1 - 10 Next
Good. It's good to see some popular support for ideas and policies that will help secure good educations for the most vulnerable of our children. Will the Democrat candidates also show support for the charter school, or would that threaten their teacher union campaign donations?
In response to:

3 Mistakes Hannah Graham Made

Weegie2 Wrote: Sep 24, 2014 7:38 AM
You can whine all you want about it being unacceptable, but the fact is that it does happen no matter how angry you get. A reasonable person (i.e. NOT you) would understand that taking actions to reduce the risk of something bad happening is simply common sense. Again, you lock your car and remove the keys from the ignition when you park it. Why? Perhaps you should stop doing that and just rant about how unacceptable it is that people steal cars.
In response to:

3 Mistakes Hannah Graham Made

Weegie2 Wrote: Sep 24, 2014 7:35 AM
This is not "blame the victim." One must be dense to not understand the difference between doing stupid things that increase the likelihood of something bad happening to you and blaming the victim. Do you roll up your windows and lock your car when you park it? Why? Why don't you leave it unlocked, with the keys in the ignition and your valuables in plain sight? Are you saying that if you want to avoid having your possessions and car stolen, you should lock it and hide your valuables? That's the same thing he's saying about this girl. Another example, let me say that I (a white person) go walking through a black part of the city, alone and at night, wearing a hood and shouting out how much I hate N*****rs. If something happens to me because of that, should I consider that my actions might have increased my chances of something bad happening, or should I claim that I have every right to do what I did and that we should fight against the racism and criminality of the people who attacked me? You would blame the victim in that case, I bet.
As awful as Obama is, there is no factual basis for the claim that he was not qualified per the Constitution to be president. Stop this insanity, please!
Voting for ideological purity is nice and all, as long as one accepts the result will always be the other party retaining control of the government. The all-or-nothing, scorched earth politics might make people feel good for being holier-than-thou in their political orthodoxy, but when the result is continued domination by Democrats and liberals in seats of power, it appears to me to be counterproductive. Because having Obama for 4 more years was *so* much better than having Romney.
Not sure why Boehner and the GOP leadership are so concerned with the optics of the public caucus leadership votes, since nobody but them and a few Washington press corps people actually remember it after a couple of weeks. Because it doesn't really matter how many votes the Speaker is elected by - that person remains Speaker for 2 years regardless. And while I appreciate the sentiment that after the decision is made in the internal caucus elections, it looks better that all party members support the candidate elected behind closed doors, I don't see the benefit of having this massive retaliation nuclear option against one's own party because the presumptive Speaker-elect might feel some embarrassment. After all, I didn't even remember anything about the last Speaker election except who won. Mr. Boehner, please stop being as thin-skinned and petulant as our president. Man up, ferchrissake.
In response to:

Where Have All the Allies Gone?

Weegie2 Wrote: Sep 18, 2014 7:09 AM
It's appalling that there doesn't appear to be any communication between Obama, Kerry, Hagel or the JCS, especially when one considers that all should have been involved in the development of the "strategy", and once that strategy was fixed, all should have been on message. Of course, prior to that, it appears that Hagel and Obama were not attending the same intelligence briefings, if Obama had been attending them at all. Considering that JV teams don't pose "serious threats." Again we see the indecisiveness and poor judgment that has been the Obama hallmark. And we again see the slapdash policy-making - a policy that was needed and should have been in full swing 6-8 months ago - where the administration is more concerned about launching speeches than about taking actions. Making claims about a coalition where the members have barely even been asked, where nothing has actually been promised, and where there is no understanding of the support or commitment of the US, is not "smart power" - it is simply incompetence. We deserve better.
Holder is a disgrace, a disgustingly corrupt piece of excrement. Hey, Liberals and Democrats - this kind of collusion to hinder justice is not acceptable from any government official - it is especially egregious when it is the AG who is obstructing justice. Spin this one, Obama knee-padders.
EOs are how a president manages, organizes and sets policies for the executive branch. There is nothing wrong with them, until they are misused to do things they were not intended to do, such as create, change or delete laws that are within the purview of Congress.
I'm not familiar with how student groups operate. Who chooses the leaders of these groups? Is it the members? Can any student just walk in at leadership election time and vote? My bottom line question is: how probable or possible is it for a student group leader be chosen who holds views that are anathematic to the goals of the group? Can an opposition group get in the voting / selection and pick a leader that has nothing but contempt for that group? The point is whether removing the requirement from the group charter would have any real likelihood that a non-believer would gain leadership of a Christian group. Again, I don't know how they work.
1 - 10 Next