Gee B_head, just what part of the Marxist dialectic included a Wall Street bailout?
You're either being argumentative for the fun of it, or you've been completely brainwashed... take your pick.
Even if you limit your argument to gun control only, both parties have proven to be inept at taking any serious or meaningful steps towards a solution of any type.
And one last thing, if you do not find the inference to armed rebellion by a currently seated member of congress to be disturbing, than you are more than hopeless.
Don't much care for his politics, but my hat's off to the man for this noble deed!
If I remember my civil procedure correctly, the city claim would be a permissive counter claim. One can only wonder why they didn't litigate that issue along with the MOE claim. Just a guess, but maybe the city lacked proof of their claim, and now it's just political cover for the city council and the city interests on the BOE. If there is a not so cynical explanation, I sure would like to hear it. Maybe some enterprising journalist will look into that?
From the CDC web site:
"CKD is common among adults in the United States.
More than 10% of people, or more than 20 million, aged 20 years or older in the United States have CKD.
CKD is more common among women than men.
More than 35% of people aged 20 years or older with diabetes have CKD.
More than 20% of people aged 20 years or older with hypertension have CKD."
I didn't realize Chronic Kidney Desease was so common. Kidneys are definitely needed.
If I remember right, the city counter sued MCS stating that they had over inflated attendence numbers for years. Thus causing the city to overpay MCS for many years. So, in their opinion, it's actually the school system that owes more money to the city than what the city owes MCS. That particular claim has never been settled and is the reason why the city has not paid what the judge ordered.
Good for Steve. I'd like to see the 35 living-donors on stage, too.
wow, the lengths politicians will go to claim the spotlight
Your silly and selective progressive argument again misses the point.
The bulk of poorly written legislation originates from the Democrats. A number of turn-coat RINOs may support this poorly written and detrimental legislation and may even write poor legislation concerning other economic issues but we are still talking about gun control so try not to get side tracked for the sake of supporting your Progressive Marxist Democrats.
I believe you are SEEING "self government" manifest in a nation wide protest against a Marxist tyrant by States (the people) and State Governments (the Governors of those States).
Is that what you mean?
In order to consider this a "merge you have to redefine the word to mean something like...well, Im not sure, but "crazy quilt" doesn't cover it.
Have you read Radical Chic & Mau -Mauing the Flak Catchers?
I think the City claims that instead of the City owing the BOE, it is actually the other way around. I do not know any details on the City's claim aginst the BOE, but that is the reason the City gives for refusing to pay up.
My pleasure. And thanks for the reminder about the City. Interestingly, it does appear that their attempt to 'dine and dash' has been noticed by all parties. But nobody seems to want to run them down and collect what's owed. Does this figure at all in Mays' reckoning of who needs to do what, and when? Or is everybody just going to let that 50 million or so drop? If so, how do I get in on some similar action?
Many more questions. But the various parties who are going to have to manage this inheritance, now have much more reason to cooperate. There will be no 'winner takes all' judgement as certain folks had hoped. So that has to help.
Much thanks from John Walker Lindh, the Black Panther Party, New England whiskey makers, the anti-secessionists of Winston County, them posse comitatus yayhoos, your drunk brother in law, and Dick Chaney. Everybody else, duck!
Very interesting artice, thanks for posting.
Just my two cents, but the City of Memphis, one of the signers of the consent decree, will fight any change both tooth and nail. Remember that every year without a merger, the City is on the hook for its MOE payment. True, they have not yet paid what they owe, and what a judge has ordered them to pay, but Memphis could wind up with a huge nut to crack somewhere down the road if those paymetns are eventually enforced.
If you have to take up arms against our government - then self-government must have failed. I for one believe in self-government. Self-government and the Rule of Law have done more for humanity than can be expressed. Congressman Fincher's reports of democracy's demise are greatly exaggerated.
One more thing. As background on the conditions which must be met to modify a consent decree:
The way it looks to me, admittedly also as a non-lawyer Grove, is that Luttrell has standing to get those who need to come to accord to the table, and either modify or nullify the previous consent decree. On rough reading, it appears there is precedent for this type of thing. Here is an example in Denver:
Mays of course has more to say about this than his Special Master, Masson. There is more to it than he has intimated in his terse replies, as was so well noted in Mr. Baker's report.
I expect that there is incentive amongst all the parties, given the new realities of the recent revision of state law, to revisit the timeline of unification proceedings, and come to the table in good faith this time, to hammer out a more practicable effort between the municipal districts and what remains of the unified district.
How Hardy Mays handles this is certainly a question. But again, I think wasting efforts to attempt an accelerated unification, which is only temporary anyway, is in no one's interest. Someone correct me if I am missing something here.
There will probably be more clarification by Masson about the prerogatives Mays has given him. Until Judge Mays says more directly, it's either Masson or Luttrell, or perhaps the municipal mayors, who move next.
If you are a person that believes his or her party be it the Democrats, Republicans, or Libertarians is guilt free you are fooling yourself. One political party is just as corrupt as the other but in different ways. Look up Abscam of the late 70s early 80's. The got both sides of the aisle. More Democrats than Republicans but so what. Next time it will be more Republicans. There is only one good solution to the problem, get rid of the bad elected officials. VOTE THEM OUT. And don't let them back in. And don't vote more of them in. Stop the foolishness of voting for a name, a race, a religion, or the ONE and only view they have and you like. You have a politician that's for food stamps but would nuke some country for territorial infringement. Don't vote for him because he is for food stamps. Bottom line elect people with STRONG moral fiber. No DUI's, bribes, sexual affairs, inappropriate texting and you know what I mean, no LIES.
Only the Marxist Democrats are corrupt? Seriously? I guess the Theocratic/Oligarchic Republications have done no wrong then.
You've got some seriously large blinders on if you think that the Democrats are the only, or even main problem.
When ONE party becomes as corrupt in agenda as the Marxist Democrats in Congress, it is the ONLY hope of the people that federal legislation is stagnated until that corruption is eliminated and purged. Much like Lincoln's "Radical Republicans" after they destroyed ONE country and two economies in their process of seeking power while hiding behind an "abolitionist's" agenda of corrupting the government/ law and producing WAR with a peaceful people.
By Hannah Sayle, Chris Herrington, Chris Shaw, Louis Goggans, Greg Akers and Bruce VanWyngarden
download this issue
click here to see more »