HuskerNation1 Posted June 8, 2016 Share Posted June 8, 2016 Back on topic. I'm amused by some of Newt's comments lately. After being spoken of as a strong VP pic, he has made several comments critical of Trump. This after being an almost apologist for the guy during the primaries. Maybe he is seeing the 'stain on the wall' that being associated wt Trump in any role isn't an image/legacy builder. Here's the thing....it's much more common for Republicans to call each other out when the screw up. When some have had affairs and such, they are pressured to step down or they lose a spot on a committee they are a part of. I'm not saying it happens 100% of the time, but it's way more common than on the Democratic side. I think it's healthy for key figures in a party to call out each other when they screw up. I think we view things things through our own partisan glasses. I would be very surprised to find any metric that proves Republicans are better moral police within their party. Remember: Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment was "Thou Shalt Not Speak Ill of Any Fellow Republican." Donald Trump, a bit like Ron Paul, is carpetbagging the Republican Party, so criticism of Trump is a different animal, especially among those who think he's about to destroy the party. But here's a fun fact: the nearly 8 year Obama administration is among the most scandal free in history. Good times. Well there was Larry Craig, Trent Lott, and others that lost their seat or stepped down facing pressure for saying or doing something stupid. Had Bill Clinton been a GOP nominee in 1992 he would not have made it to the finish line. This past year's contest has been a total change of script with Trump winning despite his many dumb statements. Let's not forget Anthony Weiner hung around (pun intended) for some time after his lovely scandal. As for your assessment that Obama has been scandal free, how do you figure he was more scandal free than his predecessor? Can you explain? And if you really believe that, does that mean that the "right wing conspiracy republicans" that Hillary and many leftists claim are out to get them are not really as bad as Hillary claims? There's a big difference between an actual scandal and throwing everything you can think of at someone hoping it'll stick. So what is your definition of an actual scandal as it would pertain to Bush 43. Link to comment
HuskerShark Posted June 8, 2016 Share Posted June 8, 2016 You say it's insane because that's the info that we've been taught and so that's what you're regurgitating. The reason it shows that college grads make more is because doctors and lawyers are lumped into the data and that skews the numbers. Not to mention, not only is 20k in debt (most kids would be very fortunate to only have 20k in debt) a lot for someone who isn't likely to see great returns on that investment, it's the worst type of debt someone can have. It's worse than credit card debt, because you could file for bankruptcy and that student loan debt will still be there, whereas credit card companies are usually willing to settle the debt. I went to juco for 2 years before transferring to a university, and i still came out with 30k+ in debt. That's insane. Link to comment
HuskerShark Posted June 8, 2016 Share Posted June 8, 2016 Not to mention, the data is skewed at this point in time by pure ability and ambition. And by that i mean, right now we encourage everyone to go to college, and the only ones who don't go are either not able to get in or don't have the ambition. Bottom line, as someone who was in a position the past 4 years to help advise students on these choices, i always told them that unless they had academic or athletic scholarships that paid for their tuition and housing, don't go straight to a 4 year college. I always advised them that if they're going to college, go to a 2 year college first, and then if they want, they can transfer and continue on, but most don't need to. 1 Link to comment
ZRod Posted June 8, 2016 Share Posted June 8, 2016 Back on topic. I'm amused by some of Newt's comments lately. After being spoken of as a strong VP pic, he has made several comments critical of Trump. This after being an almost apologist for the guy during the primaries. Maybe he is seeing the 'stain on the wall' that being associated wt Trump in any role isn't an image/legacy builder. Here's the thing....it's much more common for Republicans to call each other out when the screw up. When some have had affairs and such, they are pressured to step down or they lose a spot on a committee they are a part of. I'm not saying it happens 100% of the time, but it's way more common than on the Democratic side. I think it's healthy for key figures in a party to call out each other when they screw up. I think we view things things through our own partisan glasses. I would be very surprised to find any metric that proves Republicans are better moral police within their party. Remember: Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment