Reagan

UT, PS: I would direct you to the10th Amendment to the Constitution. Give it a read and tell us if it mentions anything closing resembling the right to an abortion?! Also, after reading it, would you think it more reflects the modern day liberal philosophy or modern day conservative philosophy? And i do appreciate your comments!

[Hidden Content]

So, let's understand something: There was not a law that the states were violating because no law was ever passed. Since there was not federal law to site, the Supreme Court ruled that states were violating the Constitution? Maybe you can help us: Were in the Constitution does it mention that abortion is Constitutional? This following article is entitled: "William Brennan and the Creation Of A Right To An Abortion". From the article: " In case after case, with no tenable basis in constitutional text or history, Brennan supplanted the policy choices of elected representatives with his own views." I believe it was Brennan who once said that he basically knows there is not a right to an abortion in the Constitution but that he personally feels that abortions should be legal. This why it's always been on very legal shaky ground and will, hopefully, be easily overturned. [Hidden Content]

Laws are made by our legislature. Show me which law it was they passed that made abortion legal?!

I do listen to Rush. Don't know if he says it or coined. But -- apparently you listen to him to make such a statement!

Typical commie-pinko: Do as I say -- NOT as I do! SMH!! [Hidden Content]

[Hidden Content]

[Hidden Content]

Hagar, it's the same thing that happened to all the women that Justice Kavanaugh was supposed to have attacked. Once the lie is not needed anymore then it goes away.

The libtards are so stupid they didn't even see this coming! SMH!!

Quoting Hillarious Clintonista! Not a good way to start your comments!

Good! But still I ask why do they have to pay at all? I'll be contacting Texas' Governor and Lt Governor and see if there is any interest getting this debate started. We should start with this one first before we tackle the other one concerning why people should pay school taxes if they do not have children in the system.

As if we needed any more proof. If one doesn't know what pure evil looks like, well, it's contained in those that voted against this bill!! [Hidden Content]

Interesting! Thanks! More ammunition. What a shame though. If this is true, I wonder if the board has made this clear to the elderly?

Let me propose some more thought: While I know a lot of people are giving some serious thought to what I said about not paying school taxes if one does not have a dog in the hunt, so to speak, I have another idea which should be a lot easier. Those over 65 get a cut on their school taxes and it never goes up. I think it comes out to be around 25-30% cut. It really should be a 50% cut. But any cut is good. But -- once one turns 65 they should not have to pay school taxes at all. Seems a simple and logical concept to me. Why continue to punish the elderly retirees until they die? Now, let's not misunderstand me: On both subjects concerning not paying school taxes if one has no children and over 65, this must be done state wide. This would force school districts to use the money they have more toward what's actually important -- EDUCATION... And, no, for example, building fine fancy stadiums across the state at the cost of millions and millions of dollars is not really that important!

The answer to your is quite simple: One would not build a huge stadium for any of these other sports!

Since we are complaining about semantics I guess I am on the right track. But, no matter how you say it it's still an ugly figure. And on the bold part, you have the right to your opinion and I have the right to mine. And we shall see which side prevails on election day! So, like I told someone else here -- I see I'm not the only one the visits Klein's site!

Pretty much all the stuff you had put up. And that's only part of it. I would say less than 1%, if that much, has anything to do with children's education. And the 4,500,000 MILLION DOLLAR side bond for "stadium" improvements is a total wish list. Especially when they only play varsity football games 5-6 days a year in the stadium. This 156,000,000 MILLION DOLLAR tax increase will not increase the SAT scores much, if any. And this $.5 MILLION DOLLAR side tax increase will not make the football team play any better. Just look to our PNG neighbors!

Kinda of like what's going on with this NISD bond issue! No matter what angle you look at it -- it's still going to cost 156,000,000 MILLION DOLLARS with a minimal, if any, affect on child's education. It's a wish list, a want -- not a need. This is why it must be defeated. BTW, if anyone thinks that this 156,000,000 MILLION DOLLAR tax increase will have only a minimal affect on your household budget, then I've got some ocean front property in Arizona for you. Folks -- think!!