Muda69

Yes you did, just in your typically snide and weaselly way. Anybody who believes $11 Trillion Joe Biden will make a good president needs to grow up and face reality. Please point on the post(s) where I have claimed that I am the smartest dude on the forum. I have never, ever, claimed as such and at times have admitted that I am a mental midget compared to a few of the GID regulars. You however are not one of those. You would have to ask DT about his opinion of his mental faculties because I really wouldn't know. I do know he is an individual committed to making Indiana High School better and more competitive over the long haul. Hmm. What, in your opinion, has changed to move me from being a "great poster" to now just a "bitter old man"?

Yes. A common metric used here in Indiana and on the GID is the # of students on free/reduced lunches and/or textbooks. For example, compare this "4A" school: https://inview.doe.in.gov/schools/1011700997/population with this "4A" school: https://inview.doe.in.gov/schools/1000003320/population Look at the "economically disadvantaged" metric (which is the moniker the IDOE has started using recently instead of the politically incorrect "I get cheap/free stuff from taxpayers because I'm poor".)

Good point. I wonder where all the wealthy people in the Harrison government school geographic area find employment? Purdue? Nothing like those juicy taxpayer funded jobs.

I don't understand the cause-effect relationship here. Are you saying all these new housing developments located within the Harrison government school geographic area were built and/or school transfers were initiated because of Raider football, and Mr. Peebles in particular?

Any rational person would realize Mr. Trump is not to blame for your dying mother. Grow up.

Harrison is a soccer school . Always will be.

Me three. Go Sycamores.

Joe Biden Wants a Huge New Tax on Gun Owners https://mises.org/wire/joe-biden-wants-huge-new-tax-gun-owners Despite his recognition of the futility of using gun control to reduce crime and gun violence, the “pragmatist” turned to the dark side when it became politically expedient to do so. In 1993 he helped pass the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, which required background checks through a new national checking system (the National Instant Criminal Background Check System [NICS]). The next year he helped obtain a ten-year ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazine sales. As vice president, he was President Obama’s point man in developing legislative proposals and executive orders to shore up gun control at the national level, and yet even that administration admitted that gun control is almost a futile endeavor and that their efforts amounted to little more than feel-good measures. Indeed, with more than a century of experience we know that gun control does not reduce crime but rather increases it, as John Lott has demonstrated. According to Lott’s evidence and that of independent researchers, no form of gun control has positive effects and most forms have negative effects on crime, murder, and mass shootings. Indeed, the most noteworthy policies that improve these problems are the elimination of gun-free zones and the expansion of concealed carry laws.4 With respect to Biden’s proposed gun tax, what are the expected outcomes? The tax is certainly not designed to raise revenue, as it would raise little and entail a good deal of bureaucratic spending. It would no doubt encourage gun buybacks and reduce gun ownership at the margin, but to what end? It would mostly impact responsible gun owners economically impacted by the lockdowns and unemployment. These are the gun owners who reduce crime rates because of the deterrence factor they provide. The gun tax would also encourage the diversion of guns and high-capacity magazines to the black market. Most importantly, would the gun tax reduce access to guns and in turn reduce crime and violence? Biden has already admitted that the answer is no: “a criminal who wants a firearm can get one through illegal, nontraceable, unregistered sources, with or without gun control.” Efforts to reduce gun violence through policies of red tape and taxes are doomed to fail and only lead to further inroads of enhanced policies of restrictionism and even outright prohibition. For example, in order to address the real and imagined problem of narcotics addiction, which was already in decline at the end of the nineteenth century, the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act was passed in 1914 to regulate and tax the production, importation, and distribution of opiates and cocaine products. However, the courts interpreted the legislation to mean that doctors could prescribe these drugs in the course of normal treatment, as a dental anesthetic or for short-term pain management, for example, but not as a treatment for addiction. This turned regulation into prohibition and quickly turned the imaginary crimes of blacks and Asians into very real crimes all across the country. Desperate addicts were willing to pay high prices and commit crimes to satisfy their addictions, and smugglers and drug dealers quickly developed a black market. Similar negative consequences resulted from the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937, which started as a tax to reduce imagined crimes by minorities, i.e., Reefer Madness, only to quickly devolve into an outright prohibition. Fortunately, we as a people have recognized this mistake and are moving to legalize cannabis and hemp, i.e., marijuana, in a state-by-state process that works in the face of federal and international law. As horrific and far-reaching as the consequences of the war on drugs have been, the consequences of “commonsense” gun control laws are potentially much greater in the long run. In a very important contribution, Stephen Holbrook demonstrates that the Nazis used gun registration information instituted and collected by the Weimar Regime to rapidly disarm the Jews and other political adversaries. This in turn greatly facilitated the Holocaust.5 A disarmed American population would similarly be much more vulnerable to political repression. But putting this possibility aside, Biden’s gun control proposals, including the gun tax, offer no possibility of improved security, while most of them will make us less secure and more prone to crime and violence. Most importantly, they are all an affront and threat to our liberty as enshrined in the Second Amendment to the Constitution. Agreed. And any member of the SCOTUS worth their constitutional salt will see this, should any of Mr. Biden's draconian gun measures become law.

