I perceive you as either being a troll, or being extremely rude.

In any case, it's obvious that I'm not responding appropriately to how you would like. If you'd like, I'm more than willing to talk (as if that wasn't made abundantly clear...I can go on forever ;)), but as it stands now, it's not worth either of our time to persist in what is essentially me perceiving you as being insulting.

Because I've tried to respond as appropriately to your requests as I am able - I'm obviously not understanding your desires. I'm sorry that I'm unable to respond to you to your liking.

Have a good evening and be well. Hopefully there will be a chance to actually have a substantive exchange at some point.

You know what - I don't want to be a hypocrite. You're right, I didn't answer your direct questions...the very same as you. I'm disappointed that I could not get a substantive response such as the response from crackmonkey4hire which was quite explanatory and useful, though I've certainly yet to even begun to understand your points of view.

Here are your direct answers, though not one of them is even tangentially germane:
-No, ADHD doesn't run in my family, I don't think that's a relevant point.
-No, I didn't swallow a thesaurus (at a young age, or thereafter). Again this point isn't relevant. I do take pride in trying to precisely explain what it is that I'm thinking. That tends to take a lot of words, and I still fail to do so.

AND, in response to your first question:
-Sometimes...with professors it's hit or miss. Such is the nature of "higher" education that it's all-too-often a game of hoops.

Your turn if you so wish. :]
I'll be listening.

Thank you! That was a lovely response, and I greatly appreciate your explanation.

crackmonkey4hire, you did answer quite a bit with regards to why responses have been this way. It is, however, nothing that cannot be inferred because, as you've clearly stated, the attitude of Democrats has been consistently atrocious. I neither deny this, nor defend it - that attitude is incorrect and misplaced. Given the fact that liberal-ness is often seemingly purported to be a determiner of intelligence (with which I wholeheartedly disagree), I can fully appreciate how you, and others can feel that the system itself is structured to attack them.
It is truly stupid and backwards that an institution like UCLA - a school of higher education (and one with high prestige at that) - discourages discourse by suppressing different views.
----------------------------------------------

Of course, none of the above changes the fact that I tend to agree more with Democrat-lead *policy*, it's just that I think many "liberals" are as hard-line as the "conservatives" they rail against.

In light of all of this, I can certainly appreciate (though still neither condone nor think correct) the "knee-jerk reactions". That sort of response, however, is not a conservative one, but rather problematic from both sides of the debate.

I can neither speak for all Democrats or liberals (I don't associate as a "Democrat," I merely tend to agree with them more), but for my part, I'm sorry if I've come across as speaking down. I didn't come here for that reason, but rather to put my two-cents in on this particular matter and attempt to glean a better understanding of your individual viewpoints, which clearly differ from my own.
----------------------------------

But...because this article has, in my opinion, almost no utility besides generalizing "union thug" behavior to all "liberals," there really isn't anything more germane to say. I disagree with the premise, and just about everything within this article for a variety of reasons (many of which I've already spoken to), and I urge all of you to look at it more critically. The purpose of this article seems to be nothing more than tinder for any dislike you may have for the opposing party, and another excuse to despise others. I disagree with that on principle, and you should too.

I invite all discussion further, though it probably won't be relevant to this article...I am truly interested in each of your mindsets - views generally not represented in the bubble that is "higher" education.

Unfortunately, as many of you no doubt feel - and crackmonkey4hire has articulately stated - the bias and aggression that Democrat candidates/politicians/persons seem to put your way, is felt on the other side as well. This is an issue of "it tak[ing] two to tango" - both sides are wrong here, and if you feel hurt by it, then the best you can do is not perpetuate it but reach out to compromise rather than react indignantly.
The liberal contingent of the country has a lot to learn, just as I think the conservative contingent does, but as it stands, both sides' politicians are just yelling at each other while not generating real change (this goes for Obama et al as well as Boehner et al).
This crushing of unions, Obama's turn around on DOMA (while I agree with the principle, the practice was...)...these are pittances, distractions, and insubstantial...Most importantly, they're all unilateral partisan moves. This nation needs to relearn compromise, and the constitutional roles of political members who seem only to be running for re-election.
--------------------------------

In final reference to this article:
I think that we can agree on one point, if nothing more: This is simply not the way that most liberals SHOULD behave, (or, in my experience, DO)...just as this is not the way that "conservatives" should or do behave. It is unbefitting of any person interested in the common good.

