Comments for: Teachers union, Dems accuse LePage of stifling debate around his education plans

Posted March 07, 2012, at 9:25 a.m.

AUGUSTA | It was nearly a month ago that Gov. Paul LePage unveiled a controversial package of education proposals that include teacher evaluation, school choice and diverting public funding for religious schools. The debate over those initiatives was expected to be contentious. It still is. But with just a …

Guidelines for posting on bangordailynews.com

The Bangor Daily News encourages comments about stories, but you must follow our terms of service.

  1. Keep it civil and stay on topic
  2. No vulgarity, racial slurs, name-calling or personal attacks.
  3. People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked.
The primary rule here is pretty simple: Treat others with the same respect you'd want for yourself. Here are some guidelines (see more):

  • Anonymous

    Education system is finally being held accountable and other ideas  and they say that the delay is intentional.  The problem with them is if they had been doing this all along it would not be an issue.

    • Anonymous

      Education in America is being gutted so that Republicans can continue to advance the idea that global warming is a hoax, evolution is just a theory, and the Christian god, narrowly construed, is the only salvation.

      • Anonymous

        Oh My God. You figured it out!!!!!   

      • honey777

        Yes, the U.S. is on the path to becoming like the extremist Third World countries where they kill peple who have different religious beliefs.  Religion is one of the greatest evils created by humankind.

  • PabMainer

    He said, she said, he did this, she did that…..(sigh)….and the battles continue with the “R’s” claiming this and the “D’s” claiming that…..maybe all the Elect in Augusta can take a cue from Ms. Snowe and try working towards the same goals for a change…..or “retire”…….

    • Anonymous

      Except Republicans fight to strangle schools.  It doesn’t serve their interests to have an educated citizenry.  People, for instance, who acknowledge the science of global warming.

      • Anonymous

        Remember the people of Maine passed the law that said the State of Maine will fund 55% of the cost to educate our children.  Baldacci, the democratic legislature and the current regime have only funded 42%.  They are all strangling the schools, if they would give the schools the money that they are entitled to,  The shools could hire the best teachers and offer more advanced courses to the students. 

        • Anonymous

          All I know is that good teachers know global warming is not a hoax, and Republicans will do whatever they can to maintain the delusion that global warming is a hoax.

        • if they took the calculators and laptops away, and made the teachers teach, and the students figure something out for themselves, they would finally learn something they need. also need to get back to teaching that japan and germany were the agressors in ww2, not the united states, as liberals are trying to plant in students minds.

          • Anonymous

            Yeah, stop buying all those iPads schools. And I am serious about this. They’re not THAT cool, or even useful… spend money on lab equipment or foreign language teachers… quit using all the rare earth metals and supporting Apple’s nefarious marketing scheme to withhold basic features, like USB ports, and then release new editions of sub-standard products every 8 months. CURSE YOU, STEVE (JOBS)!

        • Anonymous

          They might be able to hire the best teachers, but the union will see to it that they are forced to keep paying the deadwood teachers.

          • Anonymous

            What’s a “deadwood teacher”?       Have you ever taught?     

          • Anonymous

            Hello their Neighbor !!!

            Peace & LoVe to ya’ BABY !!!!!!!

          • Anonymous

            Union…SCHMONION,,,,Who cares what MEA/NEA Do ?

            They are Wolves in Sheeps Coet & Ties/Smocks?Jeans,,,,,

      • global warming?? sure but not due to human. have you ever noticed that bright eye burning spot in the sky??? gee, i thought not!better go look, and get the right info, real science. heat comes fro a source. has to have a source. and the only source, is???? yeah, thats right grasssmoker! THE SUN!!
        thousands of years ago this continent was covered by ice, who knows how thick. what happened to it all?? coal fired power plants?? dont think there were any 15, 25 thousand years ago.  if you think the climate is never going to change, just because Forrest Gore says so, you better give up the crack and pot. does your body change? the seasons? well nothing stays the same for all time, EXCEPT GOD,  but you dont know anything about that ,either do you??

        • Anonymous

          The rate of global warming has increased enormously just in the past decade or two.

          •  12/20/2012… cue ominous music

        •  You are so right, god hasn’t changed a bit, he is still a figment of the imagination.
           P.S. believing in god means you don’t get to reference 15, 25 thousand years ago… the Earth for god believers is only a little over 6,000 years old…

        • Anonymous

          I said it before, and I’ll say it again. You, Sir, are out of your mind.

          So… yes. Wild swings in temperatures have happened but that argument is definitely weakened if you’re sticking to the “Earth has only been around for 6,000 years” bit. It was VERY hot several hundreds of millions of years ago because the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was very high. It was so warm that dinosaur bones have been found in northern Alaska (saw it on NOVA)! The earth actually became so lush with plants that the CO2 levels crashed and the global temperature sunk dramatically… leading to major plant die-off which, incidentally, provided us with the coal and other carbon-based resources that we enjoy, today. So yes, wild swings in temperature over the life of the earth. But they have been a direct result of, at least in this case, with changing levels of atmospheric CO2.

          • Anonymous

            And, if heat only comes from one source… have you ever put a lid on a pot to help water boil faster? The atmosphere is like the lid on earth’s pot. I hope that helps. I think it’s really sad how radically confused you are.

      • Anonymous

        or the science of science.

      • poormaniac

        Remember this bill came from a desire to remove ineffective teachers thus imporving our educational system and the education of our children !  The teacher funded educational unions are the ones fighting this. 

        • Anonymous

          too bad ineffective parents couldnt be removed – hows that shoe fit?

    • Anonymous

      If they all retire, that would create some job openings for everyone else. Good idea.

    • poormaniac

      We the voters can retire them. That my friend is perhaps why Ms Snowe really retired, afraid of embarassment.

  • Anonymous

    To bad MEA. We know you think you are in charge. That has to change. 

    • Heather Johnston

      Too bad you didn’t take more interest in your education.

      • Anonymous

        Are you trying to silence a poster here through ridiculing their grammar? Please be more mature. Lots of educated people have sloppy typing skills resulting in typos. And lots of educated people have a poor grasp of grammar. Who cares? You should base your disagreement on the content of their argument.

         

        • Anonymous

          Are you making unwarranted conclusions and saying people shouldn’t give arguments?

          • Anonymous

            Hey–if Heather wants to be the grammar police, then she should check out some of the more egregious posts.
            I am saying make your argument–don’t cast insults.

    • Anonymous

      Here’s the quality of your argument:

      “To [sic] bad GOP.  We know you think you are in charge.  That has to change”

  • Anonymous

    If the Teachers Union wants it, kill it.

    • Anonymous

      “We must close union offices, confiscate their money and put their leaders in prison. We must reduce workers’ salaries and take away their right to strike.” – Adolph Hitler, May 2, 1933

      • Anonymous

        Really? You are comparing me to Hitler?  I feel the Unions are out of control, not illeagal. Example; what do you think the Teachers Union thinks about random drug testing teachers. They do not allow it.