was "Thou Shalt Not Speak Ill of Any Fellow Republican." Donald Trump, a bit like Ron Paul, is carpetbagging the Republican Party, so criticism of Trump is a different animal, especially among those who think he's about to destroy the party. But here's a fun fact: the nearly 8 year Obama administration is among the most scandal free in history. Good times. Well there was Larry Craig, Trent Lott, and others that lost their seat or stepped down facing pressure for saying or doing something stupid. Had Bill Clinton been a GOP nominee in 1992 he would not have made it to the finish line. This past year's contest has been a total change of script with Trump winning despite his many dumb statements. Let's not forget Anthony Weiner hung around (pun intended) for some time after his lovely scandal. As for your assessment that Obama has been scandal free, how do you figure he was more scandal free than his predecessor? Can you explain? And if you really believe that, does that mean that the "right wing conspiracy republicans" that Hillary and many leftists claim are out to get them are not really as bad as Hillary claims? There's a big difference between an actual scandal and throwing everything you can think of at someone hoping it'll stick. So what is your definition of an actual scandal as it would pertain to Bush 43. Dick Chenney... Link to comment
Guy Chamberlin Posted June 8, 2016 Share Posted June 8, 2016 Back on topic. I'm amused by some of Newt's comments lately. After being spoken of as a strong VP pic, he has made several comments critical of Trump. This after being an almost apologist for the guy during the primaries. Maybe he is seeing the 'stain on the wall' that being associated wt Trump in any role isn't an image/legacy builder. Here's the thing....it's much more common for Republicans to call each other out when the screw up. When some have had affairs and such, they are pressured to step down or they lose a spot on a committee they are a part of. I'm not saying it happens 100% of the time, but it's way more common than on the Democratic side. I think it's healthy for key figures in a party to call out each other when they screw up. I think we view things things through our own partisan glasses. I would be very surprised to find any metric that proves Republicans are better moral police within their party. Remember: Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment was "Thou Shalt Not Speak Ill of Any Fellow Republican." Donald Trump, a bit like Ron Paul, is carpetbagging the Republican Party, so criticism of Trump is a different animal, especially among those who think he's about to destroy the party. But here's a fun fact: the nearly 8 year Obama administration is among the most scandal free in history. Good times. Well there was Larry Craig, Trent Lott, and others that lost their seat or stepped down facing pressure for saying or doing something stupid. Had Bill Clinton been a GOP nominee in 1992 he would not have made it to the finish line. This past year's contest has been a total change of script with Trump winning despite his many dumb statements. Let's not forget Anthony Weiner hung around (pun intended) for some time after his lovely scandal. As for your assessment that Obama has been scandal free, how do you figure he was more scandal free than his predecessor? Can you explain? And if you really believe that, does that mean that the "right wing conspiracy republicans" that Hillary and many leftists claim are out to get them are not really as bad as Hillary claims? The Democrats distance themselves just as quickly from embarrassments like Weiner as Republicans do from Larry Craig (who never resigned). It has nothing to do with the moral high ground and everything to do with political reality. Although it must be noted that the Republicans who campaign as finger-wagging Family Values practitioners look a little worse when they're caught in motels popping amyl nitrates with male prostitutes. Here's a piece on Obama's lack of scandals and how it drives his opponents crazy. There are other similar articles if you want to Google, and a few that try to make his minor scandals seem bigger, but in terms of investigations of malfeasance it's been a remarkably quiet run: http://theweek.com/articles/626000/republicans-are-still-pining-real-obama-administration-scandal Link to comment
