Obama, McCain Sweep Potomac Primaries

"Hope, my friends, hope is a powerful thing," said McCain, who at 71 is a four-term senator from Arizona.

"To encourage a country with only rhetoric rather than sound and proven ideas that trust in the strength and courage of free people is not a promise of hope. It's a platitude."

"I do not seek the presidency on the presumption that I am blessed with such personal greatness that history has anointed me to save my country in its hour of need."

"I seek the presidency with the humility of a man who cannot forget that my country saved me."

I wonder if McCain actually wrote that.

Neither of them write those kind of lines.

Hello?

Did you read the account of Obama's speech when the teleprompter didn't work this week? He was a mess.

So, no, they don't write those lines. But they believe them.

Thanks ROC.

For me, that about sums it up.

oh please - nobody writes their own drivel. That's why we have speech writers, PR firms and marketing departments.

Actually I think with Obama they have a set of dice with the words "hope, change, future, and "i didn't vote for the war in Iraq" etc. on each face and they roll them just before each speech.

I don't want any more "sound and proven ideas" from a politician. Their idea of sound and proven is what got us here. I want something unsound and unproven that will shake this country out of its stupor. Go Obama.

McCain singing"Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" about sums it up for me.

He's not the man he used to be.

Lessee....100 years in Iraq, or hope....100 years of war....hope.

Tough choice.

But at least McCain strikes me as being a very honorable and decent person. Refreshing for a republican.

I've started to shop for "McCain in '08" buttons.

Political conflicts seem to offer only one teflon suit at a time, if any.

Reagan had it and B. Clinton had it, much to the gargling apoplexy of their political opponents.

Now, since illiberal evangelical windbags have stripped McCain of even the opportunity to try it on, Obama got it.

Did ROC pay The Barista for the McCain ad on the right?
You'd think he'd focus on states that have primaries coming up.

Actually I think with Obama they have a set of dice with the words "hope, change, future, and "i didn't vote for the war in Iraq" etc. on each face and they roll them just before each speech.

Wait, so the universal health care plan, which you've railed about on here, is not part of Obama's platform? He's either an evil commie, or unsubstantial, make up your mind.

And its not like McCain hasn't been parroting over and over the usual Republican line about "If the democrats get in power, we lose the war on terrorism."

Remember Howard Dean? I sure don't.

I am reminded of my surfing instructor who told me that he could easily teach me how to get up on that wave, but getting down (in one piece) was totally up to me.

I'm a little disappointed to see so many threads on Baristanet about the Presidential candidates and primaries. Granted these topics are timely and important, but they're also discussed everywhere. The charm of Baristanet is (or should I say WAS) the emphasis on local events. JMO.

How's this old timer:

Good job with the snow removal!

Are they going to finish the sidewalk on Gordonhurst any time soon?

That DeCamp bus was.....

That NJ Transit train (only the ones that pass through Baristaville) is...

That's a huge green sign at 205 Claremont...

Is the Sienna filled up yet?

Any other pressing issues 'round these parts?

Here's a question for the McCain supporters:

If McCain had been elected in 2000, how do you believe things would be different today?

It's an honest question, I'm not baiting. I liked him eight years ago and probably would have voted for him then if he'd made it to the big show.

(reallyoldtimer: "All politics is local.")

Just think, if Obama is elected president, we'll have FOUR MORE YEARS of ROC ranting and raving. That's worth my vote right there.

Hey Vegetable, here's another question. What if Gore had not been stopped from serving. Ahhh, but no reason to dwell on the past when we had an administration that actually embraced Republican ideas like welfare reform, a balanced budget, a smaller role for federal government --- while keeping out of people's personal lives.

"If McCain had been elected in 2000, how do you believe things would be different today?"

Hard to say. That's like saying, "If my grandma had balls, she'd be my grandpa" or something like that. None of us have a crystal ball but I think he's the right person for the job at this juncture.

monongahela,

If you promise not to repeat the misinterpretation of McCain's 100 years of war statement, I will promise not to use Obama's middle name (Hussein). T

Or Obama being a member of a Church which salutes and applauds Farrakhan. T

Or the drug use. T

Or that he's a Muslim, raised in a Madrassa. F

McCain's comment in context.

Sounds like someone who, ah, understands history and our place in the world.

"Or the drug use."

Oh no! since Bushie the drunken coke head and I didn't inhale both got to run things for 8 years all and any drug talk is over!

hrhppg,

Take a breath and recompose that sentence because I have no idea what you're talking about.