        • Anonymous

          You are dead on. I know many teachers that jumped out of college, got a teaching job which was their ultimate goal and dream, saw the teachers union option and didn’t agree with the so called “features and benefits” of the union. Then in a matter of a short period of time they were so pressured by their peers and administrators to join the Union they were really forced to do so or else. I have the greatest respect for teachers and have a greater depth of their struggles then most. I also believe the pay structure is a joke and it enables poor teachers protection from termination while not giving a financial incentive or any other incentive for the ones that make huge sacrifices and have positive impacts on kids that will last them a lifetime. Good teachers should be rewarded and bad ones should be fired but that today requires an act of congress. 

          The Unions need to be restructured big time but know this. Many teachers that belong to the teachers Union do not want to be in the teachers union but have no choice, realistically. Typical union bullying. They get so used to bullying others they don’t even realize when they are doing it to their own.

          • Anonymous

            Thank You. I have a Government job, and I am in the 5% of the people I work with who are not in the Union. I know how it feels to stand up for what you think. I will never join the Union. The #1, and#2 reasons are; I do not want my money going to democrats, and You can not fire a person without an act of Congress like you say.

          • Anonymous

            It must be nice to get the benefits of a union advocating for decent pay and benefits for you, without bothering to pay dues.

          • Anonymous

            You have to stand up for what you believe. This is a free Country!  I think we should not trade with China, and the only thing I have made in China is my cell phone. I don’t believe the Church should marry two people of the same sex, so I changed from ELCA Lutheran to Missouri Synod. I don’t believe in chemicals or hormones in my food so I avoid that as much as possible.  The difference between me and the people telling me how bad I am, and comparing me to Hitler is that I believe in People. I don’t have to like what a person does, but I will not call them ignorant for believing in it.

          • Anonymous

            Surprising.   Been in education 23 years and never heard of or seen “pressure” by anyone to join the union.  I believe this is pure bull propagated by those with a rightwing axe to grind.

        • Random Drug testing should not be allowed anywhere. It is illegal search and seisure .

  • Anonymous

    Can any one tell me how the union effects the teacher teaching the kids  ?  Do the unions tell the schools what they can teach. Do the unions tell how long the classes can be  ?

    •  yes

      • Anonymous

        Yes to what ?

        •  Both questions.

          • Anonymous

            Show me were they do control on what teachers teach an on class sizes

          •  Do you really want me to post links to all of the instances where the Teachers Unions has threatened Strikes, gone on strike, Sued school Districts over changes in Curriculum or class size? Are you saying that the Unions have no influence on these issues? Are you saying that they  can ,and do,  wield  massive power when they  decide it is in their best interest?

          • Anonymous

            Yes i do Would you teach a class with 50 kids in it ? If the kids did not pass it would be your fault . So you are saying that the teachers do not know whats best for the kids

          • Are you now answering your own question about Unions and influence by giving examples why it would be right ,in your opinion, for them to do so?

          • Anonymous

            Yes it would because it’s not the teachers fault that the kids do not want to learn  .. You know the old saying you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink the water. Plus the teacher dose not have time to be with all 50 kids at once .

          • So you admit it is damn near impossible ,currently, to get rid of a Bad Teacher?

          • Anonymous

            I did not say that all im saying that if the kids do not want to lean what can you do about ? So you aresaying evennif a yop notch can’t get the kids to learn its there fault ?

          •  And how,exactly, are teacher’s currently held accountable for their students performance?
            Seems the Unions are fighting any,and all, attempts to do so.

          • Anonymous

            If the schools really want to get rid of bad teachers they can but they are to lazy to do so. Ok say you get rid of teachers because the kids do not want to learn ? Say in class the same kids are in an they fail in every class so you get rid of the teachers an the same thing happens to that teacher an the next teacher an so on an come to find out the kids have a hard time to learn an some of the kids do not want to learn an won’t do there work . Can the teachers that were let go sue the school .

      • Anonymous

        The most important thing a school board does is to establish a vision for the community’s schools that reflects a consensus of the board, community and district staff. The school board has a wide variety of additional responsibilities, such as adopting a balanced annual budget and issuing interim financial reports, adopting the school calendar, negotiating contracts with employee unions, approving curriculum materials and closing or constructing schools. What philosophy of education do we want our local schools to have? What should our students know and be able to do when they graduate? How can schools best educate students who come from diverse backgrounds? These are some of the types of questions that a school board must ponder when trying to establish a vision.
        Turning Vision Into Practice
        Whatever the vision may be, it’s up to the school superintendent to implement it. This is why one of the board’s most crucial decisions is the hiring and firing of the superintendent. The board also approves the superintendent’s personnel recommendations. School board meetings must be open to the public with the agenda publicly posted in advance. You can learn a lot about your district’s policies and challenges by attending a meeting. In most cases, board meetings are also structured to give you a chance to express your opinions to the board and the community. I don’t see were unions have control of schools .

  • Any law allowing public money to go to religious schools is unconstitutional!

    Period!

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    • Anonymous

      So, you must be against Obama Care, Social Security, EPA, Dept. of Education, HUD, plus many other Government agencies. All are unconstitutional in some way!

      • Obama care is without question!

        • Anonymous

          God forbid more Americans should have health insurance.

          God forbid insurers should be forbidden to refuse to insure people with pre-existing conditions.

          Surely anything that promotes public health while threatening to ever so slightly reduce for for-profit insurance corporation CEOs’ salaries is un-American.

          Good grief.

          • Anonymous

            LePage and the GOP = incompetent abusers of power

          • Anonymous

            It’s sad to watch  anti-government extremists who use Social Security and Medicare try to cut off their own legs.

          • Anonymous

            I know, right. It’s the freakin’ platform he ran on, people. WE SAID that we wanted health care. I don’t love Obama but at least he stood but at least he kept his campaign promise.

      • So, what about the commerce clause? You don’t seem to think it exists and are a bit silly for that. 

    • Anonymous

      The Supreme Court has not interpreted the religion clause to mean that. If you want to argue that it is unconstitutional to give money to religious schools, then you will have to come up with a good argument.

      • Anonymous

         Yes it has. Look up Lemon v. Kurtzman, Earley v. DiCenso, and Robinson v. DiCenso.

        • Anonymous

          Lemon v. Kurtzman established the three prongs of the Lemon test for using public monies in private institutions:
          The government’s action must have a secular legislative purpose;The government’s action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;The government’s action must not result in an “excessive government entanglement” with religion.

