1 - 10 Next
In response to:

The Common Core Conundrum

Larry1764 Wrote: 14 hours ago (10:33 AM)
I would like to see the "justification" a student would give for his answer that 2 + 2 = 5, which his teacher would be obliged to accept.
In response to:

An Embarrassing Visit

Larry1764 Wrote: Nov 01, 2013 12:20 PM
I just hope that during Maliki's visit, the president takes him to task seriously. Even as I write that sentence, I know how futile it will be (even if O does tell him off; "what difference does it make now?"). If even this doesn't touch O's conscience, God help us all.
David, I have admired your intelligent command of words in your several posts here, but when you said this: "all about the LEGALITY of the relationship and the benefits that we have piled on married couples through various government programs and laws over the years" it seems to me that you degenerated into a description of the benefits to married couples which doesn't actually give a correct image. There are usually good reasons why provisions are made, such as a tax break for businesses which establish in a community - because it is recognition that the continued presence of the business there will return to the community more than was "lost" by the local government in the tax break. The benefits of married couples is a way of saying "society in the long-run will benefit from the permanence of that relationship. At least most of the benefits by law were established in a day when marriages were more stable, more permanent. It is to the benefit of the state that such permanent relationships be encouraged. None of those benefits are given to couples who live together unmarried. I've heard enough arguing from homosexual activists, however, to know that you are wrong about the struggle ceasing if all the benefits were conferred on civil unions. While there may be some isolated cases where they would, but the movement in general will not stop until they get the legal status with the word 'marriage.'
In response to:

"Not One of Us"

Larry1764 Wrote: Oct 21, 2013 10:12 PM
Gee, RU, I missed almost everything on your list. ¿Can you give us references so that we can learn about them from reliable sources? Thanks.
In response to:

"Not One of Us"

Larry1764 Wrote: Oct 21, 2013 10:04 PM
Dear r, Still name-calling, and to boot wishing death on a person and family? I'm losing what little respect I still have for you. But, all will be forgiven when I see you cleaning up your language and your hatefulness.
In response to:

"Not One of Us"

Larry1764 Wrote: Oct 21, 2013 10:01 PM
John, your 4th word is offensive. You obviously don't care that you trivialize what many of us worship. Surely, you believe in common courtesy. Please, don't divide those of us who agree on so many things by obscenities against those of us who believe in God.
In response to:

"Not One of Us"

Larry1764 Wrote: Oct 21, 2013 9:49 PM
Dear r, ¿Are you always this offensive in everything you say? Stick to attacking ideas, please, and stop the name-calling. Your caustic comments obscure your ideas.
In response to:

"Not One of Us"

Larry1764 Wrote: Oct 21, 2013 9:42 PM
Dear r, He is wrong but instead of saying so in an intelligent and courteous way, you stoop to name-calling. And, anyway, he has every right to "be here" just as you and I do. I fear if you are on my side of any argument. Please, be more adult in your comments.
In response to:

"Not One of Us"

Larry1764 Wrote: Oct 21, 2013 9:40 PM
Sounds to me as if you're really afraid of Palin.
But, as SHE was the messenger from Obama, Issa gave her a message FOR Obama. That's fair enough. But, I do agree with you: he should have handed her the subpoena right then.
1 - 10 Next