if you like your medals you can keep your medals wrote:
Ciro wrote:
Yeah that's not what he's proposing, you're just easily confused.
This. He wants to take your money, not your medals, silly. So you see, you have nothing to worry about.
That's reassuring! We're safe! Whew... I was almost worried 4 nothing
WheresMine? wrote:
ThisGuy^LOL wrote:
And that's why this Ciro guy spends all of his time on LetsRun.
Spot on! This Ciro fella's clearly a loser who projects onto his fellow man. He probably never goes outside...
I've spotted him on a number of other threads. He probably doesn't have a job, and he just puts other people down behind his shields of ambiguity & anonymity
Drivel, I stepped outside earlier to collect my newspaper in my slippers.
Have a good one man.
Ciro wrote:
That's Karl Marx.
Are you genuinely confused by this?
Serious question: what's the difference between the two ideologues? The fashionability of their objectives or the actual principles and methods they endorse? Both appear to have promoted the notion of taking from some (or all) for the benefit of others (or a select few).
Morgan Thaler wrote:
Ciro wrote:
That's Karl Marx.
Are you genuinely confused by this?
Serious question: what's the difference between the two ideologues? The fashionability of their objectives or the actual principles and methods they endorse? Both appear to have promoted the notion of taking from some (or all) for the benefit of others (or a select few).
Fair question and let me say that Bernie wouldn't be my first choice at all.
That said, I believe that Bernie supports adopting some aspects of Scandinavian health care and education. There maybe some merit to that. What he isn't advocating is following in Venezuela's footsteps. That live just shuts down intelligent conversation.
Ciro wrote:
Morgan Thaler wrote:
Serious question: what's the difference between the two ideologues? The fashionability of their objectives or the actual principles and methods they endorse? Both appear to have promoted the notion of taking from some (or all) for the benefit of others (or a select few).
Fair question and let me say that Bernie wouldn't be my first choice at all.
That said, I believe that Bernie supports adopting some aspects of Scandinavian health care and education. There maybe some merit to that. What he isn't advocating is following in Venezuela's footsteps. That live just shuts down intelligent conversation.
line*
Ciro wrote:
Morgan Thaler wrote:
Serious question: what's the difference between the two ideologues? The fashionability of their objectives or the actual principles and methods they endorse? Both appear to have promoted the notion of taking from some (or all) for the benefit of others (or a select few).
Fair question and let me say that Bernie wouldn't be my first choice at all.
That said, I believe that Bernie supports adopting some aspects of Scandinavian health care and education. There maybe some merit to that. What he isn't advocating is following in Venezuela's footsteps. That live just shuts down intelligent conversation.
So you're saying they have a lot in common, but you rejected the comparison drawn by the previous poster? Why?[/quote]
Dudes, the guy is a troll! He has nothing to offer to that conversation, obviously. He backpedals as soon as a serious question is posed. "Bla, bla, bla... Bernie wouldn't be my first choice at all." The idiot doesn't even question how government obtains the ability to dole out special favors. I'll answer the question for everyone. Government doesn't have any capital or resources of its own; it has only that which it has extracted (by force) from the populace. So, yes, Marx and Sanders at least begin from the very same bent, and it is only the fashionability of their ends which differ in any meaningful sense. Even in this capacity, however, the differences are small enough to require the fine lens of a microscope, in other cases a high-powered telescope.
Yeah, but the Trump truth bar is so low that its not even worth mentioning. At this point it is more interesting when Trump tells the truth. Almost all other politicians it is more interesting or of note when they lie.
Stick Ball wrote:
Yeah, but the Trump truth bar is so low that its not even worth mentioning. At this point it is more interesting when Trump tells the truth. Almost all other politicians it is more interesting or of note when they lie.
If nothing else, it's interesting to question whether Sanders is lying or he really doesn't understand economics.
One thing is absolutely certain: Ron Paul was a far superior athlete, and he's modeled a far more successful life while exhibiting the values worthy of sharing with our sons and daughters. "Taking from (or blaming) others" isn't a solution to life's problems, but assuming personal responsibility for yourself and your family can be an effective start.
"but so did everyone else" - did they?
Ciro wrote:
"but so did everyone else" - did they?
Just woke up in Honolulu and saw that Ciro is at it again. This guy doesn't have a life.
Good morning.
Jamin - I do wish you the best with your alcoholism, the harsh words were because I thought you needed to hear it blunt. Good luck.
To be fair, one of the better in NYC has never required that great a time. I'd say anything in the 4:30s or even 4:40s would win most races back then. Current PSAL times would still place a 4:30s guy near the top: 1600 Meters 1. 12 John Akakeya 4:24.91PR NY Curtis Jun 11 NYSPHSAA State Championships 2. 11 Frank Morganti 4:32.69PR NY CSIHS/McCown International Studies May 19Twilight Series - Royal Rumble 3. 11 Kiyan Tavangar 4:35.33 NY Stuyvesant May 29 PSAL City Championships 4. 12 Marcos Anderson 4:35.69PR NY HS of American Studies May 14 Bruce Selman Meet 5. 12 Andrew Pokorny 4:36.21PR NY Brooklyn Technical Apr 09 Mayor's Cup
Sdddd ddds wrote:
Wutt? wrote:
A 4:37 run in the 50s or 60s did not make anyone one of the better milers in the USA.
