Azalin

I'm completely unaware of any such alternative offerings either here in Austin, or that may have existed in the Williamsville area back in my school days. many children (myself included) never had any exposure to things like instruction in art, symphonic orchestra, and the like outside of school. I did play football in little league, so I would agree that some sports are accessable to children. if such things could be moved outside of school and wouldn't cost a small fortune to enroll each child, then I'd be all for it. I won't try to make any arguements that schools should suffer academically in favor of purpetuating elective courses, but the training I received from grade school through high school in both art and music were huge in helping to mold me into the person I am today, and I shudder to think of what my life would be like without having been properly educated in either field.

music, art, wood & metal shop, home ec, theater, etc. all of them have value, and although they should for the most part remain as electives, should still be accessable to those students that wish to pursue them. I hate seeing any of them eliminated.

I would have thought that homosexuals would have been naturally drawn to the navy, since that's where the nation keeps all it's seamen.

while he usually annoys me, this bit with Michael Moore confronting the WBC is quite outstanding:

actually, he could get free condoms by submitting any document stating either residence, or engaging in commerce within the state of California, since people there can now legally identify themselves as whatever gender they believe themselves to be, regardless of physical characteristics. so, if he claims to be a female in a male body who only wants to do the responsible thing by way of contraception (and thereby avoiding a costly and potentially taxpayer-funded termination of accidental pregnancy) then he can indeed be awarded a big ol' heap of rubbers, for to deny him would be to discriminate against his perceived gender. it's all there in the ACA. I believe it was somewhere around page 13,000.

good riddance. now, how many more of them are still alive?

I'm not familiar with Kaiser, but I assume they are a privately owned, or publically owned non-governmental company, that you can choose or not choose to do busness with? most of the complaints about the ACA stem from the fact (which has been proven many, many times over) that the federal government is incapable of doing anything efficiently, and in the view of many, is wildly overstepping it's authority in mandating something like this. from my point of view, arguing the nuts & bolts of government mandated health care is a waste of time, because they're not supposed to be involved in this kind of thing in the first place, and arguing about it implies credibility to their doing so.

sure, if it's a noose.

wasn't Bernard Goldberg's book 'Bias' about his time at CBS news?

you presume that he understands basic principles of business.

there is a difference between ignorance and admitting to not being certain about something. I asked a question. I didn't try to deflect with some ridiculous BS statement I pulled out my hindquarters. you should try to do the same thing on the off-chance that some tiny bit of factual information may accidentally seep through that prolifically thick skull of yours. now, show me the numbers you're talking about or shut the F! up.

I guess it counts as an economic agenda for someone without a legitimate economic policy.

I don't know offhand. are you talking 2008 or 2012? probably about the same percentage as voted for GW Bush....twice.

it's like I said in my post #355: ' the latino voting bloc tends to be pretty conservative in many ways - almost all are catholic, many very staunch in their belief that abortion is wrong and very strong on the importance of family.' Austin has a lot of the characature leftists that would be likely to support Davis, but the bulk of democrats in the state tend to be social conservatives, at least with regard to abortion and family. the national media seem to think that Texas is on the verge of becoming a 'purple' state, but the truth is that Texas is still far from it.

but it would be unethical for democrat lawmakers to turn their backs on the teachers unions after all the hard work on the picket lines and generous contributions to their reelection campaigns. the left already has minorites all neatly wrapped up as groups of dedicated supporters, so there's no need to continue pandering to them with things like improved education for their children. besides, what do they need to learn anything for? the dems will always be there to provide them with food stamps, a welfare check, and a continuing vigil against the inherent racism of the right.

I remember when GW Bush won the governorship of Texas, he had the support of a large segment of the Texas latino vote. it was the same when he was reelected for a second term. his social policies as governor weren't really much different than they were after he became president. the latino voting bloc tends to be pretty conservative in many ways - almost all are catholic, many very staunch in their belief that abortion is wrong and very strong on the importance of family. the immigration issue is where the republicans continue to lose latino support. personally I don't see how the republicans stand much of a chance by fighting that issue in the manner that they do. if I was a republican and I was running for national office, I would do my best to emphasize that it is not truly an issue about immigration - if it were, we would have advocates for eurpoeans, africans, and asians pushing the issue as well. I would turn the discussion of immigration reform to include people from across the globe who wish to come here and not make it a latino/hispanic issue at all. another thing that doesn't seem to be being taken into account is the fact that all the american states that border Mexico used to be mexican territory and are populated with latinos descended from indigineous mexicans. right or wrong, many in the latino community view the republican stance on illegal immigration to be an intentional impediment to people of the same culture, ethnicity, and family ties to live and move freely amongst themselves. I see the immigration issue as it stands as being both a losing prospect for republicans and an exclusionary one by the democrats. if the republicans were smart, they would find a way to shift the word 'immigration' to mean what it means in the true sense - as applying to people from all over the world who wish to be a part of the united states, like it used to mean. then we could have an honest discussion about streamlining the immigration process for everyone and nobody would be treated unfairly.

I understand that not many people know (or even seem to care) about such invasions to their privacy, but that's supposedly what the ACLU and other watchdog groups are for - protecting the citizenry from such things. the new technology offers new ways to invade our privacy, but they don't offer greater justification for doing so.....just because pretty much everybody has a webcam built into their computers & other devices, doesn't give Yahoo! the right to turn them on us & provide the info to the NSA.

present company excepted, of course.

another drive-by perpetrated by the feces-chucking primate.

it's never too late to stand up for what you believe in. this is true, but should we also expect to be placed under the scrutiny of authorities just for leaving our homes and going about our business? I don't expect privacy while in a crowd of people....that's not what I'm talking about. of course you can't have privacy when you're clumped into a mass of other people, but should we expect to be under the surveillance of law enforcement for doing so?

“Without a smart fix, the ACA will heighten the inequality that the Administration seeks to reduce … We cannot sit idly by as the politicians carve up our health plans while they carve out exceptions for themselves and every special interest feeding at the trough in Washington.” in other words, 'we want an exemtion as well'. so, everyone who actually supported the ACA is being exempted from it?

when he talks about government job creation, he means things like the 16,000 new IRS positions dedicated to enforcement and collections relating to Obamacare. you know, REAL jobs....not like those undependable opportunities generated by a thriving private sector.