OK OK, I'm voting for Kerry

Click here to go to the NEW College Discussion Forum

Discus: College Confidential Café: 2004 Archive: OK OK, I'm voting for Kerry
By Pkpat2000 (Pkpat2000) on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 10:13 pm: Edit

I will vote for Kerry because he is the lesser of two evils.


By Arthurd (Arthurd) on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 10:56 pm: Edit


By Mom101 (Mom101) on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 11:03 pm: Edit

OK, OK, you're young.
Anyone with such a condescending view about youth should not be hanging out in a forum that is 90% teenagers.

By Eyesclozedtight (Eyesclozedtight) on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 11:14 pm: Edit

no, no, we're just outraged.

By Pkpat2000 (Pkpat2000) on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 11:14 pm: Edit

So are you in relation to the age of the universe. I'm 18.

By Welshie (Welshie) on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 11:14 pm: Edit

That's an opinion. Shocker, I know.

By Thermodude (Thermodude) on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 11:43 pm: Edit

I'm voting for Kerry because of Bush's poor record on the environment.

By Browninfall (Browninfall) on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 11:45 pm: Edit

Ohio Gallup poll today: Bush up by 8 in the Buckeye state.

By Neelesh (Neelesh) on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 11:46 pm: Edit

its a shame i cant vote, and in my state, any votes for democratics dont matter...idaho..only in one election since the creation of idaho has it voted democratic....

By Noodleman (Noodleman) on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 11:39 am: Edit

Mom101: Know why your posts are so sad to read? Cause you're old, and still clueless, but worse, you think you're well-informed.

I can't even count the number of posts you've infused with comments like "You're young," as though you're sitting atop some mountainous pile of wisdom and experience.

If you think young people's opinions are so suspect, unformed, and silly, then why do you spend so much time on what is essentially a board for young folks?

Does it make you feel better? Is it insecurity?

Do tell.

By Mom101 (Mom101) on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 12:28 pm: Edit

Good question Noodleman! A first!! I have a very old professor, even older than me, who I made a bad mistake of showing this site. Duffice it to say that it is now a key source for his research and I am his research slave.

I enjoy youth tremendously, but they are, well, young. Life experience comes in handy for some things and gets in the way of others. I was visiting prof in a class of very bright freshmen this AM. Above mentioned professor and I chose posts from this board to talk about hate and division in America today. The thread on Kerry begiining with "Die hard liberals" provided us with people calling others parasites and much more for writing their political views. The kids were open mouthed.

By Enjoyingthis (Enjoyingthis) on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 12:40 pm: Edit

This would be the thread YOU started by seeing if you could annoy the hell out of people eight different ways? And you're surprised you succeeded?

By Mom101 (Mom101) on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 12:52 pm: Edit

Not at all surprised. And I must thank you enjoyingthis, your posts on that thread were a highlight this morning and fodder for much discussion.

By Enjoyingthis (Enjoyingthis) on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 01:46 pm: Edit

Really! It amuses me to speculate on how many of those very students might have read my novels growing up.

By Mom101 (Mom101) on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 02:20 pm: Edit

Do tell, what do you write?

By Garland (Garland) on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 02:27 pm: Edit

So, let me get this straight "Mom101": you deliberately provoke responses, then use them as illustrations in your classes.

That's about the most shoddy "scholarship" I've ever heard of.

By Mom101 (Mom101) on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 02:34 pm: Edit

Provoke responses? I ask honest questions that I'd like the answers to. The startling comments that formed this morning's talk were totally unexpected results of a question asking how people felt about everyman Kerry's lavish lifestyle.

By Onnihs (Onnihs) on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 03:31 pm: Edit

i'm voting for Kerry because:

- Bush is uneducated
- F'd up the economy
- He allows his faith to influence his decisions
- Mislead the entire country during the moments that led to Iraq; ostracized country from the international community, undermined UN

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 04:00 pm: Edit

pkpat, in what way do you think Kerry is evil?

By Noodleman (Noodleman) on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 04:04 pm: Edit

Mom101: You seem to be sort of the 'middle-aged female version' of the teenaged boy who feels a sense of power in the relative anonymity of his taunts when he sees them taken to heart by others on the Web.

I call it the "Internet tough guy" syndrome.

If you're truly looking for answers in an objective fashion (as one would do in a research setting), then why do you take pokes at those who give answers you don't agree with? That has the effect of rendering any sort of validity (a necessary feature of good research--kind of research methodology 101, in fact) meaningless.

My guess is that you feel, to a certain degree, threatened by something inherent in these boards, and so you visit them to master whatever fear it is you have.

I'd stake money that the research thing is a canard.

Or, you're bored and like to pick on kids.

Of course, maybe I suffer from a hero complex and see myself as somehow protecting the kids on these boards from ego-based assault when, in fact, they're not asking for my help.

Or maybe I just find you irritating--kind of like when a bug flies into my windshield on the highway and I'm out of fluid and I have to watch the guts dry and spread out on the glass.


By Mom101 (Mom101) on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 04:29 pm: Edit

Noodleman, while I see you as the one enjoying taking pokes, you have one good point. I am totally threatened by some of the thinking here. "Bush is uneducated and f'ed up the economy." Oh so threatened!!

By Saturdayoracle (Saturdayoracle) on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 07:12 pm: Edit

If I could vote, I would vote for Kerry; I have no fondness for the man, but, yes, I do believe he is the lesser of two evils. Bush rules by generating fear and manipulating the public - terror alert upon terror alert at crucial times in the campaign, constantly harking back to 9/11 (it happened on his watch, yet he still exploits it), having his vice president explicitly say that if John Kerry is elected, there will be another terrorist attack.

I consider myself more libertarian than liberal; for civil liberties, also for a strong economy. Hey, like it or not, that's what makes America America. If John McCain ran, there's a good chance I'd vote for him. Unfortunately, we have Bush. And that's no choice at all.

ps. mom101, noodleman, without commenting on the importance and validity of your discussion, might I suggest it belongs elsewhere? thank you!

By Ubercollegeman (Ubercollegeman) on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 07:48 pm: Edit

I'd like to preface my post by saying that I totally do not care who wins this election. I am not active in politics and do not pretend to be. Therefore, my political views (the little that I have) don't affect my opinions.

It seems that the majority of political posters on this board think Mom101 is rude, childishly sarcastic, and condescending. I agree with them.

Mom101, the following seems to be your plan of attack.
i) Attack the poster's age erroneously.
ii) Assert that you are, indeed A MOM, and thus, are right.
iii) Insert some inappropriate sarcasm that borders on personal attack.
iv) Restate the same old things about the economy or whatever over and over again.

There are many moms on the CC board who are great. You are not one of them. If you think that just because you have children, you join the ranks of people like Northstarmom and Carolyn who are widely respected for their knowledge and (general) tact, you're dead wrong.

Age makes little difference as a qualifier, and you're a perfect example; if I don't look at the names of posters and just the posts themselves, you sound like a 16-year-old who has a fair amount of knowledge about politics but thinks she's a political science god. It's an annoying combination.

I'm sure you feel much better about yourself after making every post, thinking, "Man, I sure showed those darn kids! They could learn a thing or two from me, A MOM, because I'm the only one who reads a newspaper, and these are just kids riding a wave of anti-Bush propaganda who don't know anything."

Take a hint and stop being annoying. Stop disrespecting posters, because all it does is discredit yourself.

The funniest thing about all this is that you think you're better than us because you're older. In truth, we haven't even lived for half as long as you, yet we're the mature ones. Funny, huh.

By Bunmushroom (Bunmushroom) on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 08:20 pm: Edit

mom101 is one of the best on this board. Her posts are refreshing in contrast to all the ignorant and irrational Bush haters that infest cc.

By Mom101 (Mom101) on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 08:53 pm: Edit

I feel so lucky these boards are anonymous! Don't you get the feeling there are would be suicide bombers here, willing to kill off the conservatives for their noble purpose?

By Bunmushroom (Bunmushroom) on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 09:19 pm: Edit

mom101, not on these boards, but there is a rising tide of militant and intolerant liberalism in this country.
What many liberals on these boards do do in the name of their "noble" purpose is totally ignore obvious facts and basic reason. For example, on another thread, eyezclosedtight, to prove his point, said that "land lines are almost obsolete".

By Patient (Patient) on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 09:20 pm: Edit

Ubercollegeman, I believe that you are correct in your assumption and that it goes well beyond merely the political posters.

By Northwestlover (Northwestlover) on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 09:40 pm: Edit

Yet I can't vote, I would like to vote for Kerry if I was 18 or more.

Since Bush had taken the office, he pretty much messed things up (health care, job approval, education, etc.). Especially, my favorite state Oregon :) became (maybe) one of the poorest states in the United States (biggest umemployment rate.... well, not if you include Puerto Rico :), huge budget shortfall in education and healthcare).

