Previous 21 - 30 Next
"You can't make people sign up for a health care plan and then not have a doctor," Wanna bet lady? Obama has a phone and a pen.
He SHOULD have been convicted of civil liberties abuses after he forcefully deprived the citizens of his city of their Constitutional right to keep and bear arms during one of the most chaotic, disastrous events in decades. Took their guns and left them helpless. Try him for treason.
Zero-information voters spoon fed by low-information reporters. What could possibly go wrong?
There's not a lib alive who understands history. If even half of them did, we wouldn't be revisiting this devastating abomination called Keynesian economics.
"I created a national emergency and now I need MORE of your tax money to feed, clothe, house and fund... errrr... I mean, DEPORT THESE PEOPLE! Yeah. That."
Idiots. Darwin strikes again.
Cops have to gear up to move on something like this - put on vests, break out the assault weapons, etc. Doesn't surprise me they took so long.
Just to clarify, I am absolutely in favor of having armed resources in schools. But I can't stand deception in any form, particularly when it comes to economics, so there you have it.
Not a good financial analysis guys. I'm sorry, but it's just not. This is typical of people who aren't properly trained in business/finance. You say you're comparing apples to apples but your "savings" figures are beyond deceptive. First of all you can't fabricate a lifetime cost. Just use per year costs. The problem with your analysis is that you're looking at cost for a SINGLE school that happened to be one of the slivers of a fraction ofd schools that have shootings. But if your goal is to have each and every school manned by 2 of these "resources", then the cost number you need to look at is: (number of US schools x cost of resources per year per school). Then calculate the AVERAGE cost of school shootings per year (use data from the last 10 years). You will quickly see that putting these resources in all schools is far from a money saver. It would be a massive cost, offset minutely by supposed savings from fewer and/or shorter school shootings. The ONLY savings you would see from this would be in childrens' lives. So stick with that angle. Because if you're looking at the pure economics of this it will NEVER make sense.
That said, good riddance to this political operator and her freakishly long face.
The messed up thing about the Times story is they focus on the horrible website, as opposed to the bill itself. Granted, the White House used the hundreds of millions they spoent on the website to pad the pockets of their cronies, but the fact is it's not the code that's killing us. That's all fixable. It's the 2000+ pages of unmitigated nation-killing law that's doing us in. No Republican shoud EVER even mention the stupid website during campaigns and debates. It's just a distraction from the REAL problems, and they are legion.
Previous 21 - 30 Next