SDS

Well, given my sugar momma of a wife - we don't make the cut for the Harvard deal, but Deborah has her sites on working at Johns Hopkins in about 7 years. That gets a 50% tuition break... I would still like to see your thoughts on the subject (I was thinking of you and TPS mainly when I started this). Apparently though, everyone thinks they are smarter than me.

Go crap in someone else's thread. I asked a serious question to those w/ a better understanding of economics than me.

If every student was offered a $5000 per year student loan, wouldn't the cost of tuition just raise that much faster, such that the pre-loan tuition cost and the post-loan tuition cost would just be the same?

I always pegged Obama as a fish person. You know... where he can look inside a tank and just look at wide-eyed, unblinking creatures staring back at him adoringly.

case closed.

Uhg. I guess you can blame the party for allowing others to define you, but here are the votes regarding the Patriot Act: http://educate-yourself.org/cn/patriotact2...enatevote.shtml I know a lot of people think King W decreed this, over objections of the masses, but that wouldn't be true.

Then John McCain was your guy.

Actually, I unpinned all the threads. And it had nothing to do with looking idiotic. One thread didn't have a response in 3 years. Here's a tip - don't be an ass to the people who donate their time to try and at least keep the incivility to a dull roar.

Dude, where do you think the laws of our society originated from - age old secular humanism? Where do you think laws regarding theft, marriage, murder, etc come from? Religious values formed the foundation of our society and our law.

Let's assume that NYT piece is more or less accurate. Although they didn't spend months together - the staff and McCain himself spent a decent amount of time with her. It is really hard to imagine how the conversations went w/o them being alerted to any potential shortcomings.

your partisan jabs aside, Kristol is extremely thoughtful even if you don't agree with him.

I understand that. But you would have to accept the corollary - that she did nothing. I can't believe that while being surrounded by campaign staff - all she did was lick ice cream cones and read Cosmo. I'm not defending her interviews, but I am saying that there are bona fide cowards in the McCain campaign that want to blame her for their and their own candidate's failings.

Why would that be all anyone needed to know?

you don't know this. again, these are 2nd hand reports from staffers who ran an incredibly poor campaign. Maybe she didn't prepare, but this would go against all the reports of her previous campaigns in Alaska. It doesn't pass the smell test at all.

where is this obvious? EVERY report said it was his choice and that it surprised staffers.

BTW, anyone in the McCain campaign that blames Palin is !@#$ing coward. THEY picked her and they alone bear that responsibility. But MOST importantly, if she did mean that much to the election it only speaks to John McCain's weakness as a candidate. Seriously, who the hell blames their VP choice?

I think you know that your stance here is extremely disingenuous. You know every well that if there is a law that says you HAVE to teach about marriage, then this gives them political coverage to go ahead and do that w/o parental interference. Yes, they can teach it now, but they would have to deal with the parents. I know you know this. Being this unyielding only hardens people in their stance.

Not going there. You clearly don't want to discuss the issue - you just want people to speak and then slap them down as haters/bigots who would be better off dead. Whack-a-Mole was fun at Darien Lake, but I prefer not to engage in those types of debates anymore.

I'm just saying I think the "Africa" comment is probably an exaggeration. As for the clothes thing, I don't know the context. I see you are implying a contradiction, but maybe Palin didn't ask and some other campaign official did. As a side note, your analysis on the day of the pick was spot on (the whole hail Mary thing...). Well done.

I understand. However, there are a handful of posters here who want to marginalize/trivialize the opposition to this issue as simply hate/bigotry by a fringe portion of the electorate. Clearly, it is not.

I'm not going to dispute her lack of knowledge on a whole host of issues, but keep in mind you have staffers from the losing party pointing fingers at someone who is not them. Maybe it's all true, but what you are getting is a second hand account from people who have motives to throw her under the bus. I would be skeptical of the kiss and tell stories that come out.

I'm not going to get sucked into this debate again, but at least be clear on this - there are no good reasons that you agree with. Big difference.

Consider "success" and "fail" are terms of the beholder - I don't even see how any of us can be arguing the point. I do want Obama to "fail" on most everything he proposed. Ummm... that's why I didn't vote for him. I don't agree with him. I do not want to eliminate secret ballots for union elections. I do not want to bankrupt the coal industry. I do not want to spend another umpteen billion dollars in new federal spending. I do not want congress to overturn common sense laws voted upon in the states regarding abortion.. etc... I saw your post on what a successful administration would be, but I think you will find most lists that have any sort of commonality will be made almost exclusively of various foreign policy objectives. On domestic issues. Fail baby fail.

The brow beating over this issue is juvenile. This issue has been decided by the voters in 30 states. In all 30 states, the outcome has been the same. Clearly, this is a personal issue that has broad support from every region of the country.

Reagan closed tax shelters in exchange for lowering the rate though. No one paid those rates, they just had to contort themselves to avoid it.