Sorry; That was a LOT longer than I'd hoped or anticipated - perhaps (and probably) I *do* need an editor...

Fine.
I'll keep it short.

I have a lot to say, and I think a lot. That isn't a bad thing, and in fact, it is desperately lacking in this world. I assume that you think a lot too, but your ideas are neither self-evident nor true in any objective sense, just as mine.

How can you decry my thoughts, and insinuate that I'm talking down to you, when you refuse - in the very same sentence - to even read what I'm writing. You LOWER yourself even though we've started at the same plane.

So I implore you, if you want respect, show the very same to me. I deserve none of your hatred, nor your disrespect, and I'm astonished that you offer it up.
This comments section is riddled with scorn for this older fellow who is incredibly insulting - how are you different?

Okay. So let's take your logic at its face - I agree that you have a number of strengths within your argument (that I've inferred, rather, because you've not really substantiated or evidenced anything here), but I think that there is more to discuss within those points.

First let's look at point 1:
"Pay for it yourself, or Mumsy and Dadsy"

When looking at the reality of a system in which opportunity arises from monetary ability/possession, where does someone without that money-cushion fall? Do we arrive at a system wherein if you have no money, then you cannot generate money?

Money has two primary powers within our system (and please, argue against this if I'm wrong): the ability to purchase (e.g. I can go to the store and buy gum in exchange for cash), and the ability to generate more money - capital power (e.g. that I can invest that money to make money; loans).
If I don't have money, then neither can I buy something, nor can I invest to generate more money.
Therefore, all that I can offer is my labor - who controls the labor market?

The second point of interest that you seem to be getting at is bureaucracy. I agree - large government is a blunt tool with which we're trying to fine-tune small systems. That doesn't work.
I don't have the appropriate alternative, but I can show you instances in which a lack of market regulation has resulted in tragedy...I know that you can show me instances in which market regulation has failed too.

Mind you, this doesn't mean that big government is inherently bad - what it means is that cumbersome government is cumbersome...There may not be a way around big government being cumbersome, but that doesn't make bureaucracy inherent in big gov., just a seeming inevitability in our current system, right?

The question, I think, shouldn't be "do we need regulation?", but rather "if we have regulation, who is doing the regulating"? I imagine that you would posit a system in which private businesses regulated products, right? There's currently outrage that lead is being found in children's products - all of our "regulatory structures" failed at picking this up until now...clearly there's a problem!

But who would sit on the board of one of these assumed private regulator boards? Business owners? Ex-Lobbyists? Shouldn't it be either a board of experts, or a board of the people (i.e. democratically appointed or demographically representative)?

The third issue of interest is this notion of taxation. No one wants taxation. But let's imagine a world without it. How do the libertarian structures arise? From private organizations who are remarkably philanthropic? We have corporations in this country alone who have been systematically bargaining with our lives (see big insurance), and you would presumably entrust them with making the "right choice"?

Your final bit here doesn't really make sense to me. The divorce rate in this country (and across the world, mind you, in most industrialized nations) is hovering around 50%. This is endemic in all of this places, and indicative of social factors which are diseased.

The world ISN'T unicorns, rainbows, and sparkles - I'm glad that you and I can recognize that. That said, that doesn't preclude us from envisioning a better future.

The system that you seem to be advocating would eliminate access to education for upwards of 50% of the population (probably significantly more than that, but I'm not going to put forth a high figure here, let's aim low and stick to less than half). Those people are left without the ability to enter into the bubble which is "higher education," and thus are necessarily limited in their employment options. What does a society without education look like? Look no further than pre-Renaissance Europe and the feudal system.

It truly is a futile system.

Thank you for responding, I hope that you'll persist in trying to more fully explain why I'm wrong.

Maybe you won't read this, since you've already voiced your disinterest in doing so, but let me ask you: if you're not willing to hear the other side of an argument, why should your side deserve to be listened to?

Again, thank you.

That's the whole point - you're not.

I'm lucky, my parents work tirelessly to get me an education that will hopefully afford me the ability to enter into what is a troublingly difficult career to get into, but one that I'm good at. I'm a blessed one, though, for having that opportunity.

Will you be able to pay for your child to go into the career of his or her choice? Or the career that he or she is good at? Maybe, and if so, then they are lucky. But for everyone else who's good at something - good at engineering, good at politics, good at whatever - they're not going to be able to go into those fields.

