StupidNation

The increase in loans will directly increase tuitions. Take away the loan money the college will have to be competitive for students who can afford schooling. All institutions increase their pay schedule in direct proportion to subsidies. Medical costs are a perfect example. Look at the cost for hospitalization which is subsidized vs the cost of lasik which is not subsidized. One cost has risen, one went down and the only difference is subsidies.

I see you've read Augustine's City of God then? Augustine, a resident of Rome, chronicles the acceptance of Christianity, but the denial of Christian values in all but a few. Read the history of St. Benedict, founder of the Benedictines who leaves Rome after the sexual liberality of Rome after Theodocius. If you've never heard it here is a repeated quote since those who love homosexuality are vicious in their apologetics: "He pointed to the writings of British anthropologist J. D. Unwin, whose 1934 book, Sex and Culture, chronicled the historical decline of numerous cultures. Unwin studied 86 different cultures throughout history and discovered a surprising fact: No nation that rejected monogamy in marriage and pre-marital sexual chastity lasted longer than a generation after it embraced sexual hedonism. Unwin stated it this way, "In human records there is no instance of a society retaining its energy after a complete new generation has inherited a tradition which does not insist on prenuptial and postnuptial continence."

If you think I'm going to re-research those for you, your wasting both of our time. You won't agree because of ideology, and I will have wasted my time. But if you want a link with quotes from anthropologists and sociologists here you go http://www.traditionalvalues.org/pdf_files...hofmarriage.pdf Here's a good paragraph: "He pointed to the writings of British anthropologist J. D. Unwin, whose 1934 book, Sex and Culture, chronicled the historical decline of numerous cultures. Unwin studied 86 different cultures throughout history and discovered a surprising fact: No nation that rejected monogamy in marriage and pre-marital sexual chastity lasted longer than a generation after it embraced sexual hedonism. Unwin stated it this way, "In human records there is no instance of a society retaining its energy after a complete new generation has inherited a tradition which does not insist on prenuptial and postnuptial continence." Do you feel better now?

As if I have to? Your ignorance is not my responsibility to educate you. Why don't you actually go learn rather than throw up sound-bytes of links or some such other non-sense. If you think I have time to re-research every thing I say or do than you should do the same and disprove it. Throw your time around for me monkey-boy. It's not as if I list them (Rome, Greek, etc.) and then you say "yes, now I agree." You just want me to waste my time for your enjoyment. Here's a suggestion, why not learn about the destruction of civilizations and read history. It makes fascinating reading.

http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=214573 "Everybody who works for the program will eventually be paid"???? LOLOLOL Obama doesn't pay his own workers, but wants to smash the businesses to pay more for employees. I wonder if those employees got benefits? Don't think too hard. No one likes spending more than they have to, and yes it's hypocrisy to hold others to a standard of liberalism that he won't hold himself. So they weren't paid as they should have, and I'll be you anything they didn't have health insurance, unless it was subsidized by the gov't.

Let me ask some of you liberal retards a question (not all of you are who read this, but those who have written)... If the parents paid taxes at 35% of their income to the gov't shouldn't they get back that money when they need it? or If they didn't have to pay those taxes could they have saved for a rainy day? You see "Joe's" point is that if you keep taxes lower people save more and rely less on others. Because they suck the life out of you (for those that work) and he wants to make it on his own what's the big deal? You jacka**es are the hypocrites, and pretty stupid to say it nicely. Take away the taxes he complained about and then let's talk about hypocrisy. Because you can't think logically and only according to one ideology you can't comprehend the idea of personal savings vs government distribution.

I find that list to be accurate although I would like to add renewed diplomacy with Russia who is becoming a problem because of Bush's stance towards them.

Because you said so? That's brilliant. You are hardly the judge for intelligence, especially for a guy who has a penchant for labels rather than rebuttals, and no qualifying arguments to make your case when pressed for positions.

That's fine, and I understand your point on partisan GOP types. I think Obama will fall, but mostly because of a flawed misconception of the economy, the same flaw the current GOP has, except I think Obama's is worse. I have yet to see a consumption based economy thrive at any time with higher inflation. If Obama can moderate spending and stop the destruction of the dollar, which doesn't look likely, he will also likely get the boon of people having confidence in the country just because it isn't Bush, who rightfully earned his attacks.

I don't want the country to get worse to say "I told you so" and I'm not a Republican, but Obama and this version of the Democrats are going to run this country down financially. As much as the markets are manipulated by bankers the problems we face are from GOP liberal policies in spending. I don't have to say I told you so, I'm telling you it will be without a doubt. Their mentality economically is insane.