Is Obama a member of a church or a mosque? It's hard to tell from your post prof.

Perhaps I should rephrase my question:

I like McCain. I like Obama. I want help judging McCain on his own merits - separated from the current administration, which I feel has done a tremendous disservice to this country and to the reputation of the GOP. I want someone to explain to me how I could reasonably expect a McCain presidency to be different from, say, another four years of Dubya, who has set the most recent calibration of what we can expect from the GOP.

Is it possible for a man to make a difference, or is the government simply run by the winning party's machine?

Veggie,

If you need someone to explain to you the difference between Bush and McCain, you haven't been paying attention.

Do you need help with Hillary and Obama too?

McCain is 71 and a Republican. I think he is probably a decent guy, but is he really going to do anything other than maintain the status quo? The guy admits he doesn't know much about ecomonics -- is this the time to start learning?

And Obama's great knowledge of...... what exactly makes him a better choice?

Sorry.

Hope.

Generally most Republicans don't like McCain. His bulk of support is from liberal Republicans and independents. So I don't think he'll be much beholden to the "machine". Same with Obama, mind you. We have two independent minded candidates which seems to suit the minds of the electorate.

It's a race between the hopeful, exciting far left candidate and a moderate boring guy.

Nicely put, ROC.

Although I wouldn't call McCain boring.

He seems like a great, funny, engaging guy...

Kinda like I imagine you and cathar to be.

I like McCain, but compared to Obama he is pretty boring. It's an advantage I think.

A senior adviser to Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, has suggested that she – along with other “party elders” – will step into the ring if they feel that Democratic hopes of winning back the White House or maintaining control over Congress are being threatened.

Can't let this democracy stuff get too out of hand...

So "hope" is a negative? Puh-leeze. The guy is well educated, articulate and chooses to keep his stump speeches exciting. His website has some of the outlines for his plans. For instance Social Security - just raise the cap on the amount of taxable income a few thousand dollars. Simple, elegant and a number of prominent of economists think it's a great idea.

(must be similar to Dean's "arrangement" between the candidates.)

And "Clean." Don't forget clean, jersey.

But you might be able to find 100's with those same qualities.

Do they all get your vote?

But yes, Hope is a negative when that's all you got.

And if you believe that raising the caps is all we need, then you haven't been paying attention.

However, I'll play along: Raise them to what? For whom? What about the retirement age? How does Medicare fit into it....

Not so simple after all.

"I like McCain, but compared to Obama he is pretty boring. It's an advantage I think."

In this case, possibly. A nice change from someone like a Howard Dean or Barack Obama who is all theatrics and fireworks but has little or no substance behind them. I'll take boring over that any day.

Hey prof, you can go to the site yourself for the info. If 100's of clean,well educated, reasonable and articulate people were viable candidates, I guess they'd have my vote too. We couldn't possibly do much worse than W.

Breathtakingly large tax increases are usually "simple and elegant" no doubt.

Gurl where did you get the idea raising the amount taxed was just a "few thousand dollars" ?

HIs website is characteristically vague (shock! Horror! "No way!, he has plenty of substance").

Obama supports increasing the maximum amount of earnings covered by Social Security and he will work with Congress and the American people to choose a payroll tax reform package that will keep Social Security solvent for at least the next half century.

How much?

Previous accounts had him in favor of lifting the cap entirely.

Why mum now? Cat got his tongue?

Carter, perhaps?

I don't think the Republican party wants to govern the country for a while. I think they are longing for a way out of this heavy responsibility. Many seem to be saying to the democrats, "Here, you take it." Rush is happiest as a critic. When He got his way and his man was elected, and his man screwed up, he just went to other topics. Fox too. All the conservatives forgot about the troops. 40 died in January, and it looks like 40 more. Republicans just seem screwed up, and they need to be relieved, before they relieve on us any longer.

Brin,

I think you hit all the talking points there with that post.

Lemme see, wait. You forgot to blame Bush for the economy and global warming.

The soc sec tax cap should be lifted entirely. And I say this even though it will mean a huge tax increase for me personally. As you may know, I make a gigantic amount of money as a leading neurosurgeon, and from royalties on my technique of removing brain tumors without damaging the surrounding tissue. I also believe in a carbon tax, to be collected with meters installed on the tail pipe of each car.

No one has been running the government for eight years. There were plenty of warning signs about the mortgage crisis, but Bush was too stupid, or focused on Iraq to care. Now we have recession because of it, but are too in debt from Iraq prevent it from deepening. We are borrowing money from China, and they are starting to own us. The dollar is so weak that foreign countries are buying us up. Mobil stations are now Russian. Yes, Bush could have run the country instead of being absorbed with a totally different nation.

