Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A brand new level of INSANITY

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #31
    Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
    It took you more than 24 hours to come up with this? This is the best you can do? You expected us to comment on events that weren't raised in this forum? Want me to comment on Ben Quayle too??? Want a 3 page analysis of Palin's constructive work over the past year as a PATRIOT blasting her PRESIDENT (with the only goal to be as destructive as possible) after she walked off her job in Alaska? YOU CHOSE to do this on a soccer forum. I missed the announcement that there was going to be a right-wing rally on T-S. That's the issue.

    Yeah, Romney's going to get slammed on health care when he's running as an ultra-right wing republican. Right. What, is Sarah going to paint him as a flaming liberal? To compare "Romneycare" with your insinuating usage of "Obamacare" shows that you are a pure ideologue with no intellect. Are you really able to be that dishonest even with yourself?

    Most of the hypocrites are on the left? OK, whatever your say.

    All you have demonstrated is that you are a bully, an enraged bully, and a racist bully. As another poster said, you may be part of a painful step backwards, but forward we will nevertheless go.
    Me a bully??? Takes one to know one.

    All you have demonstrated is what a hypocrite YOU are. Instead of saying this stuff is wrong no matter who is the target, you are off on a tangent again to avoid the real crux of the matter.

    Comment


      #32
      Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
      Me a bully??? Takes one to know one.

      All you have demonstrated is what a hypocrite YOU are. Instead of saying this stuff is wrong no matter who is the target, you are off on a tangent again to avoid the real crux of the matter.
      summer bottom feeders......scary thread.....run away, run away..............

      Comment


        #33
        Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
        Me a bully??? Takes one to know one.

        All you have demonstrated is what a hypocrite YOU are. Instead of saying this stuff is wrong no matter who is the target, you are off on a tangent again to avoid the real crux of the matter.
        Didn't I point out to you months ago on the politics thread that was closed that the picture you used is from Europe, not the US?

        I know you are tired of getting your behind kicked on the politics thread, but you should leave people alone in other threads.

        Comment


          #34
          Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
          Didn't I point out to you months ago on the politics thread that was closed that the picture you used is from Europe, not the US?

          I know you are tired of getting your behind kicked on the politics thread, but you should leave people alone in other threads.
          I just love making you look like the arrogant moron that you are.

          http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=621

          Comment


            #35
            Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
            I just love making you look like the arrogant moron that you are.

            http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=621
            The article posted numerous instances of threats against Bush being investigated. It claimed, but provided no evidence, that other threats were not investigated. The Secret Service may not have sent that memo to all the wingnuts.

            But here is one that really shows how aggressively anyone was manhandled who criticized Bush. Confiscating personal property of a 15 year old:

            http://www.seattlepi.com/local/170992_prosser28.html


            Wednesday, April 28, 2004

            Secret Service confiscates anti-Bush drawings by 15-year-old at Prosser High

            By D. PARVAZ AND KATHY GEORGE
            SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTERS

            A few political sketches took a 15-year-old Prosser boy from his art class to questioning by the Secret Service -- and thrust him into a debate over free speech.

            On Friday, the boy was questioned by the Secret Service after his art teacher turned in sketches by the boy featuring President Bush. In one, Bush's head was on a stake. In another, he was dressed as the devil, firing off rockets. The caption on one sketch read, "End the War -- on errorism."

            There were more sketches, including one of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution in flames. A family friend says the sketchbook has not been returned to the boy. His mother, who refused to comment yesterday, was given photocopies.

            "Ridiculous and kind of embarrassing," is how Tom Smith describes the situation at Prosser High School, where he attends school with the 15-year-old.

            "That was a constitutionally protected opinion, and I realize that schools do have to turn in kids that may be a threat, but he's not a threat," says Smith, 17, a junior at the Central Washington school. "He's friendly. I think he's like me; I try to be nice to everyone who's nice to me."

            But Prosser police Chief Win Taylor says the boy and his sketches were seen as "a threat against the president of the United States. And we notified the Secret Service because that's their bailiwick."

            He sees the situation as a clear-cut case.

            "First of all, the disturbing part was the extreme violence depicted in the pictures," said Taylor, who has seen the drawings. "We assume that he deliberately took an action of his own free will, which he reasonably should have known was against the code of conduct."

            When pressed as to whether he really thought the 15-year-old student had a plan to harm the president, Taylor said that as a child of the '60s, he understands dissent and protest. But times have changed.

