Azalin

Yes, let them default on their loans and screw up their credit if it comes to that. They can fix their credit over time - it wasn't a problem for them to assume a debt that would require payments over time, so I don't see that there's a real issue there. I would wholeheartedly support laws that would make it easier for them to pay off their debt, but the way I see it, a deal's a deal - you agree to pay X amount for your education, then you pay it. Especially if it's a government-funded student loan; that money is owed to the taxpayers, and any forgiveness of that should be be voted on by the taxpayers.

The way I see it is everyone involved; the student, the student's parents, the lenders, and the schools are all partially responsible for the ridiculous amount of debt being accrued. Schools inflate their tuition because they know student loans are mostly guaranteed. Parents and students are to blame for running up massive debt thinking that, as you point out, expensive degrees are the path to a better life. Lending institutions are to blame as well for giving guaranteed loans to people with no visible prospect for being able to pay it back, and they're all to blame for allowing loans for degrees in things like art history, philosophy, and gender studies, where there's little to no chance of ever paying the loan back. Seriously, the there's going to be a claim of predatory lending, then it's fair to say that tuition rates are inflated and students should know better.

My leanings are very similar to yours, the only major exception being that I've never been officially registered as belonging to any political party. My personal beliefs have changed dramatically over the years, from blatantly socialist in my early 20's to moderate, then conservative, and finally more libertarian/classic liberal now that I'm getting old. I think most people's beliefs and values evolve over the years, regardless of whether their party affiliation does or doesn't. With regard to political parties and politicians in general, I really don't trust any of them. I've been let down time after time by politicians that I had thrown my support behind, regardless of party. Like many people here, I voted for Trump not out of some sense of enthusiastic support, but instead to prevent Hillary Clinton from taking office. I felt it was a total crap-shoot to vote for Trump, but was fed up enough to want to upset the apple cart. Since then I have been pleasantly surprised at the appointments he's made, the regulations he's rolled back, and the robust increase in 401K savings I have accrued, despite the many times I've winced at ridiculous statements and outrageous tweets he's made. What has appalled me however is the manner in which the opposing party has conducted themselves, and the unprecedented vitriol aimed not only at Trump, but everyone and anyone who dares to openly support him.

This is exactly the kind of crap that is undermining progress on solving what might actually be a serious issue. They put forth complete bull$#%@ and call it science. And people like Alf lap it up and use it to condescend to others.

That makes as much sense as anything I can think of.

What the $%@# is that #$@% ?

Mud flaps?

Yes, that exact same link. It seems to have really made an impression.

In other words, the scientists who disagree have no credibility? Seriously, didn't we go through this with you just a month or so ago? Tell me - do you believe that if a majority of scientists say one thing, that's it's automatically truth? Especially if they're debating a branch of science that is likely younger than you are? Those professionals who disagree do not qualify as scientists in your view?

I think it's a stupid rule, but he should have tried to abide by it regardless. Stupid or not, rules are rules. Accept the consequences. Work within the system to change them if that's how you feel.

Not so bad when you think of all the corn and wheat they're buried in all summer long.

They're trying to regulate speech, but as far as the pronouns I choose to use, they haven't yet made a dent in my vocabulary.

No disagreement from me. I'm just taken aback by the author's galling honesty in his belief that speech should be regulated.

before you dismiss it out of hand, they link their source, which appears to be a legitimate website: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-019-0466-8.epdf?referrer_access_token=Y7yUsUFvo-m16rOmL2TEFtRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0NX4xEUiehCyMdAtpJNYXrMss1RvlDM2MgZl8rO6AJTtLu0AyRuiiEavs-5DYKjwNtgQP2kZFNeLsfKd6NNbhFByeRWaWmIH6KtU8FX1Ww4eNKAdvAM00t-KVVTrBNPwDPSegyW6tEw8WxRkCkWV93yXHZsUbxXiR2WAI1wg2OsW7J3C-QbhqO2zva7T850artRwoDnJOSE_89SDGWW_Fft&tracking_referrer=www.foxnews.com

Why am I not surprised that this is from someone who's spent years working in both media and government?

If you ask me, journalism died the day that the Weekly World News left the news stands.

I'm not looking to find common ground with people like that kid's mother - that lady's got problems. I was attempting to reach out to those who identify as progressives, liberals, or democrats to see if they can drop the political posturing and address this issue simply and directly with what I consider to be a very reasonable, complete and total condemnation of this woman's acts. EII is the only one so far.

Anyone remember the Wellstone memorial?

This is one of those topics that I assume would transcend partisanship, where we can have an actual discussion between disparate viewpoints and actually come to some sort of general agreement. You're probably right about the pointlessness of my attempt, but given that there are a few lefties that have stated that they find it too difficult to have a discussion here, I thought it at least worth a try.

I'm quoting myself to reiterate the question to all the leftists who call this site a right-wing echo chamber. EII has stated his position on the issue, but I invite the other leftists to chime in. Do you think it's healthy to encourage a seven year-old boy to believe he's a girl? Is this, as Tiberius says, more right-wing hate? Is this an issue where we can let political tribalism fall to the wayside and look at this logically? What say you Q-fatty, Gary, section122, shady, etc, etc, etc? This one's pretty straightforward. I'm eager to hear your responses.

I don't see how anybody, regardless of party affiliation, could possibly believe this is a good thing for a child of seven. I would appreciate it if anyone could make a convincing case in support of Dr Georgulas.

This particular passage stands out to me because it describes a majority of the posters here. Almost nobody here supported Trump during the run-up to the 2016 elections. Go back to some of the threads back then and see for yourself. Most of what you have here in the way of Trump supporters nowadays are people who are pleasantly surprised at many of the policies he's adopted and are sick of the constant barrage leveled at both themselves and the president. As for those who post sourced material here, B-Man is definitely a conservative who posts from conservative sources, but he's honest about his biases and doesn't try to pretend he's anything other than what he is. On the other hand, DR is more of a liberal than anything else. He's just not afraid to post material that is critical of the left because he's more concerned with truth than he is with politics. If you do lurk here, then you probably do know that this place isn't just a right-wing echo chamber. I know some people can be rude, but don't let them spoil your desire to participate. Try to keep an open mind when engaging people and you'll find much of the discussion to be worthwhile.

I used to be a leftist but changed over the years to lean conservative/libertarian. How do you explain that aversion to change under circumstances such as those?

Why that sonofa......he told me he was the cowboy.