Guy Chamberlin Posted June 8, 2016 Share Posted June 8, 2016 Back on topic. I'm amused by some of Newt's comments lately. After being spoken of as a strong VP pic, he has made several comments critical of Trump. This after being an almost apologist for the guy during the primaries. Maybe he is seeing the 'stain on the wall' that being associated wt Trump in any role isn't an image/legacy builder. Here's the thing....it's much more common for Republicans to call each other out when the screw up. When some have had affairs and such, they are pressured to step down or they lose a spot on a committee they are a part of. I'm not saying it happens 100% of the time, but it's way more common than on the Democratic side. I think it's healthy for key figures in a party to call out each other when they screw up. I think we view things things through our own partisan glasses. I would be very surprised to find any metric that proves Republicans are better moral police within their party. Remember: Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment was "Thou Shalt Not Speak Ill of Any Fellow Republican." Donald Trump, a bit like Ron Paul, is carpetbagging the Republican Party, so criticism of Trump is a different animal, especially among those who think he's about to destroy the party. But here's a fun fact: the nearly 8 year Obama administration is among the most scandal free in history. Good times. Well there was Larry Craig, Trent Lott, and others that lost their seat or stepped down facing pressure for saying or doing something stupid. Had Bill Clinton been a GOP nominee in 1992 he would not have made it to the finish line. This past year's contest has been a total change of script with Trump winning despite his many dumb statements. Let's not forget Anthony Weiner hung around (pun intended) for some time after his lovely scandal. As for your assessment that Obama has been scandal free, how do you figure he was more scandal free than his predecessor? Can you explain? And if you really believe that, does that mean that the "right wing conspiracy republicans" that Hillary and many leftists claim are out to get them are not really as bad as Hillary claims? There's a big difference between an actual scandal and throwing everything you can think of at someone hoping it'll stick. So what is your definition of an actual scandal as it would pertain to Bush 43. Dick Chenney... It's funny. You could really take Cheney to task for shady decisions that led to death, destruction and the loss of billions in taxpayer money (unless you worked for Halliburton). But the real scandal he dodged was shooting his buddy in the face, where every bit of circumstantial evidence suggests that friends and investigators allowed hours to pass in order for Dick to get the alcohol out of his system. Link to comment
ZRod Posted June 8, 2016 Share Posted June 8, 2016 HuskerShake the advice you gave about community college before university is good. That I agree with. The reason you're overal theory is insane is because it's factually/statistically wrong. Read the article. The data is for 4 year bachelor degrees (no doctors or lawyers). It also highlights that the average debt after that degree is 25k. Further more they say you will make 500k more over your life time with a degree. That seems like a solid investment. Yes college is not for some, and yes the cost is higher than it should be, but it's still worth it for most. Also why is it that you can dismiss my anecdotal evidence, but I have to take yours as gospel? Kinda hypocritical... maybe we shouldn't use anecdotes. Link to comment
NUinID Posted June 8, 2016 Share Posted June 8, 2016 Back on topic. I'm amused by some of Newt's comments lately. After being spoken of as a strong VP pic, he has made several comments critical of Trump. This after being an almost apologist for the guy during the primaries. Maybe he is seeing the 'stain on the wall' that being associated wt Trump in any role isn't an image/legacy builder. Here's the thing....it's much more common for Republicans to call each other out when the screw up. When some have had affairs and such, they are pressured to step down or they lose a spot on a committee they are a part of. I'm not saying it happens 100% of the time, but it's way more common than on the Democratic side. I think it's healthy for key figures in a party to call out each other when they screw up. I think we view things things through our own partisan glasses. I would be very surprised to find any metric that proves Republicans are better moral police within their party. Remember: Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment was "Thou Shalt Not Speak Ill of Any Fellow Republican." Donald Trump, a bit like Ron Paul, is carpetbagging the Republican Party, so criticism of Trump is a different animal, especially among those who think he's about to destroy the party. But here's a fun fact: the nearly 8 year Obama administration is among the most scandal free in history. Good times. Well there was Larry Craig, Trent Lott, and others that lost their seat or stepped down facing pressure for saying or doing something stupid. Had Bill Clinton been a GOP nominee in 1992 he would not have made it to the finish line. This past year's contest has been a total change of script with Trump winning despite his many dumb statements. Let's not forget Anthony Weiner hung around (pun intended) for some time after his lovely scandal. As for your assessment that Obama has been scandal free, how do you figure he was more scandal free than his predecessor? Can you explain? And if you really believe that, does that mean that the "right