If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Progressive student: "We should tax the rich to give the poor more opportunity." Conservative: "So you'd be cool with me taking some points off your GPA to give the dumb some opportunity, right?" Progressive student:   (thelookingspoon.com) divider line 631
    More: Amusing, GPA  
•       •       •

6168 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 Apr 2011 at 8:03 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



631 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-04-17 09:38:02 PM  
When children can inherit their parents' GPAs, gimme a call.
 
2011-04-17 09:38:25 PM  

DamnYankees: Hydra: Shaggy_C: GPA is a zero-sum game. Every A causes someone else to go wanting!

Oh, wait...You mean the total points available in a class aren't split between all of the students, and makes this entire comparison invalid?

Well wait a minute, are you suggesting that wealth creation and economic growth is a zero-sum game?

The amount of wealth in an economy at any given time is most certainly a zero-sum game.


------------------

This statement is just WAY off. You should probably learn the meaning of the phrase zero-sum game if you wish to use it.
 
2011-04-17 09:38:41 PM  

Lord Dimwit: Not being snarky, but how was I wrong?


The extra assistance was being offered to African-Americans as a group. Just because one African-American didn't need the extra help, doesn't mean the group doesn't. You wife's friend was free to turn down the offered assistance.

Affirmative action isn't about individuals. It is an attempt to level the playing field between groups. It isn't always completely necessary, but implementing it on a case by case basis would be far more expensive and difficult.

When the majority of employers can look at a job applicant without considering race then affirmative action can be fazed out.
 
2011-04-17 09:39:28 PM  

Cinaed: Robots are Strong: Well sure, but thats the poor getting farked, not the dumb.

The poor generally lack the appreciation for education and the benefits it can provide to their own progeny.

Poor and dumb has a strong correlation.


I agree that poor and uneducated have a strong correlation, I disagree that poor and dumb have a strong correlation. Poor people are often uneducated because they don't have the means to acquire the education and this is frequently coupled with a background that doesn't value education. This doesn't mean that poor people are dumb, they just haven't had the same opportunities as people with money.
 
2011-04-17 09:41:01 PM  

balloot: This statement is just WAY off. You should probably learn the meaning of the phrase zero-sum game if you wish to use it.


So you believe that the distribution of the pool of wealth at any given moment is *not* a finite resource in which giving to one person requires depriving another?

Are you under the impression that wealth is infinite?
 
2011-04-17 09:41:25 PM  

Cinaed: Robots are Strong: Well sure, but thats the poor getting farked, not the dumb.

The poor generally lack the appreciation for education and the benefits it can provide to their own progeny.

Poor and dumb has a strong correlation.


The negro is inferior and an education would be wasted on them?
 
2011-04-17 09:42:55 PM  

balloot: Your first example is obviously socialism. Is the 2nd one supposed to be capitalism?


Pretty much.

It will even work, if the greedy fat slob who gets to distribute the candy makes sure to cut in both the question answerers (his earners) and the bullies in the class. Meanwhile the rest of the class will resent the kid who owns the bowl, and may -- depending on how intimidated they are by the bought off bullies -- decide to rob the kid after class. That's called a "revolution."

If he's even smarter, he'll distribute some to the entire class, keeping the partially mollified. That's called "liberalism."
 
2011-04-17 09:43:04 PM  
This has probably already been addressed, but perhaps the progressive student was simply speechless at such a stupid comparison. Kinda like when Steven Chu decided that explaining plate tectonics to Rep Joe Barton probably wasn't at all worth it.
 
2011-04-17 09:43:55 PM  
Sure you can have my extra GPA. If I had a 6.0 on a 4.0 scale and couldn't possibly use it. Would be about the same as people with multi-hundred millions who could never spend it all in their life time.

We could also call apples oranges and save some time.
 
2011-04-17 09:45:43 PM  
If you want to have fun, the person who thought this was a brilliant idea is responding to comment posts.
 
2011-04-17 09:45:46 PM  

DamnYankees: balloot: This statement is just WAY off. You should probably learn the meaning of the phrase zero-sum game if you wish to use it.

So you believe that the distribution of the pool of wealth at any given moment is *not* a finite resource in which giving to one person requires depriving another?

Are you under the impression that wealth is infinite?