Though I would consider myself as a bit liberal, I wouldn't mind for voting (well I can't yet) a republican, as long as he (well, maybe I need to say "she" too) has good policy and better than the other. But Bush is a different story. He's too conservative, and religious. Believe me or not, though I'm not a Christian, I never against Christianity. What's not great about have a faith in god and pray him everyday even though he really exists or not? I think it's a great thing. However, since we're living in Free Country USA (I love that name!), we can believe in whatever we want. That means some people don't agree with Christianity or they have different beliefs (Muslims, Jewish, Buddah), and that's totally OK. So we need a president who understands it, but I'm sorry, Bush doesn't seem like the one to me. And I think Kerry understands about that issue better than Bush.

So that's pretty much what I think. Horrible, eh? I'm not super enlightened in political world, so that's the only things I could write for now. If you have any oppinion about what've I said, feel free to say it. However, just don't make fun or make a sarcasm because I would cry! hehehehe

PS: By the way, my first language is not English, so it contains some grammar mistakes, and maybe it might hard to understand what I said. Feel free to make a correction or ask me what I meant if you didn't understand. However, just don't tease me. lol.

By Saturdayoracle (Saturdayoracle) on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 10:09 pm: Edit

You're right, Northwestlover, we do need a female president. And not Hillary Clinton... I may be more liberal than conservative, but I think we can agree on that point.

Any nominations?

By Emswim (Emswim) on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 10:37 pm: Edit

I know few of you will agree with me, but I think Condoleeza Rice would be a good candidate with some more experience in politics.

By Mom101 (Mom101) on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 10:55 pm: Edit

Actually Bunmushroom, I find this board a very intolerant place. Declarations that all who don't buy that Bush was totally unjustified in doing everything he did are clueless. Believers that those in the top 5% will vote for an evil war monger to save themselves a few thousand dollars. These are heartfelt beliefs which is what frightens me. Your generation will have to deal with a much bigger divide. I have many theories about the deep anger as do many pundits. Other countries are giving us competition we never faced before. Our economic domination as a country is over. Many Americans are going to work hard and not make much money for some time to come. No matter who's president. And just look 2 posts up. Kids your age are blaming Bush, who put a great deal more money into education than Clinton did, for the failure of education in this country. Amazing how people believe this could happen in 4 years. But they do. So as a future leader and potential high wage earner, an MIT guy with an eye on top B schools, take this in. Your generation will need to deal with this or it will be like many countries where the wealthy must live behind gates and have bodyguards.

By Northwestlover (Northwestlover) on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 11:51 pm: Edit

"And just look 2 posts up. Kids your age are blaming Bush, who put a great deal more money into education than Clinton did, for the failure of education in this country."

I hate to bother you with this, but 2 posts up is not really talking about that, so I guess you're talking about my post (3 posts up)?

By Mom101 (Mom101) on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 11:59 pm: Edit

I was talking about your post. So do you really believe Bush has hurt education? How? Is he responsible for the unemployment rate in your opinion? How did he mess up health care? What do you expect Kerry will do to fix all this?

By Northwestlover (Northwestlover) on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 12:08 am: Edit

Clinton, eh? I didn't know that one because... I wasn't even in this country:) I came here since Bush had taken the office. So all the information I had was media, or people around me...

It's kinda sucks to answer your questions with questions, but tell me, what makes you Bush had not hurt education and healthcare? Is he NOT responsible for unemployment rate? Based on what you answer, I might edit what I've said....

By Northwestlover (Northwestlover) on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 12:11 am: Edit

I'd also like to see some people like to answer what Mom101 had asked. And I'd also like to see some people like to answer my questions. Man, this board is hot.

By Mom101 (Mom101) on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 12:19 am: Edit

Where do you live Northwest?

To answer your questions. Bush put a lot more Federal dollars into education in 4 years than Clinton did in 8. Clinton totally did not have his eye on the education ball. You can argue that No Child Left Behind is not your idea of what the plan should be, but it's hard to argue that Bush did not make education more of a priority than Clinton.

On health care, while Bush did nothing to up the number of insured, he did nothing to hurt it. He is a proponent of tort reform--stopping nonsense medical law suits which is a major reason for the outrageous cost of health care here. John Edwards wants no tort reform as a former personal injury lawyer and the candidate of the legal profession.

As for jobs, this is tied in to trade policies both Democrats and Republicans have long been for. The jobs of many middle class Americans in manufacturing, and now technology and science, have moved overseas. Kerry/Edwards are promising to stop jobs from leaving, pretty much not a possibility according to every economist on the planet. Bush inherited a recession, 9/11 greatly influenced American employment as did the burst of the tech bubble and the stock market crash--things he can not possibly be blamed for.

By Northwestlover (Northwestlover) on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 12:31 am: Edit

I live in Oregon, as you can tell from my name. I moved from Japan in early year 2001.

Hmmmm, your answers are very interesting. I'm not going to say that was 100% Bush's fault. I know some factors make things worse, such as 9/11, and Bush was unfortunately the president at that point.

Maybe what you've said are based on the resources you had. But today, resources are disorted in many different ways, I don't know which info is true. And yes, if there's a debate of it, I'm sure it will take a looooooooooong time. Well, I don't know.

I admit that I'm not super enlightened in politics. And I really like to hear different people's opinions.

By Justice (Justice) on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 12:38 am: Edit

Mom101 and all of you,

All political perspectives are justifiable and as such you should spend less time "disqualifying" people who disagree with you by derogatory terms. I know both far-left liberals and neo-conservatives who major in economics at Harvard. They're smart people. The country is split in half. Let's stop the stupid name-calling. By doing so, you're implying that 40% of America is stupid for voting for who they believe in. Even if certain individuals cannot justify their viewpoints doesn't mean that the viewpoints they possess do not have merit. Open your mind a little?

1) America's education system has improved on a state level. Bush was not the primary catalyst behind it. Government has never been good at stimulating education. Nonetheless, politicians like to make it an issue. Let me give you an example--a state congressman in my state (MA) ran an ad that showed him getting a laptop program for elementary school kids. He then said that students, because of the laptops, are now happy, smarter, and better. Now, us kids know it's utter BS (fancy laptops don't do anything except look nice and cost a crapload).

2) Unemployment is deceiving--it looks fine from a percentage look, but many technical jobs have been recently outsourced. It is not Bush's fault--it's called globalization--and I'm frikkin sick of it being an issue. We need to innovate. All the tax breaks in the world (as Kerry proposes) won't stop outsourcing. Think about this. There is a company I'm very familiar with that can hire an exuberant, highly-trained, extremely intelligent, and bilingual employee out of Shanghai for 15x less money than an American employee. What do you think of them tax breaks now?

Like many analysts have said, this election is about leadership and trust. We trust different candidates for different reasons, none of which are "stupid" or caused by "youth."

By Northwestlover (Northwestlover) on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 12:55 am: Edit

"Like many analysts have said, this election is about leadership and trust. We trust different candidates for different reasons, none of which are "stupid" or caused by "youth." "

I strongly agree with that. Both candidates have points, and we will be voting one candidate for our reasons.

I think we shouldn't be looking this world in black and white. Since 6 billion of people are living in this planet called Earth, it's hard to determine "what's correct" and "what's wrong", so it depends on each person's perspective view.

I posted what I thought, and I was very interested in what others think. And I still do. And yes, I like to see people thinking.

Wow, this sounds bit off topic, and I feel like I'm just rambling here. Sorry people, but people can't stop me doing this.


By Mom101 (Mom101) on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 12:58 am: Edit

Northwest, you're one of the view here truly open to hearing the views of others. I guess what I associate with a lot of the young is looking at things as black or white. This board has proven me wrong on that, the parents are equally dug in.

By Northwestlover (Northwestlover) on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 01:20 am: Edit

Yes, and it's sad that there are some voters who are very opinionated and look at the things as black or white, and never listen to others. I have a friend who kinda supports Bush, but choose to be ignorant by not listening to people who think things other than her. And she pretty much became to be my negative example.

What we have is not black or white; what we have is gray:)

By Northwestlover (Northwestlover) on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 01:22 am: Edit

hahaha, this is getting way too offtopic. Let's put this back to the real topic:

By Pkpat2000 (Pkpat2000) on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 10:13 pm: Edit

I will vote for Kerry because he is the lesser of two evils.


By Socalnick (Socalnick) on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 01:30 am: Edit

this aint nazi germany its the usa you have the freedom to make your own choice

By Jaug1 (Jaug1) on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 01:48 am: Edit

Both are horrid candidates, but I too believe Kerry is the less of two evils.

Globalization, both for its good and bad, is something we have to deal with and yes I believe it plays a major factor in this election. We cannot stop globalization, but we can impede it so that it will grow at a much slower rate. Mom101 and BunMushroom and other conservatives enjoy their wealth and success. I don't see why they support globalization because the entire essence of the phenomenon is to make all countries equal in economic wealth. Essentially, America has an economic downturn so that other countries can catch up to us and take our wealth.

Now, as to why I don't like Bush...well...it's not so much him as it's the administration in general. I don't know if any of you watched his speech, but if you did there was mention that the panels of wood used to make his podium actually were crosses. That being said, this country was founded upon the basis of a separation of church and state. Making one's podium look like a pulpit is not my idea of separation of church and state. (I can't wait for Mom101 and Bun's denial of such "outrageous claim's that there were crosses on the podium.")