wing conspiracy republicans" that Hillary and many leftists claim are out to get them are not really as bad as Hillary claims? The Democrats distance themselves just as quickly from embarrassments like Weiner as Republicans do from Larry Craig (who never resigned). It has nothing to do with the moral high ground and everything to do with political reality. Although it must be noted that the Republicans who campaign as finger-wagging Family Values practitioners look a little worse when they're caught in motels popping amyl nitrates with male prostitutes. Here's a piece on Obama's lack of scandals and how it drives his opponents crazy. There are other similar articles if you want to Google, and a few that try to make his minor scandals seem bigger, but in terms of investigations of malfeasance it's been a remarkably quiet run: http://theweek.com/articles/626000/republicans-are-still-pining-real-obama-administration-scandal I would agree that the Obama administration has been pretty scandal free, I just don't think he has been a very good president. But, we really haven't had a good president that was scandal free for a long time. Link to comment
HuskerNation1 Posted June 8, 2016 Share Posted June 8, 2016 Back on topic. I'm amused by some of Newt's comments lately. After being spoken of as a strong VP pic, he has made several comments critical of Trump. This after being an almost apologist for the guy during the primaries. Maybe he is seeing the 'stain on the wall' that being associated wt Trump in any role isn't an image/legacy builder. Here's the thing....it's much more common for Republicans to call each other out when the screw up. When some have had affairs and such, they are pressured to step down or they lose a spot on a committee they are a part of. I'm not saying it happens 100% of the time, but it's way more common than on the Democratic side. I think it's healthy for key figures in a party to call out each other when they screw up. I think we view things things through our own partisan glasses. I would be very surprised to find any metric that proves Republicans are better moral police within their party. Remember: Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment was "Thou Shalt Not Speak Ill of Any Fellow Republican." Donald Trump, a bit like Ron Paul, is carpetbagging the Republican Party, so criticism of Trump is a different animal, especially among those who think he's about to destroy the party. But here's a fun fact: the nearly 8 year Obama administration is among the most scandal free in history. Good times. Well there was Larry Craig, Trent Lott, and others that lost their seat or stepped down facing pressure for saying or doing something stupid. Had Bill Clinton been a GOP nominee in 1992 he would not have made it to the finish line. This past year's contest has been a total change of script with Trump winning despite his many dumb statements. Let's not forget Anthony Weiner hung around (pun intended) for some time after his lovely scandal. As for your assessment that Obama has been scandal free, how do you figure he was more scandal free than his predecessor? Can you explain? And if you really believe that, does that mean that the "right wing conspiracy republicans" that Hillary and many leftists claim are out to get them are not really as bad as Hillary claims? There's a big difference between an actual scandal and throwing everything you can think of at someone hoping it'll stick. So what is your definition of an actual scandal as it would pertain to Bush 43. Dick Chenney... Really, that is all you have? The point I'm trying to make is that Bush 43 and Obama have had fewer scandals following them than the Clintons, and it's not because the GOP is just after the Clintons and want to give Obama a reprieve. The Clintons are shady and always have been. The biggest "scandal' I could see in the Bush administration were the Halliburton contracts, and for Obama its' the IRS targeting Conservative groups (which has proven to be true) as well as the Benghazi cover up and state department email/server violations which speaks more to Hillary than Obama. I realize there are some that believe the Clintons are squeaky clean and you seem to be one of them, but most of the public does not believe or trust Hillary, period. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/08/hillary-clintons-honest-and-trustworthy-numbers-are-lower-than-ever-it-might-not-matter/ Link to comment
