason and logic would shake you from.
Yesterday at 10:28am · Like
**** Lauber Well guys, I have sheet rock to finish and prime, so I will say goodbye to you both and to this point of contention and bad feelings. Remember, the higher ups love us when we are divided.
Yesterday at 10:31am · Edited · Like
**** Clifton Really, **** Best? Who is saying they know what someone else thinks now? I like open & honest debate from different opinions - I think that is how we learn & grow. But sadly, I can get none of that from you, I guess because you believe I don't have the...See More
Yesterday at 10:40am · Edited · Like
**** Best OK, that's what I'm talking about. Whatever I say you just say it back to me and you think that's honest debate? You go off on tangents instead of staying on subject? Implying name calling when there was none?It does make it difficult to take you serious but sticking to my original statement, I had thought better of Princeton before I read this article. I hope they didn't waste much money on this study. The whole thing is based on a faulty conclusion which they try to prove with emotional misstatements and intentional misdirections.
Yesterday at 10:56am · Like
**** Best Where to begin? The title alone is hard to get past. You might as well say an extensive study proves that birds do not actually fly North for the Winter, they actually fly more Westerly. Well I guess Westerly is more Southerly than Northerly. So, I guess that is somewhat right. Back to this title, since the USA is not a Democacy, and never was one, and was not intended to be one, the whole premiss of the article starts off in a misguided, misdirected direction.
Yesterday at 11:01am · Like · 1
**** Best Further, As I read the article, I get the impression Karl Marx could have written it himself. My confidence in Princeton is totally destroyed. The whole thing is full of misstatements and is written from an emotional point of view that tries to prove a preconceived conclusion. That's not a study, that's trying to force proof for an incorrect theory. So, that's what I think. Straight to the point, no tangents, no name calling.
Yesterday at 11:13am · Edited · Like
**** Clifton Now that is some good discourse
I completely agree with you on the point that our government was always a representative republic & not a democracy.
Yesterday at 11:17am · Unlike · 1
**** Best Exactly! So, how can a study based on a false assumption be worth a shit. It's like trying to get to Florida by taking I20 West out of Birmingham and declaring the 1st hot sandy state you get to is Florida.
Yesterday at 11:22am · Like
**** Clifton I don't think all the thought processes in the article are off, even if they used the lowest common denominator to attract people to the study by saying it isn't a democracy- which any of us who have spent any time in history class knows is the case.
Yesterday at 11:37am · Like
**** Best Yep, I'm sure Karl Marx wasn't totally wrong either. Just mostly.
Yesterday at 11:38am · Like · 1
**** Best But, yeah, I'll give you that it did make some good points.
Yesterday at 11:39am · Like · 1
**** Clifton We have always elected people to think for us in terms of our government, so it should come as no surprise that those we have "chosen" decide to follow the desires of those who have helped them get to office, which are usually people with money.
Yesterday at 11:40am · Like
**** Clifton I don't think this is a definitive article by ANY stretch of the imagination, but I think it has some good food for thought. And thoughts are more important than ever in our representative republic - the lack of people thinking is killing us
Yesterday at 11:42am · Like
**** Best Only logical that the people with the most power and money will have the most influence. They are, after all, the most successful and would you rather we have the most failures in charge? We do, however, need to utilize or representative government to prevent them having all the power and ensure equal rights and opportunity for everyone.
Yesterday at 11:45am · Like
**** Best The problem is the article announces itself as a study by a prestigious Ivy League University based on an incorrect assumption and claims to prove another incorrect assumption. I still say it's like saying Karl Marx or Hitler wasn't all bad.
Yesterday at 11:50am · Edited · Like
**** Clifton I think we need to have a beer & discuss further
Or maybe just have a beer.
Yesterday at 12:12pm · Edited · Like
**** Best Absolutely! Beer makes us smarter and better looking! What could be better????
Yesterday at 12:12pm · Like · 1
**** Lauber Actually it is a democratic representative republic. But saying that it is only a representative republic, does a pretty good job of marginalizing the executive branch. Furthermore, to say that an oligarchy would rightfully put the successful in control, marginalizes those who are only average successful. People who have so much money as to not be concerned with the cost of living, don't give a crap about those who are,
20 hrs · Like · 1