There has never been an effective society in the history of recorded time that didn't place education as a top priority. Every society from Egypt to China, and most *certainly* the United States have relied on apprenticeship and education for thousands of years (not individually, of course, but collectively).

In fact, whatever career you're currently engaged in, you trained for. Length of training isn't important in this respect, but how do you propose filling career positions that DO require training? Do we leave those jobs to those who can afford it alone? Do we allow for everyone else to simply be unable to hold those jobs due to a lack of requisite experience?

That's the system that we have now. Go to your hospital and talk to your doctor - do you think that he or she grew up in a slum? Do you think that he or she put him or herself through school working a minimum wage job? That's not possible.

So from where do their school salaries come from? And if they come from nowhere, then how do we fill necessary positions like those of doctors, lawyers, educators...even managers, and CEOs.

Do we leave those positions to those who already have the money?

These are questions - I don't know the answer, I'm just a 20-something with the internet.

I imagine that you're a little older than myself, but you have the internet too - the best research engine yet imagined. You *have* the same access that I do, and the same information at your fingertips - correct or incorrect.

You may even disagree with me, but answer me as to HOW education and specialty arises other than through financial aid programs, who receives education. If your answer is that only those with money can afford it, then how can you reconcile a system like that? If you don't have money, how will you explain that to your children?

And when all of the money has pooled in the pockets of several thousand, when the millions-nay...billions- have none, why is that the case?

Ideally, I'm a libertarian. Philosophically, that's the notion that makes the most sense. But practically speaking, how can you account for generational exchange of money? When a system runs on merit, how can you account for inheritance.

You ALL have these answers - you're NOT stupid. I believe that you have the logical capacity to actually refute what I'm saying rather than slapping me with ad hominem remarks or strawmen.

Don't let me believe that you're stupid - too much of this nation writes each other off...I don't intend to do that to you, who clearly have opinions.

We may not agree on the fiscal side of things, but let me ask you this: Is it in the best interest of the nation to have as much opportunity as possible for the maximum number of people possible? OR, in contrast, is it better for only those with lucky opportunity to seize it and use it as they please?

Inasmuch as communism may appear to be stealing from the rich and giving to the poor...or even stealing from the just-pulling-by and giving to the poor, how does a system of systematized inequity afford the poor...or even the just-pulling-by a fairer chance at success?

Again, I don't have *the* answers, just my own. What is your answer?

Thank you for providing a reasoned response - I appreciate it :].

Here's the deal - I may write in a long-winded fashion, sorry, it's a bad habit, and I don't know of another way around it. Despite that, however, there's nothing in what I've written, nor in my thoughts from which I'd want you to infer any superiority claim of any sort. In fact, the reason that I'm here is not so that I can "wank-off" as written above, but rather so that I can try to understand where it is that this kind of thing comes from. As I've written already, my interest is in trying to figure out where the middle ground is between us.

What is infinitely amazing to me is two-fold, if not more;

Why is it that my writing here raises bile in your throats? I came here to discuss the issues and put forth a viewpoint, but every response that I've seen thus far has been filled with the most vile acrimony imaginable. Would you speak to your children this way? Have I lorded myself over you in any fashion?
Secondarily, why is the fact that I'm studying a bad thing? You studied, certainly, for whatever career you're in - be it accounting, carpentry, lawmaking, or fast-food service. There are variable learning curves for each of these things - the career in which I want to be involved requires more time...not more smarts.
Worrisome to me, though, is that the hatred put forth here is palpable. Education *of some sort* is a necessity for everyone - why is it bad that I want to pursue it for myself when I have made absolutely no gestures against either those like myself, or those who choose to (or, in many instances, MUST) leave education earlier.

But you've approached the real discussion, which I can't appreciate more:

I'm responding to what you all have left me in terms of actual material to work with. The words that this forum has produced are allegations of sexual harassment, perversion, etc. all of which amount to slander to this older man who, despite being out of line in a number of ways, is doing nothing worse than what is done at a number of rallies from both sides.
If, instead, you would put forth a notion that all of this hubub is rhetorical, then I can appreciate that - perhaps we're even on the same page in that respect.

The bottom line for me is this: we're on even footing, whether I use big words, or whether I write in five word sentences. So long as I convey my point, neither one matters. What DOES matter, though, is that the internet is egalitarian - we all have the same access. MORE SO, you and I have the same voting power - we might as well try to understand each others viewpoints to better our own.
And therein lies my main complaint. Why is the impulse here to lash out? If you can read this here, and you can post here, then you have the ability to research, read up, and try to get behind the issue...to actually debate and generate better conclusions rather than tear down others. That's what truly baffles me.

