In response to “A Kool compromise” by the Editorial Board:

I personally wish Doyle had kept the tax increases he wanted to do on hospitals and oil companies, instead of trying to impose yet another tax on cigarettes. I don’t even smoke, and having several friends who smoke, realize that an increased tax on tobacco isn’t an intelligent idea to do, especially since such a tax hike will backfire, and smokers will just cross state borders to purchase cigs in Iowa, Minnesota, and Illinois.

In response to “America fighting inner water wars” by Andrew Wagner:

If the water situation gets any worse south of here, then we should definitely consider that blue state secession idea. If we don’t, then what’s to stop those fat cats in Washington DC from forcing us to give away the Great Lakes? What will WE do for water? It only makes sense considering the Bush Administration is more concerned with fighting a war in a desert country than keeping the US from turning into a desert. Blue State Secession Now!

In response to “‘Islamo-Fascist’ moniker meaningless” by Michael Chricton:

You know, those Taliban guys in the soccer stadium were talking about the etymology of “fascism” RIGHT BEFORE they shot that woman in the head. Go back to sleep, little dhimmis.

It seems to me Mr Crichton, despite his tours in Iraq and his “intelligence” background, remains strangely ignorant of Islam. Please, Mr Crichton, stop treating it as just a religion when you, of all people, should know that Islam is so very much more. Islam is a religion, system of law and system of government.

In response to “Barrett: Free speech hypocrite” by Eric Schmidt:

Massengale should design a line of jumbo size feminine hygiene products and market them as The Barrett.

In response to “Horowitz raises important issues” by Sara Mikolajczak:

Though I think that the Horowitz event sparked some dialogue and I’m happy that the College Republicans were able to bring some ideas to the table, I thought Horowitz was a tasteless speaker. The university shouldn’t have to resort to bring speakers like him, whose knowledge of the Middle East and Islam are so visibly weak, to spark dialogue.

Of course, controversy drags in the publicity, but I think dialogue should begin in a more intellectual and academic way. As I stated above, it did get people talking, but Horowitz’s actual lecture and Q&A turned into a zoo and was the farthest thing from what the Herald called “the sifting and winnowing of ideas.”

Next time, I’d like to see the College Republicans try to bring intellectual arguments instead of controversy.

So let me get this right. In your opinion, SJ does stuff. That is pretty daring. I personally think this all is a bunch of malarkey! Give the seg fees back to the students!