US 2008 Presidential Campaign Discussion Thread - Part 9 - Page 42 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-28-2008, 12:17 PM   #616
Refugee
 
bonoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Edmonton, Canada- Charlestown, Ireland
Posts: 1,398
Local Time: 03:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
In CBC (PBS equivalent in Canada)
Not true at all. Totally different.
__________________

__________________
bonoman is offline  
Old 09-28-2008, 12:43 PM   #617
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 03:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
You heard it here first, ladies and gents. Those Marxist-loving liberals go after conservatives in college like the Stasi spied on its citizens in East Germany.

That is the single most ridiculous statement you've made in here, and I simply can't take you seriously anymore. If your writing style in those classes is anything like your style in here, where you make wild accusations and pronounce things as if they were fact without any compelling evidence to back up your claims, then I don't think it's the Stasi-like tactics of the professors that you should be blaming for your lack of full marks.

By the way, what grade are you currently in?

I couldn't wait I had to jump on this BS:

Business Ethics is laid out like this. Basically the teacher would talk about a subject, usually the environment, and then he would show ONE point of view on some news reports he copied from TV and Michael Moore episodes and a San Francisco textbook.

Next you would have to write a paper with YOUR point of view on a the subject. The next class you would get a mark out of 4. If you aligned with the point of view closest to Michael Moore and the instructor you would get 4/4. If you didn't you would get a 2/4. The rest of the class he would talk about the same subject and what would have given you full marks.

Now going back to the beginning of the course the instructor mentioned that he wasn't a socialist, because there have been many complaints of this instructor, and that he believes in markets but we must have a balanced view.

The point of the course in the end was to get the students to believe that corporations should ignore the interests of shareholders. Nevermind that without shareholder investment there is no company. Next the corporation, now ignoring shareholders, has to create social programs like daycare paid by the corp. and the shareholders will have to eat less dividends. Michael Moore in one episode said "F the shareholders!" Michael Moore is a rich shareholder so I guess he's saying "F myself!" Nevermind that not all corporations can afford this, and if forced to they would have to pass the cost of social programs onto the consumer for their products.

The last point he had to make was to get us to study HIS economic plan. He basically took an intro economics course and was disgusted by the 1st class that he quit the course. He then made a cute chart of households and firms and added the sun, made a "holistic" chart that includes the environment.

So now areas of the government are included into corporations so basically the cost will ultimately bankrupt these companies and then government will have to take it over.

One article he made us read basically asserted that "if companies don't adopt socially motivated goals and look mainly to the shareholders then the government will have to take over." It's an offer you can't refuse.

Why would anyone invest in a company that doesn't look at a return on investment as their #1 goal? The government has it's place and he basically wants all the regulation and court system to be ignored, because it's too slow for him, and the companies should do all that.

The class was a mandatory class for all accountants. I couldn't, (like my instructor), quit my class out of disgust. I had to take it. So I wrote anti corporation style and got around 3/4's from then on. Of course those who copied from the start got 4/4 and A+ at the end of the course which would obviously solidify their liking the instructor and him continuing on. Anyways most students don't turn conservative until they have to work, pay bills, and pay taxes. Not all hope is lost.

I talked to another student who was about to take that business ethics course and I told him how to pass it with honors. I told him to be super critical of business and just mirror his opinion based on the instructor. He would show up after class with a serious look on his face. "The course is just regurgitation!" I told him to keep it up because the mark is more important. Do not disagree with him. He ended up with an A+.

I talked to one girl from my business ethics class who aced it. I kept thinking to myself. Maybe A+ should be a failure. No work was necessary to get it, just conformism. I also noticed her body language. There's this thing about university courses like this that basically target a cause and then set the student up as "hero" and then the student gets an exagerrated ego and self-importance that instructors hope will translate into future "social corporation" attitudes. Once they try to pay their bills and as accountants they try and pay the bills of the company hopefully they will see it's not really the place of companies to act like government.

Hopefully with this extra detail you can sympathize with my point of view. Sure the instructor can't torture me, because he doesn't have the power to do so, but he did single me out and others just like Communists do. Some people were ethically stronger than me and continued to argue with the professor but they only got 50% by the end of the course. It wouldn't be in the interest of the school to fail people because lawyers would get involved and the school would have to answer for those tactics by institutions they don't control.