ZRod Posted June 8, 2016 Share Posted June 8, 2016 Back on topic. I'm amused by some of Newt's comments lately. After being spoken of as a strong VP pic, he has made several comments critical of Trump. This after being an almost apologist for the guy during the primaries. Maybe he is seeing the 'stain on the wall' that being associated wt Trump in any role isn't an image/legacy builder. Here's the thing....it's much more common for Republicans to call each other out when the screw up. When some have had affairs and such, they are pressured to step down or they lose a spot on a committee they are a part of. I'm not saying it happens 100% of the time, but it's way more common than on the Democratic side. I think it's healthy for key figures in a party to call out each other when they screw up. I think we view things things through our own partisan glasses. I would be very surprised to find any metric that proves Republicans are better moral police within their party. Remember: Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment was "Thou Shalt Not Speak Ill of Any Fellow Republican." Donald Trump, a bit like Ron Paul, is carpetbagging the Republican Party, so criticism of Trump is a different animal, especially among those who think he's about to destroy the party. But here's a fun fact: the nearly 8 year Obama administration is among the most scandal free in history. Good times. Well there was Larry Craig, Trent Lott, and others that lost their seat or stepped down facing pressure for saying or doing something stupid. Had Bill Clinton been a GOP nominee in 1992 he would not have made it to the finish line. This past year's contest has been a total change of script with Trump winning despite his many dumb statements. Let's not forget Anthony Weiner hung around (pun intended) for some time after his lovely scandal. As for your assessment that Obama has been scandal free, how do you figure he was more scandal free than his predecessor? Can you explain? And if you really believe that, does that mean that the "right wing conspiracy republicans" that Hillary and many leftists claim are out to get them are not really as bad as Hillary claims? There's a big difference between an actual scandal and throwing everything you can think of at someone hoping it'll stick. So what is your definition of an actual scandal as it would pertain to Bush 43. Dick Chenney... Really, that is all you have? The point I'm trying to make is that Bush 43 and Obama have had fewer scandals following them than the Clintons, and it's not because the GOP is just after the Clintons and want to give Obama a reprieve. The Clintons are shady and always have been. The biggest "scandal' I could see in the Bush administration were the Halliburton contracts, and for Obama its' the IRS targeting Conservative groups (which has proven to be true) as well as the Benghazi cover up and state department email/server violations which speaks more to Hillary than Obama. I realize there are some that believe the Clintons are squeaky clean and you seem to be one of them, but most of the public does not believe or trust Hillary, period. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/08/hillary-clintons-honest-and-trustworthy-numbers-are-lower-than-ever-it-might-not-matter/ No, but it covers quite a bit. Link to comment
knapplc Posted June 8, 2016 Share Posted June 8, 2016 The biggest Bush scandals were, in no particular order: The Iraq War The Patriot Act Hurricane Katrina response Halliburton Scooter Libby These are just off the top of my head. Every major political figure of the last couple of centuries has been tied to numerous scandals, including every Republican and Democrat president and major presidential candidate. Most of these are overblown, over-politicized nonsense, but some of them (like Watergate, like the Iraq War) are legitimate scandals. Basically, if someone can't remember George W. Bush's scandals they're either not trying or don't understand how to use google. 1 Link to comment
funhusker Posted June 8, 2016 Share Posted June 8, 2016 Not to mention, the data is skewed at this point in time by pure ability and ambition. And by that i mean, right now we encourage everyone to go to college, and the only ones who don't go are either not able to get in or don't have the ambition. Bottom line, as someone who was in a position the past 4 years to help advise students on these choices, i always told them that unless they had academic or athletic scholarships that paid for their tuition and housing, don't go straight to a 4 year college. I always advised them that if they're going to college, go to a 2 year college first, and then if they want, they can transfer and continue on, but most don't need to. I agree with this 100%, especially if the student has no idea what they want to be when they "grow up". Link to comment