-----------------

You're doing a great job of reinforcing my assertion that have no idea what a zero-sum game is.
 
2011-04-17 09:46:42 PM  

Lord Dimwit: LouDobbsAwaaaay: Lord Dimwit: No, this was a program specifically for minority students.

Is there a link of some kind? Because a Google search for "University Texas Pathways" is coming up with nothing. Are you certain your wife simply didn't understand what this program was, or was she possibly making this story up?

It really doesn't make sense.

I'm not making it up, though I can't promise that it was called "Pathways".

Here we go. Gateway, not Pathway. Sorry. http://www.utexas.edu/diversity/ddce/lcae/gateway.php


"Achieving College Excellence (ACE) Program"
"Preference is given to students who are the first in their families to attend a four-year university."

I don't actually think it's by race - I remember talking to a friend from Texas years ago on something around this topic. I think there are a lot of factors which make it seem that way. Think of a few factors:

* larger than median classes
* first person (or age range) to attend college
* below median income
* must know about the program

When you add in a few more factors, it's easy to see how this would be viewed as by race. Link (new window)
"Gateway retention program in 1994 to first-generation college students with low entrance exam scores and to other students facing disadvantages. This year, roughly $500,000 will be spent on Gateway, which has a 50- faculty teaching staff."
"With Texas' public colleges operating under the strictures of the Hopwood court decision, which banned affirmative action, Gateway is open to students of all races and ethnicities. But minority students have made up about 75 percent of those enrolled in the program since it was founded, Arellano says. "
 
2011-04-17 09:46:48 PM  

DamnYankees: balloot: This statement is just WAY off. You should probably learn the meaning of the phrase zero-sum game if you wish to use it.

So you believe that the distribution of the pool of wealth at any given moment is *not* a finite resource in which giving to one person requires depriving another?

Are you under the impression that wealth is infinite?


-----------------------

Oops....

You're doing a great job of reinforcing my assertion that you have no idea what a zero-sum game is.
 
2011-04-17 09:47:26 PM  
Another interesting observation is that GPA is not finite.
 
2011-04-17 09:47:46 PM  

theorellior: This has probably already been addressed, but perhaps the progressive student was simply speechless at such a stupid comparison. Kinda like when Steven Chu decided that explaining plate tectonics to Rep Joe Barton probably wasn't at all worth it.


Alright smart guy, YOU explain how all that oil got under Alaska. I'll wait.
 
2011-04-17 09:48:44 PM  

balloot: WTF are you talking about? Here in the USA, and in every other civilized country in the world, we have a progressive income tax system that does NOT change the income rank of those taxed.


Yeah, I know.

So yeah, I guess if you're arguing against a tax system that absolutely nobody uses and absolutely nobody is arguing for, I guess you have a solid counterpoint!

That's what the conservatives do. This GPA = Wages argument is based on their misunderstanding of progressive tax policies. They are arguing against wealth redistribution towards equalization, when progressive actually argue for wealth redistribution to stabilization.

I was demonstrating that even if you start with the assumption that progressive want perfect wealth equalization, the GPA = Wages equivalency argument is still a false equivalency.
 
2011-04-17 09:49:08 PM  

hovsm: Another interesting observation is that GPA is not finite.


Well, GPAs are finite; you can't get higher than a 4 (ignoring the 4.3 crap for an A+). I think you mean to say that the total amount of all GPA's given is not bounded at anything less than 4 times the number of students.
 
2011-04-17 09:50:30 PM  
"Spreading the wealth" is a dumb philosophy. It takes away all incentive to make something of yourself. Only the simple minded and socialists advocate this non-workable solution.
 
2011-04-17 09:51:19 PM  

skepticultist: This GPA = Wages argument is based on their misunderstanding of progressive tax policies.


Funny, I figured it was a misunderstanding of GPA based on never having gone to class.
 
2011-04-17 09:52:46 PM  

2wolves: Bocanegra: How's that whole "tax the rich" thing working out for Europe?

lulz

Check out Germany you super genius.


Yeah, but I should completely ignore Spain, Portugal, and Greece, amirite?
 
2011-04-17 09:54:04 PM  

tony41454: "Hoarding the wealth" is a dumb philosophy. It takes away all incentive to make something of yourself. Only the simple-minded advocate this non-workable solution.