          Since then, the court has not ruled consistently that no public money can be used to fund a religious school education. The Supreme Court has backed off a decision that had disallowed an employee paid with public funds to provide services in a sectarian school. It has supported the use of public scholarship money to be used at a religious college, but not to finance a divinity degree. The court refused to hear the case of Baltimore’s school choice program–which allowed money to be used in sectarian schools– allowing the state Supreme Court’s decision in favor of the program to stand.

          • Anonymous

            Sounds like you want prayer in school and a conservative Christian agenda dominating the government.

          • poormaniac

            That’s not a bad idea !

          • Anonymous

            ya want a theocracy? move to iran

          • Anonymous

            That would not be a bad idea… it would be a lousy idea.

          •  Preach on sister Liz, but lousy is still giving it too much credit….

          • Anonymous

            Clean out your ears and open your eyes. I don’t want prayer in school. I do want a conservative government, but I could care less if it is Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Atheist or any other belief.

          • Anonymous

            Quote:
            Court Decision

            Arguments were made on March 3rd, 1971. On June 28th, 1971, the
            Supreme Court unanimously (7-0) found that direct government assistance
            to religious schools was unconstitutional. In the majority opinion
            written by Chief Justice Burger, the Court created what has become known
            as the “Lemon Test” for deciding if a law is in violation of the
            Establishment Clause.

            Accepting the secular purpose attached to both statutes by the
            legislature, the Court did not pass on the secular effect test, inasmuch
            as excessive entanglement was found. This entanglement arose because
            the legislature

            ..has not, and could not, provide state aid on the basis of a mere
            assumption that secular teachers under religious discipline can avoid
            conflicts. The State must be certain, given the Religion Clauses, that
            subsidized teachers do not inculcate religion. /unquote

            It would be a violation of religious freedom to force any taxpayer to fund / support any religious school. I would certainly object if any of my tax money went to support any religion. Religions is an abomination and I will have no part of it and will not ever fund it.

          • Anonymous

            The case in point dealt with public monies that were going to schools that were almost all Catholic. The court found that the law represented an unacceptable entanglement with a specific religion. Since then, as I pointed out above, the court has backed off its position on public money being used in sectarian schools. It has also declined to judge on recent cases involving school choice.

          • Anonymous

             The current court is stacked with theocrats. Scalia thinks that it’s OK for the government to treat Christians and Jews better than others. Thomas thinks that States should be able to just ignore Incorporation Doctrine and thus ignore the establishment clause. I would consider all rulings by the current court to be an aberration.

            It’s very unfortunate for religious freedom that there are theocrats on the supreme court. But that will change in time one would hope when people finally see that religion is a poison and that Separation of church and state is the best path to liberty.

          • CorruptionIt goes all the way to the top!http://www.politicususa.com/cl

          •  “The government’s action must have a secular legislative purpose;The
            government’s action must not have the primary effect of either advancing
            or inhibiting religion;The government’s action must not result in an
            “excessive government entanglement” with religion.”

      • Anonymous

        Sounds like you’re for the religious fanatic Santorum over the mega-millionaire Romney, though both of them are attacking each other in petty, vicious ways.

        • Anonymous

          Santorum is no more a religious fanatic than every President of the USA except Obama. It is time for people to stand up to people like you. This is a Christian Country like it or not!

          • Anonymous

              Our Heritage is not Christian….. The Country was built on the promise of freedom from the  Church of England.

             Freedom to believe whatever you want is our Heritage.

          • Anonymous

            YA, what ever Christian Church you wanted to belong to.

          •  Yes, as long as you believe  in what the nonbelievers  believe in. ,kind of circular isn’t it?

          • and,,, Obama is not a Christian, or his so called pastor,wright!  just a muslim cover, nothing more.evil being hidden.

          • Anonymous

            Grow up, you have nothing to base that on. His name was given to him by his father, who did not raise him. His grandparents, who mostly raised him, were Christians originally from Kansas.

          • Anonymous

            Who are you to judge? When you get to the pearly gates someday, you right wing crazies got some explaining to do because you think you have the right to do God’s job of judging man.

          •  Lol the only pearly gates anyone is likely to see are the ones in front of Graceland, and you have to be alive to see those.

          • Anonymous

            You are out of your mind.

          • Anonymous

            Whoa… that’s the WHOLE POINT of separation of church & state. I shouldn’t have my rights as a non-Christian impinged upon because Christians think I should act a certain ways.

          •  and vise versa

          • Anonymous

             So now we have gotten down to judging who is legitimately religious and who is not.

            Sounds like a witch hunt to me.

        • Anonymous

          Since when is actually living according to your religious beliefs defined as being a fanatic? Is it okay in your rule book for Obama and Clinton to speak about their faith and trot it out in front of the nation when it suits their purposes? Most people do not criticize them for speaking about their faith. I suspect that’s because they know it is BS and that Clinton is no more a Baptist than I am a donkey believer…

          • Anonymous

            Plenty of religious people are fanatics.  Yes or no?  Santorum believes non-believers are going to hell.  Yes or no? 

            Or maybe you just want to keep tap dancing around the point.

          • Anonymous

            Who cares what Santorum thinks or believes about where non-believers are going? If you don’t believe in hell, then why would you even care that someone thinks you are going there? If you do believe in hell, do you also believe that Santorum has been given the power to send you there? The truth is that your vanity is stung when someone dares to say what he believes, especially when what he believes does not flatter your ego by agreeing with your opinion.
            If I thought for a minute that Santorum would turn us all over to the bishops for mass floggings if he were elected president, I wouldn’t support him. But all the hysteria over his faith is just that–hyper emotion not based in reality.
             

          •  Maybe if you came up with an actual point, it would be addressed.

          •  When you live according to your religious beliefs, it is not fanaticism. It is when you want to require others to live according to your beliefs. and use your position to force people to live according to your beliefs, then you become a fanatic. Santorum scares a lot of people away because they believe electing him is akin to electing a Jerry Falwell, and every Jerry Falwell needs a Larry Flint to keep them in check. Who would be Santorum’s Flint as president? 

          • Anonymous

            Lots of people believe Santorum will force others to follow his faith? Is there any rational basis for that belief? What, specifically, could Santorum do to “force” his faith on the people of the US?

          •  He can do a lot of things. He doesn’t have to get laws passed, he can use the functioning of the government. Cuts to spending for programs that do not adhere to Christian dogma, abstinence only sex ed, cuts to women’s health clinics. There are several ways to exert influence over things with out having to pass laws.

          • You mean the tactics the Libs and their President are using against any who  believe other than they do?

          • Him saying. I will repeal anything that prevents states from banning birth control. Him saying, the separation of church and state makes me sick. ect ect. Stop lying. 

          •  Stop misquoting and cherry picking sound bytes  while taking them out of content

          • Yes, I am picking the soundbites and quotes where he is saying “I will impose my religion on others.” That is what you asked for. 

