The question is not who's a better player; the question is whether a guy can attribute his failure to the "challenging" level when he played a lousy game regardless.

Fair enough, but to be clear, I'm not ragging on people for being debt-ridden; I'm ragging on people for blaming everyone else for their being debt-ridden. There is a difference.

No opportunities that other people didn't have, aside from a $30k gift.

Someone given 30k never has to make value judgments? That's not a strong position.

He's not that good.

I would know because by 30 I had saved multiple times that amount, so even if I had the debt, it would have been gone well before age 30.

Being debt free by 30 is different than never being in debt. Paying $30k between your mid-20s and 30 should not be too difficult to do. The problems are (1) people having a far greater amount of debt, or (2) not paying down debt when they have the opportunity.

$30k is a great advantage, but that amount of debt shouldn't prevent anybody from reaching the financial goals set out here.

UF from '05-'07.

I didn't have a free ride to law school. My parents paid my lawschool tuition (I paid my expenses there). But before you get excited as though your point has been proven; in-state tuition totaled about $30k (for all 3 years) at the time. A debt of about $30k, when you know you're going to be earning at least double…

I'm not unable to figure out how you can get into debt at a state school. I'm unable to figure out how someone cannot avoid a significant debt if they want to.

That's living it the average for the "typical" student in one of the most expensive cities in America. It's worth noting that the "typical" student, or even the typical American, overspends, and there are people who are well off who affect the spending averages.

I'm having trouble seeing how you went to state school and worked and still incurred significant loans. It doesn't seem to add up.

Two kids and one income prior to being debt free or having a career is a good decision.

I don't really see why student debt is an issue for so many people. Did it ever occur to you to go to state school, or to get a job during school, or actually choose a major that might help you find employment? Your predicament is a result of your decisions.

I know I'm late getting back, but I don't get on here often. I bring it back to the conjoined twin example. If A doesn't need B to survive, but B needs A to survive, can A obtain the separation surgery without B's consent? A great majority would answer that in the negative.

You think an unborn child is a parasite, while some of us think it's a person. That's fine. My analogy is still the more accurate analogy. If a fetus is a person, my analogy is the most on-point. If a fetus is a parasite, are both of our analogies are totally pointless?

Forced incubation? Was she raped?

I prefer a different analogy. Two conjoined twins. One can survive on his own. The other can't. Can one of them opt for separation surgery without the consent of the other?

I agree with you, but there's no point arguing with these people. They simply don't understand what the abortion issue is about: it's a question of whether a fetus is a person, not whether a woman has a right to destroy a person because it requires the temporary use of her body. It may be a little to complex for a lot…