 
2011-04-17 09:56:20 PM  

Worst.Fark handle. ever.: The rich MUST have the fark taxed out of them. It's the only way to keep monsters like JP Morgan from coming back.


i262.photobucket.com
 
2011-04-17 09:56:55 PM  

skepticultist:

I was demonstrating that even if you start with the assumption that progressive want perfect wealth equalization, the GPA = Wages equivalency argument is still a false equivalency.


-----------

I guess. I'm not sure why if you were arguing for the progressive side of the issue you would characterize your position as something wayyyy to the left that has nothing to do with any real government policy anywhere.

It's like saying "It's not so bad that progressives want to implement death panels in health care! Here's all the efficiencies death panels bring you..." and then pointing out that conservatives say liberals want death panels, so you needed to defend them.
 
2011-04-17 10:00:06 PM  

IlGreven: Well, then, by that analogy, the school is just giving this kid 4.0s while he's not even doing his homework, or any real work, for that matter.

Which means his daddy is rich enough to buy off the school system.


Yeah, I don't mean to cast aspersions on the wealthy, I know a lot of them work ridiculously hard, but you can't exactly be born into good grades.
 
2011-04-17 10:01:46 PM  
So, the simple minded respond. NOWT can't come up with anything original so he/she shows their ignorance. Tell me, O master of the Low IQ, what group in this country is responsible for creating the most jobs? Creating business? What does this country need more of right now? Jobs? Will the poor create jobs? Will those on food stamps and welfare create jobs? No, Mr. Simple, it's the "rich," those with combined incomes of over $250,000 who own franchises, warehouses, print shops, etc., and the "super rich" who own factories. Fine, you can advocate your socialist wealth spreading, but you'll sit on your arse and collect welfare, because there will be no jobs. (Man, some people are just DENSE.)
 
2011-04-17 10:07:41 PM  

balloot: I guess. I'm not sure why if you were arguing for the progressive side of the issue you would characterize your position as something wayyyy to the left that has nothing to do with any real government policy anywhere.


I wasn't arguing the progressive side. I was critiquing the argument made.
 
2011-04-17 10:07:54 PM  

Bocanegra: 2wolves: Bocanegra: How's that whole "tax the rich" thing working out for Europe?

lulz

Check out Germany you super genius.

Yeah, but I should completely ignore Spain, Portugal, and Greece, amirite?


------------------------

Let's go by unemployment rate, since the main claim of conservatives is that social safety nets limit the motivation to work.

Netherlands - 4.3% unemployment
Germany - 5.6%
UK - 7.9%
Belgium 8%
Denmark - 8.2%
Italy - 8.6%

And for bonus points, let's look at the Scandinavian countries that implement...*shudder*...socialism:
Norway - 3.4%
Sweden - 7.6%
Finland - 8%

So yeah, the countries you mentioned aren't doing so well. But as a whole, the top EU countries are doing better than the US even with much higher taxes. Also, the EU country that notably took a very fiscally conservative stance and lowered taxes aggressively (Ireland) is suffering the most of anyone. Any other questions?
 
2011-04-17 10:11:15 PM  
I guess the difference is you don't end up starving to death when your GPA hits zero.
 
2011-04-17 10:14:17 PM  

NobleHam: ne2d: GAT_00: That's a stupid analogy. The whole idea behind affirmative action is that it lets someone who doesn't have absolute proof of excellence, such as someone without a great GPA, into college so they can excel on their own merits.

I would say the Supreme Court more or less rejected that reasoning. The only Constitutionally-acceptable justification for affirmative action is that a school has the right to determine the demographic makeup of its student body.

But yes, it's an extremely stupid analogy.

That and the fact that statistically speaking, affirmative action students and hirees tend to perform better. Affirmative action is looking at potential rather than proven value and experience and assuming that the proven value and experience of minorities who have been historically oppressed will understate their potential.


It falls flat on its face when it becomes apparent that potential is not worth more than proven value.
 
2011-04-17 10:14:58 PM  
i75.photobucket.com
 
2011-04-17 10:15:15 PM  

kleppe: That and the fact that statistically speaking, affirmative action students and hirees tend to perform better. Affirmative action is looking at potential rather than proven value and experience and assuming that the proven value and experience of minorities who have been historically oppressed will understate their potential.