          • LOL, No you have listed  incomplete ,out of context  bit’s. Nothing more. Next time do a little home work before you stand in front of the class and  find the entire quote ,instead of Parroting from Lib sites.
            He never said he would ban Birth Control, Make a State do it or Stop a State from banning it.
            It was a Sates rights/ Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution question.
            As for the Puking reference , It was in answer to a George Stephanopololololos question,here is the puking part  quote.” “I don’t believe in an America where the separation of church and state are absolute. The idea that the church can have no influence or no involvement in the operation of the state is absolutely antithetical
            to the objectives and vision of our country … to say that people of faith have no role in the public square? You bet that makes me want to
            throw up.”

            You get a D-, It’s only that high   for your ” participation”.

        • Mary Stubbs

           The attacks are no worse than between Obama and Hilary…

          • Anonymous

            The Obama Hillary race was so much fun to watch! How quickly people forget…

      •  After giving this considerable thought, if a State makes a law allowing charter schools it certainly cant constitutionaly make a law “disallowing” religous schools either. 
        The key word is “respecting” religion.
         
           A charter school voucher law isn’t “Respecting”  religion it is “respecting” education. The religious school becomes incedental to the education law and it would then be unconstitutional to single them out of the voucher system.
         
        The Same applies to mandateing birth control coverage.  It is a law pertaining to commerce not religion.

        •  True enough. As long as the charter and private schools meet state standards of education, I don’t see a problem. Where I do see a problem is when all the Christians who are screaming for tax dollars for their schools and getting it, start saying that Muslim schools shouldn’t get public funds. I’ll love to see their arguments when that happens.

          • Anonymous

            birds of a feather+u2=flighty    :’>/

    • this  is state gvt. and i believe there are other states that have done the same.
      quit whining. too much money is already given to public schools.havent you ever noticed the more money spent on public schools, the dummer kids are ,and the more unions say they dont have enough money. unions are just as criminal as the federal gvt.and more so

      • Kids are what they are!

        I have 4 and one is a genius two are average and one just aint the sharpest knife in the draw.

        They all went to the same public school!

        • Anonymous

          Just imagine they could all have excelled if you had been allowed to send them to a school that had an interest in making sure that they were educated.  Instead the school you sent them to (and the teachers) got the same tax money whether they learned anything or not.  When 58% achieving at grade level is acceptable then something is seriously wrong with the system.

          • dadoje

            Part of the problem lies with parents that don’t show any interest in what their children are doing. Learning and getting them ready for school begins in the home. If a child hasn’t had the basic foundation to learn before they  start school, why would the child have it when they get to school. Parents need to be involved with the schools and make sure their children are doing their homework. Get them interested in books and reading. Limit time with video games and TV.
            Teachers do not spend as much time with the children as the parents should.

      •  It’s “dumber”

    • poormaniac

      Did YOU just write “no law respecting the establishment of religion “? Just where does it say no law respecting the financial support of religious schools ?

    • Anonymous

      Public SCHREWL System + $$$,$$$,$$$ = a BIG stinkin’ hole in the Ground !!!  MEA/NEA scam for the losers who *think* otherwise.

      FACT #1 –  Most of the Better educated children today are HOMESCHOOLED,  Case in point,  National Spelling Bee WINNERS !!!

      Fact #2 – Past Presidents of USA…… Self Schooled !!!  Do the Homework yourself !

      Fact # 3 – Public schools are losing students because the parents are waking up to the reality that the schools are Nothing but a Bunch of LIBERAL Loons attempting to “BRAINWASH” our future Leaders into Hating our Country, CONSTITUTION, BILL of RIGHTS and most everything else that Once made this country GREAT,,,, 

      ***Case in Point = Mr. Barack Hussein Obama ! ( not even WORTHY to be referred to as President ) THE Leader and Founder of the *OBAMANATION OF AMERICA* = “Abomination”,  He alone has made this country a joke to the rest of the world…. Not “W”!!!
       
      I *survived* the public Big Gov’t system and I Guarantee that Big Gov is gonna get may tax $$$, but they AIN’T gonna get their Sticky little fingers on MY Children.

      Homeschool is the future hope of this (once upon a time) great Nation.

      GOD, GUNS & GUTS MADE AMERICA FREE, LET’S FIGHT TO KEEP ALL THREE !

      God, Guns & Guts made America Free, Let’s FIGHT to KEEP All THREE ! 
      John G. Mitchell – The National Rifle Association and the Right to Bear Arms – 1978
      http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1760005/posts

      • Anonymous

        I was homeschooled for awhile. Definitely a good way to give one-on-one attention to your kids and help them hone their basic skills (you could work on that after school and on the weekends, too). However, most of the kids I knew who were homeschooled their whole lives had terrible, terrible social skills. You’re not doing your kids any favors to indoctrinate them and keep them sheltered, believe me.

        What about all the people who can’t afford to stay home and homeschool their kids? I think we should focus on improving the system and raising our standards. I don’t think that everyone, for instance, needs to attend a 4-year college but 4th graders should be able to read, write, and do basic multiplication/addition, yes? There are so many problems and variables that affect the education system…

        • Anonymous

           *”You’re not doing your kids any favors to indoctrinate them and keep them sheltered,”*

          My children are far from being “Sheltered”.

          As far as “Indoctrination”,,, in the purest sense of the word, that’s the whole idea of homeschooling.

          Just look at  what some of the Great Minds of the past chose to do to improve their out look on the world, be Indoctrinated in…….are you ready for this,,,,,,,,,, GODS HOLY WORD!

          Yes , I actually said it, The HOLY Bible !!!

          Please,,,, Do NOT Shoot the Messenger, just doing my best to make this world a little better off, considering how some others are attempting to undo the ideals that this country was founded on.

           I actually notice the contrary, the majority of the “kids” in our group have better “social” skills than the *average* public educated drone.

          Our students can honestly carry on a normal discussion with their peers & adults alike.

          So please, don’t be chompin’ at the bit to “key hole” all  HOMESCHOOLED  young people into the,,, “Oh The Poor Little Things Are Missing Out On So Much” category.

          Look at what my kids ARE missing out on,,,,, SEX & DRUGS & ROCK N’ ROLL & BULLYING &   BIG GOV’T *BULL-ONEY* & the list is endless.

          Well, I’m sure the nay sayers will be lining up to persecute, ridicule & call me and my family names over this post , but you know what ????…

          I’ve read the back of the book and WE WIN !!!!

          Peace & Love !!!   357 FoReVeR !!!!!! God, Guns & Guts made America Free !!!  ;<)

          • Anonymous

            Just what we need,   another lawyer explaining how guns are good, god is great, and as long as he can defend the NRA,……he’s rich and IS GOD.

