At least as of last year, Rainforest Cafe isn't on the dining plan anyway.

Thirding Boma...actually my husband's favorite restaurant anywhere, not just at WDW. And it gets mixed reviews, but we really like 'Ohana, too. As far as non-ride stuff to see...definitely the Lion King show. Let's see, we really enjoyed the bird show at AK, too. how old are your kids?

oops--x-posted

There were six separate manned moon landings.

We just started Winterpromise's American Story and my history-phobic almost 7 year old is pretty into it so far (I scarred him with SOTW; he's very easily scarred). So far the crafts are mostly papercrafts (3-D maps with parts that move; tomorrow we're making paper tipis), but I think it will branch out at least to some extent pretty soon. There's also an optional extra crafts kit you can buy to go with it that looks more hard core (and comes with everything in the kit).

I tried to buy sunscreen at Wal Mart in early September last year. I live in Georgia. It was 90 degrees out at the time. "uhh, we don't have it right now. It's seasonal." yes. the season when you use sunscreen? is summer. which is RIGHT NOW (I said inside my head).

:iagree: We qualify for WIC (on my husband's public school teacher income. funny how many people who work for the government qualify for these programs, isn't it?) We did get it for awhile when he first started working, but when we decided we didn't need it anymore, we stopped getting it.

there's a difference between "health of the mother" and "life of the mother." I'd be interested in seeing which phrase was used in the line of questioning you're referencing.

you know, I absolutely agree with this--word for word, and, yet, somehow, I don't think we mean the same thing by it. How does that happen? :tongue_smilie:

Are you talking about WWII? I'm not criticizing our role in WWII. Sorry, I wasn't clear--I was evoking the "last good war" line of thinking.

Ahhh, for an international conflict with the relative moral clarity of WWII again....;)

nevermind

More socialist leaning than Obama, you mean, or, say, Teddy Roosevelt and Hillary Clinton and Bill O'Reilly? yes. He's also considered the third greatest president in American history, behind Lincoln and Washington, so I don't think the comparison is going to do much to hurt Obama.

Seriously, can we get back to talking about how Obama is just like FDR? Because that dude's on the dime.

I'm not sure exactly what would satisfy you that you've gotten "an answer." 1. There is no yes/no answer. He wants to cut taxes for some income brackets and raise them back to the levels they were at 8 years ago for others. 2. Umm, yes, taxes better our economy. Which taxes do you mean? I don't think you'll find any viable candidates who are against taxes. The questions are who to tax, how much, and how. If what you're asking is, "do you think a progressive tax system is better for the economy?" then my answer (and, once again, the answer of the vast majority of economists) is yes. 3. Well, I imagine I would say yes and you would say no. The last time we had a president who raised taxes, the resulting economy was very strong. The last time a president lowered taxes, the resulting economy was (is) very weak. However, you have rejected this answer, replacing it with a decidedly non-mainstream theory about the Great Depression. You do realize that you are actually the one proposing a radical economic theory here?

Now this is starting to remind me of when Hillary Clinton somehow got Bill O'Reilly to admit that he thinks Teddy Roosevelt was a socialist just like her. If you want to go on comparing Obama to FDR, I'm not going to stop you :lol:.

This should actually read "voted to stop Bush from using telecomm companies to illegally spy on Americans." you say potato....

I wouldn't call those making below $40,000 (at least not those with families) the middle class. And, obviously, I disagree that the rich "need" a tax cut. But I've always thought our society has a difficult time grasping the difference between want and need. I think it's complicated. Do you think Bush's tax cuts caused the recession? If a president's economic policy has nothing to do with the economy, then why are you worried about it? well, again, if you think like 81% of US economists, then you support the wealthy paying a higher percentage of their income in taxes than people who make less. I guess you mean that one has to think like the 19% of US economists who disagree.

okay, why not?--I'll bite. Obama is proposing a middle class tax cut and returning upper income taxes to the same levels that we had back when there was a balanced budget, a surplus, and a economy that didn't make 80% of the population think the country is headed in the wrong direction. I'm not an economist (though most economists are Democrats), but, yeah, I'll take my chances with the top 1% of American wage earners having to go back to the dark ages of 1999. Obviously, this is a fundamental difference between Republicans and Democrats--I don't know that anyone here is going to say anything new in a debate about the merits of a progressive tax structure that's been raging throughout much of the history of American politics. Here's a Wikipedia article on progressive taxation that runs through the pros and cons (and notes, incidentally, that 81% of US economists favor a progressive tax). I find the pros more convincing than the cons. The way you phrase your questions suggests that you somehow believe there's actually NOT an argument to be made for a progressive tax structure. As far as Democrats go, Obama is fairly centrist economically. He's certainly not the reincarnation of Huey Long. If Republicans really want to go back to campaigning on economic issues instead of social and foreign policy issues (Southern Strategy finally run its course, has it?), then that's fine with me, because they'll lose. I mean, they'll probably lose anyway this year. If the Republicans can't hold on to house seat in Mississippi, then they're not in good shape. Just noted that you're a McCain supporter. You are aware, then, that McCain spoke out strongly against the same Bush tax cuts that Obama has proposed rolling back? You know, until he decided to run for president.

yeah, among my "AP" friends that I made long before my kids were school-aged, many more than not have ended up homeschooling. I think it's also a regional thing, though. I never met anyone else who was planning to homeschool when we lived in Boston.

well, since I waited until page 19 to jump in, I feel like I'm just getting started :lol:

I agree with this. But the question was what kind of marriage should be legally recognized.

Really? You think the majority of the arguments here against legalizing gay marriage have left morality based on Christian principles out of the equation? The only one I can think of that's done that is the one about marriage based tax incentives being designed to encourage reproduction.

Just to be clear, I'm not arguing that gay marriage or divorce or anything else should be illegal because they're wrong from a Biblical standpoint. I have my own ideas about what is and isn't wrong from a Biblical standpoint (and I suspect they don't look the same as a lot of people's), but I'm not interested in making any laws based on them, only on governing my own behavior. But it's clear that quite a few people are arguing that way, and I'm genuinely curious what the rationale is behind legislating in accordance with the Bible when it comes to some aspects of love and marriage but not others (assuming, of course, that most people who are against gay marriage DON'T want to make divorce illegal. Maybe lots of them do). And I trust that everyone has checked their closets to make sure they don't own more than one coat?