It falls flat on its face when it becomes apparent that potential is not worth more than proven value.


Which is why companies only hire older, experienced employees?
 
2011-04-17 10:15:58 PM  

Without Fail: Lord Dimwit: Not being snarky, but how was I wrong?

The extra assistance was being offered to African-Americans as a group. Just because one African-American didn't need the extra help, doesn't mean the group doesn't. You wife's friend was free to turn down the offered assistance.

Affirmative action isn't about individuals. It is an attempt to level the playing field between groups. It isn't always completely necessary, but implementing it on a case by case basis would be far more expensive and difficult.

When the majority of employers can look at a job applicant without considering race then affirmative action can be fazed out.


By that logic, though, shouldn't scholastic programs or scholarships be offered to low-income people in general, not just black people because they're black? I mean a lot of these scholarships/programs would qualify a black child of a doctor and a lawyer, but turn away a white child from the ghetto.
 
2011-04-17 10:18:20 PM  
From the blog author in his blog's comment section:


"That said, you COMPLETELY missed the point. The argument is over the value of taking what the "haves" earned and giving them to the "have nots" in the name of fairness. THAT is the point, and it is the only point to be argued here.

This isn't an exercise in literally comparing GPA to money... but nice try. I would confuse the issue too if I were you.

Furthermore, if you really want to get into the realm of how much money people NEED then people who game the system so they don't ever have to work need/deserve the tax money extracted from the rich just as much as you think the rich need/deserve it.

That's basically saying you want, to enable deadbeats by punishing the fruits of labor you deem excessive...and who the hell do you think you are?

I'm not rich by any means, but maybe I'd like work up to being there someday. So I'm not going to be a whiny little b*tch who wants to tear down rich people and make life difficult for them because those difficulties will still be there should I ever join the club.

And that's the same response I would give if somebody asked me if I think schools should redistribute GPA... for the sake of fairness"



So, we learn:

1) He thinks progressive taxation is all about fairness for its own sake. Little things like giving people a fighting chance, countering systematic biases in the flow of money or, heck, not letting people suffer and die is changing the subject.

2) His comparing GPA to money was not about comparing GPA to money. Saying so is just trying to confuse the subject.

3) If people really need $X to live, then even people who game the system would need $X to live. And that's absurd, right?

4) He doesn't want to make life difficult for the rich. The difficulty of anyone else's life is passed over without mention.
 
2011-04-17 10:20:46 PM  

tony41454: e/she shows their ignorance. Tell me, O master of the Low IQ, what group in this country is responsible for creating the most jobs? Creating business? What does this country need more of right now? Jobs? Will the poor create jobs? Will those on food stamps and welfare create jobs? No, Mr. Simple, it's the "rich," those with combined incomes of over $250,000 who own franchises, warehouses, print shops, etc., and the "super rich" who own factories. Fine, you can advocate your socialist wealth spreading, but you'll sit on your arse and collect welfare, because there will be no jobs. (Man, some people are just DENSE.)


You know, you hear people say things like "the government thinks they know how to spend your money better than you do" when they want to rile someone up. The fact of the matter though is that yeah, they do know how to spend your money better than you do, at least when it comes promoting the greater good of our society. Will they do it efficiently? Almost definitely not. But if a person spends their own money, they will do it in a way that benefits themselves, and this is how it should be. When the government spends it it's supposed to help everyone. So what the government should do is take a little bit of money from everyone, and spend it in such a way that everyone benefits. But they should take a little more from the people that can afford to give a little more, and take a little less from the people that can't. The rich people will still be rich, the poor people will still be poor, we'll have a stable society where even poor people have a chance at success, and you'll still be farking moron.
 
2011-04-17 10:20:52 PM  
Because money is exactly the same thing as grades.
 
2011-04-17 10:21:28 PM  

deSelby: 1) He thinks progressive taxation is all about fairness for its own sake. Little things like giving people a fighting chance, countering systematic biases in the flow of money or, heck, not letting people suffer and die is changing the subject.


Note how this is consistent with the the GOP's entire philosophical frame: the reductive morality of something is more highly prioritized than actual facts or god forbid, math. In short, rhetorical tricks.
 
2011-04-17 10:22:38 PM  

DamnYankees: balloot: This statement is just WAY off. You should probably learn the meaning of the phrase zero-sum game if you wish to use it.

