cmorg

Love Family Guy.

If you'd like, though I am unclear of the rules of this particular game.

I guess that it supposed to be a heart, but it really looks like a butt.

In that case . . . Flush the toilet

Here's three more: fish castle arbor This is fun!

But this idea of throwing money at a failing institution is so new - and unproven - we need to see how it works out.

But are we not entitled to our guilty pleasures, even if it happens to be poking a hornet's nest? I say we are. And I do not use the ignore button - mainly because I am lazy . . . and that's just one more thing.

I will tell you that it hasn't happened before under our current system of govt. And I thought that was the basis of this discussion, whether our govt. should be entrusted with the power to kill? And I say: only with a proper system of public accountability (which is what we have, such as it is). If the discussion has changed to "can we trust zealots to write and enforce our laws?", then I am on board with you.

Yeah, there are zealots that want extremes, but thankfully, all we do is guided by our Constitution. But I'll tell you what, I'll see your Old Testament Laws and raise you Hammurabi's Code: From: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/hamcode.asp My point is valid: society must have laws to function, and our elected leaders are empowered to enforce the laws, renedr judgement as to whether a law has been broken, and then (upon recommendation of a jury of "equals") carry out punishment for the violation. Your point, that zealots want to influence govt. and it is not safe

Well, some of you may like what I say . . . many of you probably don't. Regardless, I like this place (for the most part) and I think that we have fun while "discussing" some issues. I also like that all of us don't always agree on everything. And in a weird way, I enjoy seeing what type of long, drawn-out, nonsensical response pubby posts to defend liberalism.

An interesting thing about Pcom is how this thread started and what is has become. It's a good thing.

A union and the union of states that form our Republic are two entirely different things.

The practice of tenure has no place in public schools. I like the quote "[there is]no dispute that there are a significant number of grossly ineffective teachers currently active in California classrooms." And I believe that to be true in many states/cities. The fact that CTA is going to appeal this ruling is not going to benefit them, nor will it change the facts that their system is flawed. If the idea of obtaining a protected position is what attracts a teacher, then maybe that should be your first clue that you don't want them.

I would give this a "like" if I was able.

FTR, I did not mean to suggest that all the problems here are because of one poster. I simply pointed out that the endless string of nonsensical and/or insulting topics hardly serves to draw people to the site. What those posts do is draw the criticism and ridicule they deserve, which in turns makes things worse. And yes, I know I have played my part in that. But to say he is not the cause of negativity and animosity is, at best, an uninformed opinion.

Great post! Thanks for sharing.

You may be right in a sense. Confrontational political postings are the bulk of what goes on here, but I doubt that they are what is killing the site. I contend that, if not for the political postings, there would be hardly any activity at all on any given day. A heated topic can be a good thing, even when it tends to devolve into something else. If there was a filter that restricted regular users to posting, say, one new topic in a 24hr period, that might go a long way to cleaning up the site. But if you are suggesting that the only way to save the site is through enhanced

This applies to individuals for the most part. The idea that it is better to try and fail, than to have never tried at all cannot apply to those we elect to govern us. A failure on their part once elected can cause problems for many people. Hell, look how things are since obama was elected. He tried, he failed . . . we suffer . . . you really think it's better that at least he tried? I don't. Now if you are suggesting that pubby running for office was a case of "better to try and fail . . .", that at least he ran for office, okay. You take that one.

That seems to be it. I do not know what motivates anyone to seek a political office. What can the reasons be? Power, money, influence (usually derived from money and power), thinking they can do better than the other guy, civic duty, thinking they can make real changes/improvements . . . what else? The point is, or was, he suggested that now we know why "some" seek political power (which was to have the power to kill, which is a ridiculous notion), so I wanted to know what his motivation was. I am not certain I got a complete answer.

What I found interesting about it is that it conveyed the message in a personal way by causing the distraction, yet it didn't resort to Hollywood special effects and slow motion sequences that, IMO, distract from the message.

↑↑↑↑↑↑↑ And I feel that it is relevant to put my question in context using the comment that prompted it. ↑↑↑↑↑↑↑

A person in search of political power has to start somewhere. With few exceptions, one doesn't just jump right into a position of power - it is usually a journey. While it may not be much, probably less than serving in an HOA, it would still empower you to a certain extent, if in no other way than to qualify you for the next higher position.

Oh right! You're one of those who throw up the "all or nothing" comment. Any 5th grader should know that for a society to exist, there must be laws - and the violation of each law carries some type of punishment. There are some offenses that are so heinous, there needs to be a punishment so strong that it might deter one from committing it. And while the govt. (state or federal) has the authority to conduct the execution, it does so after the offense has been deliberated and the sentence decided upon by a jury . . . and after a lengthy appeals process. There are things that

If "hard time" really meant hard time, then I suppose it would make sense. Getting fed 3 times a day, lounging around or getting in shape, reading and studying, and getting visits from time to time does not seem like a suitable punishment for anyone who commits an offense that would warrant the death penalty. For as much as people are against the death penalty (on whatever grounds), there are some that are equally (or even more so) against the slightest possibility that anyone in jail might be uncomfortable.

I cannot and will not argue that the govt. is fair and just, because we all know that it isn't. But if the govt. wanted to go through the trouble to get rid of me, they can do so with or without the death penalty. "Accidents" happen.