            "We've been in a different ballgame because police were attacked after what happened in Columbine," Taylor said. "Since then, we've all been under the gun with all these mandated policies for school security plans. ... Now for whatever reason, it's 'Oh, we want you to use discretion again.' We can't win."

            Smith said he's spoken with the boy after he was questioned by the Secret Service and said he "didn't seem too freaked out, but (felt) like they're blowing this way out of proportion."

            Are violent sketches enough to get students in trouble?

            "Simply expressing controversial viewpoints in writing or in art shouldn't be enough for the student to face disciplinary action," said Doug Honig, spokesman for the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington. "Unless there's actual disruption in the educational process."

            Prosser High School Principal Kevin Lusk and Superintendent Ray Tolcacher did not return calls for comment. The extent of the disciplinary action faced by the student hasn't been announced, although Smith said the boy had to attend Saturday school.

            In the precedent-setting Supreme Court decision in the case of Tinker vs. Des Moines (School District) in 1969, the court decided that school administrators must be able to show "the existence of facts which might reasonably lead school officials to forecast substantial disruption" before taking disciplinary action against what a student expresses on school grounds. In that case, three students were suspended for wearing black armbands in protest against the U.S. government's actions in Vietnam.

            Honig points to recent cases in which school administrators and students have had very different ideas about what should be protected under the First Amendment.

            In February 2003, school officials at a Dearborn, Mich., high school ordered a 16-year-old student to either take off the shirt he was wearing (featuring the face of President Bush and the words "International Terrorist") or go home. The student, Bretton Barber, said the shirt expressed his objections to the war against Iraq and went home. The ACLU filed suit on his behalf and won.

            And in 1998, James La Vine, a student in Blaine, found himself in trouble after Blaine High School administrators found the imagery in one of his poems too violent. Taken in conjunction with minor infractions on his record, La Vine was expelled, but was later allowed to return to school.

            Simply being questioned by the Secret Service doesn't mean the student's legal rights were violated, Honig stresses. He couldn't confirm whether the boy's parents had contacted the ACLU, but said the organization is looking into the matter.

            Wallace Shields, special agent in charge of the Secret Service field office in Seattle, said yesterday he couldn't comment specifically on the Prosser investigation. But Shields said the agency responds to all reports of perceived threats to the president.

            "We investigate them all," he said, and may refer cases to federal prosecutors, local police or mental health authorities.

            The agency also plays a role in preventing school violence -- advising school, police and other local officials on how to prevent attacks on students or staff members.

            In 2002, after shootings at Columbine High School in Colorado and other schools, the Secret Service studied 37 incidents involving 41 students and found that the boys involved in the attacks usually told someone of their plans in advance. Also, they almost always had done something before the attack that worried an adult.

            The 2002 study concluded that targeted school violence is preventable, and recommended how to recognize and react to possible threats.

            Yesterday, Shields couldn't say whether the Prosser investigation stemmed from the agency's school protection mission or its primary mission of protecting the president.

            U.S. Rep. Doc Hastings, the Republican who represents Prosser, declined to comment on the propriety of the Secret Service questioning a high school student about his art work. "He's not in a position to make a judgment on this," said his spokeswoman, Jessica Gleason.

            Kirsten Anderson, owner of the Belltown art gallery Roq la Rue, is all too familiar with controversial art in this post-9/11 climate. Two years ago, Anderson's gallery featured a work by local artist Kurt Geissel. The piece featured a Bamiyan Buddha, like the ones destroyed by the Taliban in Afghanistan, carved into a Koran. It took weeks for the dust to settle from that piece.

            Regarding the Prosser situation, Anderson says, "I think that's completely bogus and fascist. I think that everyone is ultra, ultra paranoid these days, and there may be good reasons for that, but there's so many more tangible threats to the president and the government.

            "If they have the right to question a 15-year-old kid for a couple of drawings, then they can do anything. This whole thing is goofy and scary."

            This shows how aggressively Bush went after protesters, including children. You can keep posting articles that have made the rounds at the wingnut sites that CLAIM that threats against Bush were not investigated without offering any PROOF of the same, but that doesn't make it so. In fact, investigating 15 year olds and infiltrating peace-loving groups like the Quakers (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10454316/) was the reality of the protest-suppressing, free-speech inhibiting Bush administration.