Trump Has Only Himself To Blame for Losing the Election https://reason.com/2020/12/04/trump-has-only-himself-to-blame-for-losing-the-election/ Agreed.

Excellent example, thanks for posting it. Here is another about the hypocrisy of progressive thought: https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/12/progressives-are-no-longer-defenders-of-free-expression/

Sorry Mr. Grammar Nazi. Mr. Beal was not my English teacher.

Must of been Mr. Beal again. Please enlighten me with your spot-on analogy.

Yes, I believe it established the direct election of Senators in each state. What does that have to do with the election of the POTUS? As a citizen of the state of Indiana I generally don't care who the senators of say, Oregon, are or how they were elected. It is really none of my business. But how the POTUS, a position which represents the USA to all citizens and the world at large, is a another matter entirely. The problem with you Dante is that you are globalist, a frequent trait of progressives. They love to stick their nose into the business of other entities, and use the force of government to make sure their nose is smelled.

https://reason.com/2020/12/02/private-charity-beats-one-size-fits-all-government/ Agreed. A spot-on commentary by Mr. Stossel. The government "War on Poverty" has been an abject failure.

https://spectator.org/nasdaq-woke-board-woman-lgbt/ Agreed. If Nasdaq goes through with this charade then I hope companies leave the exchange in droves. Political correctness to the max. As one of the comments to this commentary states:

I told you why in my post. ? What does that have to do with a presidential election? Pick your poison I guess, "tyranny by minority" versus "tyranny by majority". I for one don't relish the thought of being ruled by the coastal elites. You obviously do.

One step closer to a good 2021 draft pick, and possibly the T.L. sweepstakes....................

Your ideas intrigue me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

https://reason.com/2020/12/02/disarmed-but-not-dangerous/ Indeed it does give them a chance. I hope they right this wrong.

Sidney Powell's 'Kraken' Is Missing More Than a Few Tentacles https://reason.com/2020/12/01/sidney-powells-kraken-is-missing-more-than-a-few-tentacles/ While mistakes like these obviously do not go the heart of Powell's allegations, they do reflect a general lack of care. We will see what the courts make of her claims. But even if the lawsuits are quickly dismissed, it probably will not weaken the faith of Trump supporters who still believe he actually won. Update: Today Powell filed another lawsuit in Wisconsin. It names as a plaintiff Derrick Van Orden, an unsuccessful Republican congressional candidate who said his inclusion in the lawsuit was a surprise to him. "I learned through social media today that my name was included in a lawsuit without my permission," Van Orden said on Twitter. "To be clear, I am not involved in the lawsuit seeking to overturn the election in Wisconsin." Update II: "To date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election," Attorney General William Barr told the Associated Press today. Alluding to Powell-style claims, he added: "There's been one assertion that would be systemic fraud, and that would be the claim that machines were programmed essentially to skew the election results. And the DHS and DOJ have looked into that, and so far we haven't seen anything to substantiate that."

I'm sorry, but a federal sized government where the POTUS is selected by direct democracy is idiocy. You replace this "minority rule" with the tyranny of the majority. In the case of the USA you would have a country basically ruled by California, Texas, Florida, and New York.

Probably, but I was like 10 years old at the time and had never heard of a pyramid scheme.

You forgot about the West Lafayette River Rats.

Sounds good to me, just more political hurdles to overcome to make it happen. And you have Jeff's football palace for the home games.