This idea of targeting students is not uncommon. The Marxist form has been done since the 1960's. I'm just a newer generation that had to go through it.

At least I got my degree and don't have to go back there again.
__________________

__________________
purpleoscar is offline  
Old 09-28-2008, 12:44 PM   #618
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 03:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bonoman View Post
Not true at all. Totally different.
It's government funded and has donations. Both do.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline  
Old 09-28-2008, 12:51 PM   #619
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 03:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by phillyfan26 View Post
I think they're used so often because they rally bases.

I disagree with conservatives on every issue, I believe. I cannot think of one where I agree with them.

"Thanks to Bush there hasn't been a successful attack in the U.S. since 9 11."




Here's the thing: you don't know if they're even an enemy. They're merely a suspect. They haven't been proven guilty by trial.

It's not as simple as a plain clothes guy with a bomb walking out in the street and getting arrested before he can do damage or something. Most of these arrests of "enemies" are only suspects based on varying levels of evidence.

Wait. You're saying you're against torture because it's not torturous enough? I'm going to refrain from responding until I get a clarification.

The rest of the post can be linked to my point above, about how you're torturing people you don't even know are guilty.
Well if people are fighting in a war and are picked up they may not have actually shot Americans because they didn't get a chance to but many did and some killed Americans. Torturing is only for information. If the torture is not violent enough you won't get them to give up anything so it's pointless to do waterboarding. It only works on some people. Hard nosed terrorists would need torture so violent that no western democracy would support so it's pointless to have. Locking them up at least prevents them from going back out onto the battlefield.

Now you don't like anything conservative and you based that on episodes of the Simpsons? I thought you did more analysis than that. BTW the Simpsons is not a good source. Sarcasm and cynicism is what they are about. Some of it is funny. I even laughed at the episode where the republicans are in a dark castle making a deal with Nader to lose the election for Al Gore.

Are you saying that if people try to attack the U.S. and don't succeed it's such a small story that you think attempts aren't happening? Even attempts in Canada are being foiled and we aren't even in Iraq.

This is exactly what conservatives feared. The threat has to be much bigger and more immediate before people think there is a danger worth defending against.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline  
Old 09-28-2008, 12:53 PM   #620
Refugee
 
bonoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Edmonton, Canada- Charlestown, Ireland
Posts: 1,398
Local Time: 03:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
It's government funded and has donations. Both do.
Who donates to the CBC?

Its government funded, yes. But its programing and purpose are totally different. CBC has a line up of comedy programming, one hour dramas, includes American TV shows. Has its own sports divison, radio channels and nightly news programs. The CBC is run like a traditional network tv channel. PBS is not. They are so totally different, and I'd love to see the figures of how much PBS gets from the govt and how much they recieve in donations.
__________________
bonoman is offline  
Old 09-28-2008, 01:00 PM   #621
Refugee
 
bonoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Edmonton, Canada- Charlestown, Ireland
Posts: 1,398
Local Time: 03:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Are you saying that if people try to attack the U.S. and don't succeed it's such a small story that you think attempts aren't happening? Even attempts in Canada are being foiled and we aren't even in Iraq.
We're in Afganistan arn't we? Please don't make a connection between Iraq and 9/11. We've been threatened since we joined the war on terror. I'm not saying we should'nt be in Afganistan, but the potential terror attacks in Canada are not related to Iraq.
__________________
bonoman is offline  
Old 09-28-2008, 01:01 PM   #622
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,236
Local Time: 04:03 AM
As I said, it's impossible to take you seriously anymore, purpleoscar. So go ahead and continue with your rantings against those damn commie liberals, and how all of the media is anti-conservative, and about your wish for more extreme torture of suspects who you aren't even sure have knowledge of a crime or even committed a crime. It makes you look great.
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 09-28-2008, 01:01 PM   #623
Blue Crack Distributor
 
VintagePunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In a dry and waterless place
Posts: 55,732
Local Time: 05:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
I couldn't wait I had to jump on this BS:

Business Ethics is laid out like this. Basically the teacher would talk about a subject, usually the environment, and then he would show ONE point of view on some news reports he copied from TV and Michael Moore episodes and a San Francisco textbook.

Next you would have to write a paper with YOUR point of view on a the subject. The next class you would get a mark out of 4. If you aligned with the point of view closest to Michael Moore and the instructor you would get 4/4. If you didn't you would get a 2/4. The rest of the class he would talk about the same subject and what would have given you full marks.

