Well, we can't have an educated or critically thinking populace. That education stuff is reserved for the elite. Besides, who would vote for Mr. Sweater Vest otherwise, duh. Hahahaaaaa!

Wanting to education the people of America is snobby? It's not like you have to go to Ivy League to get a good education - nothing wrong with wanting people to be more educated and I am not sure why you can't stop laughing!!! lol!!!

@Kristina: I couldn't agree more with your comment.

President Obama is a proponent of higher education (whether it be college, trade schools, technical school) being available and affordable to all who want it. He knows that it's the only way for America to be a strong nation and compete globally.

Rick Santorum's ridiculous comment must mean that he thinks America's success will be based on mediocrity. Uh, yeah, good luck with that! I cannot understand why anyone would want Santorum to be president.

Just because Santorum has an MBA and a JD doesn't mean everyone should. Here's what Santorum, RMoney, Snyder, McMillin and the rest of the extremists that have hijacked the Republican Party have in store for Michigan Schools and our Rochester kids.

Scientology and Nation of Islam take over Florida charter school: "Every teacher was given Learning How to Learn, an illustrated children's book and starter's guide to study tech that includes a biography of Hubbard. Teachers also were trained in Smart Way, a phonics program designed by Scientologists.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/education/controversy-over-scientology-influence-clouds-future-of-pinellas-charter/1217239

Kristina, would you have social pressure or "free" tuition coax everyone to go to college?

At least one prominent politician with college degrees credited himself publicly with having invented the Internet.

Another one built a political campaign on things no more substantive than "hope and change."

And there are some very influential and successful people on the American scene who have hardly spent a day on a college campus.

How about encouraging all Americans to fully exercize their human potential? That is problematical, however. It might encourage people to do other than what the State specifically wants them to do. Those who would use--and are using--the Constitution to fashion a different country are wary of "human potential" unless they have a control on it.

You missed a major point Sharon: The freedom for women (and our daughters) to have no control over their own bodies.

Alan, "the stupid people", and this comes from the same group that believes in "Cultural Conservatism", as I understand it... has to do with a narrow view of the American heritage and the American identity. Cultural conservatives reject "mutlticulturalism." They would like prayer in public schools. They don't like the idea of separation of church and state; they think its wrong and contrary to the tradition given to us by the "Founding Fathers." They would like creationism at least equally represented alongside evolution in public schools. They can choose to believe the world was created in six days, and believe man and Tyrannosaurs Rex were on the plant at the same time. That's whats great about America. "freedom of speech" but not in public school science class. Both Charles Darwin and Thomas Jeffersons are getting thrown under the bus lately... They would like flag burning to be a crime. They are in favor making English the official national language, and sex is only for making babes... boring.* And so on and so forth.

Then this begs the question why do "some" in the Republican party want to shut out so many "sane" Americans out of their party? It's to bad Abraham Lincoln isn't around, I wonder what his opinion would be?

note: technology will solve the worlds language barriers... besides I personally don't under stand all the paranoia, English is the international language of money. 

*remember the Bob Dole, Viagra commercials guess it takes 4 hours to make a baby.

The stupid people as opposed to the "dangerously stupid people"?

I agree. This man is such a hypocrite, I seriously can't even take it anymore. I have now turned on all of the elite RIGHT wing media now, constantly promoting the good points of Santorum (I personally don't see any) and tearing Mitt Romney to shreds. It's sad, I used to get a kick out of listening to Rush Limbaugh, even agreeing with him at times, but now I can't listen to any of them: Limbaugh (both of them, Beck, Hannity, Ingraham, William Krystal, etc. Now I understand why the women are all going democrat. I'm holding out for a Mitt Romney win, but there are so many forces against him, right wing and left wing elite media, that if he loses, I will have to cast my vote for Obama because I can't take Santorum telling me how to live my personal life. Romney is the candidate who will be a wonderful president. Let's hope that the wonderful voters of Michigan will hand Mitt a decisive win tomorrow!

I would be willing to bet that Santorum applied to Harvard, but didn't get in.

I would bet that Obama didn't even have to complete a full application to get into Harvard. "Affirmative Action," ya know.

Be mindful, also, that we have yet to see anything published about Obama's academic record or even anything he has written pertaining to his career in law. A "professor of Constitutional law" without any written record?

Ms Fucinari, what have you to say about this?

Mr. Lambert, If you took the time to research and read, you would have no problem finding academic records for Mr. Obama. You don't understand what the Harvard application process entails or what the standards are for admission. It is not simply academic. My suspicion is that you simply parrot what others have told you and think that is truth. By the way, leave your hate and racism at the door. We're not interested.

Jan, first let me note that I am not a liberal. I did vote for Obama, and I will almost certainly not be voting for him again. However, the baseless and ignorant comments go both ways. What debt, precisely, has Obama accumulated since he was voted into office? You realize, of course, that the vast majority of debt that the country takes on come from projects and budgets that are controlled by persons who are NOT the president, right? This includes democrats, republicans, and independents in the house, senate, and other governmental agencies. Blaming the man in the oval office for the entirety of any debt (and this extends to W. as well) shows ignorance of how our system of government operates (and fails to operate, as the case may be). You realize, I assume, that there are committees, sub-committees, oversight committees that deal with budgets and approve or disapprove spending?