So you believe that the distribution of the pool of wealth at any given moment is *not* a finite resource in which giving to one person requires depriving another?

Are you under the impression that wealth is infinite?


Well, it may be zero-sum in terms of the units of wealth itself, but not necessarily in terms of the utility derived thereof. I.e. a progressive redistribution of wealth could conceivably be positive-sum, given that the utility gained by those with less wealth will outweigh the utility lost by the wealthy. Though I don't think this is necessarily what balloot was trying to argue.
 
2011-04-17 10:24:11 PM  
Apples and oranges.

GPA is not a currency, and there is not a finite amount of it that everyone must share.

GPA is not the only value used in opportunities to make a living. Money is all that we have.

GPA is not necessary to live on.
 
2011-04-17 10:24:18 PM  
Leave it to a Conservative to conflate individual effort with income. More money = better person/harder worker/smarter.

How about this? Since everybody starts with the same GPA when they enter college, would Conservatives be willing to give up all of the money and possessions they have that weren't directly earned by the sweat of their brow upon graduation?

Yeah, I thought not.

/the blogtard should look into GPA inflation practices at Ivy league schools.
 
2011-04-17 10:24:26 PM  

balloot: Bocanegra: 2wolves: Bocanegra: How's that whole "tax the rich" thing working out for Europe?
lulz


Pretty damn well. lulz
http://www.forbes.com/2011/01/19/norway-denmark-finland-business-washington-wor l d-happiest-countries_slide_11.html (new window)
 
2011-04-17 10:25:16 PM  

kleppe:
It falls flat on its face when it becomes apparent that potential is not worth more than proven value.


Except that as I said, affirmative action has been shown to be correct. People who get their job or go to college through affirmative action tend to perform better than other people with the same proven qualifications. There is statistical evidence to support the idea that proven value understates potential in historically oppressed groups.
 
2011-04-17 10:25:24 PM  

Robots are Strong: tony41454: e/she shows their ignorance. Tell me, O master of the Low IQ, what group in this country is responsible for creating the most jobs? Creating business? What does this country need more of right now? Jobs? Will the poor create jobs? Will those on food stamps and welfare create jobs? No, Mr. Simple, it's the "rich," those with combined incomes of over $250,000 who own franchises, warehouses, print shops, etc., and the "super rich" who own factories. Fine, you can advocate your socialist wealth spreading, but you'll sit on your arse and collect welfare, because there will be no jobs. (Man, some people are just DENSE.)

You know, you hear people say things like "the government thinks they know how to spend your money better than you do" when they want to rile someone up. The fact of the matter though is that yeah, they do know how to spend your money better than you do, at least when it comes promoting the greater good of our society. Will they do it efficiently? Almost definitely not. But if a person spends their own money, they will do it in a way that benefits themselves, and this is how it should be. When the government spends it it's supposed to help everyone. So what the government should do is take a little bit of money from everyone, and spend it in such a way that everyone benefits. But they should take a little more from the people that can afford to give a little more, and take a little less from the people that can't. The rich people will still be rich, the poor people will still be poor, we'll have a stable society where even poor people have a chance at success, and you'll still be farking moron.


----------------

You, sir, win the internets. Well done.
 
2011-04-17 10:26:19 PM  
The Gentleman's C.
 
2011-04-17 10:26:55 PM  
if you wanted a more correct analogy it would be

Progressive student: "We should tax the rich to give the poor more opportunity."

Conservative: "So you'd be cool with me taking some points off your GPA to give the dumb some opportunity, right?"

Progressive student: Only if you'd be cool with me not teaching your class for you while you sit at your desk counting the money I made you.
 
2011-04-17 10:27:16 PM  

Ablejack: The Gentleman's C.


Keep your degenerate transsexualism out of this mixed metaphor.
 
2011-04-17 10:28:28 PM  
If the kid is only getting a good grade because his parents donated a very large sum of cash to the school then yes I'd be in favor of dividing his grade up.
 
2011-04-17 10:29:18 PM  
Income and wealth aren't the same.

The analogy of GPA to income, hard work = just rewards is actually pretty good.

That seems to be lost when people complain about the "rich".
Again, a high income doesn't mean you are wealthy.
 
