StrangeSox

We'd be better off if progressives stopped voting for crappy politicians who sell them down the road every time and instead voted for--wait for it--progressive politicians.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 03:21 PM) So why do you insist on casting a vote that will make both of those things happen? We already said we're not voting for Obama. Gotta quote this again since it's right on the money.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 03:15 PM) And since the Adminstration has now turned its back on that period, and you said that this administration doesn't share your values, that means you went from opposing legalized discrimination to supporting it. Why did you decide last december to support legalized discrimination of homosexuals? Hey, you hated Bush, why do you oppose AIDS aide for Africa?!?!!!

No, this is Balta's terrible argument: If you don't vote for Obama, you must be against every one of his policies. Because Democrats and Republicans are entitled to 100% of the vote, any vote that isn't for a Democrat is categorically for a Republican, so by voting for Cynthia McKinney, you're really voting for Sarah Palin.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 03:06 PM) And you're deluding yourself if you believe that. Really and truly. Bill Clinton, for example, had probably more reason in 1998 to invade Iraq than Jr. had in 2003. He did not do so. If that is your standard...under which presidents would Don't Ask, Don't Tell be the law of the land? 3/4, including a Democrat

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 02:49 PM) Congrats! Be ready for the 60 hour work weeks! Thanks! Yeah, she's already been doing at least 50 in student teaching.

My parents won this from an Ice House contest (lol) a few years back, it is amazing: http://www.weber.com/explore/grills/summit...es/summit-s-670 I have one of these: http://www.amazon.com/Char-Broil-Patio-Cad...l/dp/B00004TBJ7 It was the biggest thing that would fit on our condo balcony. Served its purpose, but not easy to cook on and no indirect heating. But if you're really limited on space, it'll do.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 02:29 PM) more like amirite?

My fiance just found out she's got a teaching job for next year!

Also the chaffing.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 12:15 PM) Exactly. It would be much more interesting if there were high default rates so instead the federal government put a cap on how many/much loans it would make to a certian school. I bet educational problems in schools would become a much higher priority. The proposed Department of Education rule change for student loans, which has faced heavy industry opposition: http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/prop...d-debt-earnings

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 12:13 PM) Its an entire system of scheming. Basically the school helps the person get loans, the school gets the money, the govt and the person are left to figure out the rest. Its all about money, and these private colleges have enough to make sure that congress doesnt strip their ability to give govt loans and financial aid. The Gainful Employment Rule survived the latest budget talks over Republican and some Democrat opposition. http://prospect.org/csnc/blogs/adam_serwer...ent_rule_surviv

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 12:12 PM) It would be interesting to work out a system that punishes universities whose students default more often then others. Even banks have to becareful who they loan to because it hurts their reserve totals if it happens. Universities literally face no consequences for having a bad product or bad decesion-making. They actually benefit by having a cheap, poorly run product as long as they can keep convincing people through high-pressure sales to sign up.

QUOTE (The Gooch @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 12:10 PM) Its a shame. Education is worthwhile but the system is broken. How do some of these online colleges get accredited? More importantly, why does financial aid keep giving their students money? I would love to see the default rates on loans of students from online universities vs students from traditional universities. They buy accredited but struggling schools. A small school with accredation is worth ~$10m. Frontline had a great program: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/collegeinc/

QUOTE (T R U @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 12:01 PM) Yes!! I knew I could count on Steve to make a post about how spending $5 a month for a superior service is teh dumbz!! Quick, someone else make a post about how service upgrades for a 20-24 hour window is the same as getting hacked by people you've pissed off and shut down for a week plus... oh nevermind, some fool already took care of that!! Weren't the PS3 servers for Black Ops terrible for months as well, while the 360 was humming along?

TRU:

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 11:58 AM) For profit universities are a serious problem in the US, unfortunately they have more money than the regular people they sell the classes to, so the laws remain favorable to them. My friend used to be a Dean for a school much like Phoenix. Mostly thanks to federal student loans, of course. 90% of Kaplan's revenues are from federally backed loans. They don't care if the student will never be able pay them back because the for-profits have already made their money.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 11:23 AM) Regular Season Ranks for least penalties against. Chicago Blackhawks - 1st Vancouver Canucks - 24th Maybe if their team played a more disciplined game, they wouldn't see the discrepancy. It's been proven over 88 games now that the Canucks take a lot of penalties and the Blackhawks do not. More proof of the NHL conspiracy!

they're somewhat left of Republicans, and the Republicans are far right on the overall spectrum

Democrat 2012 Slogans: "Help us maintain the center-right status quo!" "Progressives: This time, we really mean it!"

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 25, 2011 -> 06:10 PM) Oh, ok, so your comparison of Bachmann and Buchanan to Obama and a hypothetical Republican is a flawed comparison inapplicable to this situation because you've just accepted a difference. So since you acknowledge that difference, why do you refuse to oppose mining near Grand Canyon National Park? No, you keep mistating my position. I'd like you to highlight where I claimed Gore was no better than Bush, but first I'd like you to answer the hypothetical: if both major candidates are terrible politicians who do not represent you or your politics, would you still vote for the less bad one?

Nope. But I also believed Obama wouldn't be a terrible President who caved in to Republicans at every turn, so who knows. Regardless, you and I simply will not agree here. You think the Democrats are entitled to your vote because they're Not Republicans, and I disagree. You vote against Republican policies, I vote for progressive policies.

If you choices for major party candidates were Bachmann or Buchanon, would you vote for Bachmann because she's slightly less terrible than Buchanon?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 25, 2011 -> 05:11 PM) Frankly, yes. If you want your ideal candidate elected, go out and support him or her during the primaries. Work hard. You might darn well get my vote. In the general, you better damn well be voting for the less bad option. If you live in a non-swing state, ok, fine, I won't complain about a protest vote, but until you can say that if you were a Florida voter in 2000 who voted for Ralph Nader and yo can come out and say you support the Iraq war, the building of Gitmo in the first place, the torture regime itself, and the number of mining claims close to Grand Canyon National Park going up by a factor of 9 during the next 8 years, then yes, you better be voting for the less bad person. This method of voting against Republican policies ensures that no progressive policies will be enacted.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 25, 2011 -> 05:12 PM) Do you or do you not support the nation's sole energy policy being "Drill baby drill"? no, and I also don't support the Democrats' plan to do basically nothing, so I won't vote in support of it.