I think the Tennessee legislature has inadvertently solved the problem of political deadlock: let's withhold food from politicians until they can agree to compromise on their differences!
Thank you Karen Lee for a well reasoned letter. Yes, a few are beginning to understand, but there are millions of others who will continue to say: "Who cares if we can't afford to keep a roof over our heads, three meals a day, and affordable medical care, just don't take away our right to buy unlimited quantities of bullets online."
Jeff Fisher, do you really think it's a good idea to place armed teachers (union members) in the same setting with armed administrators (non-union/anti-union people)? What could go wrong? Just to be on the safe side maybe we better arm the students as well. Then at least they all have an equal opportunity to defend themselves.
I know nothing about the "village" push as I live in Ohio.
Three great things about city council meetings: They oftentimes provide comedic relief. They occasionally contain head-scratching drama. There is no cover charge.
Thank you Daniel Durant for your praise for Al-Jazeera English. I, too, find their news to be thorough, fair, and well presented.
Kudos to Nancy and Richard Hughes for tipping their service personnel, and to Rob Eaves for his thank-you note.
Working to prevent mass gun murders without addressing access to certain types of weapons designed solely for killing humans is a stupid and tragic idea.
Schools have the ability now to block student access to websites they deem have no educational value. In the future, why not mandate that guns be manufactured with a firing pin activated electronically, by way of a wireless signal. This should allow schools and any other businesses, as well as homeowners who choose not to own guns, to send out a blanket signal that would block a gun's ability to activate the firing mechanism, thereby rendering guns inactive within that domain. It's something to consider anyway.
JonRoss you need to read my post again. I'm referring to their proposals. Not what rate they paid.
And Romney's charitable gifts did little to lower his tax rate to 13%. He claimed very little of his earnings as income. The bulk of it was claimed as capital gains and carried interest, which is only taxed at 15%. So had he given zero to charity he would still have paid a lower percentage than President Obama, because the majority of Obama's earnings was taxed as income.
Here is one glaring difference between President Obama and Mitt Romney:
President Obama is willing to increase his income taxes by 4.6% (a return to the Clinton era tax rates for people earning in excess of $250,000).
Mitt Romney wanted to lower his tax rate by 7% and also wanted to completely eliminate the estate tax.
So while President Obama is willing to pay a little more to benefit the country, Mitt Romney was only thinking of himself and his kids. This says more to me about Mitt Romney's lack of character than all of the gaffes he made during the campaign.
Goodbye Mitt, and good riddance.
I wonder what percentage of the decline is due to the many alcoholics who once attended NASCAR events having died off or are incarcerated for DUI.
Mr. Thompson, let me update your letter for you to better reflect reality:
It's deja vu all over again. Now that the elections are over I can tell you what to expect.
Four more years of GOP obstruction and America-will-be-destroyed blather!!