Offthemat

I can’t do much about your ignorance of history. But your stating that we must maintain freedom from religion is demonstrably wrong. Somewhat recent Supreme Court ruling to that effect. You may not know it, but religious schools, charities, adoption services, etc get funding currently. George W had a hand in returning to this practice. It’s not an establishment of anything, it’s recognizing that aiding a program that is already in place is more efficient than creating a whole new one.

Only this: https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2023/10/my-cousin-dean.php

You may say that they ‘fear’ that their children are being groomed, but the meaning in that context isn’t fear. It’s more like see, realize, understand and are enraged. That’s why they stand and confront the people who are responsible for it. Constitutionally, there is no restriction to public funding of religious entities. There has been much bastardization of a phrase from a letter. In our country’s early stages there was significant government funding of religious schools. The performance of charter schools is easy to find, here’s one example: “The researchers demonstrate that these learning gains were realized by tens of thousands of charter school students across the country, and progress was particularly strong among Blacks and Hispanics and those living in poverty. The study notes that these gains show that it is possible to achieve positive learning outcomes at scale and accelerate growth for students who have been inadequately served by traditional public school systems.” https://www.hoover.org/research/charter-schools-new-evidence-student-success-matter-fact-national-charter-school-study-iii They may not have been tested on their ability to condomize a cucumber, though.

Parents who protest vigorously at school board meetings are doing so out of fear? Books that are not allowed to be read aloud at board meetings (banned) should be allowed in school libraries? The data is in and shows that parents best option for public schools is charter schools. The best option for the country is elimination of the Department of Education and teachers unions.

Could you make all your posts with red ink? Just as a warning to unsuspecting readers who might be trying to decipher the meaning behind them.

Political opposition.

We also know where it originated.

Thanks for the info.

I’ve read the charges. I understand perfectly the difference in charges, indictments, etc, and statutes. The former are allegations, sometimes at variance with facts and statutes presented; the latter which one must be proven to be in violation of. I believe that considering the level of crimes pled to so far, and the punishments handed out, that finances figured a prominent role in the decisions. That won’t be the case for Trump, and you can expect that any of these novel cases that go against him will be decided at the Supreme Court, where venue will play no role.

Dims are negotiating support for emmer. One, forget his name but he’s also from Minnesota, has said he’ll vote present if it’s emmer.

I only posted part of the write up. If you go to the link, it includes the statute for the ‘crime’ she pled to.

John Hinderaker: “In any event, it appears that the false statements, the making of which Ellis supposedly aided and abetted, were statements to the effect that there had been widespread fraud in Georgia in the 2020 election: Were these statements actually false? Does the prosecution claim that there was no voter fraud? That no mail-in ballots were illegally cast? That no illegal votes were cast on behalf of felons or dead people? Presumably not. The falsity apparently resides in whether any such fraud was “massive,” or enough to reverse the outcome of the election in Georgia. But in the immediate aftermath of the election, no one knew how extensive the fraud was. That was a matter for proof in a post-election contest. The Georgia prosecution is intensely political, even compared with the other criminal cases in which Donald Trump is embroiled. It seems intended to chill apparently losing Republican candidates from pursuing legal remedies, as, for example, Al Gore did in 2000. And it has elements of a Soviet show trial, with Ellis tearfully confessing her alleged sins for the benefit of the press. It is a dirty business, and it isn’t over yet. https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2023/10/jenna-ellis-pleads-guilty.php

http://www.tsowell.com/

That’s a misfire, not anywhere near what he is saying.

There’s a lot of differences between you and Gable. He was a great athlete, wrestler, and coach. He’s not a weeny marxist.

Then you’re not familiar with his writing. He’s written whole books covering those topics.

I could argue the mistakes in that question or the bill, itself. Regardless, Trump’s actions boosted the economy - biden’s have caused it to shrink, while he gaslights that the economy is growing.

You don’t know Trump. You are a marxist with cats and couldn’t be more unreliable.

This is a very important point. Reduced tax revenues indicate economic decline, regardless the government’s stated performance reports.

You can say that, without refute, and without validation.

So, it’s just nonsense. Nothing new.

The Day the Delusions Died “When Hamas terrorists crossed over the border with Israel and murdered 1,400 innocent people, they destroyed families and entire communities. They also shattered long-held delusions in the West. A friend of mine joked that she woke up on October 7 as a liberal and went to bed that evening as a 65-year-old conservative. But it wasn’t really a joke and she wasn’t the only one. What changed? The best way to answer that question is with the help of Thomas Sowell, one of the most brilliant public intellectuals alive today. In 1987, Sowell published A Conflict of Visions. In this now-classic, he offers a simple and powerful explanation of why people disagree about politics. We disagree about politics, Sowell argues, because we disagree about human nature. We see the world through one of two competing visions, each of which tells a radically different story about human nature. Those with “unconstrained vision” think that humans are malleable and can be perfected. They believe that social ills and evils can be overcome through collective action that encourages humans to behave better. To subscribers of this view, poverty, crime, inequality, and war are notinevitable. Rather, they are puzzles that can be solved. We need only to say the right things, enact the right policies, and spend enough money, and we will suffer these social ills no more. This worldview is the foundation of the progressive mindset. By contrast, those who see the world through a “constrained vision” lens believe that human nature is a universal constant. No amount of social engineering can change the sober reality of human self-interest, or the fact that human empathy and social resources are necessarily scarce. People who see things this way believe that most political and social problems will never be “solved”; they can only be managed. This approach is the bedrock of the conservative worldview. Hamas’s barbarism—and the explanations and celebrations throughout the West that followed their orgy of violence—have forced an overnight exodus from the “unconstrained” camp into the “constrained” one. ” https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thefp.com%2Fp%2Fthe-day-the-delusions-died-konstantin-kisin

What is your inmate locked up for?

Hint: Pay no attention to what he says, watch what he does. He is largely responsible for Jordan not being elected, while he positions himself as the savior, the only one who can lead the House.

Hern or Johnson at first glance look okay. Emmer is a no-go. (McCarthy’s fellow never-Trumper) Scott challenged Jordan and lost, already.