I agree with much of what you said, except that all the problems that ail the country politically are because of a consumption based GDP instead of production based. The biggest issue we have is that issue. Obama wants to fix it by making us more consumption based and less production based. Now that he has the Dem Congress they will push for the same mistake and push us further in the hole. The problem with the GOP is that it is no longer conservative. They can't say they are about cutting programs, or cutting government, pro-USA manufacturing anymore. Most people who supported them on those issues, really their core voters, are dissatisfied with everything they have done. It says a ton that McCain got so many protest votes, because Obama should have won with 78% of the vote as most people don't think when they vote, but vote on sentiment. All of the moral questions that each side addresses is nothing more than window dressing to their core constituents. They like to make them issues rather than push their agenda into law.

I'm happy all those bigots passed those laws. Count me in as a bigot if your definition of bigot is: n. Any person who fights for the natural law I mean why do the liberals who believe there should be rights against the natural law, protect the natural law when it comes to abortion? Murder bigotry in abortion is a bigger issue, and yet I don't see any social liberals advocating for their rights. Rights are no longer moral imperatives to the public, they are the nebulous glob of feel-good bastardization of what people want them to mean. 16 out of 19 great civilizations crumbled within 50 years of the public acceptation of homosexuality. That's a fact.

To re-enforce your point compare the depression of 1920 to 1929. Ask yourself what was the difference? For those that don't know the answer it was higher taxes, regulation, and inflation. That's why his idea won't work.

Care to guess why? They didn't want big money lobbyists making the decisions, or people who vote with their pocketbooks on government programs. Sound familiar?

Bud, this country is done. This country does better in gridlock than it does in bi-partisanship. I would rather nothing get done at this point the furthering of the liberal/socialist agenda they both wanted in their own special little ways.

It does doesn't it? Must admit, I spit out my drink reading your reply. I would put GWB as 5th on the list though and it's a shame that I didn't.

Lincoln, Clinton, Hamilton, and Hoover.

Idiot, I'm not a big debt guy, I want to slash and burn most of all the programs that allows you not to work and post here. The free market is not the cause of this mess, but subsidies for Wall Street. Compare the crash of 1987 and now and ask what was the difference, do the same in 1920 and 1929 and tell me the difference. Bubbles always happen in a free market, but they become devastating when subsidized. You're just are clueless. Jacka**

It shows he has more principle than any of you. He wants less taxes and less programs so he can be free to make a living and not live off of other people. The only reply liberals have is he's broke, or unlicensed. The bottom line is he asked a good question and now he's ostracized for asking it. The media, and not him, rode this. He is complicit insofar as riding it with them, but not many people wouldn't. It says more about you, than it does about him, to find this important.

Maybe only 2 years. Getting what you wish for, a liberal majority, is not what this country needs in bad economic environments that currently exist. I know that sounds partisan, but I've never seen a nation flourish economically on the scale we have with liberal policies. Our biggest threat is China, and while they continue to take over manufacturing, people here think that white-collar workers will save the day somehow with ballooning trade-deficits. As far as the 2 years are concerned, look at what happened to Clinton and a liberal majority, the American people didn't want it immediately as it was causing huge economic and social issues that were silent under GOP presidencies. I hope Palin is NOT the face of this movement. Give me back a younger Buchanan and we can talk. Most of your points are accurate though, but I want a real conservative who wants to slash "programs" and promote state rights.

Tell me how Congress stopped the war, something they promised. Instead they continued and pushed the destruction of personal liberties that Bush went forward with. You're a homeristic lemming of gargantuan proportions.

I'm not going to be one of them. McCain and Bush have hurt the conservative moment by claiming they are conservative and changing the agenda of the GOP into a liberal organization with big spending, and against private property and liberty.

Good question, but I don't study the rules so I can't help. It only makes sense. It's my belief that some plays are unchallengeable but I don't know what those plays are.

That wasn't the point, but since you've made it you will see no drop-off in INTs, forced fumbles, or PDs. Don't worry, those 3 will have the same or better production, because you can only go up in the secondary.

Yesterday was the first time I said to myself, "Lynch, this isn't college and you can't run like that." I was referring to all of those WIDE steps he takes behind the line of scrimmage. I feel like he is sub-par to Jackson until he fixes that. I know he runs hard, but that isn't the same thing as positive yards consistently. He wants every run to be a home-run.