In order to come to rational, effective compromises across what is clearly a nation of different opinions we ALL must reach out to each other to try to understand. The Founding Fathers of this country had faults like anyone else, but understood the value of listening - think of the debates that took place, the exchanges of thought, and the reasoning placed into the balance of powers.

It is shameful to turn down an opportunity to try to come to a compromise, and a sad day when, as above, someone from ANY "side," be it Congresswoman Bachmann, Senator Lieberman, or Democrat State Senators who run away from an already-decided vote. It's even more shameful when "compromise" is construed as weakness.

This young man did something right - he was handing out a darned good piece of writing - that Constitution has a lot more in it than it's currently given credit for.

I actually study to be a doctor, currently - our state of affairs is such that we are in desperate need of reform in that field as well.

Why, indeed, do you seem to assume that my draw towards an undergraduate degree is contingent upon some sorry desire to exploit my female compatriots or something of the like. Instead, engage me, my elder, in actual discussion? I lack both your workplace experience and your knowledge of what it feels like to feel either disenfranchised or insulted as you seem to come across. That said, I have worked...minimum wage, few benefits, and certainly no union to substantiate any workplace grievances that I could put forth.

Meanwhile, my mother IS in a union, impotent and unable to facilitate any sort of economic gain of any sort while she works hard for the state for menial recompense.
That said, with the Citizen's United decision, and the ability of big business to pour money into campaigns as though it were an individual, the slashing of union leveraging is a sad thing to go, even if it STILL fails to produce good effects in its current iteration.

I "proudly" vote Democrat because my ideals line up *more* readily with those of the Democratic party than the Tea Party. While I may have a physical disconnect with the population that truly needs help right now - the sinking lower class, and the disappearing middle class - I AM *frequently* in touch with a laughing "upper class" that doesn't pay nearly enough dues to society. That isn't to say that those people are bad, wrong or otherwise - I simply don't think that the system works as is, with regulations in the wrong places.

Yet, please, continue to insult me, because while I'm trying to engage you in active discussion, you're revealing yourself to be as harsh-tongued as our much-hated-upon older fellow in the video above. Tell me why your disdain is better than his.

Hey guys, concerned young mind here, trying to stay up on the news, and up on the impacts of partisan decisions from both sides of the fence. I vote Democrat...consistently; There have only ever been a few Republican candidates who I felt met my views half-way, and not a one Dem actually goes left-enough for my tastes. That's just me - that's my disclaimer. I clearly differ from most of you in terms of opinion, and that's alright.
Even still, most of the posts here not only miss the point, but seem to refuse to even approach a realistic interpretation of this conflict.
Here's my opinion:

What you've got here, in this video, is a sad display.
This is not because this older fellow is "sexually harassing" this young man (in reality, I'd presume that this exchange was an out-of-context, assumptive ascription of "Tea Party follower" to this conscious young citizen, ill-explained or articulated in "colorful," vulgar terms. The phrase used, however, is a common form of what amounts to a pejorative to refer to Tea Party followers, not a description of an action to be taken towards this young man...this, of course, doesn't excuse its use in any context).
Instead, I find it sad because these people respond so poorly to this young man as to turn away a copy of the Constitution of the United States, an imperfect, but truly glorious document.

Before you all write off this exchange (mind you, from a position of impoverished information), utilize the principle of Occam's Razor - if there are competing options, the simplest, most obvious solution is usually correct. A protester, at a rally, responding to what looks to be opposition (admittedly wrongly/improperly so), is most likely not "hitting on" or "trying to pick up" this young man - that's the stretch. Instead, he is most likely insulting his assumed political stance.

Once again, this all falls to issues of the golden rule; Let us think back to Voltaire and Evelyn Beatrice Hall: "I may disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Good for this young man, looking to the limits of the Constitution as guides, and standing up for his beliefs, and shame that this older fellow didn't engage him in substantive debate, but this is neither characteristic of a union worker, nor a socialist. In fact, the characterization of this "red" rally is an utter misconstrual of what unions are supposed to be for - leveraging power FROM large government.
I hope that you all take a second look at the data underlying the deception, because this kind of wild extrapolation deliberately obfuscates rational consideration or debate.
Thanks for your time, and be well.
-A concerned student