Now going back to the beginning of the course the instructor mentioned that he wasn't a socialist, because there have been many complaints of this instructor, and that he believes in markets but we must have a balanced view.

The point of the course in the end was to get the students to believe that corporations should ignore the interests of shareholders. Nevermind that without shareholder investment there is no company. Next the corporation, now ignoring shareholders, has to create social programs like daycare paid by the corp. and the shareholders will have to eat less dividends. Michael Moore in one episode said "F the shareholders!" Michael Moore is a rich shareholder so I guess he's saying "F myself!" Nevermind that not all corporations can afford this, and if forced to they would have to pass the cost of social programs onto the consumer for their products.

The last point he had to make was to get us to study HIS economic plan. He basically took an intro economics course and was disgusted by the 1st class that he quit the course. He then made a cute chart of households and firms and added the sun, made a "holistic" chart that includes the environment.

So now areas of the government are included into corporations so basically the cost will ultimately bankrupt these companies and then government will have to take it over.

One article he made us read basically asserted that "if companies don't adopt socially motivated goals and look mainly to the shareholders then the government will have to take over." It's an offer you can't refuse.

Why would anyone invest in a company that doesn't look at a return on investment as their #1 goal? The government has it's place and he basically wants all the regulation and court system to be ignored, because it's too slow for him, and the companies should do all that.

The class was a mandatory class for all accountants. I couldn't, (like my instructor), quit my class out of disgust. I had to take it. So I wrote anti corporation style and got around 3/4's from then on. Of course those who copied from the start got 4/4 and A+ at the end of the course which would obviously solidify their liking the instructor and him continuing on. Anyways most students don't turn conservative until they have to work, pay bills, and pay taxes. Not all hope is lost.

I talked to another student who was about to take that business ethics course and I told him how to pass it with honors. I told him to be super critical of business and just mirror his opinion based on the instructor. He would show up after class with a serious look on his face. "The course is just regurgitation!" I told him to keep it up because the mark is more important. Do not disagree with him. He ended up with an A+.

I talked to one girl from my business ethics class who aced it. I kept thinking to myself. Maybe A+ should be a failure. No work was necessary to get it, just conformism. I also noticed her body language. There's this thing about university courses like this that basically target a cause and then set the student up as "hero" and then the student gets an exagerrated ego and self-importance that instructors hope will translate into future "social corporation" attitudes. Once they try to pay their bills and as accountants they try and pay the bills of the company hopefully they will see it's not really the place of companies to act like government.

Hopefully with this extra detail you can sympathize with my point of view. Sure the instructor can't torture me, because he doesn't have the power to do so, but he did single me out and others just like Communists do. Some people were ethically stronger than me and continued to argue with the professor but they only got 50% by the end of the course. It wouldn't be in the interest of the school to fail people because lawyers would get involved and the school would have to answer for those tactics by institutions they don't control.

This idea of targeting students is not uncommon. The Marxist form has been done since the 1960's. I'm just a newer generation that had to go through it.

At least I got my degree and don't have to go back there again.
So you think that this little anecdote demonstrates that conservatives are consistently discriminated against in the classroom?

I'm liberal. I have a very similar story about an ethics prof I could tell. I guess I was discriminated against, too?

No. It's meaningless.


Quote:
Originally Posted by bonoman View Post
Who donates to the CBC?
I was wondering the same thing. I've never heard of it before. A quick google and scan of the CBC websites, both television and corporate, showed nothing regarding their solicitation or acceptance of donations.
__________________
VintagePunk is offline  
Old 09-28-2008, 01:06 PM   #624
Refugee
 
bonoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Edmonton, Canada- Charlestown, Ireland
Posts: 1,398
Local Time: 03:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by VintagePunk View Post

I was wondering the same thing. I've never heard of it before. A quick google and scan of the CBC websites, both television and corporate, showed nothing regarding their solicitation or acceptance of donations.
Ya, I had a bit of a chuckle. I thought we donated enough tax dollars. What idiot would then decide to donate more money?
__________________
bonoman is offline  
Old 09-28-2008, 01:09 PM   #625
Blue Crack Distributor
 
VintagePunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In a dry and waterless place
Posts: 55,732
Local Time: 05:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bonoman View Post
Ya, I had a bit of a chuckle. I thought we donated enough tax dollars. What idiot would then decide to donate more money?
Maybe that's where the "donation" part of it comes in.
__________________
VintagePunk is offline  
Old 09-28-2008, 01:13 PM   #626
Refugee
 
bonoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Edmonton, Canada- Charlestown, Ireland
Posts: 1,398
Local Time: 03:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by VintagePunk View Post
Maybe that's where the "donation" part of it comes in.
Ya, well i enjoy the cbc. I've been watching Cornation Street for 15 years now and would'nt give it up. And George Strombo and Rick Mercer are very good.
__________________
bonoman is offline  
Old 09-28-2008, 01:16 PM   #627
Blue Crack Distributor
 
VintagePunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In a dry and waterless place
Posts: 55,732
Local Time: 05:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bonoman View Post
Ya, well i enjoy the cbc. I've been watching Cornation Street for 15 years now and would'nt give it up. And George Strombo and Rick Mercer are very good.
I do too. I think it's a really important part of our culture.
__________________
VintagePunk is offline  
Old 09-28-2008, 01:23 PM   #628
Refugee
 
bonoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Edmonton, Canada- Charlestown, Ireland
Posts: 1,398
Local Time: 03:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by VintagePunk View Post
I do too. I think it's a really important part of our culture.
We are a vast country spread very thinly in part and the cbc is one thing that is constant. People don't relize the importance of such an institution in a country so spread out and, in some cases, issolated. Sure living in a big city you'll have all the options of connecting to many different medians of news and entertainment but for many people the CBC has been the one constant provider of said programs for their entire lives. You can't compare it to an American Network.
__________________
bonoman is offline  
Old 09-28-2008, 01:24 PM   #629
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 05:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Well if people are fighting in a war and are picked up they may not have actually shot Americans because they didn't get a chance to but many did and some killed Americans. Torturing is only for information. If the torture is not violent enough you won't get them to give up anything so it's pointless to do waterboarding. It only works on some people. Hard nosed terrorists would need torture so violent that no western democracy would support so it's pointless to have. Locking them up at least prevents them from going back out onto the battlefield.

Now you don't like anything conservative and you based that on episodes of the Simpsons? I thought you did more analysis than that. BTW the Simpsons is not a good source. Sarcasm and cynicism is what they are about. Some of it is funny. I even laughed at the episode where the republicans are in a dark castle making a deal with Nader to lose the election for Al Gore.

Are you saying that if people try to attack the U.S. and don't succeed it's such a small story that you think attempts aren't happening? Even attempts in Canada are being foiled and we aren't even in Iraq.

This is exactly what conservatives feared. The threat has to be much bigger and more immediate before people think there is a danger worth defending against.
Wow, now this is getting frustrating. Somehow, you've managed to almost completely miss everything I was trying to say.

You honestly think I made my decision over The Simpsons? You entirely missed the point of me posting that quote. I cannot fathom how you misunderstood that. The point was that your logic was faulty.

And, again, the point went absolutely sailing over your head: I'm not saying people who make attempts shouldn't be treated as such. I'm saying you have to prove it first, in a court of law with a fair trial. We're talking about suspects here, not people that are guaranteed guilty. This goes back to my point about conservatives believing in some strange infallibility with the CIA and FBI and American justice system.

What I'm saying, and read this carefully, is that not every person that is arrested by the United States on the grounds of terrorism or association with terrorist groups actually committed a terrorist attack, attempted to commit one, or are even associated with a terrorist group at all. A lot of these cases are based on speculation with no solid evidence as to whether there's even a link.

If these points go over your head again, I think I'm done.
__________________
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 09-28-2008, 01:40 PM   #630
Refugee
 
bonoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Edmonton, Canada- Charlestown, Ireland
Posts: 1,398
Local Time: 03:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by phillyfan26 View Post
What I'm saying, and read this carefully, is that not every person that is arrested by the United States on the grounds of terrorism or association with terrorist groups actually committed a terrorist attack, attempted to commit one, or are even associated with a terrorist group at all. A lot of these cases are based on speculation with no solid evidence as to whether there's even a link.

See Mahar Arar... purple should be familar with this case!

and phillyfan, your simpsons quote was spot on. I had a good laugh!
__________________

__________________
bonoman is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:03 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com