(boy, it's hard to know where to begin, eh?)

Reading Brinew's posts is a bit like reading Paul Krugman in the Times.

(PS that's not a compliment.)

So many people seem to think that the executive has the power to enact specific legislation. All she or he can do outside of foreign policy and running the executive branch will be to set an agenda and exhort/cajole/lead/harangue others to follow. Health plans, social security, taxes -- all are legislative issues.

However, the executive sets the agenda and if he has long coattails is likely to succeed in his agenda. There are scarce few plausible scenarios (or any) which end in a Republican congress. So I'd give Obama a substantially higher chance of enacting his agenda over any Republican candidate.

As somone once said to me "gridlock can be your friend".

I am a huge fan of gridlock. The hard core social conservatives have alienated too many of us for it to happen. If McCain wins, it will be in spite of the anti-evolutionists.

huh?

McCain was a good choice for the Republicans. Even if they don't win, he may be able to get the party back to fiscal conservatism and a conservative approach against nation building an war as the answer to foreign policy problems. It is sad to see Republicans like Jim Baker, Tom Kean pushed aside by Rove and Cheney. What they did to respectable Republicans over the past eight years is horrible. Anyone who disagreed with them was marginalized.

Anyway appletony, I still don't know what your statement meant. But I hope you'll consider writing it in the "memo" section of your check every April 15th.

I am sorry I was not clear enough for you. In any event, since (1) McCain himself has referred to the Bush tax cuts as tax breaks for the rich and (2) the Republicans have been outrageous spendthrifts, I have to confess that I don't understand your comment re: April 15th. It doesn't jive with current Republican reality. This Republican party frets over amending the constitution re: gay marriage and abortion, spends like a drunken lottery winner and makes ominous noises about immigration without EVER really moving to secure the border.

Time's up. I do not and can not trust that party. That's why, if McCain gets my vote, it will be in spite of the party to which he belongs.

did anyone else see chris matthews after the obama victory speech...he made a statement about the feelilng he got in his leg...i couldn't believe i just heard him say it....this is gonna be a coronation...not a election

I am still a little confused. What does all that have to do with social convervatives and "anti-evolutionists" ?

I think you are right about the current Republicans, they've been spendthrifts.

Anyway let's just hope that when:

"[Obama] campaign officials estimated that the net cost of the plan to the federal government would be $50 billion to $65 billion a year, when fully phased in, and said the revenues from rolling back the tax cuts were enough to cover it.”

or

(from his website)

“Obama will invest $150 billion over 10 years to advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure, accelerate the commercialization of plug-in hybrids, promote development of commercial-scale renewable energy, invest in low-emissions coal plants, and begin the transition to a new digital electricity grid.”

all that stuff will cost less than, well, not, having all that stuff.

his election will be an 'obamination'

(the first quote is in regards to Obama's healthcare plan)

"he made a statement about the feelilng he got in his leg.."

Happy feet?

ROC, I am saying that the Republican priorities are not focused on making government efficient or on keeping taxes low. Nor do I expect that would be the case under McCain. If both parties are going to rifle through my wallet or squander my kids' future anyway, I'll go with the ones who don't want to shove a religious agenda down my throat.

I don't "hope" that a lot of new stuff is going to cost less. I expended my hope re: Republicans during the last cycle. I see NOTHING to make me think that they'll be less wasteful than the Democrats, nothing at all.

Anyway let's just hope that when:

"[Obama] campaign officials estimated that the net cost of the plan to the federal government would be $50 billion to $65 billion a year, when fully phased in, and said the revenues from rolling back the tax cuts were enough to cover it.”

It is nice, however, to see that Obama inspires hope in you, too! Based on his substance, no less...

McCain is the religious zealot, there's no doubting that. And the fact that he owes his success to the Religious Right means he'll certainly cow-tow to them.

"Based on his substance, no less..."

Yes, yes, he's got lots. Bravely, inspiringly, he avoids bringing it up, but it's there if you dig a bit.

Like his proposal to eliminate the cap ALL earnings for social security taxes which he courageously omits from his site. (which has confused poor JerseyGurl)

There's lots and lots of substance.

I am not sure what you mean by "shoving religious agendas down your throat" (faith based initiatives? Fetal stem cells?) but make no mistake Obama and a democratic congress is not a recipe for fiscal restraint.