                   This guy is Rush Limbaugh with a law degree,  I think it’s hilarious that he shares the same name as one of the Watergate conspirators;   conservative lawyer?   named John Mitchell!   That’s gonna hold alot of water. When he eventually gets arrested for arms violations, we can get him a…….water gun!!

          • Anonymous

            Actually, that was John N. Mitchell, just a little FYI.

            John G. Mitchell’s article on the history of the National Rifle Association and its stand on the right to bear arms (“‘God, Guns, and Guts Made America Free,’” February/March, 1978) engendered a respectable amount of mail, some of it quite heated. One reader, for example, maintained that the article was “about as subtle and unbiased as a bullet fired in anger,” and went on to declare that “guns truly represent an American heritage. I get pretty annoyed with these selfappointed do-gooders who want to classify me with crazies, nuts and murderers and take away my heritage.”A cooler reaction came from Robert B. Meredith of Tiburon, California: “I have a weapon because in my home I want the option of deciding whether to be the victim or defendant.… Contrary to many people … who own weapons, I do support registration for two main reasons: (1) I feel law officers should have the right to know if there are any registered weapons in a house they may be required to approach together with the nature and calibre of those weapons, and (2) knowing [that] a weapon [is] registered is a deterrent to its unlawful use and a spur to the reporting of its theft or loss.”Other readers, while not taking sides on the issue of gun control, did object to the article on the grounds that it was a piece of contemporary journalism which had no place in a magazine of history. In response, editor-in-chief Alvin M. Josephy, Jr., had this to say: “What has emerged today is a very healthy rebirth of interest in American history, an interest in the various phases of our national life that connect the present to the past and even, sometimes, to the future. The American heritage thus becomes not alone the dictionary definition of history, but something that is ongoing. We today are the inheritors of the past and are building on it and adding to the heritage of the future. Thus, the National Rifle Association and the constitutional right to bear arms is an appropriate subject for us, we think. The question of the right to bear arms goes back to the founding of the Republic, and the role of the NRA yesterday and today is of major historical interest. We were not partisan in the article and hope that all our readers enjoyed it.”

      • Anonymous

        Thank you BDN for removing his response,  as well as mine.    I don’t believe in flagging responses,  but I knew that my response to him would demonstrate the inappropriate response he made.

    • Anonymous

      GI benefits can be used to attend any college of choice, be it public, private, religious. This policy does not discriminate.  Schools vouchers would allow parents to choose the school of attendance for their children. The point you and others miss is that it’s the parents who are making the choice, not the government. Therefore the state government is not making any law respecting the the establishment of a religion, let alone the US CONGRESS.

    •  So where in their do you  find they basis of your claims? This ought to be good.

    • Is requiring a Catholic employer to pay for birth control and abortions, also unconstitutional?  Because you cannot have it both ways and I have seen your comments before.

  • Guest

    If john baldacci was still in charge,  everything would be OK, He knew how to borrow his way out of Debt and pass it on to the grandchildren.. This way he wouldn’t have to deal with it personally… If Our Great Governor Paul LePage!!! would take a page out of john baldacci’s play book and devert funds from the transportation dept and shift it elsewhere then Bond 1/2 a billion for roads everyone would be happy.  California and New York are bankrupt and we should follow their lead, Or we could do what Obama did to GM Bond holders and pay the bond holders 20 cents on the dollar.

  • Anonymous

    Zere Vill Be NO ZEBATE!!! I Zhav Sphoken!!! Now Do Zaz I zay!!! Do you hear!!! Are You shtupid?!?! DO ZAZ I ZAY!!!

    • Anonymous

      WHAT!

    •  Is that why they want the tanks in Searsport? Somewhere to store the gas for the chambers when a teacher is determined to be one of the “bad” ones? If one looks into the future one can see a couple of old men on a park bench feeding the birds and talking, one turns to the other and says, “We should have stopped Fuhrer LePage at Waterville…”

  • Anonymous

    “The teacher evaluation bill is of chief concern to the MEA, which
    believes that it would unfairly allow superintendents and principals to
    favor certain teachers while jettisoning others.”

    Okay, the MEA says we can’t use student standardized test scores to evaluate teacher performance. Then they say we can’t use the evaluation of supervisors to judge teacher performance. Well, what can we use? A Magic 8 Ball?

    I don’t know a job out there that contends that a supervisor has no authority to evaluate those under her. It is natural that the school principal should have the ability to evaluate the performance of teachers in her school. If she shows favoritism—well, welcome to the real world. It happens all the time. Especially to the people who don’t get the good reviews. They are always the victims of a supervisor showing favoritism. Go figure…

    • Guest

      Superintendents and Principals positions should be gone, They are there to protect their pensions period. Vile bunch they are!!! Untouchables!!! Lets allow the teachers to evaluate the Supers and Principals and see what happens…
      Do you have any Idea how many assults happen in schools every year that die in the Principles/supers office?? And the teachers are told if they say anything they will fire and blackballed  so they will never find work again in a school system.. Management covers up crimes in schools everyday to protect themselves.. EVALUATE THE MANAGEMENT!!! FIRE THEM ALL INSTEAD OF GIVING THEM MORE POWER!!!

    • Anonymous

      They could use an outside evaluator. Other states are doing this so there is no favoritism.

  • Anonymous

    Isn’t it strange how we find out on the same day that 1. “computer errors”  have jeopardized the DHHS budget numbers AND; 2. another contentious proposal is stuck in the Revisor’s office?   It just seems like…..well,   not good governmental leadership, poor organization, and confusion all around. How convenient chaos is to some, and how dangerous is it to the rest of Maine?

    • Anonymous

      Still………..somewhat better than the failed Baldacci administration.

      • Anonymous

        Did someone say something?     Oh,  I see,  it’s nopark……did he say anything relevant to the article yet, or offer any viewpoint towards what’s happening in Augusta  ……TODAY?…..nope, not yet.

  • Anonymous

    You
    teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test.  – George W. Bush

  • Anonymous

    Yeah, we don’t need to debate separation of church and state, do we Paulie ?

  • Anonymous

    Gov. LePage, where’s the transparency in government? Surely not here in Maine.

  • Anonymous

    In the future when you drive thru a small town there  will be no small school with childrem running around becaise theu will be sent out of town.

  • The strategy to dismantle Maine’s system of public education is quite well orchestrated and resounds within the model legislative initiatives proposed by the American Legislative Exchange Council (A.L.E.C.).

    Moving public education dollars into the hands of private educational institutions is a central theme of their agenda.

    For anyone who doubts that A.L.E.C. hasn’t been circulating volumes of proposed legislative bills targeted at public education to Republican legislators and government executives, there is an
    exhaustive list here:

    http://alecexposed.org/wiki/Bills_Affecting_Americans%27_Rights_to_a_Public_Education

    It should also be noted that Commissioner Bowen has absolutely no experience in educational administration and his only educational policy experience was as the head of the Maine Heritage Policy Center’s educational division.  Mr. Bowen’s position immediately prior to his appointment as Commissioner was as senior policy adviser to Governor LePage.