            But I understand why your hate group and others have to downplay all of the threats to Obama by offering thinly sourced articles about threats against Bush.

            You know, another funny feature of a wingnut is total hypocrisy. Talk about Bush's impact on our financial situation and this wingnut starts whining that it is old news, Obama has been in office 19 moths and no comparisons with Bush are relevant anymore.

            Then the wingnut turns around and tries to draw a similar parallel, but I guess its ok since it is a wingnut-central approved talking point.

            I for one am happy to talk about the fact that the Secret Service and FBI aggressively investigated threats to Bush, as they should have, and people should be just as serious investigating the increased threats against Obama.

            In kind, perfectly relevant to also ask what the impact of Bush fiscal policies has had on our economy.

            Sorry wingnut...when the secret service confiscates pictures from 15 year olds, you will have a hard time convincing anyone that threats against Bush weren't taken seriously. Go back to your wingnut fantasy world.

            Comment


              #36
              Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
              The article posted numerous instances of threats against Bush being investigated. It claimed, but provided no evidence, that other threats were not investigated. The Secret Service may not have sent that memo to all the wingnuts.
              Huh??? You made a point - "Didn't I point out to you months ago on the politics thread that was closed that the picture you used is from Europe, not the US?" and then arrogantly went on about kicking my *** when it was yours that got kicked and proved what an arrogant fool you are. Now you want to make it an issue of Secret Security investigations???

              Gawd, you libtards just can't admit when you are wrong and like clockwork resort to diversionary tactics to screen that you are wrong. Doesn't the same old, same old get tiring? I know I'm getting pretty tired of it.


              Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
              But here is one that really shows how aggressively anyone was manhandled who criticized Bush. Confiscating personal property of a 15 year old:

              http://www.seattlepi.com/local/170992_prosser28.html




              This shows how aggressively Bush went after protesters, including children.
              A fifteen year old is but an innocent child, huh? Do you know the average age of a school shooter is 16. That's AVERAGE age. Klebold and Harris were 17 and 18. That would mean some pretty young kids have been pulling the trigger for it to average out to 16.

              Did you even read the whole article you posted?

              "First of all, the disturbing part was the extreme violence depicted in the pictures," said Taylor, who has seen the drawings. "We assume that he deliberately took an action of his own free will, which he reasonably should have known was against the code of conduct."

              When pressed as to whether he really thought the 15-year-old student had a plan to harm the president, Taylor said that as a child of the '60s, he understands dissent and protest. But times have changed.

              "We've been in a different ballgame because police were attacked after what happened in Columbine," Taylor said. "Since then, we've all been under the gun with all these mandated policies for school security plans. ... Now for whatever reason, it's 'Oh, we want you to use discretion again.' We can't win."


              "Simply being questioned by the Secret Service doesn't mean the student's legal rights were violated"


              "Wallace Shields, special agent in charge of the Secret Service field office in Seattle, said yesterday he couldn't comment specifically on the Prosser investigation. But Shields said the agency responds to all reports of perceived threats to the president.

              "We investigate them all," he said, and may refer cases to federal prosecutors, local police or mental health authorities.

              The agency also plays a role in preventing school violence -- advising school, police and other local officials on how to prevent attacks on students or staff members.

              In 2002, after shootings at Columbine High School in Colorado and other schools, the Secret Service studied 37 incidents involving 41 students and found that the boys involved in the attacks usually told someone of their plans in advance. Also, they almost always had done something before the attack that worried an adult."



              I like this paragraph especially.

              "In February 2003, school officials at a Dearborn, Mich., high school ordered a 16-year-old student to either take off the shirt he was wearing (featuring the face of President Bush and the words "International Terrorist") or go home. The student, Bretton Barber, said the shirt expressed his objections to the war against Iraq and went home. The ACLU filed suit on his behalf and won."

              Do you think the ACLU is out in California right now defending those kids that got thrown out of school for wearing the American flag on Cinco de Mayo?



              Originally posted by Unregistered View Post


              You can keep posting articles that have made the rounds at the wingnut sites
              You mean like you do with the stuff that comes out of libtard sites, don't you? I tend to use information that comes from as much mainstream media as I can find, Associated Press, CBS, Washington Post even if it has a lliberal slant. In fact, I even use media outside the country like the Daily Mail, and The Telegraph. BBC is a great source for getting a perspective that no one in the US presents.


              Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
              that CLAIM that threats against Bush were not investigated without offering any PROOF of the same, but that doesn't make it so.
              Huh??? There you go again, making stuff up. The only point I've made is that there have been plenty of threats against Bush coming from the left and yet none of them ever get mentioned in places like the Huffington Post, MSNBC or even in the liberal leaning mainstream media and because they don't you libtards like to pretend they never happened. Or, as if it's something new directed only at Obama because he's black (half black if you want to be accurate).


              Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
              In fact, investigating 15 year olds and infiltrating peace-loving groups like the Quakers (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10454316/) was the reality of the protest-suppressing, free-speech inhibiting Bush administration.

              But I understand why your hate group and others have to downplay all of the threats to Obama by offering thinly sourced articles about threats against Bush.

              You know, another funny feature of a wingnut is total hypocrisy. Talk about Bush's impact on our financial situation and this wingnut starts whining that it is old news, Obama has been in office 19 moths and no comparisons with Bush are relevant anymore.

              Then the wingnut turns around and tries to draw a similar parallel, but I guess its ok since it is a wingnut-central approved talking point.

              I for one am happy to talk about the fact that the Secret Service and FBI aggressively investigated threats to Bush, as they should have, and people should be just as serious investigating the increased threats against Obama.

              In kind, perfectly relevant to also ask what the impact of Bush fiscal policies has had on our economy.

              Sorry wingnut...when the secret service confiscates pictures from 15 year olds, you will have a hard time convincing anyone that threats against Bush weren't taken seriously. Go back to your wingnut fantasy world.

              Hey did you forget about the 12 year old girl dragged out of her classroom in handcuffs for doodling on her desk? How about the 7 year old suspended from school for bringing a Lego soldier with a gun to school. Now you tell me who looks more like a threat? And who looks more foolish? The Secret Security who has examined the psyche of adolesecent boys with a known propensity for violence? Or the liberal whack prinicpal that can't figure out a Lego gun doesn't shoot bullets and doodling on a desk is not something you call the janitor for, not the cops.

              But back to your point about the economy.

              Are you completely blind to what has been going on, how we got here and where we are headed? The buck stops with the president. Bush made mistakes, that's why a lot of independents turned away from his policies, but the rise in the deficit came under the watch of a Democratic Congress and the bursting of housing market can be directly attributed to the Democratic driven policies of Freddie and Fannie during the Bush years. How many times must that be said for you libtards to comprehend? There was also the issue of the rising cost of oil that had the whole economy shaking like a bowl of jello even before the housing bubble burst and Dems want to talk about cap and trade that will push those enegery costs up again? Now deficit has gone right through the roof under Obama's policies. If the BU professor is right, this country is already bankrupt. At the very least we are headed for a double dip recession and Obama's economic policies have done nothing to stop it, just as conservatives predicted they wouldn't. He's only postponed the inevitable. So ask yourself would it have been better to pull the band aid off all at once and be done with it or have done what Obama has done, pull it off sloooooowly and end up in the same place or worse because of the Democrats continued compulsion to spend money they don't have?

              Comment


                #37
                This is insane!

                Israel's Netanyahu Poised to Take Out Iran's Nuclear Sites
                Monday, August 16, 2010 09:43 AM
                By: George Will

                When Israel declared independence in 1948, it had to use mostly small arms to repel attacks by six Arab armies. Today, however, Israel feels, and is, more menaced than it was then, or has been since. Hence the potentially world-shaking decision that will be made here, probably within two years.

                To understand the man who will make it, begin with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's belief that stopping Iran's nuclear weapons program is integral to stopping the worldwide campaign to reverse 1948. It is, he says, a campaign to "put the Jew back to the status of a being that couldn't defend himself — a perfect victim."

                Today's Middle East, he says, reflects two developments. One is the rise of Iran and militant Islam since the 1979 revolution, which led to al-Qaida, Hamas, and Hezbollah. The other development is the multiplying threat of missile warfare.

                Now Israel faces a third threat, the campaign to delegitimize it in order to extinguish its capacity for self-defense.

                After two uniquely perilous millennia for Jews, the creation of Israel meant, Netanyahu says, "the capacity for self-defense restored to the Jewish people." But note, he says, the reflexive worldwide chorus of condemnation when Israel responded with force to rocket barrages from Gaza and from southern Lebanon. There is, he believes, a crystallizing consensus that "Israel is not allowed to exercise self-defense."