McCain is the religious zealot, there's no doubting that. And the fact that he owes his success to the Religious Right means he'll certainly cow-tow to them.

Which campaign are you following? Huckabee's the religious, "I don't believe in evolution" wackoo and he's been carrying the evangelicals. McCain has been winning the moderate Republicans and independents. He's made modest acknowledgements to the religious right and I'm hoping that if he does get elected he'll continue to ignore them.

I know Mike 91, thanks. It's was sarcasm.

Huckabee refuses to drop out. He reminds me of that killer rabbit in Monty Python.

Or John Belushi as the guest who wouldn't leave on old SNL

its good he's still in.

McCain will still win, but without any religious right support. This will help him with independents and democrats.

I swear Huckleberry works for McCain.

McCain is either a closet creationist or another political whore too anxious to lock up those anti-evolution votes. He's endorsed teaching "intelligent design" alongside evolution in public schools. Bye-bye Johnny.

make no mistake Obama and a democratic congress is not a recipe for fiscal restraint.

Nor, as direct evidence has shown over the last seven years, is a Republican president a recipe for fiscal restraint or limited government.

Correct, you'd need a conservative for that.

The very idea that fiscal restraint is the domain of the Republicans is laughable. The current administration is a total joke. The rest of the world sees us as a bunch of bullying buffoons. Government spending is out of control, taxes are still high, and the states are at the mercy of the right wing agenda when it comes to our personal lives. "Mission Accomplished", "You're doing a great job Brownie", "Rumsfeld is doing a great job"...I cannot believe the saner members of the Republican party are not completely outraged by the last eight years.

hey, gurl, did you figure out the "few thousand dollar" cap thing?

Correct, you'd need a conservative for that.

I think you need a classical liberal for that. Today's so-called conservatives are not in favor of limited government power.

like Obama for example, huh?

ROC - here's one from an MSNBC interview: "I think the best way to approach this is to adjust the cap on the payroll tax so that people like myself are paying a little bit more and people who are in need are protected," the Illinois senator said. Whatever - you clearly disagree with the approach and most likely favor raising the age to 80 so that most people who should collect will already be dead or in dire need of financial help by the time they can. Again, I just find it completely laughable that conservatives still harbor some kind of collective memory of a time of fiscal restraint and limited government that should automatically exist when there is a Republican in office. The last eight years have been a disaster and the previous eight at least gave us welfare reform, fiscal responsibilty, the family leave act and an attempt to address health care. Personally, my taxes were much lower, the AMT has done a great job of ensuring I pay much more than my fair share. Oh, and that was Reagen's contribution to the tax code. Just wait until even more people in our area get hit with the double whammy of high mortgage interest and real estate taxes and the IRS saying your deductions are way too high to be able to include them.

"I think the best way to approach this is to adjust the cap on the payroll tax so that people like myself are paying a little bit more and people who are in need are protected,"

So in HIS CASE it would be a few thousand dollars. Oh, gurl, that's an easy one - we're not all like the senator.

Social security was never designed as welfare. It was supposed to be akin to a pension system where what you put in determined what you got out.

But let's hear it for Obama's courageous display of substance in leaving out that bit on his website? Such "substance" is likely to confuse many others as it has gurl here.

(and that's the point)

McCain and Obama (and Huckabee) are all popular because they are all non-Bushes and non-Clintons.

We'll see if they are tough enough to resist their party machines and related media loudmouths.

If any of these candidates turn out to be beholden to the tired agendas in the political back rooms, they'll surely be little more than hollow suits in the Oval Office.

Nonetheless, any of the above will be a massive relief from Bush, his cowboy/flyboy fake-o imagery, his "nukular" stupidity,his 28 year old Reagan agenda cleaving to artificial life support, and his starry-eyed suckups.

Thank god Huck-a-cluck-a-nutter is losing. What a loon. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PW2GhoItKkw

I'll take Huckabee over Bush any day. At the very least, Huckabee can put a sentence together.

jersey,

You're in over your head it seems.

The AMT was not a Reagan creation, it goes back to 1969 and Johnson, although it was Ford I believe who signed it into law.

Reagan, as I'm sure you remember, lowered our tax rate from 70% for some, to 28%. Talk to anyone who made a bit of money to compare their taxes under the two Presidents.

Oh, and Reagan also helped defeat the Soviet Union (I'm a military spending theorist on this one, for those who know or care).

Not bad for the former President of the Screen Actors Guild.

And like Obama, he made us feel good again (only he had actually done something as Gov. of California versus the 2 years in the Senate.)