  • Anonymous

    The problem is not that today’s schools are failing, it is that yesterday’s schools failed to educate the people who are leading this state.

    • Anonymous

      Legislators do not understand education enough to fix it either. Education is more than making the numbers work for the budget. We need a better system of mentors to show the best teaching methods. Those can’t be taught effectively in college. Being a teacher is about much more than throwing information at the students and having them spew it back.

      • Anonymous

        Yes you are right about throwing out information but people in here are not smart enough to figure  that out .

    • poormaniac

      You must also conclude by your own reasoning that those who post here are also products of a failed education !

      • Anonymous

        No, look up ‘logic’ on Wikipedia and use what you learn to try and explain to me why your wrong.

    •  Not so. Today’s (as of  about 1979) Schools are failing  and some of today’s leaders are trying to fix this.

  • Anonymous

    I would not believe a word that comes out of LePage’s big mouth. He’s a snake in the grass and out to cause nothing but harm to the people of Maine. He’s a book burner in his heart and soul. 

  • Anonymous

    Revisor of Statues? Where would that office be exactly?

  • Otis B. Driftwood

    LaPudge stifling debate is more the norm, than the exception.

  • Anonymous

    I’ll bet every single one of the haters who comment here absolutely believe that that they are decent and kind and…

    Gotta take a shower after passing through these comments..

  • Anonymous

    We don’t need Obamacare to insure more Americans are insured. Finding ways, like making it more difficult to sue medical providers, in order to contain costs is a sure way to make health insurance more affordable and thus more available.
     
    We don’t need Obamacare to pass a law requiring insurers to accept people with re-existing conditions.

    • Anonymous

      Do YOU have insurance?  Have YOU gone into the ER latley?  Have you seen your Bill on what it costs to see a doctor in the ER?  These that don’t have insurance use the ER daily. Are YOU aware  that your tax dollar is allready paying for the unisured?    Are YOU aware of how much these HMO’s  are denying claims?  Are YOU aware that doctors have to fight with these insurance companies daily to have certain procedures done.  Have YOU ever had a problem that YOU needed a certain procedure and your ins company denied it?   And  are YOU aware of the profits from these insuance companies are making.  They are far from going broke. And one last thing… the ones filing malpractice complaints  are the ones that are on MaineCare.  It’s the easiest way to make a buck.  Let me know  if you need more examples  you don’t have a clue what you are talking about. 

      • Anonymous

        Maybe I don’t have a clue as you indicated. Maybe I’m just naive. But here are some things you need to consider:

        Those who tend to abuse ER services are those who get free medical services, uninsured people, that is. Therefore, everyone should have to pay something, if only 20 bucks, for each medical visit. And they should be made to pay a greater amount if the ER visit was not a real emergency. That measure by itself would go a long ways to clamp down on abuse of ER services.

        Hospitals and other medical providers should be able to show they’ve made a serious effort to collect unpaid bills for medical services before being reimbursed by the government. Also, no one, absolutely no one,  should be left off the hook for unpaid bills.

        I’ve never had a medical claim denied by my Blue Cross Blue Shield plan, so I can’t speak about my experiences with HMO’s because I’ve never had to deal with one.

        I own mutual funds, some invested in health insurance companies. They’ve been under-performing for several years now, and their executives are not making any more than other company executives (I know this because I’ve already done the research on this).  If they are so profitable please tell me where their profits are going.

        My doctor is very happy with the response he gets from insurance companies, but he is frustrated with medicare, medicaid, and Obamacare. The visit before last, he told me Obamacare was far too complex for doctors to comply with. According to him, there is no way it can succeed on account of its complexity. From now on he will not vote for anyone who supports the continuance of Obamacare. Those are essentially his words, not mine.

        If your insurance company is giving you a hard time, I’d suggest you look for another one. There is still competition out there, and there would be a lot more if  the state of Maine allowed most insurance companies to sell their products here in Maine.

        I don’t know who is doing most of the malpractice lawsuits, but I do know various common sense torte reform bills aimed at reducing these lawsuits have been rebuffed time and again by Obama and his supporters in both legislative branches. Dem. Party Chairman, Howard Dean, has blamed pressure from the attorney’s lobby as the reason for their obstinacy.

        • Anonymous

          Here are some figures for the for-profit health insurance CEO salaries from 2008. I doubt they’ve gone down significantly since then.

          Possibly salaries such as these are average for corporations in general. But they have no business being part of America’s health-related infrastructure. These inflated salaries are possible because the companies make huge profits by cherry-picking who they permit to enroll, and doing their best to deny services. If  you’ve had a good experience to date, that’s great. But your luck might not always continue…

          Ins. Co. & CEO With 2007 Total CEO Compensation
          Aetna Ronald A. Williams: $23,045,834

          Cigna H. Edward Hanway: $25,839,777

          Coventry Dale B. Wolf : $14,869,823

          Health Net Jay M. Gellert: $3,686,230

          Humana Michael McCallister: $10,312,557

          U.Health Grp Stephen J. Hemsley: $13,164,529

          WellPoint Angela Braly (2007): $9,094,271

          L. Glasscock (2006): $23,886,169

          • Anonymous

            No doubt these compensations are very generous for any one person. But professional athletes are making just as much if not more than the CEO’s of this world. Furthermore the salaries you posted are not more than the salaries of CEO’s in other sectors of the economy. If we feel a need to nationalize the health insurance industry on account of very generous company executive compensations, then why not nationalized all the industries?

            Take a broader look at these compensations. These amount to 66 millions dollars or to one tenth of a percent of the 56 billion dollars the uninsured spent on medical coverage in 2008, i.e., only 1 in 1,000 uninsured could have been covered if these CEO’s had forgone their compensation.. Clearly then, insurance industry CEO compensation is neither the main cause of nor the solution to insuring all Americans. If anything, these lavish salaries should be a cause of concern for investors whose investments are adversely affected.  As I suggested earlier, one way to curb costs is to increase competition where, as in the case of the health insurance industry, competition is sorely lacking.

            What made America prosperous in the past is private ownership and free market competition. The Chinese and East Indians, among other peoples, have taken a cue from us by opening their markets and allowing businesses to operate more freely with less government impediments. As a result their economies are booming. If anything the lesson to learn here is that this country needs to regulate less and allow more free market competition.

      •  Capitalizing  words you assign  special importance to make you look a fool, just like that  entire last post.

        • Anonymous

          All you have to do to look stupid is post

    • Anonymous

      Looks like you’ve had some trouble getting your comment posted, and had to retry. That’s happened to me now and then, too. I’ll reply to this one, which looks like the most recent.