                From 1948 through 1973, he says, enemies tried to "eliminate Israel by conventional warfare." Having failed, they tried to demoralize and paralyze Israel with suicide bombers and other terrorism. "We put up a fence," Netanyahu says. "Now they have rockets that go over the fence." Israel's military, which has stressed offense as a solution to the nation's lack of strategic depth, now stresses missile defense.

                That, however, cannot cope with Hamas' tens of thousands of rockets in Gaza and Hezbollah's 60,000 in southern Lebanon. There, U.N. resolution 1701, promulgated after the 2006 war, has been predictably farcical. This was supposed to inhibit the arming of Hezbollah and prevent its operations south of the Litani River.

                Since 2006, Hezbollah's rocket arsenal has tripled and its operations mock resolution 1701. Hezbollah, learning from Hamas, now places rockets near schools and hospitals, certain that Israel's next response to indiscriminate aggression will turn the world media into a force multiplier for the aggressors.

                Any Israeli self-defense anywhere is automatically judged "disproportionate." Israel knows this as it watches Iran.

                Last year was Barack Obama's wasted year of "engaging" Iran. This led to sanctions that are unlikely to ever become sufficiently potent. With Russia, China, and Turkey being uncooperative, Iran is hardly "isolated." The Iranian democracy movement probably cannot quickly achieve regime change. It took Solidarity 10 years to do so against a Polish regime less brutally repressive than Iran's.

                Hillary Clinton's words about extending a "defense umbrella over the region" imply, to Israelis, fatalism about a nuclear Iran. As for deterrence working against a nuclear-armed regime steeped in an ideology of martyrdom, remember: In 1980, Ayatollah Khomeini said: "We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world."

                You say, that was long ago? Israel says, this is now:

                Iran's supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, says Israel is the "enemy of God." Tehran, proclaiming that the Holocaust never happened and vowing to complete it, sent an ambassador to Poland who in 2006 wanted to measure the ovens at Auschwitz to prove them inadequate for genocide. Iran's former president, Hashemi Rafsanjani, who is considered a "moderate" by people for whom believing is seeing, calls Israel a "one-bomb country."

                If Iran were to "wipe the Zionist entity off the map," as it vows to do, it would, Netanyahu believes, achieve a regional "dominance not seen since Alexander." Netanyahu does not say Israel will, if necessary, act alone to prevent this. Or does he?

                He says CIA Director Leon Panetta is "about right" in saying Iran can be a nuclear power in two years. He says 1948 meant this: "For the first time in 2,000 years, a sovereign Jewish people could defend itself against attack." And he says: "The tragic history of the powerlessness of our people explains why the Jewish people need a sovereign power of self-defense." If Israel strikes Iran, the world will not be able to say it was not warned.


                George Will's e-mail address is georgewill@washpost.com.

                Comment


                  #38
                  Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                  Huh??? You made a point - "Didn't I point out to you months ago on the politics thread that was closed that the picture you used is from Europe, not the US?" and then arrogantly went on about kicking my *** when it was yours that got kicked and proved what an arrogant fool you are. Now you want to make it an issue of Secret Security investigations???

                  Gawd, you libtards just can't admit when you are wrong and like clockwork resort to diversionary tactics to screen that you are wrong. Doesn't the same old, same old get tiring? I know I'm getting pretty tired of it....
                  My point was that threats to Bush were investigated, even those coming from children. As they should have been, contrary to the rightard claim that threats to Bush weren't taken seriously but things are different with Obama.




                  I like this paragraph especially.

                  "In February 2003, school officials at a Dearborn, Mich., high school ordered a 16-year-old student to either take off the shirt he was wearing (featuring the face of President Bush and the words "International Terrorist") or go home. The student, Bretton Barber, said the shirt expressed his objections to the war against Iraq and went home. The ACLU filed suit on his behalf and won."
                  What is your problem here? I thought you teabaggers were all about 1st amendment rights. Or do you only care about preserving your 1st amendement rights to your movement's hate speech and everyone else can go without?




                  I tend to use information that comes from as much mainstream media as I can find, Associated Press, CBS, Washington Post even if it has a lliberal slant. In fact, I even use media outside the country like the Daily Mail, and The Telegraph. BBC is a great source for getting a perspective that no one in the US presents.
                  Like the one I pointed out on the other thread that you got from any one of a number of wingnut sites.



