rhaig

He resigned basically 1 hour after the picture went public. Sounds like it was his decision. well at least he had the balls to realize he was done and turn in his notice immediately rather than do public apologies, drag everyone through the media circus (family included) and wait for the next big story to move him out of the spotlight. -- Rob

holy crap! a clear statement of position from you on an argument. I'm going to need a minute to collect myself. -- Rob

where did I lay blame? you're consistent with your blame of the board in your posts on this topic ofer the past few years, but I still dont see how you can support these policies. (as some of your prior posts seem to indicate). -- Rob

It seems you don't understand the point of the OP. He understands the concept of zero, he just believes (as I do) that zero policies make ZERO sense. Zero tolerance policies are a nice way to avoid actually thinking. A nice way for forcing school officials into not evaluating situations on a case-by-case basis, gathering facts, using problem resolution skills (that many educators are required to get training in) and teaching children why what they did was wrong. Instead, they turn the whole world into black & white, Setting punishment for an entire class of offense regardless of the scale or intent of the specific event. The punishment for bring a knife to school is the same whether it's a cub scout pen knife that the 6-year old was proud of being given, or a 7" hunting knife with dried blood on it from the previous weekend's hunting trip that the troubled teenager planned on using to scare others. -- Rob

clearly it's a one word answer "chemtrails" -- Rob

and recently added was Arizona I believe. -- Rob

oh see? you seemed like such a rules-oriented person. yet you failed to understand the rules of this forum. Either that, or you're just making a scene. Do you have cameras posted for this one too? oh wait, let me guess.... we're violating your first amendment rights now by telling you what you can and can't say here? -- Rob

Oh my! Oh golly gee my! Want to get you to read the law set before you and acknowledge it, or shut your ignorant un-American pie hole? Say it isn't so! hey look everyone.... here comes the ban-hammer!! -- Rob

well when this guy does clean up, please let us know how it goes for you... I mean him. I think, any jury with any sense at all, could see through this guy's story and he wouldn't get too far. I think too, the Agents showed a lot of restraint while this guy was showing his ass above his shirt collar. Mighta been different if, the Agents smashed-out the side glass, dragged his stinkin' ass out of the car and tazed him! I think, that's what the guy was hoping for. Chuck Really, how would that have been different? You claim the guy broke the law and give a pass to the lying agents who broke the law (just in view of the Supreme Court and the law of the land, not saying it was the law according to the Village Idiot with a cowboy hat). and you were doing so well without an overt personal attack. -- Rob

in the judges courtroom? That would be contempt. I've heard about challenges of contempt charges on constitutional grounds, but haven't researched the subject. Some of the lawyer-types here might know a bit about that. -- Rob

Would have loved to see that logic tried to be used a couple years after 9/11 in regards to Bin Laden. Needless to say, wouldn't have gone down well. I recall lots of "Clinton didn't finish the job" remarks. But they didn't go on and on for 2 years. -- Rob

well when this guy does clean up, please let us know how it goes for you... I mean him. -- Rob

Oh in my world I would prefer the police to not act like thugs and bullies. I guess the guy is lucky he did not get a beat down to "teach him a lesson" did they beat him? Did they use unlawful force? I didn't read that in the article. (did we read the same article?) I read that he obstructed the police from responding to a call. Then when they arrested him, he called them douche bag. It sounds to me like the charge should have been obstruction all along. -- Rob

I see the "if there were no guns, there would be no gun crime" argument here much more than I see the "carrying a gun will prevent all violent crime". the latter is not true, the former is impossible. and show me where I've made that argument if you're claiming it's mine. -- Rob

hey look!! the "push the magic button that makes all guns go away" argument. Yes, if you pushed that button, and there were no guns, then there would be no gun crime. good luck finding that button. -- Rob

takes character to come back and apologize. thanks -- Rob

Quote There aren't a lot of people that believe that's possible because there are simply too many other parts of the bill that are completely constitutional and the part about an individual mandate absolutely can be struck down separately. I'd heard a while ago that there was a clause missing (severability clause or something like that) that would have allowed it to be struck down in pieces, but because it was missing, if any part was struck down, the whole thing would fall. I was driving and couldn't pay full attention. Is this not the case? -- Rob

the generic answer is going to be that you're disenfranchising someone. Then when you explain that the test is free and can be administered orally in english and spanish, you're going to be called a big-government thug because you want to increase the size of the government and also be called fiscally irresponsible for not proposing a tax-hike to pay for said proposed program. You'll eventually be called a nazi, someone will invoke godwin's law, and thread drift will eventually drift the topic of the thread from gun control to voter disenfranchisement. (oh wait...) -- Rob

idiots respond to idiotic posts. what does that make me right now? well... yeah... an idiot. -- Rob

just for glancing at "what's going on" I pull up google news. I have it customized to show me the topics I want to see. That (obviously) is from all sorts of sources. If I'm looking for something very current that someone mentioned to me or I heard about, I usually pull up CNN. -- Rob

never trust anyone who puts anything inside a donut. -- Rob

and this is why most officers I know hate no-knock warrants. The likelihood of a shooting (either direction) is much higher. -- Rob

I'm thinking there has to be more to blame for these deaths than simply texting-while-walking. If they were pedestrian/vehicle collisions, then either the pedestrian or the vehicle was crossing the street/intersection illegally. If people are jaywalking while texting, are they already being ticketed for the jaywalking? Excellent point. Kind of like hate crimes. It's already a crime. Why did we need more legislation? Or driving while talking / texting with a cell phone. Wouldn’t that fall under reckless driving? Some jurisdictions have specific definitions of reckless, careless and inattentive driving. Some have all three, some do not. While texting/talking while driving may not fit a definition of reckless, it's more likely to fit careless or inattentive. The jurisdictions that didn't have careless or inattentive driving statutes that fit use of an electronic device while driving would have been better served by passing such a law rather than one targeted at a specific use of a specific device. -- Rob

as much free publicity as that would be for the Libertarian party, I think it's not likely. I think Romney has a better chance. -- Rob

I'm thinking there has to be more to blame for these deaths than simply texting-while-walking. If they were pedestrian/vehicle collisions, then either the pedestrian or the vehicle was crossing the street/intersection illegally. If people are jaywalking while texting, are they already being ticketed for the jaywalking? Let's outlaw jaywalking!! oh wait... yeah... more laws will solve this problem. Doubtful that it will solve the problem, but there is likely a large fraction of the populace whose behavior is influenced by the law. Just because a solution isn't perfect doesn't mean it isn't good. After all, lots of self employed people cheat on their taxes, but that is no reason to scrap laws against tax evasion. so let's add texting while walking, because crossing against the signal and/or jaywalking aren't already crimes. The same problem with the texting while driving laws. Was texting while driving causing accidents? sure. Was texting while driving "inattentive driving", in many jurisdictions, yes. Did that stop those jurisdictions from spending tax payer money creating another law that will be hard to enforce? nope. -- Rob