The fact is that Bush has lost 1 million jobs over the four years of his administration. Even if the economy is growing in the last year, that does not take away from the fact 1 million jobs have been lost.

Another denial of the conservatives is that they can't realize that this war was started for pure profit for multinational corporations. The ties to major multinational corporations and the Bush administration is actually played on the mass media. The denial of this claim is pure idiocy and ignorance.

I don't agree with every liberal or Democrat position. I believe Mom101 and Bun keep thinking that I am a liberal homer that does not listen to both sides of the argument. The fact is that I do listen to both sides and make educated decisions based off of those views. I don't support welfare or affirmative action, two hallmarks of the Democratic party. I think both are wrong and there are better ways to solve these issues. (If anyone wants to hear possible solutions just ask in a later post.)

The main reason why I am a liberal and a Democrat is that I believe there should be more government intervention on the issues of education, health care and the economy. We need to take care of our citizens and educate them. This means providing them with jobs, higher minimum wage so that a large portion of Americans do not have to live under the poverty line. We need to have better public schools so that students can receive a Class A education from outstanding teachers and not the all too common poor public school education from unqualified teachers. Our budget should not be supporting 66 cents of every dollar going to the Pentagon. Decreasing military spending by 33% and raising education and health care spending by that same 33% (we will save money because more money is spent on the military than education and health care combined). By saving money, we can get out of the recession and out of the national debt.

Bush does not support those ideals and therefore I would not vote for him. My decisions are well informed, contrary to popular belief on this board. The fact is that Kerry is the lesser of 2 evils and therefore deserves the Presidency.

By Mom101 (Mom101) on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 02:26 am: Edit

I beg to differ Jaug, and it's 2AM and I still have hours of work, but you're not well informed. We can not, nor should we, slow the pace of globalization. The retaliation should we try to do so would be swift and damaging. Preventing US companies from being globally competitive through outsourcing would result in way more job losses than we are seeing now. There is a very real reason that both parties signed all of the trade agreements that are causing this pain at the moment. Hopefully you will study this in college.

Can you tell us what Bush did to loose a million jobs? Again, understanding basic economics is important here. I will hand you that Bush's church/state stance is innapproptiate.

I do enjoy my wealth and success. I'm sure Bun will too, you have to be a very hard worker and be highly intelligent to get into MIT. Should he choose to pursue wealth and success, the same hard work will make it his. I also worked very hard for my success, I'm proud of it and take time to enjoy it and remember how fortunate I am every day. And yes, I think those in other countries have every right to participate in global success. This is America, We used to believe in equity and the survival of the fittest. Work hard and enjoy the American dream--now the Indian and Chinese dream too. You can't have it both ways Jaug, slow down the pipeline when it's convenirnt for you. Shall we also slow down all of the made in China consumer products we love so much?

That wealth and success are looked at with such a critical eye interests me perhaps more than anything else I've learned on this board. We are just fat and happy and could care less if the rest of the Country suffers. That people believe the top 1% will vote with evil for $75K is the most absurd thing I've ever heard. I guess perhaps only those who have made millions a year can understand that $75K is an unimportant sum to these folks. Certainly not near enough to compromise your ethics for. And despite conventional wisdom here, the very wealthy, who earned it, are among the most ethical people I know. The fast buck guys get sniffed out. Caught. They don't have the respect to sustain leadership positions.

And yes, Jaug, we need much, much better schools. That's why I gave up making a top 1% income to be a student of education. It is truly frightening that both parties allowed education to fall to the level where third world countries are kicking our butt.

By Baseketball22 (Baseketball22) on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 02:41 am: Edit

Isnt it ironic that bush gets more of the older wiser peoples votes while kerry gets more of the stupider, less expierenced younger peoples votes.

Just a thought.

By Mom101 (Mom101) on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 03:09 am: Edit

Oh yes, Jaug. Do you like Arnold, our new Governor? He's about to (if he hasn't done so already) veto raising the minimum wage in CA. He has studied economics and knows that it would cripple small businesses and result in more job losses.

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 03:14 am: Edit

No, old people are democratic, because of all the entitlements they get. Those who vote republican are 28-64, although in 2000 an 2002, the gap between dems and reps for the 18-27 bracket shrank a lot, with only a 2% lead for dems.

basket, i dont think its just young people, i think it is the general stupid bush bashing that goes on from even adults such as simba. People just think it is cool to hate bush and do not even know the basic issues or how the economy works. "Bush lost 1 million jobs" is a classic one liner, as well as "bush lied". The more I hear these lines, the more I am turned off by the ignorance, hatred, and socialism of bush haters, and the more I smile knowing Bush will probobly win.
I will laugh at all the bush haters in my dorm lounge at liberal Stanford on election night as they see all the red states and a check mark next to Bush's name.

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 03:18 am: Edit

mom101, I really like arnold. He seems perfect, and can oppose the dems with popular support.

Although I differ from you about the economic studying. I think he was smart enough like the best of managment such as Reagan and Bush to surround himself with smart people.

I am so glad arnold has opposed tax hikes, repealed the tripling of car tax, pushed through workers comp reform, and in general stands up to the liberals in taxamento.

By Thedad (Thedad) on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 12:42 pm: Edit

Oh, yes. Repeal the car tax increase and instead contribute another $4 billion to the state's deficit. He passed a smoke-and-mirrors budget this year but the sh!t is really going to hit the fan next year. Whatever combination of tax increases and spending cuts he makes is going to provoke loud cries of "But this isn't what we meant!"

I was no fan of Gray Davis but if Schwarzenegger is the answer, nobody has read the question.

California's economic problems are caused by a function of four things:

1) The disconnect between the amount of taxes they want to pay and the services they want to have. Many are happy so long as someone else's ox gets gored; the effect of political compromises is that ox-goring is usually minimized via vote swapping.

2) The mutual gerrymandering of legislative districts so that most districts are "Safe", thereby guaranteeing that mostly liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans who can survive their primaries get elected to the legislature; moderates are a rare and dying breed.

3) In light of #2, the whacky supermajority required on tax measures. California is one of only four states that has something so stupid and it means that we suffer from the tyranny of the minority.

4) Term limits, which in theory was supposed to inspire citizen-legislators. Instead, you have a frenzy of politicians looking for the next office up immediately. More damning, you have a loss of institutional memory and control on both sides of the aisle. It takes a term or two just to start really understanding how the system is wired. The net effect of term limits has been an increase in the net relative power of lobbyists and the career bureaucrats. Feh.

The popular bloom starts coming off of Ahnold next year when the hard choices become due. I'd make book on it.

By Mom101 (Mom101) on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 01:42 pm: Edit

Finally Thedad, something I can agree with you on 100%. I don't want to be in CA when reality sinks in. The State is the biggest mess imaginable and it's not going to change anytime soon.

I was horrified when Arnold repealed the car registration tax. It was just putting the number back to where it was before the bubble CA thought would never end. It's very hard to believe people in Sacramento didn't have any advisors to tell them it had to end. So along comes Arnold claiming to not play political games and his very first major act is making people happy with low car registration bills! Add this to our low property taxes and it becomes clear why we have some of the worst schools in the nation.

This really should have been a great State.

By Escafandrasteve (Escafandrasteve) on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 03:23 pm: Edit

el Noodle for el Presidente!

::applauds while Bette Midler's "Wind Beneath my Wings" plays in the background::

By Vancat (Vancat) on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 04:57 pm: Edit

how bout not.

By Rachelvishy (Rachelvishy) on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 09:00 pm: Edit

I also believe that Kerry is the lesser of the two weevils

By Annakat (Annakat) on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 09:09 pm: Edit

basketball22, your comment:

"Isnt it ironic that bush gets more of the older wiser peoples votes while kerry gets more of the stupider, less expierenced younger peoples votes.

Just a thought."

a group of about 40 leading US diplomats (most of them republicans) and a majority of retired US generals support kerry and are critical of bush's policies. they're older and probably wiser than most of the posters on this site. just a real thought.

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 01:08 am: Edit

First, I doubt the majority of retired generals support kerry. Show me the proof. Second, it was the liberals who were against the influence of the military/industrial and military/political, and now they trot out generals to tell us who to vote for. Ironic. They also always trot out vets. Seems kerry is really insecure about how people perceive his security stance.

By Pkpat2000 (Pkpat2000) on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 01:40 am: Edit

Jlq3d3, your question "in what way do you think Kerry is evil" is too simple. The issues in politics are very grey and no-one is completely good or evil. One disagreement I have with Kerry is that I think he should have voted against the Iraq war. However, a cynical person would argue that his vote didn't matter because the Senate gave approval with a wide margin of support. I voted for Kerry in the primary because he seemed more centerist than the more liberal Howard Dean. Another disagreement I have with Kerry is religion. Kerry is religious but I am atheist. This again puts me more in line with Howard Dean. And finally, I disagree with this statement by Kerry in his Plan For America book: "We will never, ever wait for a green light from abroad when our safety is at stake--but we will not alienate those whose support we should have, and must enlist, for ultimate victory." Instead, I believe international approval is absolutely necessary, and even if Iraq had nuclear and biological weapons, the US should have respected the United Nations decision not to go to war. Again, I agree more with Howard Dean.