                  Huh??? There you go again, making stuff up. The only point I've made is that there have been plenty of threats against Bush coming from the left and yet none of them ever get mentioned in places like the Huffington Post, MSNBC or even in the liberal leaning mainstream media and because they don't you libtards like to pretend they never happened. Or, as if it's something new directed only at Obama because he's black (half black if you want to be accurate).
                  You guys really can't get over the fact he is black.....always making a point about it...I wonder why? Culdn't be racism, could it?




                  Hey did you forget about the 12 year old girl dragged out of her classroom in handcuffs for doodling on her desk? How about the 7 year old suspended from school for bringing a Lego soldier with a gun to school. Now you tell me who looks more like a threat? And who looks more foolish? The Secret Security who has examined the psyche of adolesecent boys with a known propensity for violence? Or the liberal whack prinicpal that can't figure out a Lego gun doesn't shoot bullets and doodling on a desk is not something you call the janitor for, not the cops.
                  So your opinion is that adolecent boys have a propensity for violence. What a broad brush you paint with wingnut.
                  But back to your point about the economy.

                  Are you completely blind to what has been going on, how we got here and where we are headed? The buck stops with the president. Bush made mistakes, that's why a lot of independents turned away from his policies, but the rise in the deficit came under the watch of a Democratic Congress and the bursting of housing market can be directly attributed to the Democratic driven policies of Freddie and Fannie during the Bush years. How many times must that be said for you libtards to comprehend? There was also the issue of the rising cost of oil that had the whole economy shaking like a bowl of jello even before the housing bubble burst and Dems want to talk about cap and trade that will push those enegery costs up again? Now deficit has gone right through the roof under Obama's policies. If the BU professor is right, this country is already bankrupt. At the very least we are headed for a double dip recession and Obama's economic policies have done nothing to stop it, just as conservatives predicted they wouldn't. He's only postponed the inevitable. So ask yourself would it have been better to pull the band aid off all at once and be done with it or have done what Obama has done, pull it off sloooooowly and end up in the same place or worse because of the Democrats continued compulsion to spend money they don't have?
                  I have one word in response to your attempt to paint things that went on under Bush as the fault of the Democratic congress.

                  VETO.

                  Why didn't he use it? Too cowardly? Or maybe because in contrast to your claim, Bush wears a lot more of this around his neck than you allow.


                  I wanted to ask - is school starting for you soon? Will you still be coming out to play once classes start again?

                  Comment


                    #39
                    Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                    My point was that threats to Bush were investigated, even those coming from children. As they should have been, contrary to the rightard claim that threats to Bush weren't taken seriously but things are different with Obama.






                    What is your problem here? I thought you teabaggers were all about 1st amendment rights. Or do you only care about preserving your 1st amendement rights to your movement's hate speech and everyone else can go without?






                    Like the one I pointed out on the other thread that you got from any one of a number of wingnut sites.





                    You guys really can't get over the fact he is black.....always making a point about it...I wonder why? Culdn't be racism, could it?






                    So your opinion is that adolecent boys have a propensity for violence. What a broad brush you paint with wingnut.


                    I have one word in response to your attempt to paint things that went on under Bush as the fault of the Democratic congress.

                    VETO.

                    Why didn't he use it? Too cowardly? Or maybe because in contrast to your claim, Bush wears a lot more of this around his neck than you allow.


                    I wanted to ask - is school starting for you soon? Will you still be coming out to play once classes start again?
                    Man, that was one pathetic and distorted response. Is that really the best you could come back with?

                    Comment


                      #40
                      This is insane!!!

                      LA unveils $578M school, costliest in the nation
                      By CHRISTINA HOAG, Associated Press Writer Christina Hoag, Associated Press Writer
                      Sun Aug 22, 2:46 pm ET

                      LOS ANGELES – Next month's opening of the Robert F. Kennedy Community Schools will be auspicious for a reason other than its both storied and infamous history as the former Ambassador Hotel, where the Democratic presidential contender was assassinated in 1968.

                      With an eye-popping price tag of $578 million, it will mark the inauguration of the nation's most expensive public school ever.

                      The K-12 complex to house 4,200 students has raised eyebrows across the country as the creme de la creme of "Taj Mahal" schools, $100 million-plus campuses boasting both architectural panache and deluxe amenities.

