A "fair society" defined in both liberal and conservative/libertarian terms

Hahahah! Oh you liberals are so precious! You actually can't read one shred of sarcasm out of my definition for liberals? And you got your head so up in the partisan hogwash that you still focus on the conservatives where you don't even bother to make any effort in clarifying what was said in the OP about liberals?

LOL!

 

If you can't pay a student loan making an extra $20,000 a year average? Then you shouldn't be doing anything but flipping burgers anyway.

Your inability to answer my question proves my point. We have equal access already.

 

This was what Conservatives define a "fair society":
"People who want to live a better life and are willing to work for it shall have a better chance at achieving their goals than those who do neither. "

What you just said, contradicts that. A person who wants to go to college, and has work ethic can't get ahead in life.

 

The thread is a CLASSIC example of how progressives want equal money, NOT equal access.

 

FALSE. READ the quote again and if you have an argument? ANSWER MY QUESTION!!!!!!!

 

Really? Work ethic and will. We established the will to go college, and you provided the work ethic. Flipping burgers, whether you think highly of it or not, is a job. You've established that a person is willing to work. By saying they shouldn't go for it because they can't afford it, (ie not because of will or work ethic), you contradict what cons believe.

What question?

 

Anarcho-socialists.

 

Your reply reflects the major problem with liberals: Don't know what to do and don't know how to do it. Which BTW, is quite typical for young liberals.

 

I'm not a liberal. That's why I don't understand liberalism, because I don't subscribe to their beliefs.

 

You completely missed my point. If you're TOO STUPID to figure out how to pay for a student loan making an average of $20,000 more annually? You're probably too stupid to go to college.

I'd recommend a good trade school.

Ah yes.... the Old what question deflection. The one you've avoided about 6 times now.

- - - Updated - - -

The guy above me thinks burger flipping is the epitome of education and work ethic.......

 

I'm sorry where did stupidity come into play here? If you have the will, then you can rise to the top. Whatever your disadvantages, you can rise to the top. What you're saying is contradicting what conservatives stand for.

If you want me to answer it, then I need to know what it is. Otherwise I'm going to assume it was where you put the shopping list.

 

That is not true, because it does not take the natural order into account.

 

Let me give you an example of will. I started off making $3.35 an hour as a store clerk. Within 2 years I was managing my own store due to "will".

Then I started out at the bottom of another business and within 7 years I went through several management positions and ended up in the general manager position for 9 years.

That's being a high school drop out.

So not only did I make pretty good money? I made enough to take 3/12 years off of work to focus on my degree AND may $70,000 in cash for my BSN.

There's MILLIONS of examples that dispel your ridiculous argument.

If you have good work ethic, you'll always rise above those who don't. If you have good work ethic and education? Icing on the cake.

The problem for MOST poor people or poor achievers, is they simply are incapable of being honest about their work ethic and/or ability.

I can't even tell you HOW MANY people would tell me they show up for work everyday during a job interview? Only to miss a few days of work within the first month.

If you find yourself poor and destitute? The best thing anyone can do is hand you a mirror.

I already KNOW the answer or I wouldn't have asked it.

 

[/QUOTE]

 

Your example assumes a couple things; one, that the two potential Harvard students have equivalent notions of the value of a college education - a notion that isn't a given among children born into poverty. And second, that a poor person's scholastic aptitude is enough to get them admission to Harvard along with the requisite student loan, despite his lack of family connections.

But progressives don't want everyone to have equal access to Harvard, they want everyone to have equal access to education. Unfortunately, there is a big difference in the quality of education (and the marketability) of Harvard versus the average college that a poor applicant can afford and is likely to be accepted to.

 

The problem with MOST stereotypes is that they ignorantly paint entire groups of people with too broad a brush.

 

Nice dodge. I give you a 4.5 on style.

 

You "think" it's a stereotype but the 53% of income earners that actually PAY federal income taxes might disagree. You know? The people that overcome adversity? The people that actually HAVE a good work ethic? Who understand the importance of education? The people YOU DEMAND pay other people's way?

 

Taxcutter says:
As I have posted in another thread: Cuba. Equality of misery.

 

Equal chance by force with liberals deciding who the winners will be.

 

That's the best argument you've come up with! I have no counterargument to offer.

 

Some are born more talented than others. And some are born luckier. Bill gates will be the first to tell you he was also one of the lucky ones. Read Malcolm Gladwell's book "Outliers". It illustrates that one's chances for success are often linked to the sheer luck of birth. Gates is one example in his book that validates his point.

 

My concept of a fair society is to do what we can to eliminate educational apartheid that we have in our public school systems. At least that's a beginning of the foundation of a fairer society.

 

If that's the case, then why does America have some of the lowest social mobility in the developed world?

 

Ya know, abandoning one's belief on the first sign of challenge is a hallmark of liberals...