Reagan

[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!!

Right!! And the Democrats own her 100%!!!!

And the fun just keeps rolling in! [Hidden Content]

[Hidden Content]

Did AOC really say this: If money doesn't grow on trees, then why do banks have branches?

On the contrary. AOC advocates the opposite of what I am saying. She thinks "more" taxes will solve everything. She would definitely be in love with those advocating a 156,000,000 MILLION DOLLAR tax increase. What's more anti-socialist than you want something, you pay for. You want your child to get an education then you pay for it. Why should I pay for someone else's child's education. Pretty pro-American philosophy to me. Well, maybe at one time it was. Any other situation that would have you pay for something that you don't want or has nothing to do with you, you, along with others, would be screaming at the top of your lungs. I know, it's like everything else: It's always been this way, so we don't really think about it. I just threw it on the table for thoughtful discussion. I'm sure there are a lot more of those here that have pro and con thoughts. But it does require some thought. Something different, though, with no thought, is like the cross to Dracula. HA! I get that!

I know it's something that people are not used to thinking about because it's always been that way. But does it make it right? Paying for something that one doesn't get anything in return if one does not have kids in the system. Think about it -- you wouldn't put up with it in any other situation. So, give us your pros or cons.

I'll tell how this massive bond issue could get my vote and possibly hundreds more. This is my version of the "art of the deal." They would need to delay the bond vote for a couple of months. During this time they would then attach a rider that states: If a family does not have children going to any NISD school then these families do not pay any school taxes. The only time one pays is when/if children are actually enrolled in any NISD school. Think about it, where else except government entities, do you pay for something that you don't get? It's like going to the store for milk and eggs and they force you to pay for bread even if you don't want it or carry it out. This is actually probably something that should be a source of topic state wide. But anyway, let's here the pros and cons for NISD.

Hagar, I said this before. When they were trying to fool the people originally, they were talking about Global Cooling. When that didn't work, they went to Global Warming. And when that didn't work, they went to Climate Change. And the media falls right in line and NEVER questions the name changes. But name changes are not new to the commies and media falling for it. Remember when clinton was President, his lady wanted to be referred to as Hillary Rodman Clinton. And the media played along. Why did she do this? Now it's back to Hillarious Clintonista and the media falls in line and never questions it!