                      "There's no more of the old, windowless cinderblock schools of the '70s where kids felt, 'Oh, back to jail,'" said Joe Agron, editor-in-chief of American School & University, a school construction journal. "Districts want a showpiece for the community, a really impressive environment for learning."

                      Not everyone is similarly enthusiastic.

                      "New buildings are nice, but when they're run by the same people who've given us a 50 percent dropout rate, they're a big waste of taxpayer money," said Ben Austin, executive director of Parent Revolution who sits on the California Board of Education. "Parents aren't fooled."

                      At RFK, the features include fine art murals and a marble memorial depicting the complex's namesake, a manicured public park, a state-of-the-art swimming pool and preservation of pieces of the original hotel.

                      Partly by circumstance and partly by design, the Los Angeles Unified School District has emerged as the mogul of Taj Mahals.

                      The RFK complex follows on the heels of two other LA schools among the nation's costliest — the $377 million Edward R. Roybal Learning Center, which opened in 2008, and the $232 million Visual and Performing Arts High School that debuted in 2009.

                      The pricey schools have come during a sensitive period for the nation's second-largest school system: Nearly 3,000 teachers have been laid off over the past two years, the academic year and programs have been slashed. The district also faces a $640 million shortfall and some schools persistently rank among the nation's lowest performing.

                      Los Angeles is not alone, however, in building big. Some of the most expensive schools are found in low-performing districts — New York City has a $235 million campus; New Brunswick, N.J., opened a $185 million high school in January.

                      Nationwide, dozens of schools have surpassed $100 million with amenities including atriums, orchestra-pit auditoriums, food courts, even bamboo nooks. The extravagance has led some to wonder where the line should be drawn and whether more money should be spent on teachers.

                      "Architects and builders love this stuff, but there's a little bit of a lack of discipline here," said Mary Filardo, executive director of 21st Century School Fund in Washington, D.C., which promotes urban school construction.

                      Some experts say it's not all flourish and that children learn better in more pleasant surroundings.

                      Many schools incorporate large windows to let in natural light and install energy-saving equipment, spending more upfront for reduced bills later. Cafeterias are getting fancier, seeking to retain students who venture off campus. Wireless Internet and other high-tech installations have become standard.

                      Some pricey projects have had political fallout.

                      After a firestorm over the $197.5 million Newton North High School in Massachusetts, Mayor David Cohen chose not to seek re-election and state Treasurer Timothy Cahill reined in school construction spending.

                      Now to get state funds for a new school, districts must choose among three designs costing $49 million to $64 million. "We had to bring some sense to this process," Cahill said.

                      In Los Angeles, officials say the new schools were planned long before the economic pinch and are funded by $20 billion in voter-approved bonds that do not affect the educational budget.

                      Still, even LA Unified Superintendent Ramon Cortines derided some of the extravagance, noting that donations should have been sought to fund the RFK project's talking benches commemorating the site's history.

                      Connie Rice, member of the district's School Bond Oversight Committee, noted the megaschools are only three of 131 that the district is building to alleviate overcrowding. RFK "is an amazing facility," she said. "Is it a lot of money? Yes. We didn't like it, but they got it done."

                      Construction costs at LA Unified are the second-highest in the nation — something the district blames on skyrocketing material and land prices, rigorous seismic codes and unionized labor.

                      James Sohn, the district's chief facilities executive, said the megaschools were built when global raw material shortages caused costs to skyrocket to an average of $600 per square foot in 2006 and 2007 — triple the price from 2002. Costs have since eased to $350 per square foot.

                      On top of that, each project had its own cost drivers.

                      After buildings were demolished at the site of the 2,400-student Roybal school, contaminated soil, a methane gas field and an earthquake fault were discovered. A gas mitigation system cost $17 million.

                      Over 20 years, the project grew to encompass a dance studio with cushioned maple floors, a modern kitchen with a restaurant-quality pizza oven, a 10-acre park and teacher planning rooms between classrooms.

                      The 1,700-student arts school was designed as a landmark, with a stainless steel, postmodernistic tower encircled by a rollercoaster-like swirl, while the RFK site involved 15 years of litigation with historic preservationists and Donald Trump, who wanted to build the world's tallest building there. The wrangling cost $9 million.

                      Methane mitigation cost $33 million and the district paid another $15 million preserving historic features, including a wall of the famed Cocoanut Grove nightclub and turning the Paul Williams-designed coffee shop into a faculty lounge.

