I did the same thing and graduated in 2010. Lived on my own for 3 of the years.

Getting the government out of loans does not mean there will be no student loans. What it means is that private loans will be issued which will look much more at if the student has the ability to pay the loan back.

Right now we give students loans regardless of what their gpa is and what field they're in, which is a huge factor on whether or not they'll be able to pay the loan back. We've created this massive demand for college, but without students being restricted to what they can afford with their savings, the universities aren't concerned with price control. So, they focus on providing the biggest features to the school like 24 hour fitness centers and deluxe dorm accommodations. Things that have nothing to do with the cost of education. The cost of education is rising very appropriately with the rate of inflation. The rate of tuition is not. That means the schools are spending the money on other things.

The massive increase in the cost of education is nothing but the result of government making loans super easy and accessible. It's the exact same thing that happened in the housing market. Government should get out of loans, allow private businesses to offer much stricter loans based on field of study and student performance, AND stop telling everyone to go to 4 year schools. I believe everyone should get an education, but we're ending up with generations of bachelor's in psychology and english who can't find jobs, when if they had just gone to a 2-year technical school, they could be earning more money and be less in debt.

WITHOUT government subsidization, you'd see schools focusing on how to provide cheaper education. Which means more online services, more telecommuting, better IT infrastructure, and more high tech jobs. But schools aren't focused on cutting costs. They're focused on getting big amenities to attract more students.

You sound like Jay Carney http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6bgwZGZiIo

It is often decades before something is ruled unconstitutional by the supreme court. The executive and legislative branches have often done things that it knew were unconstitutional with the knowledge that the checks against them were purely reactionary and delayed. This mentality of "act now and let the lawyers sort it out later" plagues washington.

Just because congress authorizes something doesn't mean it's legal. That's the thing about being a constitutional republic. You don't get to do whatever the fuck you want. The power is not unlimited.

And what proof is there of any of that? His father was actually trying to work with the ACLU to get his name cleared when this administration shut down their request. When asked for proof of the governments claims in a recent press briefing, the white house officials said they're not going to give any proof. The only evidence we have is that the white house said it's so. They say he's linked to attacks but provide no evidence, no judicial oversight, nothing. Just take their word for it.

As far as not declaring war since 1942, I think it's absolutely ridiculous that we haven't and we need to return to the more proper channels.

How is our current foreign policy not imperialistic?

I really don't doubt this person was guilty, but when you let the people carrying out this decide who is and who isn't guilty and worthy of death then you lose any chance for oversight and restraint. It is especially important in situations like this where we have very large and ambiguous groups that we enter with great caution and have checks and balances on the those in the armed forces. If I was confident that this person and only this person or only the ones that we could be 100% sure of guilt were being attacked, then I would be much less willing to oppose, but we can't be and I don't trust the same people that told us that Iraq was producing chemical and nuclear weapons to be making decisions about guilt and innocence. When you're looking for terrorists and criminals, you are more likely to assume guilt than innocence. This is why we have trials and juries.

A formal declaration of war is important for the authorization of extended use of armed forces and it is very and extremely important that we not enter into combat without going through the proper channels. The founders saw very accurately that it is often in the executive branch's best interest to engage in war and expand the military power, and it is for that very reason that the power to declare war was given to congress. We of course can defend ourselves, but anytime there is to be extended or non-emergency combat, it is important that congress debate the merits of the war and authorize the use of force.

Things Ron Paul could get done that Obama promised:
End the wars
Stop DEA overriding state drug laws
Increased transparency
Shutting down of Guantanimo bay.
Changing the heads of Government organizations to reflect policy that does not overstep the authority of the executive branch
Downsizing the military

Things Ron Paul could not accomplish in office:
Ending the EPA, Dept of Ed, FDA, etc.
Putting us back on the gold standard

The things that Paul could accomplish in office are way more important to me than being afraid of the things that he could never accomplish in office.

During a declared war? No, but that's not what we have here. When it comes to government, semantics and procedures matter, because without binding government to go through the proper channels, then there are no checks on it's power. If we were at declared war with Yemen and this was an attack on US individuals helping Yemen, then this would be legitimate.

Came here to say this. It's amazing what our government decides it can get away with. Once we allow it to have the power to do this for someone who was most certainly guilty, we have given it the power to do this with anyone else it decides is guilty enough. It's very dangerous territory that we need to retreat from. End American imperialism. It's time we got rid of Obushma.

Adding an amendment does not mean it's been passed and is in effect. If this were true, then we would have gotten rid of the patriot act, withdrawn from foreign deployment, made smoking illegal, beefed up the patriot act, and given every person in america free tacos and jailtime. Here is the current status: http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/bills/112/s1151

No, I mean job offers. I'm not including those emails. Granted, I play the field a lot and am very active in the start-up community, but I constantly have to turn down real and full fledged offers.

Maybe weekly is a slightly exaggerated, but no, I mean job offers. Granted, I market myself constantly and play the field a lot, but I see a lot of opportunity out there. If someone can't find a CS job in the US, it's because either A, they're not looking in the right places, or B, thy have no idea how to market themselves.

I get job offers weekly that offer to pay me ~$60/hr throughout the U.S.. Seriously, I can throw a dart at the map and find a job. I am a recent graduate of 2010. I had a job 2 weeks before graduating, and I was by no means an outperforming student. 2.7 GPA.