      Medical care is rationed right now. Tens of millions of Americans don’t have health insurance. Millions more can afford only catastrophic coverage, which doesn’t cover preventive or routine care. Even so, they could wind up going through bankruptcy if their insurer cancls their policy or declines to pay for covered services.

      It’s ridiculous that insurers are allowed to cherry-pick customers, denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions. Suppose you have insurance through an employer. You work for them for 10 years, during which time you develop some sort of medical condition (as most people do over the years), small stuff like hypertension or low thyroid, or perhaps you have a heart attack or get injured somehow. Then you get laid off and have to obtain insurance on your own. Suddenly you’re uninsurable, since you have a pre-existing condition!

      Insurance from for-profit corporations is expensive because so much of your premium dollar goes to–PROFITS. The CEO often has a multi-million dollar salary, which gets to be this high because the company saves money by denying care.

      We need Obamacare. In fact, I advocate for a national single-payer program. Possibly you have excellent, affordable health insurance right now. But you might not always be so fortunate. And many, many Americans are not that fortunate.

      An America that lets corporations restrict health insurance overage is an America in danger of becoming weaker and more unhealthy day by day.

      • Anonymous

        For years and years our health care industry did just fine. I realize it’s in need of fixing but I don’t think we should throw away the baby with the bath water. Many attempts in the past to correct existing problems in the system have been rebuffed by the liberal left in both U.S. houses of congress in hopes of passing a package like Obamacare. Instead of ending up with a series of simple measures, we ended up with a massive bill (over 2700 pages) that we are now only beginning to understand. As former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stated to her colleagues during House deliberations, you must pass it to see what’s in it. Obamacare has not had the majority support of the public at anyone time since it’s initial introduction in the legislature for enactment.

        • Anonymous

          It would be very sad if Republican propaganda manages to derail health insurance reform. The for-profit health insurance model has served America very poorly.

          • It obvious that you are a proponent of  single payer/socialized Medicine. Why not stop hiding behind “Health Care reform” and just  push for,openly, what you  desire? Worried  that  the truth of the matter will serve you poorly and lying might serve you better?Are you  counting on  the electorate to remain  clueless forever?

          • Anonymous

            I’m absolutely in favor of a single payer system, and have written about this numerous times in these pages.

            Although I’m not a physician, I belong to Physicians for a National Health Program  (http://www.pnhp.org/). Please note that this group advocates for such a program because it will be less expensive that the current for-profit system. Since physician reimbursement will go down, the AMA tends to be against a national program.

            As PNHP notes, “The U.S. spends twice as much as other industrialized nations on health care, $8,160 per capita. Yet our system performs poorly in comparison and still leaves 50 million without health coverage and millions more inadequately covered.

            “This is because private insurance bureaucracy and paperwork consume one-third (31 percent) of every health care dollar. Streamlining payment through a single nonprofit payer would save more than $400 billion per year, enough to provide comprehensive, high-quality coverage for all Americans.”

            And don’t expect me to get all nervous when you use the buzzword “socialist.”  See, for example, this American’s article about a little-known “socialist” option in the US that saved his life: http://www.salon.com/2009/09/28/kidney_disease/

            She writes in part, “The story of the Medicare End-Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) Program is illustrative of a government plan compelling private insurers to cover more Americans than they ever did when induced solely by market forces or their own good intentions. In today’s political parlance, as the president put it in his Sept. 9 address to a joint session of Congress, this translates to a public option that will “keep [private] insurance companies honest.” This history also presents a cautionary tale of how profit-driven forces chipped away at Medicare ESRD’s effectiveness, resulting in higher treatment costs and worse patient outcomes (compared with those of other industrial nations) for the 506,000 ESRD patients in the U.S. today.”

      •  Try calling an auto insurance company and telling them that you had an accident  yesterday and you would like to buy a policy to cover that. Also tell them you want that  Insurance(check the definition of this word) to cover  oil changes and tires when they go bald.

        • Anonymous

          It sounds as if you would be pleased to be told that you are unable to get a health insurance policy, simply because at some point in the past you had a heart attack.

          Yet, if America is to become a strong and healthy county, ALL its citizens must have access to health care. An individual who had a heart attack in the past surely needs ongoing care and checkups to make sure he does not have another.

          Your comparison of certain kinds of health care to covering tires when they go bald makes me wonder if you would be happy to be denied healthcare when you become old and feeble.

          Fragile elderly people are humans, and deserve care. Unlike aging car parts. Americans who value their own health, and public health, can understand this. But people who favor corporate profits over human health seem to have trouble with the concept.

          •  No, the concept some of us have a trouble with  is  using a chainsaw to do the job of a scalpel. Our health care system could be easily  fortified to cover the issues that need to be, but the Liberals have fought that  tooth and nail. This Health care  issue is a fake Emergency,by design. It has been blown out of proportion and manipulated,mostly through stonewalling and spin, to put us in  a situation where fear and a good P.R campaign  can be used to enact drastic measures. It’s all fake. Enter Obama Care, the drastic fix for a  made up ” emergency” and a system designed to insure that the Insurance companies fail requiring the next emergency legislation, Single Payer. So spare me your indignant dribble and your superior and dismissive  attitude.It is folks like you who have given us a new system ,One that  throws individual  rights and liberties to the wind and gives obscene amounts of  control to  Bureaucrats and politicians who are already  drunk with power.
            The best you can hope for is that  S.C.O.T.U.S invalidates this monstrosity, otherwise you will see the outrage of The People  turn on you, and  see what  this power feels like when  “Your Guy” is not in charge. Either way, I’ll be happy.

          • Anonymous

            In my view, the bureaucrats who are “drunk with power” are those at the for-profit insurance corporations, who are destroying our “individual rights and liberties” with their profits-first agenda.

        • so true!

  • Anonymous

    We don’t need Obamacare to ensure more Americans are insured. Introducing cost containing measures, such as, tort reform to make it more difficult to sue for malpractice, will reduce premiums and thus make insurance less costly and more available.

    We don’t need Obamacare to enact a law prohibiting insurers from refusing insurance or insurance coverage for pre-existing conditions.

    Like all government programs, the cost of Obamacare will increase exponentially in short order. As a result government will have to resort to health care rationing for all Americans.

  • Anonymous

     – We don’t need Obamacare to ensure more Americans are insured.
    Introducing cost containing measures, such as, tort reform to make it
    more difficult to sue for malpractice, will reduce premiums and thus
    making insurance less costly and more available.
    – We don’t need Obamacare to enact a law prohibiting insurers from refusing insurance or insurance coverage for pre-existing conditions.

  • Anonymous

    This is significant legislation of which the ramifications are extensive. Additionally, there are almost always unintended consequences. These bills merit open and measured scrutiny. 