Hopefully this crude illustration of political spectrum will show you why I dislike both candidates. Of course this over-simplifies, but for those of us with primitive brains it can be helpful. I'm not sure where the terrorists fit on this spectrum. If anyone has any ideas please advise me.


By the way, I don't agree with Communist complete redistribution of wealth or Communist "control economy" ideas. If you have any questions about economics I would be happy to vent my ideas.

By Ella05 (Ella05) on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 09:28 pm: Edit

I suppose this is off topic but...

Mom101: I'm hurt by your behavior on this site. You're of my parent's generation, a generation I was taught to respect because of their higher degree of maturity than my own humble level. A lot of things you have said on here just make me plain sad.

Instead of helping to steer us confused teenagers with our frantic hormones and not-fully-developed frontal lobes in the right direction and down moralistic paths, you're inciting more unreasonableness for the purposes of research? I expected better of someone older and presumably wiser. So many parents on here are supportive, realistic when needed, exchange information and dispense carefully thought out advice. That's why they're here. I wish that your own purposes had been more altruistic.

I must stress that this is not a personal attack. I hope I have not insulted you in any way, and I do realize that many posters have been less than respectful to you, and that is wrong. I merely wish to express my disillusion in your representation of your generation. I'm just very saddened by your posts.

Respectfully yours,

By Vancat (Vancat) on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 09:33 pm: Edit

"I suppose this is off topic but...

Mom101: I'm hurt by your behavior on this site. You're of my parent's generation"

How exactly are you sure that Mom101 is a mom? What if he is just a dude posing as a chick posing as a mom? This is the internet afterall.

By Mom101 (Mom101) on Sunday, September 12, 2004 - 12:57 pm: Edit

Ella, I appreciate the delivery of your comments and I'm sorry for your hurt! There are many sweetness and light posters who you can choose to admire/emulate. Really, I'm not here as a representative of my generation. There are many, many liberal voices here and in the education community in general. In fact, the skew is tremendous. Many of your peers really enjoy hearing a different voice and exposure to different voices is never a bad thing. Though I understand why that would be hard to understand given the posture of so many on this board towards views different from their own.

I'm not doing research on politics. I post here for fun when I get crosseyed reading through archives for my study of college admissions.

It is not for me to help you develop morals, that honor is for your parents and the other key influencers in your life. But if I can open your mind to the fact that there are many ways of seeing the world, that would be a good thing!

By Patient (Patient) on Sunday, September 12, 2004 - 05:12 pm: Edit

QUOTE: "I'm not doing research on politics. I post here for fun when I get crosseyed reading through archives for my study of college admissions."

You have specifically stated in other posts that you and your professor are using this site for research, and that you discuss the posts in your class. Maybe you are not doing research ON POLITICS but you have stated that you are doing research here. Does it surprise you that this would hurt and/or offend high school students who are coming here seeking simply advice and information? Does it surprise you that they would be hurt to think that they are the object of derision, as you suggested in another post about the class discussions you are having while discussing the posts on this board?

QUOTE: "It is not for me to help you develop morals, that honor is for your parents and the other key influencers in your life."

"It takes a village to raise a child." All of us adults should be acting morally, and with kindness, toward the kids on this board and all those we encounter in any aspect of our lives.

By Aim78 (Aim78) on Sunday, September 12, 2004 - 08:11 pm: Edit

If my Mom posted on a site with kids, I'd be confused and scared as hell.

By Mom101 (Mom101) on Sunday, September 12, 2004 - 09:52 pm: Edit

Ah but Patient, in real life we get to choose our villages. The thought of many here teaching my children their values would be truly scary. This is an anonymous forum, so yes, it would surprise me that anonymous posters would be hurt by their attitudes being culled for research.

By Cherisue (Cherisue) on Sunday, September 12, 2004 - 10:58 pm: Edit

Mom101, the point was, I think, that you are exploiting naturally naive children unfairly and you should cut it out! And it hasn't just been in this thread, it has been frequently for many months. You are humiliating and degrading to others under the guise of trying to be helpful.

By Reidmc (Reidmc) on Sunday, September 12, 2004 - 11:24 pm: Edit

Though this is a country where Britney Spears is heralded for her talent, Fear Factor is a highly rated TV program and a significant number of people think the Iraqis were behind 9/11, but I still have had real difficulty understanding how any thoughtful person could vote for George W. Bush. I've supported Republicans in past elections, and this is the first time I have had this difficulty.

But after some thought I do understand the Bush voters in the following categories:

Voters who want a strong, decisive world leader even though he has alienated many of our allies, mishandled the only two wars he has jumped into, and has become a recruitment poster for Islamic militants.

Voters who want a President who proclaims his love for Jesus Christ, but doesn't appear to pay much attention to the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Voters whose household income is over $200,000 (or over $100,000 if solely investment income) that really don't care about anybody else.

Voters who believe that representatives of the energy, forestry and commodity industries should write our energy and environmental policies.

Voters who want a President that never admits a mistake, even though he has plenty to choose from.

The votes of these folks for Mr. Bush make sense, but I am still having trouble with ther rest. . .

By Valpal (Valpal) on Sunday, September 12, 2004 - 11:42 pm: Edit

Reidmc, I'm curious. Have you ever known ANY President in the past quarter century to admit that they "made a mistake" (I'm not counting Bill's admission that he should not have had that fling with Monica)? Politicians are notoriously lacking in humbleness. That's why I haven't been excited about a political candidate since Hubert Humphrey.

By Hayden (Hayden) on Monday, September 13, 2004 - 07:03 pm: Edit

Valpal, although your premise is pretty sound, by limiting the question to the "past quarter century" you're really only dealing with a couple months of Jimmy Carter, then Reagan, BushI, Clinton and BushII. So it's not exactly a huge slice of American history.

I'm certainly no encyclopedia, but the most famous admission of a mistake was John Kennedy and the Bay of Pigs. The exception that proves the rule.

By Ella05 (Ella05) on Monday, September 13, 2004 - 08:05 pm: Edit

Thank you for responding to my post, Mom101. However, I must disagree with your comments. It seems unscrupulous to incite other posters for the purpose of your research. I don't even understand what the Cafe is for, when this is collegeconfidential.com, but it seems like we should be either having fun and forgetting our application worries for a few scant minutes or combining our super brain powers (i.e. captain planet!) to think of solutions to the world's problems, instead of ripping each other to shreds over differences of opinions.

Really though, why are you here, if that's not too blunt? If not to give or obtain information (of the college kind!), then your purposes are immoral and possibly unethical. Don't you need a subject's permission for any sort of research? It would be ok to observe and record, but you're inciting as well, which bothers and, as I said before, hurts me. That you would do such a thing, just because we kids are annonymous and you'll never see our faces...
Drastic as this seems, this has become a respectful request for you to leave this site. I don't really have a right to ask, but I'm going to anyways. If you're not here to be part of the supportive, informative college confidential environment, take your research requirements and leave us alone. If you decided to share your views in a nonjudgemental manner, then I welcome both them and you. Please consider what I have said, and don't discard them based on my age.

my regrets for any inadvertently disrespective comments or opinions,

By Idiias (Idiias) on Monday, September 13, 2004 - 10:31 pm: Edit

OKAY, the truth is, I just had an urge to vote for Bush last week after becoming facebook friends with one of W's nephews, a freshman at ********* University. I said those things to try and justify a sudden change of who I was voting for, simply to myself. I was excited and reacted on impulse, but will be rethinking my decision, prior to the date in November, and quite possibly be voting for John Kerry.

By Mom101 (Mom101) on Monday, September 13, 2004 - 11:13 pm: Edit

You're right Ella, you don't have the right. If my stating my political views and posing questions was against the rules of the site, the very able moderators would ban me. My suggestion is that if you find my posts somehow offensive to your morals and ethics (though please do give examples to help me understand how this is possible, i.e. quote a statements I've made here and explain how thry are immoral or unethical), that you don't read them. As for innocent kids, the majority of posters on cafe, as far as I can tell, are adults, although I hardly see how it matters unless you can show me something immoral or unethical in which case it should bother the adults and moderators, too. And it is fair game to use information on a site for research.

Did everyone see that Nadar came out and said Bush would win?

By Mom101 (Mom101) on Monday, September 13, 2004 - 11:57 pm: Edit

I was watching Donald Trup being interviewed about the new season of his show. He was asked if he was embarassed to seem to be proud of firing people. He talked about how his views and actions offend people on a daily basis and that this was true of all successful people he knows. He said that it's one of the first things he communicates to participants--you will lose fast if you're afraid to offend delicate sensibilities, of which there are many. I so related, it's been one of the guiding rules that have served me well.

By Spiffybrownboy (Spiffybrownboy) on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 10:25 am: Edit

Donald Trump is rich and powerful. He's allowed to offend.