                      Sohn said LA Unified has reached the end of its Taj Mahal building spree. "These are definitely the exceptions," he said. "We don't anticipate schools costing hundreds of millions of dollars in the future."

                      Comment


                        #41
                        LA unveils $578M school, costliest in the nation
                        This is not insane, it's obscene.

                        Californians wonder why their state is going broke???

                        Comment


                          #42
                          Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                          Most Americans want Obamacare repealed now that they are realizing just how much it's really going to cost middle class Americans. Current Rasmussen poll says 55% for repeal, 38% oppose repeal.
                          Most Americans actually want lots of government, but they don't want to pay for it. Reminds me of spoiled teenagers. Parents are SUCH jerks, they are just plain dumb, they don't understand anything, they just need to GO AWAY! Except, of course, when it comes to filling the fridge and paying for a nice home, and buying lots of cool clothing, and sending their kids to a good school, and letting them borrow the car or driving them all over the place, and then there's the vacations, the endless needs that are really just wants, blah, blah, blah.

                          Same with Americans. They hate government and can't stand the idea of Uncle Sam getting in their face, except when it comes to food safety, drug safety, having police and firefighters there when you need them, and, oh yes, the air and water need to be clean, the public schools need to be top drawer, those pot holes need to be filled, the court system can't be corrupt, the press has to be free to rant and rave, the sick and elderly have to be cared for, the laws have to be enforced, and it goes on and on. But we hate government. Right. Spoiled, clueless teenagers.

                          You hate government? Want to be free of it for a while? Try Mexico. I don't think they've really got one at this point. Feel free to bring that gun you love so much. Be a real eye opener how little good it will do you.

                          Comment


                            #43
                            Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                            Most Americans actually want lots of government, but they don't want to pay for it. Reminds me of spoiled teenagers. Parents are SUCH jerks, they are just plain dumb, they don't understand anything, they just need to GO AWAY! Except, of course, when it comes to filling the fridge and paying for a nice home, and buying lots of cool clothing, and sending their kids to a good school, and letting them borrow the car or driving them all over the place, and then there's the vacations, the endless needs that are really just wants, blah, blah, blah.

                            Same with Americans. They hate government and can't stand the idea of Uncle Sam getting in their face, except when it comes to food safety, drug safety, having police and firefighters there when you need them, and, oh yes, the air and water need to be clean, the public schools need to be top drawer, those pot holes need to be filled, the court system can't be corrupt, the press has to be free to rant and rave, the sick and elderly have to be cared for, the laws have to be enforced, and it goes on and on. But we hate government. Right. Spoiled, clueless teenagers.

                            You hate government? Want to be free of it for a while? Try Mexico. I don't think they've really got one at this point. Feel free to bring that gun you love so much. Be a real eye opener how little good it will do you.
                            Good post butmight I suggest that if they hate their taxes more than they love their guns, then Saudi Arabia might make an excellent choice rather than Mexico. The Saudis have no income tax.

                            Comment


                              #44
                              Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                              Good post butmight I suggest that if they hate their taxes more than they love their guns, then Saudi Arabia might make an excellent choice rather than Mexico. The Saudis have no income tax.
                              No religious freedom in Saudi, I'm afraid.

                              If you want the government to take care of you and pay huge amounts in taxes for that care, move to Europe.

                              Comment


                                #45
                                Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                                Get a grip you nutcase. When you turn 65 will you refuse Medicare? The US is the only modern country in the world without government sponsered health care for all its citizens. Most American want it. Only the health care industry, millionaires, and nutcase Republicans are against it.
                                Of course most Americans want it - people are selfish and want other people's money. 90% of Americans will support the notion that the "rich" should pay as long as "rich" is defined to be those with more money than they think they will realistically be able to earn in their lifetimes -- i.e, as long as they are not defined to be the "rich."

                                I want you to buy me a private jet. Will you do it? Of course, not. Nor will you pay for other people's health care. You will just insist that people who are more productive than you pay for it. Typical liberal scum - patting yourself on the back for voting to take other people's money and imposing burdens on others.

                                Comment

                                Previously entered content was automatically saved. Restore or Discard.
                                Auto-Saved
                                x
                                Insert: Thumbnail Small Medium Large Fullsize Remove  
                                x
                                Working...
                                X