Books. Bikes. Boomsticks.
Vobis Non Me Dux.
Mitch has said over and over again that he promised his wife he wouldn't run for office again, and that includes the presidency. So unless there's some sort of public announcement that she changed her mind, I'll be very disappointed if he does run. The ability to keep one's word is a scale-independent variable.
Put me down as who does NOT consider Mitch 'My Man' and I've voted Repub more times than not. He is eviserating Indiana schools, but then he never sent HIS kids to public school did he? His 2,000 kids per high school is simply absurb and spells the demise of every rural school in this state as cuts off or reduces funding to less than a trickle.Definitely a politician who personifies 'smoke and mirrors'...All The Best,Frank W. James
I would have nothing against politicians cutting off money for schools if they reduced the amount paid in income tax the same amount. Since most parents are taxpayers, rather than retired people or minors, the money saved might be enough to send them to private school. Or, as some people I know did, they organized a "home school" program run by retired professional teachers who gave a damn about the kids they taught. Essentially a private school with almost no overhead, moving between several homes on rotation, with supplimental work done by the parents. I was informed by one of the parents, a very bright guy, that home schooled kids consistently score higher than public schooled kids. I checked the numbers on line, and it's true. If I were doing it again today, I might consider it.
Property taxes pay for schools in Indiana, Ed.
Who gives a damn about property rights? .. we are all communists now ... funny
NOW, we need a bill making those businesses who can prohibit employees from keeping a gun in their cars legally liable for the safety of all employees and visitors. This liability should extend to all businesses with "No Weapons Allowed" signs and all school corporations.
Anonymouse,"Who gives a damn about property rights?"Well, me for starters.But of course, your poorly-punctuated pusillanimous comment was just so much spitting in the wind and you won't stick around to discuss the issue.
How will this effect open carry? Like on your roof just in front of the sunroof. Or moon roof if you like to spotlight deer.
The subject was Mitch Daniels, a man who claims to have 'saved' jobs in Indiana when he has done nothing of the sort, but who has instead devastated public education in the state of Indiana with his completely clueless ideas.Next to my west place sits a 52 million dollar building that Daniels took credit for bringing to Indiana along with 400 'good paying' jobs. Except it was supposed to open in 2008 (that came and went), then 2009 (that came and went), then January 2010 (you guessed it, that has come and gone as well with no results). It sits empty.In the meantime he and the legislature under his guidance is driving school corporations, especially rural one, into bankruptcy. His policy is only give money to the schools that have 1,200 or more students. Our local public highschool which was consolidated in 1974 has just under 240 students and he punishes it through testing that forces teachers to focus on for 6 weeks prior (because their jobs literally depend on their students performance) while ignoring subject content the entire time. They just focus on studying for iStep and other mandated tests. It's a farce.While this sounds good to those who don't have a clue about public education today, the truth is taking money away from those schools where students do poorly on mandated testing just exacerbates the problem.The problem is not the schools, nor the teachers (although he has done NOTHING to eliminate the useless Tenure rule), but the fact that less than 30% of our families are traditional in make-up (you know Mom AND a Dad, both in the home whether working or unemployed).If the people who created you don't give a DAMN about you or anything you do, why would a student care about how they do on some silly required testing procedure?Try explaining that one to Mitch Daniels?The man is a clown.....of the worst order.All The Best,Frank W. James
"But of course, your poorly-punctuated pusillanimous comment was just so much spitting in the wind and you won't stick around to discuss the issue."Sorry if my syntax bugs you ;...? but please let go of the overworked and puerile figures of style ... unless, of course, you forever are a cocooned 16-year-old girl writing lousy poetry in the woods ... poor Tam! Is it frustrating being a well-read gal in the factory floor?"When routine bites hard,And ambitions are low.And resentment rides high,But emotions won't grow."There is no discussion of the issue. The issue is very simple: who owns the property sets up the rules; inside my property no guns other than my own. If you do not like the rule, go somewhere else.Pusillanimously and Opprobriously Yoursnom-de-rant
What happened to "Ditch Mitch"?He lost me almost immediately when he forced Daylight savings time on everyone. Of course now he's not my problem anymore, now I've got Gibbons up in Carson city to bitch about....
"What happened to "Ditch Mitch"?"In '08, despite Barry winning the state in a squeaker, Daniels handed Jill Long-Thompson a stomping that'll ensure her great great grandkids are born crosseyed.
"The issue is very simple: who owns the property sets up the rules"Are people who want to keep guns in their cars at work, even though their employers forbid it, "libertarians except for the cool stuff?"Or is this an example of what Professor Evan McKenzie calls "'repressive libertarianism"?
Anon1940,Well, that was my position for the longest time, too, but Kathy Jackson has argued me back off of it.Do libertarian principles suggest that the property owner may dictate what type of underwear visitors wear? Even though it's covered and never seen? If yes, why?
Tam,By "repressive libertarianism," I don't mean gun owners (including myself) who believe we should have the right to carry in places of business (either as a customer or employee). We're in the "libertarians except for the cool stuff" camp.I was referring to those that would restrict the right to carry. Or, as the source defines the term, a system "where certain people who call themselves libertarians invariably side with property owners who want to limit other people's liberties through the use of contract law. Property rights (usually held by somebody with a whole lot of economic clout) trump every other liberty."Any confusion is my fault. I should have been more clear about what I meant.As for your question about underwear, a propertyrian would say yes. It has been a moot point before, but the new full body scanners may make it economical and feasible for property owners to enforce their preferences.
My question is for Mr. Property Owner who is all indignent about employee guns, 'What does he have to say about Customers who have firarms in their vehicles when they come to order his products or inquire about same?'Does he run them off as well?All The Best,Frank W. James
Post a Comment