You are Mom101 on collegeconfidential.com. Sorry.

By Mom101 (Mom101) on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 11:00 am: Edit

The rich and powerful are allowed to offend but others are not? That's so interesting coming from you Patient! What else do they get to do so I can make a list just in case?

By Noodleman (Noodleman) on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 11:27 am: Edit

mom101: Your petulance is most unseemly.

Ella05: Brava, sister.

By Spiffybrownboy (Spiffybrownboy) on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 12:33 pm: Edit

Uhh... Patient? Some sort of allusion I should be aware of? Or did you just not care to read my screen name?

I'm not trying to be offensive, but rather stating my own opinion as you love to state yours. Yes and no to your question. You being so mature and wise should know this. Few people will respect you if you constantly offend "delicate sensibilities." It won't hurt the Donald to do a little offending, however.

On a side note, I don't see how you're doing research here. Research is observing, not expressing your own opinions while doing the research. It seems silly to post here and do "research" here at the same time. Whatever happened to objectiveness?

By I1lmatics (I1lmatics) on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 12:58 pm: Edit

Its quite obvious she isn't doing research. What kind of research is so unethically proposed that it allows subjects to be recorded without consenting to participate?

Its quite comical actually. How many credible experimenters do you know who conduct research over an annyomous message board? I find it so hard to believe that I am only left with the inclination that she is trying to justify for her embarrassment.

"As for innocent kids, the majority of posters on cafe, as far as I can tell, are adults,"

Unless things have changed in my absence, the vast majority of posters here are students. I can understand the embarrasment of being outwitted by such youngsters, however again a quick scan of these posts lead me to confirm my belief that the majority of these posters are infact students.

I believe my cousin was one of the first to call you out and got banned, I'm going to have to agree with the majority opinion here that you are a bully, offensive, and seemingly ridculous.

By Masterchris (Masterchris) on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 04:48 pm: Edit

It is so obvious they are against mom101 because of her support for Bush. It is so obvious.

By Mom101 (Mom101) on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 05:23 pm: Edit

Scubasteve is back! It's so interesting how banned posters always reincarnate themselves. Cousin? Is Ella also a cousin? Interesting how she popped up here having never before posted on cafe and only having posted a few comments on Cornell months ago. How's the weather in Ithica?

By Mom101 (Mom101) on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 05:36 pm: Edit

And thanks masterchris, but it's hardly just Bush. Much of it is class warfare. I defend the tax cuts to the wealthy and speak of progressive taxation being unfair. I tell kids it's just fine to want to make a lot of money. I talk about Kerry being a hypocrit talking about identifying with the middle class after marrying 2 very wealthy women, living in 5 mansions and traveling via private planes. I am a capitalist, elitest, greedy, war approving flaming conservative.

By I1lmatics (I1lmatics) on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 06:14 pm: Edit


By Eyesclozedtight (Eyesclozedtight) on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 07:38 pm: Edit

maybe mom101 is doing research on how to be a jerk.

By Ella05 (Ella05) on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 10:12 pm: Edit

Guys please, name-calling gives the appearance of immaturity, regardless of the truth or untruth of such names.

Masterchris, this has nothing to do with politics. I'm actually against most of the College Cafe posts (although, hypocrite that I am, I do occasionally post when I can no longer contain myself). However, if there must be politics, then all views are welcome. A stagnant society would be so boring.

Mom101, you're right. I forgot one of my most basic creeds, that of "live and let live". As I said above, sometimes I cannot contain myself and I post irrelevant opinions. You have as much right as anyone to post. But if you don't mind me asking, why here? I'm sure there are political message boards out there that would welcome your views (not that all views shouldn't be welcomed here).

As to what offended me so much that I felt the need to post (repeatedly post actually, how pathetic), it's two part: Your methods of posting your opinion "you're young" as a means of dissenting? This is a student-oriented site, after all. And, your reasons. Shouldn't we all be college-oriented people who have been side-tracked into the insidious and addicting Cafe? I just have to wonder if you are here only for the politics aspect.

In a general note to all...must we be so harsh on this politics matter? Let's debate, not argue. There's not necessarily one right point of view. Brilliant, reasoned, stupid, young, old, there are representatives of all types on both sides of any issue. Think open-mindedness...

Sorry to be such a Pollyanna.


By Ella05 (Ella05) on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 10:15 pm: Edit

Really though, I don't know anyone on here and I'm not a pseudo-name for someone else. If you searched me, I've been posting a little for a while, although I try to lurk, absorb information, and avoid imposing my unnecessary opinions. I'm not doing too great at that last one at the end, but I suppose it can't be helped.

By Lizschup (Lizschup) on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 11:13 pm: Edit

MOM 101,
Saying that Kerry "identifies" with those less fortunate than him is a mischaracterization.There are plenty of wealthy people in positions of power who still have understanding for those who have less than them and can work in their behalf. The definition of a hypocrite is someone who says one thing and does another. I don't see Kerry saying there is anything wrong with making money-he just believes the balance of the tax cut was inappropriate and unfair.

By Reidmc (Reidmc) on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 01:56 am: Edit

I am a capitalist, elitest, greedy, war approving flaming conservative.

Mom101 - I ignored the first four or five times you've misspelled elitist on this board, but you finally got to me today. While I am at it, please note that the word capitalist is not an adjective, and that both a hyphen (between war and approving) and a comma (after approving) are needed to make the sentence above a proper one.

I post this not as a cheap attempt to devalue the content of your post, but as a service to our audience. A student duplicating these errors on his or her SAT II Writing exam might be rejected at highly selective colleges and universities. This could completely destroy his or her chance to enter the prestigious and rewarding field of investment banking.

By Squiddd (Squiddd) on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 01:58 pm: Edit

I've been reading these posts and would like to put my two cents in. Straight up, I am not a Bush supporter and that obviously taints my view; let's been honest, none of us is objective.

I have a problem mom101's and other's points about "young and stupid" versus "old and wise". I consider myself to be somewhat young, although I am also a mom. But guess what, my 60 year old, card carrying republican, tax attorney father is also against Bush as is many of his very well educated, affluent, business owning clients.

People have the right to support or oppose whatever candidate they want. But don't make petty remarks about their choices being based on age, intelligence, or socio-economic class. Everybody has their reasons and they all vary.

By I1lmatics (I1lmatics) on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 05:21 pm: Edit

"I talk about Kerry being a hypocrit talking about identifying with the middle class after marrying 2 very wealthy women, living in 5 mansions and traveling via private planes"

Mom101: How does this make Kerry a hypocrit? From my perspective all it makes for is a poorly founded argument. Just because he has money, does not mean he does not want to help out those with less of it. What do you expect him to do? Should he toss out all of his funds, and revert to living an only semi-modest lifestyle in the suburbias of Arizona like Mike Tyson...would that make his intentions legit?

I never knew the rich were not allowed to help out the less fortunate.

Is this part of your experiment..to have posters call you out on your own cockeyed assertions?

You know, reading through some of your posts, it makes it hard to believe you really are an adult. It almost seems as if you are a child pretending to be an adult to gain credibility (which would explain the "you're young" repetitions)

By Mom101 (Mom101) on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 05:55 pm: Edit

Kerry trots out his war buddies at events but never let's friends from his prep school or Yale near them. He uses blue collar lingo in some parts of the Country. His front porch meetings are never in front of any of his 5 porches and he has asked the media not to show any of his homes. He's a phony and many, many people from his past--his high school and college classes, not to mention the hundreds of swift boat veterans totally dismissed by the left--have said this over and over. But I'm just wasting my breath here and watching Dan Rather squirm has become much more interesting sice Fundingfather and most of the other rational conservatives have been chased off the board.

By Enjoyingthis (Enjoyingthis) on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 07:26 pm: Edit

Mom101, I find myself becoming suspicious that you are not who you say you are. Your spelling and grammar are not consistent with the level of education you claim to have attained. Also, your tone is so "young." An example-- when you posted that Xiggi had e-mailed you privately to say that he shared your fear of the CC board discussions. So transparent! So junior high! "Xiggi likes me better than he likes all of you nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah!" I confess I'm fascinated by you because I just can't come up with a picture of who you could possibly be as a middle-aged woman. If you were unmasked as a high school student on a lark, I would not be surprised. I hope we get to find out!

By Squiddd (Squiddd) on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 07:37 pm: Edit

mom101:Kerry isn't stellar, I agree. But, excuse me. If Kerry is a phony, then Bush, who claims to be such an advocate for middle America, who is a spoiled rich boy who has always been elevated by his daddy's connections, who has raised the cost of Medicare by a record 17%, who has caused the cost of Healthcare to skyrocket, who creates tax breaks for the very rich leaving middle America with the burden, and whose policies are hurting middle America the most ie: many can't afford health care, have no job, may not be able to get overtime, have no money to retire, can't afford higher education because of policies to make the cost of financial aid unrealistic...he's the phony and the fraud. And don't even get me started on how he claims to be an advocate of women and families when so many of he's policies absolutely refute that!