"It's morning in America again..."

Prof, you are a theorist in so many varied ways, "for those who know or care."

Now you've just got to work at getting people to care.

I believe that gurl may have this in mind when she spoke about the AMT:
www.slate.com/id/2098757

Of course, no one wants to nit-pick, but the president of the United States in 1969 was Richard M. Nixon, not LBJ.

The amt and social security wage cap are entirely two different things.

Agreed.
Gurl alluded to the AMT, and there seemed to be a question as to when it was put in place, and in which administration.

oh i missed the AMT reference, i tend to glaze over when she gets in palaver mode.

Quite alright.
Do you have any more bagpipe jokes?

ROC,
Social Security was perhaps sold as something like a pension plan, but the reality for decades has been that current contributors are covering the beneficiaries -- not a system where the beneficiaries are somehow drawing down on some kind of annuity that they have funded. If Bush had been capable of putting more than three words together, he might have been able to address ways to fix the system. Instead, his ham-handed, ineloquent, unpersuasive attempts were doomed from the minute he opened his mouth on the topic.

At least Obama straightforwardly talks about the fact that I'll have to pay more. Less BS than is typical, that.

Social security is NOT and never has been intended as a pension plan. Ever. It was a depression era concept, to have a "floor", some level of basic subsistance for those who might not have that otherwise. "Social" being the key word. Not personal pension plan. I refer to the AMT because, again, it's remarkable to me that all the "conservatives" think that we all pay lower taxes when Republicans are in office. Thanks to W, and the effect of his tax plan, I now pay a GREAT deal more than as a percentage than I did before. So the AMT is not at all connected to social security but I think all of you fiscal conservatives need to stop drinking the Republican kool-aid.

Social security is NOT and never has been intended as a pension plan. Ever. It was a depression era concept, to have a "floor", some basic level of subsistance for those who might not have that otherwise and would wind up in bread lines. "Social" being the key word. Not a personal pension plan. I referred to the AMT because, again, it's remarkable to me that all the "conservatives" think that we all pay lower taxes when Republicans are in office. Thanks to W, and the effects of his tax plan, I now pay a GREAT deal more as a percentage of my income than I did before. So the AMT is not at all connected to social security, I'm just pointing out the fact that all the "tax and spend" rhetoric is just hype and the real numbers for many people pan out quite differently. The IRS looks at my deductions ( no kids FYI, just two mortgages and two sets of real estate taxes and says - sorry, you're deducting too much so you can't include those so pay the full amount instead). I think all of you fiscal conservatives need to stop drinking the Republican kool-aid. Under the R plan I pay more, get less, am not likely to ever see social security benefits, will continue to pay for a civil war in Irag and watch Afghanistan fall back to the Taliban and Al Queda (the guy we did NOT get), hope I never lose my job and my really expensive medical insurance plan, and get to have the Federal Government trample my civil liberties, tell me I can marry my a person of the same sex, tap my phone....on and on. I am so appalled I have gotten citizenship and a passport to an EU country just in case and I know a number of people who are doing the same.

A guy walks into a bar and announces "I have a great new bagpipe joke!" The bartender says "Let me stop you right there laddie. You see that karate black belt hanging up behind the bar? That's mine. An' I play the pipes. See that ornery lookin' fella in the Harley t-shirt? That's my brother - and he plays the pipes. And that big ugly old guy in the corner with the big scar across his face? That's my Paw - and he’s a piper. Now, are you sure you wanna tell that joke in here?"

"Hell, no. Not if I'm gonna hafta explain it three times!"

Apologies for the odd double post. Hit post before I finished. It's late, had a client meeting with two glasses of wine. I don't think the dem side is a picnic, FYI. It's pretty much all a crapfest I just don't get the people who have lived through the past 8 years and think this is actually good for anyone other than oil companies or Enron or Blackwater or Haliburton... the Dems stink too but the 90's were certainly better than the past 8 years.

cro,

Please re-read. I wrote 1969 and Johnson.

Two separate references:

The AMT was originated in the Johnson Administration sometime during '68.

It was signed into law in 69'.

(I sometimes don't wish to bore those who know or those who don't care with every detail. But it is painfully clear that the former rules the day.)

really, gurl, I don't know where to start. So I am going to back away slowly, with out eye-contact or any sudden moves...

Blaming the AMT on the Republicans is a hoot!

gurl, paying AMT means that you are "paying your fair share" -- it also means that you are "rich" in the eyes of politicians.