Hell, Ryan ran a 3:55 in HS in the early 60s
Sure and the high school record in 1957 was 416. It got destroyed over the next 8 years. If a guy ran a 415 today, would you be ok with then calling themselves one of the better HS milers in USA? We are talking about a guy who was good, but a notch below the elite level.
Morgan Thaler wrote:
Serious question: what's the difference between the two ideologues? The fashionability of their objectives or the actual principles and methods they endorse? Both appear to have promoted the notion of taking from some (or all) for the benefit of others (or a select few).
Everyone proposes this. No politician in America is proposing that everyone pay the same dollar amount in taxes and that everyone receive exactly the same government benefit from those taxes. So this "take from the rich and give to the poor" is an idea shared by both parties, top to bottom.
The question is simply where we draw the line. We've had socialized education in America for a very long time, and it has been quite successful. We also have socialized medicine for retired people, and it's been quite successful. Bernie isn't proposing that we move to communism. He is simply proposing that we socialize additional industries.
killermike wrote:
Morgan Thaler wrote:
Serious question: what's the difference between the two ideologues? The fashionability of their objectives or the actual principles and methods they endorse? Both appear to have promoted the notion of taking from some (or all) for the benefit of others (or a select few).
Everyone proposes this. No politician in America is proposing that everyone pay the same dollar amount in taxes and that everyone receive exactly the same government benefit from those taxes. So this "take from the rich and give to the poor" is an idea shared by both parties, top to bottom.
The question is simply where we draw the line. We've had socialized education in America for a very long time, and it has been quite successful. We also have socialized medicine for retired people, and it's been quite successful. Bernie isn't proposing that we move to communism. He is simply proposing that we socialize additional industries.
How do you figure that either has been "quite successful"? Relative to what? At what cost? What hard evidence do you have?
berning the track wrote:
To be fair, one of the better in NYC has never required that great a time. I'd say anything in the 4:30s or even 4:40s would win most races back then. Current PSAL times would still place a 4:30s guy near the top:
1600 Meters
1. 12 John Akakeya 4:24.91PR NY Curtis Jun 11 NYSPHSAA State Championships
2. 11 Frank Morganti 4:32.69PR NY CSIHS/McCown International Studies May 19Twilight Series - Royal Rumble
3. 11 Kiyan Tavangar 4:35.33 NY Stuyvesant May 29 PSAL City Championships
4. 12 Marcos Anderson 4:35.69PR NY HS of American Studies May 14 Bruce Selman Meet
5. 12 Andrew Pokorny 4:36.21PR NY Brooklyn Technical Apr 09 Mayor's Cup
Sdddd ddds wrote:
Sure and the high school record in 1957 was 416. It got destroyed over the next 8 years. If a guy ran a 415 today, would you be ok with then calling themselves one of the better HS milers in USA? We are talking about a guy who was good, but a notch below the elite level.
Like I said, never been much of a hot bed. Go north in NY for distance runners...
killermike wrote:
Morgan Thaler wrote:
Serious question: what's the difference between the two ideologues? The fashionability of their objectives or the actual principles and methods they endorse? Both appear to have promoted the notion of taking from some (or all) for the benefit of others (or a select few).
Everyone proposes this. No politician in America is proposing that everyone pay the same dollar amount in taxes and that everyone receive exactly the same government benefit from those taxes. So this "take from the rich and give to the poor" is an idea shared by both parties, top to bottom.
The question is simply where we draw the line. We've had socialized education in America for a very long time, and it has been quite successful. We also have socialized medicine for retired people, and it's been quite successful. Bernie isn't proposing that we move to communism. He is simply proposing that we socialize additional industries.
What are you talking about? The U S ranks 24th in literacy worldwide, despite record levels of spending.
https://rankingamerica.wordpress.com/tag/education/Literal Rubbish wrote:
What are you talking about? The U S ranks 24th in literacy worldwide, despite record levels of spending.
https://rankingamerica.wordpress.com/tag/education/
The US is actually seventh if we want to use real data from actual academics working in the field:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2016/03/08/most-literate-nation-in-the-world-not-the-u-s-new-ranking-says/Guess which six countries rank higher? Finland, Norway, Iceland, Denmark, Sweden and Switzerland. Every single one has socialized education.
WhatTheFreak wrote:
How do you figure that either has been "quite successful"? Relative to what? At what cost? What hard evidence do you have?
Relative to health and education outcomes if we didn't have those programs in place. There is no "hard evidence" that can lead to subjective assessment like "This has been successful." But what we do have are higher levels of education and healthcare access than would otherwise exist if both were completely private.