well when democrats claim to be for the poor, yet they get most their money from the ultra rich, while at the same time complaining about the other side getting money from the ultra rich, is it not fair to call that out??
well if you have a class of 30, and there are 30 boys who WANT to be in the class, but this bill would REQUIRE the addition of others (who may not even want the class) its a problem
well, when you offer a program that will help women minorities and specifically excludes a single group (white males) do you REALLY need to wonder why white men are getting angry? And God forbid someone were to set up a scholarship or grant that was only open to white males. it would (rightfully so) be called bigoted. so explain to me how excluding X is not bigoted but excluding Y is???
This is a school system that criminalizes truancy for instance. You and your child can literally be sent to jail for your child being *tardy* too many times. 3 tardies is the equivalent of absence, so basically being 30 seconds late to class too many times can get you put in jail.
this happens in NY as well, its not just a texas thing
in this day and age? you bring that info to twitter, and instead of insulting the school, we could rally around an unjustly fired teacher... and insult the school
She should have confiscated the ring and told the kid to go back to class and behave.
Or, they could have had a laugh, explained to the kid that no, a ring will not make anyone disappear, and then go have a milk box in the cafeteria. That is the correct response to this.
a gun is not "designed to kill people" it is designed to discharge a projectile at anything on the other end of the barrel. If a person chooses to point it at a person, thats on the person, not the gun
Now, I don't think the US would ever implement such a law, but if we ever did, I suspect we'd see a significant drop in all gun deaths, and in mass killings in particular.
I think if the government tried to take everyones guns, it would result is much MUCH more death, not less. because 100 million gun owners in america are not going to willingly give up their guns
Slashdot Mirror
you must be confusing the traditional "liberal" with that of the modern "liberal"
classical liberals are today called libertarians because the left hijacked the term liberal (and the right made it a bad word)
ok pope. Explain to me how deciding results based on equal outcome has any bearing on if there is equal opportunity?
the only one here unwilling seems to be you
if that were true, they would not be pushing this, or affirm action, or other things that do something for group X at the expense of group Y
thats what people say to make themselves feel better that they got what they wanted, and screw everyone else
well when democrats claim to be for the poor, yet they get most their money from the ultra rich, while at the same time complaining about the other side getting money from the ultra rich, is it not fair to call that out??
and therefore most girls display little interest for fear of being "weird" and "masculine". This IS a problem that we need to look at correcting.
Im sorry but can you explain to me WHY this is a problem that needs to be corrected???
so instead of actually explaining why he is wrong, you insult..... yeah, great debate there
Exactly. Same holds true for wealth redistribution.
if that is true, why do they keep pushing these programs that force people to do things they dont want???
have you seen the funding in schools lately? It pretty much does mean exactly that
except for when you cant take the advanced class without passing the into class
Gender baiting, race baiting, whatever-baiting seems to be this nation's favorite pastime.
What can I say? Us americans love to bait'
Dont come in, Baitin'
This is numbers. The kind of people that support this kind of legislation only want to balance out the numbers of people.
you are right, it IS about the numbers, those numbers being, who is going to vote for the politician who gives stuff to 50% +1 people
well if you have a class of 30, and there are 30 boys who WANT to be in the class, but this bill would REQUIRE the addition of others (who may not even want the class) its a problem
well, when you offer a program that will help
women
minorities and specifically excludes a single group (white males) do you REALLY need to wonder why white men are getting angry? And God forbid someone were to set up a scholarship or grant that was only open to white males. it would (rightfully so) be called bigoted. so explain to me how excluding X is not bigoted but excluding Y is???
This is a school system that criminalizes truancy for instance. You and your child can literally be sent to jail for your child being *tardy* too many times. 3 tardies is the equivalent of absence, so basically being 30 seconds late to class too many times can get you put in jail.
this happens in NY as well, its not just a texas thing
in this day and age? you bring that info to twitter, and instead of insulting the school, we could rally around an unjustly fired teacher... and insult the school
treat all threats as credible, that is in fact the right way to do things
however when you realize there is no threat, you drop it and move on.
She should have confiscated the ring and told the kid to go back to class and behave.
Or, they could have had a laugh, explained to the kid that no, a ring will not make anyone disappear, and then go have a milk box in the cafeteria. That is the correct response to this.
im actually amazing it was texas and not cali or NY
a gun is not "designed to kill people" it is designed to discharge a projectile at anything on the other end of the barrel. If a person chooses to point it at a person, thats on the person, not the gun
ok, and what recourse do the people have in other countries if say, a dictator takes over??? in america, we know what can happen
actually yes. every single day you can find articles of good gun owners killing bad guys
Now, I don't think the US would ever implement such a law, but if we ever did, I suspect we'd see a significant drop in all gun deaths, and in mass killings in particular.
I think if the government tried to take everyones guns, it would result is much MUCH more death, not less. because 100 million gun owners in america are not going to willingly give up their guns
you keep saying that, but you havent corrected anything Ive said, which leads me to believe you have no other argument you just dont like facts.
or did the assualt weapons ban that clintion had passed never actually exist???