JohnnyD

So when the president goes on national TV and says this.... BUSH: Oh, absolutely. Everybody was wrong on weapons of mass destruction. I would ask people to go back and look at the comments of many of the Democrat leadership prior to my arrival in Washington, DC, people who'd looked at the same intelligence I looked at. I'd look at the people's comments when the run-up to the war. They had looked at the same intelligence I had looked at. It was pretty well universally thought he had weapons. And there was an intelligence failure, which we're trying to address. But I was as surprised as anybody he didn't have them. ...you're saying he's lying?

end, in general, there's not a lot of political diversity at many univerities, so it's not much of an issue Rubbish. Apparently, conservatives don't go to college.

Holy crap. How much free time do you have? This is an AP class right? Get in, do your work and get out. A week from now you will see this guy rarely if ever. By the time you graduate, you won't be able to remember his name. Normally, adults that are going to college or back to college are way past spending time on the trivial bullshit. Good luck on your tests. Do you really think your prof gives a crap how you do either way? He grades and records - if he even grades himself. Spend your time worrying about crap that matters.

Wow, non-binding resolutions. We're talking about an administration that doesn't find the constitution particularry binding. Just barely short of a total waste of time and resources.

Your office doesn't happen to be around Lincoln and 25 does it?

So.....you'll leave a grease spot in the water and exit as white as you were the day before, or am I missing something?

I think they have . . . evidenced in just the way that children treat their parents today . . . and then take for instance kids killing kids at school . . . I think that would qualify as a MAJOR change. Great example. Somehow, it has become a social norm to abandon the "this is going to hurt me more than it hurts you" speech that proceded a proper parent to child ass whipping and replace that with non-physical/confrontational methods of disciplining. The parents desire to be a good parent and "raise their kids right" hasn't changed. The environment (societal norms) in which they apply those desires has changed dramatically. Behavior that was once the benchmark of solid parenting could now land you in front of CPS. Who knows what will be the norm 60 years from now, but a parents desire to love and protect their children will still be pretty much the same.

I don't think values have really changed all that much and where they have, I think they've changed for the better. I think circumstances have changed dramatically and they will never go back to the "less concerning" times of the 50's and 60's. In the 50's, I doubt the average parent was very concerned about their children getting hit by a car outside their house. There were a lot fewer cars then and they moved a lot slower. I think the basic desires of humanity are unchanged, but the circumstances they exist in are very different than 60 years ago and 60 years from now they will again be very different. The rinse and repeat comment was just an illustration that a single entity like a Myspace or a Youtube could be reigned in, but it will undoubtedly be replaced by something (or many somethings) very similar immediately because we want it that way. Much like that devil's music - the rock and roll - in the 50's. As they said then: Hey hey rock and roll is here to stay. The same is true today and will be true in the future. We'll just have a different name for the latest and greatest thing.

I half agree with this statement. I think better and more stringent rules for identity must be applied to the service. Deeper background checks MUST be initiated, or the Furor might get angry. That would make Myspace cost prohibitive (membership fees). It will simply go away and be replaced by something else. Rinse. Repeat. Can't stuff that cow back in the barn. Parents are actually going to have to *gasp* pay attention to what their kids are doing online. I think this may be the true unspoken generational gap right now. Tough for a completely non computer literate parent to stay on top of this. By the time they have this figured out, something else will have already replaced it.

Da Da Daaaaaa........... Its Captaaaaaain OOOOOOOObvious!!!!!!!!!! To the rescue! psst. click on the link

When should we expect the "War on Illegible Handwriting"?

No. An IRA (Roth or Traditional) is a specific type of account. Once you put it in there, you can only take it out for very specific reasons without penalty (before retirement) and no matter when you take it out you will then have to pay taxes on it. As stated above, you'd have to move the CD money into an actual IRA, plus the additional money. And yes, IIRC it's totally kosher to put more money in now - I believe you can deposit up until the IRS filing deadline of April 15 2007 and count it on your 2006 taxes. I'm not an accountant or tax specialist, so check this before taking my word for it ... but I've done that before - put money in an IRA the year after for a deduction for the previous year. 1. Kind of. A Roth is an after tax contribution. Qualified withdrawls are tax free. Traditional IRA is a pre tax contribution. There is an immediate benefit, but all withdrawls are considered taxable income. 2. Yes, and here is the thing: The younger you are, the more beneficial it is to contribute to a Roth. The maximim contribution for 2006 is $4k. Whatever amount that grows into will be a tax free return. In theory, your taxable income will be much lower in your 20s than your 40s. If you can afford to contribute to a Roth in your 20s, the tax burden of doing so will be low and the returns will all be tax free. If you are in your 20s or 30s, its a no-brainer (specific tax implications not withstanding). At least that is what I heard once around the campfire.

Brilliant marketing.

Occasionally, when kids grow up, go into therapy, and blame everything on their parents..................they're right.

That's fantastic. If my kid was acting like that, I'd tan his ass. If my wife thought it was funny, she'd be next.

Right. Hasn't flavor been outlawed there?

This is one thing I think people are basically in agreement on. Interesting thing to consider: if we send more troops, we are moving even further away from Iraq becomming able to do this for themselves and closer to a complete failure there. More troops now will delay the end result that will end up being magnified unless we decide to stay even longer than currently anticipated.

If the result of cutting off funding is bringing the troops home (which is, I expect, the desired result), would you still see it as "turning their backs" on the troops? Yes. People are not grasping that our mission there is to secure Iraq. People are also not grasping that not supporting the mission is merely conditional support of the troops. By cutting off the tools that we need to do it, no matter how it's sugar-coated, you're saying, "Your mission was to secure Iraq, and while it's not secure, you're job is done and we're glad you're home." Not letting us do our job will wreak havoc on the morale of the troops. It will breed the concept of defeat and that is not something we need to rest on the shoulders of our men and women in uniform. And if the troops are told the mission as first set out is no longer attainable and a new mission involving the scale back of troops and eventual withdrawl is now what we're doing, do you see that as "turning their backs" on the troops. I think bringing our guys home from Iraq (not Afghanistan, where I think they should all be now) is the peak of not turning our backs on them. IMO, continuing to lead them down a fruitless path of snipers, IEDs, and insurgents is the ultimate disservice.

When it was a priority of both parties, which is to say that it was a priority of one party to enact the reform and of the other party to say not enough is being done, something good actually happened. In light of everything else going on right now, this is not a priority for either party.

You're absolutely right. Wait a minute. Who was the guy that got invited to the white house in the 90s for the signing of a welfare reform bill that was, in part, based on the welfare reform bill passed in his state? I think the same guy ran for president and then passed yet another welfare reform bill. I think it was called "welfare to work" or something. Forget it. Much easier to randomly bash with a broad brush.

Yes and Yes. In other breaking news............

If the result of cutting off funding is bringing the troops home (which is, I expect, the desired result), would you still see it as "turning their backs" on the troops?

The "public" can't differentiate a stupid mistake from an otherwise not so stupid mistake. In actuality, business always increases after a well publicized accident.

I will third the Coleman tent. I have had mine for about 5 yrs. and I actually use it. I can't believe it has lasted this long and has performed as well as it has. Its been in pouring rain (no leaks) and snow. On one trip in the desert, it was so windy that the tent was literally laying on top of me as I was laying down. After two days of that, I thought the tent was a goner. Unbelievably, it popped back up no worse for the wear except faded and full of sand. I have now outgrown the smaller two person tent and will by a larger Coleman.

I hope the importance of your job is equal to the sacrifice you make for it. Life is short.