How much does HASSAN COST ME in gas prices???
Not sure why you passed up this opportunity to post about gas prices.

Timothy:

There's far more evidence that "Centrist Democrats" exist than there is that "sensible Right-Wing blog posters" exist. The entire organization called the Democratic Leadership Council (now, Third-Way Democrats) is full of centrist and even right-leaning Democrats.

By the way, what's the latest gas price and how much is it going to devastate President Obama's re-election chances?

Sure there is such a thing.

Simplified:

Communist economy, mixed economy, free market economy.

Democrats are right in the middle of that spectrum. They openly call for a more-or-less mixed economy (in essence if not with such labeling) with more public control while Republicans openly call for a "free market"economy with minimal to zero public control. No one calls for communism.

Or else we can say that there are only Democrats and Republicans with no one in the middle, therefore there are no "centrists" and your distinction is meaningless.

So what do you think makes Democrats so radical (as your statement seems to indicate)?

Taxes? Taxes aren't radical. The Sixteenth Amendment is a hundred years old. Nothing radical there.

The welfare state? The American welfare state came into existence with the New Deal. Maybe there was some precedent, but I don't think so. The welfare state is decades old--three quarters of a century or thereabouts.

I'd say that protecting their gains is actually conservative and not radical, and all the charges and accusations that Republicans brought against them didn't persuade a national majority to overturn them. No, they voted for a president who said he'd tax the rich a little more, and would protect, defend and strengthen the welfare state.

With the public on Obama's side, then the Democrats are in the middle. And they gained seats in Congress too. That's because they're closer to the middle than Republicans.

Your pet issue is getting high on marijuana? Anything else is not socially liberal? Marijuana isn't my thing, but as far as I know, there are thousands of folks getting high off their rockers at this very moment- right here in New Hampshire. And you won't see them on the patch police log because they are not getting into trouble while high.

The vast majority of folks you see getting arrested are getting caught with marijuana on them/high on marijuana while doing something they are not supposed to be doing. In short, I don't think today's society really prevents anybody from getting high. And even if New Hampshire did legalize it, federal law isn't going to allow you to run around with your baggies. So the point is moot.

And as far as "pro-liberty Republicans," I assume you mean the "free staters?" What is pro-liberty about ruining the social safety net?

I doubt most Republicans support decriminalization of pot. Seriously doubt.

Look at opinion polls. Many more self-identified liberals support marijuana legalization than do self-identified conservatives, and if we look at the parties, we both know how they self-identify.

"Pro-liberty" Republican is a meaningless verbal construction. Liberty for the strong and not so much liberty for the weak. "The strong do what they will and the weak suffer what they must." That's the kind of liberty Republicans are really for.

Recent Public Policy Polling survey (late November to early December 2012):

45% of Democrats strongly feel marijuana should be legal. Only 22% of Republicans do. 26% of Independents do.

53% of Republicans strongly feel marijuana should be illegal. Only 24% of Democrats do. 33% of Independents do.

So "pro-liberty" Republicanism on the subject of marijuana is a crock.

I'm always annoyed when getting high is people's main issue. It's so petty. We have all of these government problems, and getting high is the issue of choice? Get a hobby, seriously.

Liberty is an extremely important issue. Mr. Walker has a point. Unfortunately its premise is wrong.

On the question of personal liberty and party affiliation, it doesn't break down the way he wants it to on the subject of marijuana, and opinion polling shows he's got it backwards.

It's funny how libertarians decide that they have more in common with Republicans than with Democrats. If the liberty issues are guns and money, go with the GOP. If it's sex and drugs, go with the Democrats. What we know, based on the choice of alliance, libertarians value guns and money over sex and drugs, and they'll table some issues before others. They want their greed and violence promoted before fun and love.

Then we wouldn't have a Legislature at all, wow, now that would be a welcome change!!!

I would definitely be in favor of increasing the cigarette tax, and maybe the gasoline tax, maybe people would smoke and drive less, and funnel the money to the University so they could learn more.

So your point is that college is so expensive because the "nanny state" steps in and makes it more expensive?

Look at the percentage of the population with college degrees before there was a nanny state and that same number after. You know what? You'll find that fewer people per thousand had college degrees without the nanny state.

But the GI Bill, where education was absolutely free, boosted that national economy $7 in increased GDP for every $1 spent on FREE education.

Did I mention that GI Bil education was free?

Joe-I think State University education (for some degrees) should be free to residents. The cost of higher education is ridiculous.IMO

Liberal arts, nursing, teaching, medical, pre-law degrees, for example, are beneficial to society in general. Simply require 2 years of community/government service in stated fields for a predetermined wage/stipend while attending. It seems like a no-brainier to me.

There have been studies that link increase in federal aid to colleges with increasing tuition costs.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303296604577454862437127618.html

The new study found that tuition at for-profit schools where students receive federal aid was 75% higher than at comparable for-profit schools whose students don't receive any aid. Aid-eligible institutions need to be accredited by the Education Department, licensed by the state and meet other standards such as a maximum rate of default by students on federal loans.

The tuition difference was roughly equal to the average $3,390 a year in federal grants that students in the first group received, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research working paper by Claudia Goldin of Harvard University and Stephanie Riegg Cellini of George Washington University

A spokesman for Education Secretary Arne Duncan said the administration believes there is a link between federal aid and tuition increases at for-profit schools, but that it sees no such tie with public and nonprofit schools

That's right, Stephen, before the nanny state stepped in there were far fewer college graduates. And since the nanny state stepped in the number of college grads far exceeds the number of new jobs available for college grads each year. The number of new jobs for college graduates has been running something like 40 percent lower than the number of new grads. So why are we trying to push college education for the masses?

It's impossible to have a logical conversation with someone who calls himself "Proud Conservative" but is too ashamed to post under his real name. You already know this conversation is going nowhere.

"I think State University education (for some degrees) should be free to residents. The cost of higher education is ridiculous."

And, how is that all going to be paid for? Think of a college education as an investment. The government educates you until you are 18 and after that, it is up to you to what you want to do and how to do it. Student loans are readily available; the government runs the student loan program. Make an investment in a degree in science, technology, engineering, math (STEM) or some other marketable degree and you'll be able to pay off the student loans with the increased lifetime income. Invest in a degree in philosophy, eastern studies, English, or some other low value degree and you may not be able to pay of those loans. I do not want my tax dollars subsidizing people making poor educational investment decisions...

@Seamus Carty - "I think State University education (for some degrees) should be free to residents."

There is NOTHING free! What is free for one resident has been confiscated from another. It will only be free, when those who advocate such a program belly up to the bar and write the checks by their own "free" will.

Free always sounds so nice, when you wrap it up in a "nanny state" gift box.

If publicly subsidized college education grows the economy the way the GI Bill did--and it did--then it doesn't matter whether the government is "nanny state" or not. It's good for the country, and that's what matters, not some petty morality play.

I'll take "nanny state" any day if it makes the country stronger like it did in the post-war years. Like it continues to do today. We've had the "nanny state" for decades now, and--guess what?--we're still the richest and mightiest nation on the planet.

Giving more American citizens world-class educations will work to ensure that we stay that way.

True to form, Stephen, when confronted with reality that conflicts with your poorly formed opinion, you throw out an insulting remark and run the other way.

If there's an avoider here, his name is unknown because he's afraid.

FTP-I agree. As I stated before, I think internships, jobs with stipends connected to education would be beneficial to society.

Orrysay otay "oarbay" ouyay.

I saw a cool bumpersticker yesterday:

DEMOCRATS 2012
Organize-Mobilize-Win