By Mom101 (Mom101) on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 07:40 pm: Edit

Caught! I'd write more but Mom's calling me for dinner.

By Thedad (Thedad) on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 01:07 am: Edit

Momo101, you come across as someone who is wealthy who can't believe in anyone else who is wealthy acting in a different way...for example, have a sense of social and economic justice on some higher plane than might [wealth] makes right.

Go ahead and shake the "liberal liberal liberal" voodoo doll. It may still scare a few people.

By Mom101 (Mom101) on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 02:09 am: Edit

The wealthy do anything good for society? Even if a few wanted to, where would they find the time given all the effort it takes to keep the rest of the population down! There are so many wealth bashers here (I wasn't bashing their wealth, just point out a few facts related to it), convincing youth that the goal of making money is evil. I often wonder where they think the school endowments that so often provide for their kid's came from.

But I honestly fail to see Kerry as being on a higher plane (other than his private jet) than anyone at all. He's playing to the middle class, promising things he can't possibly deliver, because his 18 dozen advisors held focus groups and decided it was his best shot at winning. It's well know that Kerry has always decided campaign issues based on focus groups. Then the advisors explained to him who the middle class are. I won't bore you all again with his top .0001% background and lifestyle.

Even my favorite liberal rag, the NYT, was among others that ran stories quoting his high school classmates saying he would do whatever it took to win and be stage center. Just as the swift boat guys wrote a book and came foward, his high school classmates got together to raise funds for his first political opponent. His political opponents over the years have very similar stories in this regard. Several have accused him of making facts up during debates. The hundreds of (lying of course) swift boat guys also say he's a liar. He is not popular in the Senate. This is not an honest guy.

Fortunately, I don't think I'll need to shake my liberal, liberal, liberal voodoo doll. I have many as I live in CA. Despite what things seem to be on boards like this one, it's starting to get clear that America isn't going to by his particular bull. I'm no Bush lover, but it would have just been torture to listen to that pompous bore drivel on for 4 years with the snake oil litigator by his side. The shame is that Theresa would have been fun. So we're probably safe until we have to deal with (ahhhhhhhhh!) Hillary. It won't be so bad if they win, 4 more years of Bubba antics is at least entertaining.

By Thermodude (Thermodude) on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 02:46 am: Edit

Mom101, I think you should realize that not everyone desires to make money and become filthy rich. People have other goals in life. Many of the individuals who have made the greatest impact in our world cared little about becomming filthy rich. Scientists such as Isaac Newton, Gregor Mendel, Micheal Faraday, Albert Einstein, Archimedes, Carl Gauss, Blaise Pascal, Rene Descartes, to name a few. To them, it was the study of the particular subject they loved (Physics, mathematics, biology...etc) which came first. Many, such as Faraday, Mendel, Newton and Descartes lived rather simple lives, with little extravegence. Many composers, artists, and writers also cared little about becomming filthy rich and made a great impact. Chopin, Vivaldi, and many others, to name a few. These individuals all made a great impact on the world with which we live in; however, it was not because they desired wealth and riches (I highly doubt Descartes had that in mind), but because they had a PASSION for what they did. Even Thomas Edison, who became very wealthy in the process of inventing, had a PASSION for tinkering.

Mom101, instead of telling us young teens that becoming filthy rich ought to be our primary goal, I think it would be wiser to advise us to pursue our passions. I really think the world is better off that individuals such as Newton, Einstein, Faraday, Mozart, Beethoven PURSUED their PASSIONS....and did not instead choose to become investment bankers.

By Mom101 (Mom101) on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 03:01 am: Edit

I haven't ever said making money should be anyone's goal. Of course you should pursue your passion. I've not know anyone to make a lot of money if they were not passionate about what they were doing. On many threads, usually about investment banking and corporate law, kids are told they are pursuing these careers because they are greedy. I just want those kids to know there's nothing wrong with such careers or in the desire to achieve wealth. Kerry desired wealth, and gosh he got lucky, he got wealth while pursuing his passion! Hopefully he's also passionate about the wealthy women.

By Jl87d (Jl87d) on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 03:49 am: Edit

The lesser of TWO evils? There are like 5 candidates! I hate People who will vote only DEM. or REP.! If George Washington, Adolf Hitler, and Joseph Stalin were all running for president and George Washington was an independent, you Idiots would put Hitler or, Stalin in office!

By Mom101 (Mom101) on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 08:40 am: Edit

That is such a good point jl87d. I'm immediately throwing my support behind the Green party and suggest that everyone else does too. Especially those in CA and on the E. Coast where there are so many important environmental issues.

By Lizschup (Lizschup) on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 08:58 am: Edit

Mom 101 said,"I've not know anyone to make a lot of money if they were not passionate about what they were doing. "

Now that's funny. Look to the president you support. The only thing he's been passionate about while making his millions were drugs and partying. He's hardly your Darwinian definition of the self made man.

And for those of you who don't think Mom 101 is an adult, I will tell you I know a few adults who talk in the same black and white, incendiary manner. She represents the thinking of a lot of Repubs and while maddening to argue with, it's a good lessen in reality. If you ever wonder why a president that has had so many failures is still ahead in the polls, all you have to do is read one of Mom 101's posts to understand why. It ain't pretty.

By Jl87d (Jl87d) on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 09:56 am: Edit

Hey, Stop flaming. I think Mom101 contributes excellent, quality posts. She should definitely not be ridiculed for stating an informed opinion. At the least she does not sink to slanderous name calling, and mud slinging!

By Mom101 (Mom101) on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 10:03 am: Edit

Yes Lizchup, the majority of Americans are wrong and you're right. Typical uber liberal thought process.

By I1lmatics (I1lmatics) on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 10:10 am: Edit

"There are so many wealth bashers here (I wasn't bashing their wealth, just point out a few facts related to it), convincing youth that the goal of making money is evil"

Perhaps from an elitist perspective you see everyone as a wealth basher to inflate your own ego, in reality no one here has anything against wealth.

"He's playing to the middle class, promising things he can't possibly deliver, because his 18 dozen advisors held focus groups and decided it was his best shot at winning. It's well know that Kerry has always decided campaign issues based on focus groups.

What do you think Bush does? I don't care how Kerry decides campaign issues, I care about the campaign issues that he or whoever decides upon that are in my interest. Ultimately once Kerry commits to it, regardless of where the idea came from, he is the one to carry it out. What exactly can't he possibly deliver? It all seems very attainable to me.

"I won't bore you all again with his top .0001% background and lifestyle. "

I think you mean you won't embarass yourself again. As the Dad eloquently said: "you come across as someone who is wealthy who can't believe in anyone else who is wealthy acting in a different way...for example, have a sense of social and economic justice on some higher plane than might [wealth] makes right"

You are still trying to use the Swifties for BS to prove points? You may be the only republican left standing who has not abandoned their lies.

"4 more years of Bubba antics is at least entertaining. "

If watching our global support and credibilty crumble from out beneath us is entertaing for you...

Just yesterday, Koffee Anan declared the war in Iraq to be illegal. What has Bush done to this once respected country?

It almost seems as if you vote Republican just so you can associate yourself with money. What a blow to your egotistical money driven self would it be to assocaite yourself with people of the middle and lower class.

If you really are an adult, you sure have a lot of maturing to do.

By Mom101 (Mom101) on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 10:18 am: Edit

Yawn. Why do Bush bashers seem to have the need to resort to perssonal attacks instead of rational arguements? Is it because you have so few? Kerry is a fake and the above is the best you can do to disprove this? As for growing up.........

By I1lmatics (I1lmatics) on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 10:18 am: Edit

"Hey, Stop flaming. I think Mom101 contributes excellent, quality posts. She should definitely not be ridiculed for stating an informed opinion"

Jl8: She has made the ridculous assertion that her reason for being here is to conduct [illegal] "research" for a professor. I wonder what it is about stating her "informed" opinion over and over and over has anything to do with this "research"

If she truely is an adult, don't you find it odd she does not want to talk politics on another forum with fellow adults instead of kids?

She does not deserve anyone's respect if she cannont even honestly justify her reason for being here. Oh yea wait.."reasearch".. right?

The sad part is, from a brief glance at these posts, it appears the vast majority do not even want her here yet she continues to post.

::Shivers at the thought of ever crossing her path::

By Megofou (Megofou) on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 01:01 pm: Edit

"Yawn. Why do Bush bashers seem to have the need to resort to perssonal attacks instead of rational arguements? Is it because you have so few? Kerry is a fake and the above is the best you can do to disprove this?"

This is just as much a personal attack as anything a Bush basher has written. You can't claim the superior position when you're sinking to the lower level. Oi. Cease fire.

Anyway...back to something that almost matters as opposed to mudslinging...

What makes Bush anymore real than Kerry? And...more importantly...does it matter? If Bush does everything he says (which he doesn't) and I disagree with the majority of said things, should I vote for him because he keeps his word? No. I don't know how Kerry will perform, but I do know how Bush HAS. I don't like Bush's ideas. I don't like his stances on several issues. He is not the candidate I want to see serve as president for the next four years plain and simple.