    Not one of these bills should be considered by the Legislature until there has been a thorough opportunity for all stakeholders to review, evaluate, and comment. If the LePage administration does not submit its proposal in a timely manner, it should not be rammed through at the last minute. Rather, he should be required to submit it in the next Legislative term. 

     

    • Anonymous

      Like Obama care?

      • Anonymous

        Historically, the Congressional Republicans have wanted little or nothing to do with a national healthcare plan. They killed Clinton’s plan in the 1990’s, controlled the Executive branch and both houses of Congress for the first six years of Bush 2’s administration, but offered no plan of their own, could have worked with the Democrats when they gained the Congressional majority, but did not (and still had the power of a Bush veto as leverage), and chose not to engage with the Obama administration and Congressional Democrats when the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) was being developed.

        Instead, Republicans sat on the sidelines because they really did not want to participate and then made political “hay”, complaining that they were excluded when the Democrats pushed it through. The Act has both good points and flaws. While polls of Americans’ opinion of the Act as a whole have been negative, when asked about individual provisions of the Act, many have been rated positively in polls.

        The Republicans had some good ideas and, while they wouldn’t have gotten all that they wanted, I believe that it would have been better legislation if they had really wanted to participate.

        Rather, they chose to emphasize tort reform as if it is the “cure” for all of our healthcare issues  and set records in two terms of Congress for Senate filibusters.

    •  Huh,Funny how all the sudden Lib’s want input  and debate on Legislation before it is “rammed through”.

      • Anonymous

        You know, compared to the Extreme Right, that you apparently are a part of – and I differentiate between that and being conservative – I suppose I am, as you put it a “Lib”. But then, you probably call anyone to the left of Vlad the Impaler a “Lib”.

        In point of fact, I am more of an independent moderate, having both conservative and liberal positions, depending upon the issue. I am opposed to extremism of any kind, left or right. Partisanship encourages both political parties to “ram” their agendas through. There would be a much better product if all ideas were heard and considered – majority rule and respect for minority rights.  

        At this point in time people with attitudes like yours, our deceitful governor, Tea Partiers, and  narrow-minded self-righteous moralists who preach ethical and moral values, but show little compassion or empathy for others, push to expand their “rights” while doing everything in their power to limit or take away those of of others who differ or disagree, etc., etc. are driving people like me in the opposite direction.  So, yes, I refute and disdain the aforementioned because they are dangerous. 

        I suggest that you study our history in depth. If you do you will discover that with much good that been done by the U.S. – it’s people, state and national governments – we have done our share of harm, too. We have moved far to the right much more often than leftward and every time there was great oppression and loss of liberty, accompanied by enormous hypocrisy.

        And so, Rocky Marshall, you are the biased ideologue, not I.   

        • Yes, with the wording  you have used in ,and the dismissive tone of, this post I’m sure everyone believes  you  are a “moderate/Independent”. I guess the same folks who would buy  that  would also  believe  Mr. A.King is anything but a Liberal/progressive.
           It is a sad commentary  on how  we have  failed as a Nation when  defending  ones Right’s and liberties can be called extreme.When  want’s or even needs can be decided to me more important  than  our Constitutional protections .When the difference between Democracy and Republic are lost on some and can be discarded by most.
          Your last  distorted /apologist account of our History say’s it all. You care nothing of truth or fact if it interferes with you assigned tasks or narrative.
           The neat  tact of spelling out the full name  at the end of your “comment”  is a further indication of where you  stand in the political theater,and done so while  using a Moniker/alias.

  • Anonymous

    Although the bills have not appeared for debate, the leftists were on the phone yesterday stating that “your local public school will be shut down if people are allowed to send their children to other schools, including religious schools.”  This is from the Maine People’s Alliance, which is nothing but a front for liberal activists, and they were using an outdated voting list.

  • Guest

    The last thing LePage wants is a serious debate about any of his proposals !

  • Anonymous

    do they have only one picture of this guy he looks stupid or does the picture just tell it like it is

  • Anonymous

    the Union is running scared….

  • Anonymous

    Debate? Debate is not necessary in a fascist state. Right, Paul?

  • Read Lemon v. Kurtzman decided in 1971.  In a 7-0 decision the Supreme Court ruled that direct government aid to religious schools is unconstitutional.  The chief justice was Warren Burger, a Republican appointed by Richard Nixon (just in case someone should claim a liberal bias).  In 2002, government aid in the form of need-based vouchers used to pay for attendance in religious schools was determined to be constitutional (Zelman v. Simmons-Harris).  The rationale was that the decision of where to spend the money was based on decisions of individuals not the government.  So how would this work in Maine.  The state provides money to communities for educational purposes.  If towns allow its residents the decision of where to send their children, is this similar to a voucher system which is evidently constitutional, at least according to the present Supreme Court?

    •  Is clear and makes sense, so that wont fly with the Lib’s.

    • Anonymous

      Sounds like the possibility of another Supreme Court  case to me.

  • Anonymous

    First Amendment says.  Seperation of Church and State.  Meaning—The best way for citizens to protect their constitution right, to be free from religious coercion is to become educated to educate others about the seperation of Church and State.  Local officals need to understand that they may NOT use their authority, goverment funds or goverment property to promote religion, even if the majority of the community approves. School administrators and teachers need to understand that public schools should teach the ideas of American democracy not religious pedagogy.
    If your concerned that a violation of seperation of Church and state if taking place in your community contact your local  ADL regional office.   http://www.adl.org/issue_religious_freedom/separation_cs_primer_what_you_can_do.asp

    •  Separation of and separation from are two very different  idea’s.

      • Anonymous

        Wrong!!!

  • ladybaroque

    The use of public education money to fund private religious schools is a constitional breach; it goes against the separation of church and state.

    •  Wrong.

      • Anonymous

        Just curious…do you ever make any thoughtful, substantive comments or is your limit “one-liners”? 

        •  Nothing more needed to be said ,in reference to  the post I  commented on. I could ramble on and on, but what good would it do? The Lib’s have so  perverted the wording and intent of the Constitution ,and have raised a generation off fool’s who have  accepted this narrative,  that it would require  a life time to correct.The Generation of “Me Me Me Me”, and those who raised them, have been taught a history ,with little resemblance to the truth.Instead they have been fed a  cherry picked  account  our history that  advances the liberal/progressive/whatever the hell they have been re branded to today,agenda that is grossly incomplete and factually inaccurate. 
          With this in  mind, I would rather  spend my time  elsewhere. So  marking the answer  “incorrect” or more to the  the point “wrong” ,and moving along better suits my  want’s.
            I hope this  answers your question, Do you have anything else  that you might want to “ask” ,in the same self important and dismissive manner?

  • Anonymous

    One word that describes the ALEC puppet LaPlague” administration,   sleazy. Thru and thru.

  • Anonymous

    Pass the vasoline!  You’re going to feel a little pressure.

Similar Articles