Mr. Know-It-All

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

444 Excellent

About Mr. Know-It-All

  • Rank
    Booger Eatin' Moron
  • Birthday 08/12/1968

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Ralston, NE
  • Interests
    Knowing Stuff

Recent Profile Visitors

13,501 profile views
  1. Is this continuing resolution fiasco part two - but instead of holding government jobs hostage now the bargaining chips are human lives? So Trump ends the separation policy, but not zero tolerance. Families are reunited up to the point that the children can be held based on the Flores agreement - then I assume forced separation again. Basically he put the ball back in Congress' court and if they don't hammer out a solution before the clock runs out then the blame for separation is in their lap (or that at least will be the narrative from the GOP). What is the end game? It seems that the claims of child abuse due to separation will now be changed to child abuse if the US enforces immigration policy which leads to eventual separation under the Flores deal. There is no end game short of open borders. The can has been kicked down the road - and based on history it will continue to be kicked further down the road with no reasonable solution.
  2. Question: if the children's parents are being detained for doing something illegal (and I realize that is a whole other topic for debate) then what should be done with the children? Can they they/should they be deported back to their country of origin? One of the pieces I just watched indicated that many of the asylum seekers are escaping due to rape, political oppression, abuse, etc. Is turning over their children while they are detained back to the country of origin wise? Do we house them together as a family unit? If we house them together as a family unit does that seem wise? Do we just detain the parents and set the children loose on the streets as now homeless immigrants with no adult provision or supervision? That does not seem fair or wise either. If immigration policy must be enforced, then surely a policy should be put in place that offers some protection for the children who are in no way complicit in any illegal activity. So bully for the voices speaking out against this policy - but that needs to be followed by proposals for how to address the problem other than just blaming a president or party. Protesting is good - but now let's hear some solutions and pressure to make make those solutions part of policy.
  3. Confirmed Trump is not morally righteous - but I thought that was common knowledge. I felt kind of dirty actually watching the interview. Makes me wonder if we had this type of coverage in the early 60s what a Kennedy expose would look like. So beneath the office of the presidency, but back then it was taboo to bring scandals to light. Look what the office has now become - ripe picking for scandalous reporting. You could not have watched that and thought she was lying - although the part about being threatened in a parking garage would seem to require some corroboration. As for her lawyer - he came off as a bit of a weasel, but does not make me doubt the veracity of her account.
  4. At this point, if the marches did nothing more than get more people (and younger people) to exercise their constitutional right to vote then I will consider it a success. So much voter apathy in our country and we wonder why we are in the mess we are in. Everyone wants to complain, but no one can be bothered to show up on election day. Maybe this will be some impetus to change that.
  5. Of all the people that legally own weapons, what percentage of that number have engaged in gun violence? What percentage of gun violence is attributable to people that do not legally own weapons? Seems to me the only way to end gun violence is to get rid of all guns. What is the plan for that? Is that something you want?
  6. I support universal background checks, just makes good sense. You know what else just makes good sense? Voter id. Voter id is rejected because it can create barriers to constitutionally protected rights (specifically targeting the poor and minorities who do not have transportation or ability to access these voter ids). Universal background checks would incur some costs as well, which I assume would be passed on to the gun buyer - which one could argue could create financial barriers to a constitutionally protected right. Definitely not apples to apples, but just a random thought I had. PS - not a gun owner, never plan to be a gun owner - and don't want students dying from gun violence.
  7. Yes, students should be allowed to protest - it is protected speech. If their protests conflicts with planned learning, then there could be consequences - i.e., a missed test or turned in homework assignment, etc. I would hope that schools would use this as a means to teach them about exercising their rights in a reasonable manner that doesn't take away their speech rights but also acknowledges the intent of the school environment.
  8. Having lived mainly in the midwest, but also having lived briefly on the West Coast and the East coast the shared concerns are education (which I believe should be more local control and local finding - so should not be an issue for federal elections), defense, and interstate commerce (which includes transportation routes like interstates, rail, etc). Where we part ways is that most of the midwest is Ag based with less densely populated urban areas; whereas both coasts have more densely populated urban areas so the infrastructure needs are vastly different. Do the majority of the people on either coast give a passing thought to Ag needs? Why would they...just as the vast majority of the midwest (excluding the major cities) care about transportation infrastructure to support densely populated urban centers. Those are the easy examples - but at the end of the day there are different socio-economic and cultural worldviews separating urban versus rural lifestyles. Not saying one is better than the other but they are decidedly different.
  9. I am going to guess that the concerns of citizens in California or New York or Florida are very different than the concerns of Kansas, Nebraska or Iowa. Sure there will be some overlap of concerns, but to allow highly urbanized voting bases to win all the elections might lead to some adverse impact on the agricultural/rural voting bases.
  10. That is not logical, but if it were...mind blown.
  11. So sad but true. The first thing I thought when this story broke was is she a Republican or a Democrat. Since the initial report did not mention her party affiliation I assumed that meant she was a Democrat. Reading the CNN article, it confirmed she was a Democrat.
  12. So idiot kids is contextual then. If they think along with the ideas you support then they are wise beyond their years and the embodiment of a brighter future. If they are not in lock step then they are just a bunch of idiot kids?
  13. My guess is there is a Board of Education policy concerning this and probably further policy that addresses what constitutes excused absence in relation to required educational contact ours per year. Sadly our board does not address how protest absences are handled - other than leaving it to the discretion of the building principal. I am pushing for some pilocy guidelines to address this so it does not appear arbitrary.
  14. The only difference between brand x and brand y is marketing and graphics - at least for the bats that have to conform to a BPF standard. So BBCOR is BBCOR - there will be slight variations in how the weight is distributed (end load versus balanced load - but ultimately the exit velocity standards ensure that they all have to perform at the same standard due ot safety reasons. Cracks me up to see pops shelling out $450 for the same performance that can be had for $140.
  15. Thanks for the responses. I like the comparison to viewing of the eclipse, as this subject is definitely an opportunity for applied learning.