trc@hou5a.UUCP (03/28/84)
--- Scott Barman: Just a comment - you complain that Reagon changed "the laws in a way that a deserving student loses his financial aid with 2 quarters to go - with no other means of paying for an expensive college education..." Presumably you were that "deserving" student? And yet in the very next sentence you state "I made it WITHOUT THAT BASTARD'S HELP!!!!!!" - which seems to contradict your statement that there was "no other means". You seem to have proved Reagon's point for him - namely that government support is not really necessary in many (most?) cases. My own thought goes a bit further - what do you mean by "deserving"? In the ordinary sense of the word, this means "having earned". What exactly did you do to earn a college education, supported by government backed loans? If you were such a great credit risk (and we all know what good credit risks college students are) why couldnt you get a loan from a bank? And if you could, why would you need the government backed loan? In fact, I suspect you are using "deserve" in the sense that many modern liberals use it. That is, something that someone has promised one, whether they should have or not, is "deserved" by the recipient. Then the recipient denies any attempt to stop the giveaway that shouldnt have been started in the first place, on the grounds that it is "deserved". Deserved how? Somehow... The unspoken assumption is "well, they wouldnt have promised it if I didnt deserve it, hence I must deserve it". It *assumes* rationality on the part of the giver, in judging the recipient's "deservedness", and uses that *presumed* rational judgement of deservedness to oppose any rational attempts to stop the giveaway. This is a simple example of the "stolen concept", put into action. In this case, the stolen concept seems to be "the validity of reason", and after it is stolen, it is used it to *deny* the validity of reason in the denial of "deservedness". Tom Craver hou5a!trc
jbf@ccieng5.UUCP (Jens Bernhard Fiederer) (03/30/84)
While "deserving" may not be the exact word, if someone plans his life based on promises made by the government, and the government retracts these promises, the person has a right to be upset. In a way, a contract has been broken. Whether the blame should be placed on the one who made unkeepable promises or the one who broke them is anybodies guess. By the way, Reagan has no o's. Gus the Travelling Vacuum Cleaner Salesman -- Reachable as ....allegra![rayssd,rlgvax]!ccieng5!jbf Or just address to 'native of the night' and trust in the forces of evil.