Lastly, take into consideration how American citizens are failing - everywhere from civic-mindedness to expectations of entitlement. http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-07-11/news/30013193_1_budget-deficit-government-spending-tax-collections is an interesting (and, I believe, objective look at this issue). Since you castigate "liberal posters," it can only be assumed that you are "conservative." The conservative movement, at least within the confines of the republican party has no great desire to employ liberties in this country either. A wealth shift is not an economy booster.

Jan, Obama inherited a war & the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression - none of which were his fault.
I am very curious to know exactly what assaults occurred against the Constitution because of Obama's actions - can you please provide examples?
Indeed, from what I remember of the past decade (or more) in politics, we lost much more freedom and liberty when gwb was in office. The Patriot Act was not only an affront to our freedom and liberty, it was a win for the terrorists. Any time we give up our constitutional rights because politicians create fear in our hearts, we lose. Our constitutional rights are not contingent on our state of war or peace. And please, make no mistake, Santorum is nothing if not a fear monger, and this is not just coming from me - plenty of Conservative pundits and policymakers have noted this, including Karl Rove.

However, if all the pennies that were spent on wars in the 90's and 2000's, were laid end to end, what would happen to the national debt? Anyone remember the "WMD"s?

So, it was okay for President Clinton to bomb Iraq in 1998. Even Dems voted for Afghanistan and Iraq, so it's hard to claim a high moral ground there either. I find it odd that the anti-war movement has significantly died down since President Obama took office. And, nobody seems to have problems w/ the fact that we supported going into Libya (and too many people enjoyed seeing the pictures of his dead body on television) and Uganda.

The message a lot of us have gotten is that Dems are only anti-war when the President is a Republican.

Obviously, a lot of people don't want to acknowledge the NDAA was signed into law by President Obama. Designating the US a military zone and allowing the military to capture and jail US citizens without cause or due process isn't what I'd call freedom. That piece of legislation was passed around Christmas time 2010. The vote on it wasn't even close. It passed with large majorities in the House and Senate. And, it needs to be noted that one of the main sponsors in the Senate was our very own Sen. Carl Levin (who, ironically, also issued statements stating a belief that there were WMDs in Iraq). This idea that Dems hold any high moral ground when it comes to war and civil liberties is suspect, at best, and hypocritical, at worst.

Jo, Who's claiming a high moral ground? I certainly didn't. Nor did I ever say that the bombings in 1998 were ok. All I did was point out that, in terms of the economy, Obama inherited from gwb the war in Iraq and the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.
I never made any pro or anti-war statements either. It seems that trying to turn this conversation into one about the "hypocrisy of the anti-war Dems" is a bald attempt to deflect from the fact that Obama keeps getting blamed for the economic situation that he inherited from gwb.
I agree that the most recent version of the NDAA, which codified the indefinite detention of terror suspects without due process among other things, is terrible. It is an affront to our freedom. I don't deny that, nor does any single human rights activist that I know. We fought against it, and sadly we lost. We will continue to fight against it, and hopefully one day it will be overturned. So I fail to see any hypocrisy here.
Still, I can just picture how Obama would have been portrayed, this election year, had he not signed it - "weak on terror," and a "terrorist sympathizer." It was a typical narrative in 2008, so why should this year be any different? Even after he got Osama, the right couldn't even give him credit. That, however, does reek of hypocrisy.

That Business Insider link provided by Jesse Williams is a "must read". A lot of people on the left and right want to cast blame. And a lot of those same people, left and yes, those on the right, are always happy getting their free lunch from the government. And those same people, a lot of them, are posting here. Granted, the Business Insider author, Henry Blodget, has some "insider trading" issues of his own, no doubt he knows the game pretty well.

A short note to conservative posters here. Please don't repeat right wing talking points. If you have any evidence to support your claims, link them. Otherwise, you might want to try getting information from some place that isn't Fox News or Rush Limbaugh.

So you are suggesting that anyone that doesn't weak a white collar has their hand out? That's how it sounds. BTW, my dad was blue collar, and he never took a dime from anyone either.

No. Not necessarily. Think guys who design transmissions at GM, beancounters at Halliburton and Chrysler, personnel managers at local community colleges, fellas who were in the US Senate that moved on to K Street. They know who they are.

Bigotry. Not enough knowledge to be ashamed.

My tax dollars support these people directly or indirectly whether they want believe it or not. I'm generally fine with that. The hypocrisy they harbor. No.

Here's not leaving well enough alone. Check this out: http://www.alternet.org/visions/154338/Ayn_Rand_Worshippers_Should_Face_Facts:_Blue_States_Are_the_Providers,_Red_States_Are_the_Parasites/?page=entire

Here's a moment of hilarity.
http://motherjones.com/media/2012/03/mark-fiore-cartoon-2012-election-gop-primary-race