HuskerNation1 Posted June 8, 2016 Share Posted June 8, 2016 The biggest Bush scandals were, in no particular order: The Iraq War The Patriot Act Hurricane Katrina response Halliburton Scooter Libby These are just off the top of my head. Every major political figure of the last couple of centuries has been tied to numerous scandals, including every Republican and Democrat president and major presidential candidate. Most of these are overblown, over-politicized nonsense, but some of them (like Watergate, like the Iraq War) are legitimate scandals. Basically, if someone can't remember George W. Bush's scandals they're either not trying or don't understand how to use google. Well the reason I posed the question is to see what the definition of "scandal" is to those claiming the Clintons really have had no scandals. To me much of your list of Bush 43 has to do with policy differences and not a scandal where there was intentional wrongdoing. For instance, with Katrina, I don't think Bush intentionally asked FEMA to be slow in responding, it just happened and he suffered some political fallout. The Patriot Act and Iraq wars were both put before Congress before being signed by the POTUS. And let's not forget that HIllary voted in favor of both of these policies. I guess you would include Obamacare as a scandal for the current POTUS since he lied to the American people in trying to sell the proposal? Link to comment
Guy Chamberlin Posted June 8, 2016 Share Posted June 8, 2016 Back on topic. I'm amused by some of Newt's comments lately. After being spoken of as a strong VP pic, he has made several comments critical of Trump. This after being an almost apologist for the guy during the primaries. Maybe he is seeing the 'stain on the wall' that being associated wt Trump in any role isn't an image/legacy builder. Here's the thing....it's much more common for Republicans to call each other out when the screw up. When some have had affairs and such, they are pressured to step down or they lose a spot on a committee they are a part of. I'm not saying it happens 100% of the time, but it's way more common than on the Democratic side. I think it's healthy for key figures in a party to call out each other when they screw up. I think we view things things through our own partisan glasses. I would be very surprised to find any metric that proves Republicans are better moral police within their party. Remember: Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment was "Thou Shalt Not Speak Ill of Any Fellow Republican." Donald Trump, a bit like Ron Paul, is carpetbagging the Republican Party, so criticism of Trump is a different animal, especially among those who think he's about to destroy the party. But here's a fun fact: the nearly 8 year Obama administration is among the most scandal free in history. Good times. Well there was Larry Craig, Trent Lott, and others that lost their seat or stepped down facing pressure for saying or doing something stupid. Had Bill Clinton been a GOP nominee in 1992 he would not have made it to the finish line. This past year's contest has been a total change of script with Trump winning despite his many dumb statements. Let's not forget Anthony Weiner hung around (pun intended) for some time after his lovely scandal. As for your assessment that Obama has been scandal free, how do you figure he was more scandal free than his predecessor? Can you explain? And if you really believe that, does that mean that the "right wing conspiracy republicans" that Hillary and many leftists claim are out to get them are not really as bad as Hillary claims? There's a big difference between an actual scandal and throwing everything you can think of at someone hoping it'll stick. So what is your definition of an actual scandal as it would pertain to Bush 43. Dick Chenney... Really, that is all you have? The point I'm trying to make is that Bush 43 and Obama have had fewer scandals following them than the Clintons, and it's not because the GOP is just after the Clintons and want to give Obama a reprieve. The Clintons are shady and always have been. The biggest "scandal' I could see in the Bush administration were the Halliburton contracts, and for Obama its' the IRS targeting Conservative groups (which has proven to be true) as well as the Benghazi cover up and state department email/server violations which speaks more to Hillary than Obama. I realize there are some that believe the Clintons are squeaky clean and you seem to be one of them, but most of the public does not believe or trust Hillary, period. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/08/hillary-clintons-honest-and-trustworthy-numbers-are-lower-than-ever-it-might-not-matter/ Boy, I don't know anyone who thinks the Clintons are squeaky clean. But every time a self-righteous Republican tries to vilify them, he trips over his own hypocrisy. Ken Starr is just the latest. Well before election day 1992, the public knew and believed Bill Clinton was a serial philanderer who got other people -- including Arkansas State Patrolmen -- to cover for him. They just didn't care as much as the Republicans wanted them to. Americans wanted a change, and ended up with a robust economy, budget surpluses, lower crime and few international crises. For the record, things are better today than they were seven years ago. That used to be the litmus test. Still waiting for one of you to tell me what period of greatness you want Donald Trump to return us to 1 Link to comment
knapplc Posted June 8, 2016 Share Posted June 8, 2016 Boy, I don't know anyone who thinks the Clintons are squeaky clean. The caricature of a "liberal" that we hear so much about thinks this. Link to comment
Recommended Posts