Well --- W's tax "break" plan set the AMT in motion for me and a number of people I know. Rich? No. Fair share? No. Mostly people in states with high real estate taxes are affected now. If you live in the NYC area, and you earn just enough to be able to afford an entry level home in Montclair, but earn more than your counterparts in Boise, and because you are trying to deduct so much more(like your mortgage interest and real estate taxes) you get to pay more. Read up on AMT - what was considered "rich" in '69...would anyone here think someone earning $150k a year in the NY metro area is rich?

jerseygurl, you rightfully disagree with being characterized as rich, but that's what the (primarily Democratic) politicians call people in your tax bracket with your two houses and tons of deductions -- that's why they steal it back from you to pay for their projects. Our own senators call people in the AMT tax range "the wealthy".

You're kidding yourself if you think the Bush tax cuts increased your tax burden -- just wait until the "rollback" is allowed to happen (honest politicians would call it raising taxes, but that's just too direct).

You don't have to tell me to read up on AMT -- I've been subjected to its fairness plenty of times.

Your "counterparts" in Boise are getting dollars from your pocket because of our ineffective New Jersey politicians.

prof, please re-read your own post.
"it goes back to 1969 and Johnson".
If you want to be understood, write clearly. You've been told this innumerable times.

Oh, and prof. Those of us who "know and care" would also realize that "Ford, I believe" would not have signed it into law in 1969.
Unless that too was a "separate reference".

So the qualifier of "I believe" means what?

Forgive me, all. I know you expect more. The prof made a mistake.

But I'm glad, cro, that you hurried to do your own research here.

So while I know this thread leaves you no place to tell us of your worldly exploits, I'm glad you were able to google AMT.

But you were probably defending the Suez in 1969.

No prof, I wasn't defending the Suez in 1969. Actually, I don't believe it was under attack in 1969. The gaps in your history extend outside the borders of your own country, I see.
Fortunately, I did not have to google in order to know which president served in the White House in a year during which I was alive. Maybe you weren't, in which case you are forgiven.
I know that ignorance of history is almost a given with our young folks. I can't hold you at fault for the sad fact that you did not receive the information to which you were entitled. Now that you're happily employed at an institution of higher learning, perhaps you can take the opportunity to toddle down to the History Dept. and ask Prof. Caruthers for a quick refresher.
Would that your "worldly exploits" had consisted of some time in the library. Or even just paying attention to the world away from your five blinking MACS.

Come on, people, you're arguing over minutiae but overlooking the point that Adlai Stevenson once made: history is much more interesting when you make it up!

Why, just recently I had post-WWII Germans conducting an insurgency against the Allies until someone had to pop in to mess things up with facts...

Perhaps your googling hand slipped re: 1969.

Try Yahoo.

No matter, son. No matter.

You continue to be exposed here.

(Although you did qualify it with, "I believe.")

Perhaps you can redirect the conversation back to what you learned in Catholic school from the nuns...

Or the time you spent in the mines...

Or your vast knowledge of race and busing in Boston...

Back to the AMT....

Right you are, appletony. And I bear no ill will towards our clownish prof. As a matter of fact I, like Yeats, (who served alongside me at the Suez in 1969), "would sooner give the laurel to vigorous errors than to any orthodoxy not inspired."

Oh my goodness. I'm exposed!
I'd best don my fake mustache.
Meanwhile prof, your obsession with me has now officially entered the realm of creepy.

Yo cro (beware: more creepiness to follow),

I'm feeling sad, what with our usual antics.

So, on this Valentine's day, the prof will be about the love.

Therefore, disregard all my earlier posts (as it relates to you, not so for jersey).

And no this, You Complete Me!

Really, without you here, I'm lost trolling through youtube for fun.

Alone.

Consider this a poke, dear friend.

Yeats was in the IAF?

prof, maybe you meant the IDF (Israel Defense Forces). Or maybe you DID mean the IAF (Irish Air Force??).
Could not have been the latter. We only just recently purchsed our first plane -- a Piper Cub tricked out with an air to ground spear.
I am feeling the love, though. And it feels good. Without you, hell, it would be ME who is the biggest pompous ass I know.
So, you DO fill a need.

(Thanks for the roses. How'd you know yellow was my favorite?)

It's Valentine's day, could we have a little more love, guys? Some sharing of chocolate truffles at least in verbal tenor?

Prof, you might also try reading some Yeats. The one about the airman dying young, for example. And a good one-volume history of the 20th century. The one by Paul Johnson, say. What subject do you "teach," come to think of it? Shop? Mechanical drawing? Auto repair?