By Squiddd (Squiddd) on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 01:14 pm: Edit

mom101: First of all, I respect your opinions,think you have a right to say them, and some are valid. However, you have not rebutted the claim by many of us that Bush is just as much a phony, just as invested in his wealth as Kerry. Second, we are not Bush bashers anymore than you are a Kerry basher. We are stating our opinions about Bush's faults and you are stating yours about Kerry's faults. Both have faults. Our point is that though Kerry may be, at best, a mediocre president, Bush has been a scary, scary extremist president. His administration, in my humble opinion, has done some thoroughly unAmerican things. Firt of all, his religious interference with his policies is very scary in my opinion. Separation of church and state is VERY important. Secondly, his administration has trashed many civil rights. Making a constitutional amendment to ban people's rights to get married? Come on. More importantly, the Patriot act which has blatantly disregarded long practiced and cherished rights of Americans and has subversively (sp?) endorsed prejudice against people for their religion, political beliefs, even what books they read. Though Kerry may not be great, I don't fear that he will reverse things this country was founded on and that we hold dear and true.
Third, I'm not a conservative or republic basher. I agree with some beliefs of both sides of the line. Your liberal bashing is getting tiresome and it shows a black and white thought system and an ignorance towards the many middle roaders and the shades of grey.

By Browninfall (Browninfall) on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 01:21 pm: Edit

Koffee Anan? The irony is delicious in a discussion about wealth. We're supposed to have some sort of respect for some clown who lined his pockets in the UN's sham Oil for Food program. I'm sure he was just acting due to a "sense of social and economic justice on some higher plane".

So many of the responses here of the left are typical kneee jerk reactions to those they disagree with. The facts can't be argued so let's resort to name calling and censoring of those who aren't liked by making them go away - the same way that those on the right get heckled and shouted down any time they speak on the campuses of our so-called elite universities and colleges (the few exceptional times that they're even invited). You folks just can't take it any time you venture out from your warm and friendly Michael Moore/Dan Rather vacuums. Maybe you're better off in Democratic Underground where your views won't be challenged or questioned and you can feel really good about yourself because everyone agrees with you.

By Squiddd (Squiddd) on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 01:43 pm: Edit

Browninfall: Excuse me, I just made some valid arguments based on fact, including in a former post about how Bush has really hurt healthcare including the fact that Medicare costs have been raised a record 17% under his administration. I haven't done any name calling. Yet, you don't respond to me. Could it be that when someone does make some valid and rational arguments against Bush that you ignore it because you can't refute it?

mom101: Sorry, one more thing. I am truly not trying to attack you or put you on the defensive. I realize that you have been the target of attack on these posts and I would be defensive also. I think that people's comments on your "unethical research" or claims that you are not who you say are stupid and a waste of a good political debate. I am glad you are on the site...I enjoy diverse opinions so I can have good debates. I find them intellectually stimulating and often I learn valid things from the opposing side. Unfortunately, you are one of the few with a pro-Bush opinion so you are really the only one I can debate with. But truly, I just want to hear your comments or rebuttal on my Bush points. So please, hopefully no hard feelings between you and I and I would love to hear your comments.

By Mom101 (Mom101) on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 02:25 pm: Edit

Squiddd, there are so many threads on that you forget what you've siad where. I have often said that I'm not a Bush supporter. Given a choice between Bush and Kerry I would vote for Bush because I think what Kerry wants to do will further kill the American economy and anger the middle class even more. What happens when the Country realizes Kerry can't possible do much of what he says? Stop outsourcing, raise minimum wage, health care for all.....

I totally agree that Bush has made horrible mistakes where international relations are concerned. I really don't know enough to know if the war should have been avoided, I've heard good arguements on both sides. I don't dismiss that we may have done what needed to be done and that powerhouses will always incur the rath, periodically, of those with less power. That said, I have no particular admiration for Bush or how he's worked every opportunity he was handed.

I am a conservative in CA. Being bashed is a way of life. I am also a student. A professor gave me a book yesterday called Tenured Radicals, about the incredible leaning to the left that characterizes academe today. Only one side is presented. There are classes at UCLA that conservatives are "highly encouraged not to enroll in." Berkeley recently removed language from it's charter which basically said professors had to present balanced information. This stuff is nothing other than quite entertaining.

Browininfall, how went dropoff? Son adjusting well? Are you?!

By Browninfall (Browninfall) on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 02:29 pm: Edit

Squidd, you're excused. I didn't respond to it because it hadn't been posted yet when I was writing my response to the censorship lovers that preceded you.

I don't understand your statement that Bush "has really hurt healthcare including the fact that Medicare costs have been raised a record 17% under his administration". "Really hurt healthcare" is a statement that doesn't mean anything. How has he hurt it in your view?

Regarding the second part of your statement, that is, "Medicare costs have been raised a record 17% under his administration". I don't think you're right on that one. I can't believe that Medicare's costs would have ONLY gone up 17%. Over a four year period that would mean that Medicare costs went up only a little over 4% per year. I don't know what the actual increase was, but I can't believe that it was that low. You might want to check your source on that one as I'm sure that our increase in spending is significantly more than 17% over the last four years.

By the way, I like your definition of "facts". Only in the mind of someone who worships at the knee of Michael Moore would "spoiled rich boy who has always been elevated by his daddy's connections....he's the phony and the fraud...scary, scary extremist president....yada, yada, yada" be considered statements of fact. You might want to get a refund from the school that taught you what a fact is, or you might want to ask one of your father's very well educated, affluent business owning clients to help you out with it.

By Mom101 (Mom101) on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 02:50 pm: Edit

Browninfall, having had a child at the school, tell me, is my daughter going to encounter the lack of tolerance for views other than their own that we see among liberals on this board? The book I'm reading about what's going on in academia today and the talk I went to by it's author last night left me open jawed. It really shouldn't have given the approach I've seen here. During my tour of Andover last year the front page story in the student paper was about teachers giving low grades to papers that expressed conservative views. I'm beginning to understand how wide spread this is. And why many of these kids really think their views are the only right views and they should try to stop others from expressing theirs. Truly scary. You son chose the most conservative of the usual suspects. By design?

By Squiddd (Squiddd) on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 04:38 pm: Edit

Browninfall: Everybody who debates uses both opinions and facts. They state their opinions and then use facts to back it up. The examples you used aren't facts, they are opinions. But, for instance the medicare claim, I suggest you check it out. My only mistake was that it was 17% in the last year under Bush, and that is higher than ever before in a one year period.
How has Bush hurt healthcare... he believes that everyone should "own" as he puts it in his own ad their own healthcare, yet he creates a environment through creating higher unemployment, being against raising minimum wage or paying overtime etc that makes it impossible for some to afford healthcare. The seniors are who have taken the biggest blow.
mom101 says that Kerry is promising things he can't give, such as raising the minimum wage. It is possible without spending more money. Instead we need to allocate our money more responsibly.
Finally, Browninfall, for one who starts out by calling people names "knee jerk liberals" who you are criticizing for calling people names...well, you sure are being a hypocrite. I'm not a worshipper of Michael Moore, I am far from a left wing liberal. You know nothing about me except the few opinions I've stated here. It's petty and it's crappy of you. I called you out a little offensively I admit. But I haven't called you any names or be completely rude. WHy can't we just have a civil debate?
Finally, I do have a lot more rational arguments and facts about my problems with Bush, but I'm trying to spread them out between posts because it's not fair to write an essay for one post.

By Mom101 (Mom101) on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 05:35 pm: Edit

Squiddd, go ahead and write the essay. Then we can address the issues as a whole. Bush is blamed for a lot of things, such as the unemployment rate, that no economist believes he is responsible for. There are many reasons for job creation problems in America today. Those reasons are led by education (or the pathetic lack therof in this country) and trade agreements that have been supported by both parties for more than a decade. To address the creation of solid middle class jobs will be beyond any one president, and especially one like Kerry who claims he will keep jobs in this Country that are being outsourced--something he can't possibly do. We would lose many more jobs if we rendered American companies not globally competitive. We would also have runaway inflation when other countries retaliated by not sending us the cheap consumer goods we depend on.

While we'd all like to see minimum wage workers make more money, it's another thing hard to find an economist to support. Arnold just vetoed legislation in CA that would have raised wages. He could not find an economist who did not believe that raising wages would result in so many businesses going under that unemployment would rise.

The runaway cost of health care in this country is also not Bush's fault. To give him credit for something that has been on a steep trajectory for decades is just silly. A great start will be to stop the out of control litigation--something Kerry/Edwards are against. We need to do something serious about health care and it will be a bipartisan solution in the end. Remember that Clinton failed miserably at reform, too.

What is just so silly about so many arguements on so many fronts is that it would be almost impossible for any president to achieve all Bush is accused of in 4 years. There really are two parties at work, things long in the making and many, many influences. If only a pres really had such powers--we might actually get somewhere.

By Megofou (Megofou) on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 05:47 pm: Edit

"...is my daughter going to encounter the lack of tolerance for views other than their own that we see among liberals on this board?"

