1 - 10 Next
In response to:

Great Moments in Government Schooling

Dan1580 Wrote: Dec 05, 2014 2:45 PM
We have to make every child college ready, if we don't then we have to admit that some children are smarter than other children, and that no program, regardless of how much money is spent, can ensure equal outcomes.
Really good point. Who thinks that they're going to have a good outcome by fighting 5 armed police officers? I think we have too many laws and I'm concerned about militarization of police forces, however, if you are going to assign officers the responsibility of "Law Enforcement", then they need latitude to enforce the law. How effective is it to put police on the streets and limit their response protocols to "stop, or I'll tell you to stop again, unless you really don't want to stop, then there's nothing I can do about it". That said, I'm all for not enforcing victimless crimes, if this guy wants to sell untaxed cigarettes, the only victim would be the government, which shouldn't spend thousands of dollars more than they'd collect in taxes to enforce their will.
In response to:

Student Bullies Trump 1st Amendment

Dan1580 Wrote: Sep 23, 2014 5:04 PM
This decision is consistent with case law, the courts have found that the interest of a school to maintain order is sufficient to restrict forms of expression the schools feel will be disruptive. While TH readers might think it's appropriate for a school to prohibit students from using foul language when responding to a teacher, the same principle has been extended to allow schools to regulate student dress, speech, and conduct. It's been 20 years since I took an undergrad law course, but I recall the standard is if the school asserts a rule is necessary to maintain order and safety, it's allowed and trumps any rights the students might have in other settings. Locker searches, no prayer, restrictions on political expression, they're all allowed at a public school. The solution is the same as EVERY OTHER POLITICAL ISSUE, vote out the School Board, Legislature, Congress, President.
Perhaps if there weren't so many laws to enforce, police intervention would only be appropriate for violent crimes. Then we would have a higher degree of certainty that the use of force was justified.
I can think of one example where the unarmed win the battle. Liberals, unarmed with facts, spout dogma which the uninformed believe. Hopefully, while liberals seem to be winning battles, hopefully they won't win the war.
Democrats support higher minimum wage laws because that means the government collects more payroll taxes.
It doesn't look like Ms. Poppins took into account the free room and board, and why is her employer to blame for her standard of living, she listed several taxes that she had to pay out of her check....if she didn't have so many taxes wouldn't she have more money? However, it's obvious that the left thinks the only way to sustain their vote buying spending is to deflate the currency to postpone the debt time bomb.
In response to:

CPAC 2014: Focus On The Big Three Things

Dan1580 Wrote: Mar 06, 2014 3:16 PM
Guess what has two thumbs and won't vote for Jeb Bush? 200+ million Americans
Of course progressives want higher minimum wage laws, it makes it look like they care, however, their real intent is to stave off bankruptcy. As wages rise, tax receipts to the treasury rise, social security, medicare, and income taxes collected rise along with the minimum wage, the progressives are advocating policy that allows them to continue to grow government.
49 slaves, take that! I hereby issue an updated emancipation proclamation! I free myself from liberal BS logic like this survey, their definition of slave is way off, the $1.00 per day electronics assemblers earn is China is a better living than they could earn otherwise, many are grateful to have those jobs. Shut-up hippies.
1 - 10 Next