2011-04-17 10:30:09 PM  
Robots are Strong Quote 2011-04-17 10:25:24 PM
But they should take a little more from the people that can afford to give a little more, and take a little less from the people that can't. The rich people will still be rich, the poor people will still be poor, we'll have a stable society where even poor people have a chance at success, and you'll still be farking moron.

No they shouldn't. And I'll tell you why, you farking moron:

Only The Rich Pay Taxes
Top 50% of Wage Earners Pay 96.03% of Income Taxes

October 10, 2003

There is new data for 2001. The share of total income taxes paid by the top 1% fell to 33.89% from 37.42% in 2000. This is mainly because their income share (not just wages) fell from 20.81% to 17.53%. However, their average tax rate actually rose slightly from 27.45% to 27.50%.

This proves that it was not the tax cut that caused revenues from the rich to fall, but the recession and the stock market crash. In other words, you live by the sword, you die by the sword. If you are going to benefit from the rich paying more taxes, due to progressivity, on the upside, you are going to lose more revenue from these people on the downside. This is a good argument for reducing progressivity.

Think of it this way: less than four dollars out of every $100 paid in income taxes in the United States is paid by someone in the bottom 50% of wage earners. Are the top half millionaires? Noooo, more like "thousandaires." The top 50% were those individuals or couples filing jointly who earned $26,000 and up in 1999. (The top 1% earned $293,000-plus.) Americans who want to are continuing to improve their lives - and those who don't want to, aren't. Here are the wage earners in each category and the percentages they pay:

Top 5% pay 53.25% of all income taxes (Down from 2000 figure: 56.47%). The top 10% pay 64.89% (Down from 2000 figure: 67.33%). The top 25% pay 82.9% (Down from 2000 figure: 84.01%). The top 50% pay 96.03% (Down from 2000 figure: 96.09%). The bottom 50%? They pay a paltry 3.97% of all income taxes. The top 1% is paying more than ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%! And who earns what? The top 1% earns 17.53 (2000: 20.81%) of all income. The top 5% earns 31.99 (2000: 35.30%). The top 10% earns 43.11% (2000: 46.01%); the top 25% earns 65.23% (2000: 67.15%), and the top 50% earns 86.19% (2000: 87.01%) of all the income.
The Rich Earned Their Dough, They Didn't Inherit It (Except Ted Kennedy)

The bottom 50% is paying a tiny bit of the taxes, so you can't give them much of a tax cut by definition. Yet these are the people to whom the Democrats claim to want to give tax cuts. Remember this the next time you hear the "tax cuts for the rich" business. Understand that the so-called rich are about the only ones paying taxes anymore.

I had a conversation with a woman who identified herself as Misty on Wednesday. She claimed to be an accountant, yet she seemed unaware of the Alternative Minimum Tax, which now ensures that everyone pays some taxes. AP reports that the AMT, "designed in 1969 to ensure 155 wealthy people paid some tax," will hit "about 2.6 million of us this year and 36 million by 2010." That's because the tax isn't indexed for inflation! If your salary today would've made you mega-rich in '69, that's how you're taxed.

Misty tried the old line that all wealth is inherited. Not true. John Weicher, as a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and a visiting scholar at the Federal Reserve Bank, wrote in his February 13, 1997 Washington Post Op-Ed, "Most of the rich have earned their wealth... Looking at the Fortune 400, quite a few even of the very richest people came from a standing start, while others inherited a small business and turned it into a giant corporation." What's happening here is not that "the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer." The numbers prove it.

Link (new window)
 
2011-04-17 10:31:48 PM  
You libs do realize that the root cause of quotas and affirmative action is that minority students and population in general are not performing to standard levels. When deep diving the issue you find that the problems start early in the educational and social environments that these minorities are subjected to. These environments are 100% a result of that liberal Johnson and his "Great Society" projects. What kind of a douche would think that warehousing poor uneducated minorities in large numbers separated from other peoples would in anyway help them? Look in the mirror libs----find a person needing affirmative action and find a liberal policy that got them there.
 
2011-04-17 10:33:39 PM  

Snatch Bandergrip: This analogy doesn't work. Since the poor pay more taxes than the rich, you would have to argue that the hard work of stupid kids is somehow giving a good student better grades.


You gotta hide your completely false statements better.
 
Displayed 50 of 631 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report