Just making a quick correction. I think you meant liberals AND conservatives.

Maybe not. Correction stands.

By Mom101 (Mom101) on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 06:04 pm: Edit

Certainly people of both persuasions are often dug in. My comment was in reference to the liberal world of academe.

By Browninfall (Browninfall) on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 06:33 pm: Edit

Mom 101: Freshman daughter at Brown is great. Freshman son at Deerfield is as well. More later.

By Lizschup (Lizschup) on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 06:42 pm: Edit

Mom 101, I do happen to think Republicans are very wrong in their thinking but it doesn't come from some entrenched "uber liberal" thinking as you suggest. It comes from an open mind and actually a pretty moderate point of view. The thing that many Republicans don't understand is that Bush's policies have been far right of moderate and that is why so many normally moderate voters are outraged. I didn't start judging Bush as an incompetent president until he used 911 to finish his daddy's war. You are correct about what economists say about the economy in the short term, but Bush's combination of tax cuts and heavy spending especially on this war are going to take a toll. And that is something he had control over.

By I1lmatics (I1lmatics) on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 06:55 pm: Edit

Mom101 says: "Kerry who claims he will keep jobs in this Country that are being outsourced--something he can't possibly do. We would lose many more jobs if we rendered American companies not globally competitive"

It certainly is something he can and will do. We will not lose our global competitiveness as a result either. Kerry is offering $$ incentives for companies who keep jobs in the US. Not all companies will take him up on his offer, nor do they have to. They will do whatever is in their best interest. So for you to play it off like all jobs will no longer be outsourced is misleading and irrational.

Also if you really want to talk about rendering American companies not globally competitive....Do you want to know what actually is hurting out global competitiveness tremendously? Mr. Bush and his world wide condemed war in Iraq. Sales of American made products in foreign countries are suffering as a result. The Vice President of Nike came in and talked to us the other day, he confirmed exactly the same thing.

By Squiddd (Squiddd) on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 07:12 pm: Edit

Browninfall: I know I said I shouldn't write an essay, but I have more time now and I would like to refute you on a few other things. YOu call me out saying I am merely calling Bush names for some of my comments, well let me back up those valid opinions with some evidence. I truly do think Bush is a scary, extreme, somewhat antiAmerican president. 1) It is pretty extreme to call for a federal constitutional amendment to ban marriage between a certain group of consenting adults and it's rooted in Bush's beleif that it is OK to let his religion interfere with his polcies. Which brings me to point 2) Under Bush I think separation of church and state as is in serious danger, and changing it is extreme and unAmerican. 3)The Patriot act has made it possible for the government to legally infringe upon people's rights, especially to privacy. For instance, the secret search warrants; that's not what they are actually called but basically the government can get search warrants and search your belongings in total secret without ever telling you. If you don't believe me, check it out for yourself. Also, the Patriot acts makes it OK for the government to tap your phones or get into your personal records based on something as frivilous as what book you checked out of the library. That's extreme. Some people say they are willing to give up those rights for safety, I happen not to agree. 4) USing fear based motivation as a means to control "the people" is in my humble opinion extreme. History has many examples of leaders using fear to control. The people are the ones who are supposed to have most of the control in this country. Evidence to back this opinion: the most recent and obvious is Cheney's recent comment on a Kerry vote being an open invitation to another terrorist attack. I know that wasn't his exact quote, but that's the gist.
YOu may not agree with my opinions, but they are valid and based on rational reasons.
In terms of the other comments you attacked, Bush IS rich, and always has been. Bush has gained "perks" throughout life because of who his father is and his connections. You can't deny either of those points. I may have said them in mean spirited ways, but they're still true. To be fair, many politicians in this country have grown up rich and with "perks". But, in this instance I was talking about Bush. OK, I'll shut up for awhile now...enough said.

By Mom101 (Mom101) on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 07:23 pm: Edit

Ilmatics, you are hardly alone in your thinking. This is why I predict tremendous anger if Kerry wins and it becomes clear that much of what he's promising is BS. You and many, many other Americans don't seem to understand that even offering American companies incentives to stop outsourcing would be a serious violation of many trade agreements including NAFTA. Many countries are keenly watching to see if we dare to do such a thing and would quickly retaliate. First we could kiss goodbye our fastest growing job segment, the Walmart/Costco retail jobs. Those stores would have nothing to sell.

By Mom101 (Mom101) on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 07:40 pm: Edit

Squiddd, I agree with much of what you say. I would never pick a born again Christian to lead the Country with better choices. There should be church/state seperation IMO. I also think it's just silly to try to stop same sex marriage. But no president is going to decide these issues.

And yes Bush got every rich white boy advantage money and power could buy. Although Kerry did not grow up rich, a generous Aunt provided him with every advantage, too. We have Andover v. St. Paul's. Elite big prep v. elite small prep. Yale v. Yale, Skull and Bones v. Skull and Bones. Maybe the Aunt stopped paying when W did move ahead for grad school to an elite while Kerry went State. Then W depended on family money and power while Kerry married money and power twice. The digs in Crawford don't come close to Sun Valley, Nantucket and whatever island the Heinz Kerry's spend winter weekends on. So is there much difference on this front? The only difference I see is when Kerry claims not to have grown up rich. Technically true, but false in reality as so much else of what he says is.

Yes, there's a lot of BS rhetoric from both sides. The most dissapointed I have ever been in Bush is when he backed off from his statement that we couldn't win the war on terror. How does anyone rational believe we can stop every nut case? But this is the kind of thing people want to hear so both sides say it.

By Candi1657 (Candi1657) on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 07:42 pm: Edit

Wow, this thread has mushroomed. Post #121!

By Riflesforwatie (Riflesforwatie) on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 07:49 pm: Edit

"Squiddd, I agree with much of what you say. I would never pick a born again Christian to lead the Country with better choices. There should be church/state seperation IMO. I also think it's just silly to try to stop same sex marriage. But no president is going to decide these issues."

Are you kidding me? A President won't decide these issues? These "important" social issues will be decided in the courts, as they have been for the last 50 years. The President nominates judges... all Bush needs, if reelected, are two or three more GOP Senators and his judges will redirect the course of the nation.

The same goes for Kerry if he's elected and Democrats retake the Senate.

So I'd say, yes, the President will decide these issues. That's why this election is so important. The next PResident will likely get three Supreme Court justices, and they'll likely be on the court for at least 10 years, if not 20 or 25.

By Browninfall (Browninfall) on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 08:55 pm: Edit

Squidd: I'm on to you. You're Emily, aren't you? Where's the smiley face and where's our boy, Vancat? Showtime.

By Vancat (Vancat) on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 09:53 pm: Edit

Say what??? I haven't looked at this thread for so long that I have no idea what's going on and I'm much to lazy to do anything about it.

By Browninfall (Browninfall) on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 10:22 pm: Edit

Vancat: I'll do the work for you since I've been watching way too much CSI lately. With due respect to Bobby Darin, I think Simba's back in town.....only it's a squid's bite and not a shark's. Badaboom.

By Vancat (Vancat) on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 11:13 pm: Edit

wait, Simba's back? Does he have a new name or something? Didn't I run him out of town a while back?

Oh and I heard Scubasteve is back under a new alias. Pffft. And might I add, he STILL has not admitted his horrendous miscalculation.

By Squiddd (Squiddd) on Friday, September 17, 2004 - 01:31 am: Edit

Browninfall: I'm sorry that this message board is some kind of CSI mystery game to you. However, I assure you, yesterday was the first time I've ever even seen this site. I'll even tell you how I came about it. I was searching for Kelsey Grammar and Politics because my husband and I had heard that he was a staunch republican and we both like to check things before we beleive them. One of the sites that came up was this one with a thread on celebrities and politics. That's how I found the site. So, I started checking out some of the other threads, found it interesting, and decided to join. That's it. I'm not Emily nor Simba nor whoever else. I'm just a person who is very passionate about this particular election and loves a good debate. IF I had known that there was more to this site with the mystery and the alias's...well I would have found a legitimate site where people truly just want to discuss topics. Grow up! I just want to debate you, so instead of accusing me of being someone else, why don't you just get on with the debate!!!

By Reidmc (Reidmc) on Friday, September 17, 2004 - 03:39 am: Edit

Koffee Anan? The irony is delicious in a discussion about wealth. We're supposed to have some sort of respect for some clown who lined his pockets in the UN's sham Oil for Food program.

Though hard to definitively determine the most poorly informed and insulting statement on this thread I believe Browninfall, after several other solid attempts, has the winner here. There is not a shred of evidence, nor even a semi-credible source charging Mr. Annan of any personal financial misdeeds.

Note to Mom101: Another moderator deleted your last post and closed this thread before I got here. Per our previous communication, I suggest that you dial back tone and attitude NOW. Including, but not limited to, attempts to bully or intimidate younger posters or make disparaging remarks based on their age. If another example of such comes to my attention, you will be free to continue to hold such an attitude. But not on College Confidential.

--Moderator Obiwan

Report an offensive message on this page    E-mail this page to a friend

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page