Originally Posted by DaleMN

Ignorance is bliss.

For you it always has been.

I guess people who hate Limbaugh feel it convient to believe he represents the Repbulican Party and hence attempt to interpret his words and actions Repbulican .

Guess what believe it or not there are many people like me who do not listen to Limbaugh or other pundits but actually follow the issues and decide independently. Its call being an individual.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

Most leftists make ignorant statements like that. It makes them feels better about themselves.

And how about you; do you feel better now?

Originally Posted by Villages PL

What about Penn. where a school board member, Patty Saxton, complained that taxpayers shouldn't fund high school football? Are you saying she didn't know that football pays for itself? And she worried about expensive law suits; what would happen if someone was awarded multiple millions of dollars? Who would pay? If what you say is true, why didn't Rush point that out? Instead, he didn't address the issue of taxes at all, and didn't adddress the issue of injuries.

If you actually read Richie's reference, you would have noted that she objected to football in publicly funded schools and made no reference to the costs or monies made from the sport. She also objected to other contact sports such as soccer. Since she objects to contact sports this would necessarily extend to not only football and soccer, but basketball, hockey, girls field hockey, lacrosse, cheerleading, etc as well.

What sports, if any do you believe should be played at public high schools? Apparently you would go along with chess, checkers and little else. No risk of injury and no taxpayer money. Can't you just hear the cheers for a double jump? If you believe some sports should be allowed, do you think students and parents should have a voice in their selection or is up to the superior wisdom of people such as yourself and Patty Saxton? If you can find a reference that shows that football at schools in the Eastern PA area does not pay for itself, please provide it.

Originally Posted by Villages PL

And how about you; do you feel better now?

I'm not a leftist, and so of course I don't make those ignorant assumptions about Rush Limbaugh and his listeners views which he validates.

Originally Posted by rubicon

I guess people who hate Limbaugh feel it convient to believe he represents the Repbulican Party and hence attempt to interpret his words and actions Repbulican .

Who are these nebulous "people" who hate Limbaugh? Can you be more specific?

Guess what believe it or not there are many people like me who do not listen to Limbaugh or other pundits but actually follow the issues and decide independently. Its call being an individual.

I don't accept your premise that one cannot listen to Rush and still be an individual. I want to stay informed of the latest "stupid things" he's feeding his blind followers.

By the way, I believe he claims to represent conservatives rather than the Republican party. That's why I'm perplexed as to why he didn't support the tax and liability issues put forth by Patty Saxton. Well, not only didn't he support her, he called her a "busybody woman".

I wonder why no one on this board has been able to explain this?

Originally Posted by RichieLion

His detractors don't like him because he exposes them for what they are. It's really just that simple.

Who are these mysterious detractors? Anyone who questions what he says?
If you dare question what he says, you're a detractor! Very interesting.
You're either a follower or a detractor; there's no inbetween.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

Most leftists make ignorant statements like that. It makes them feels better about themselves.

Why are you referring to "most leftists"? Can't you be more specific?

Originally Posted by Villages PL

By the way, I believe he claims to represent conservatives rather than the Republican party. That's why I'm perplexed as to why he didn't support the tax and liability issues put forth by Patty Saxton. Well, not only didn't he support her, he called her a "busybody woman".

I wonder why no one on this board has been able to explain this?

I believe I did just that is post 64. Why don't you read it and see if it answers your question and then answer the ones I posted.

Originally Posted by BBQMan

If you actually read Richie's reference, you would have noted that she objected to football in publicly funded schools and made no reference to the costs or monies made from the sport.

So, now you are objecting to what she didn't say. But you don't object to what Rush didn't say. Rush didn't say that high school football pays for itself. You were the one that said high school football pays for itself and now you're changing the subject because you can't back it up.

She also objected to other contact sports such as soccer. Since she objects to contact sports this would necessarily extend to not only football and soccer, but basketball, hockey, girls field hockey, lacrosse, cheerleading, etc as well.

No, it wouldn't "necessarily extend" to other sports. Stop trying to change the subject.

What sports, if any do you believe should be played at public high schools? Apparently you would go along with chess, checkers and little else. No risk of injury and no taxpayer money. Can't you just hear the cheers for a double jump?

Again, stop trying to change the subject.

If you believe some sports should be allowed, do you think students and parents should have a voice in their selection or is up to the superior wisdom of people such as yourself and Patty Saxton?

As I have already indicated, all of these decissions should ultimately be determined by the taxpayers and their representatives.

If you can find a reference that shows that football at schools in the Eastern PA area does not pay for itself, please provide it.

You were the one who made the contrary (contrary to what a knowledgeable school board member said) statement that high school football pays for itself. So, the burden of proof is on you.

What Ms. Paxton did say was that she objected to football being played in taxpayer funded schools. She did not say that she objected to taxpayer money being spent on football. Unless you have another source, please do not extend her objection to football being played in publicly funded schools to taxpayer funding of football. An entirely different thing. You invented this claim out of whole cloth and need to back it up or admit you cannot. I doubt you'll do either since you keep trying to avoid the issues.

What other sports? If spending of taxpayer money is part of the issue as you contend, then THIS IS THE SUBJECT. Stop trying to avoid the issue of taxpayer funding of sports in public schools. The same applies to your next comment.

You did clearly answer that students and their parents should not have a voice in the matter of sports to be selected, but rather that it be determined by, "taxpayers and their representatives." Students have no voice and instead of direct parental involvement you favor determination by government. Local, State or Federal? What are you favoring?

Your 'knowledgeable school board member' did not make the assertion that football does not pay for itself. This was your claim and again I ask you for proof of your assertion.

Originally Posted by BBQMan

What Ms. Paxton did say was that she objected to football being played in taxpayer funded schools. She did not say that she objected to taxpayer money being spent on football. Unless you have another source, please do not extend her objection to football being played in publicly funded schools to taxpayer funding of football. An entirely different thing. You invented this claim out of whole cloth and need to back it up or admit you cannot. I doubt you'll do either since you keep trying to avoid the issues.

Of course, you're just nit-picking because you can't back up your statement that high school football pays for itself in Penn. I'm simply defending her statement that, "schools funded by the general taxpayer base is inappropriate."

What other sports? If spending of taxpayer money is part of the issue as you contend, then THIS IS THE SUBJECT. Stop trying to avoid the issue of taxpayer funding of sports in public schools. The same applies to your next comment.

Football is the issue.

You did clearly answer that students and their parents should not have a voice in the matter of sports to be selected, but rather that it be determined by, "taxpayers and their representatives." Students have no voice and instead of direct parental involvement you favor determination by government. Local, State or Federal? What are you favoring?

Whatever Patty Saxton was calling for as a school board member.

Your 'knowledgeable school board member' did not make the assertion that football does not pay for itself. This was your claim and again I ask you for proof of your assertion.

In my opinion, the burden of proof is still on you because you brought it up. Anyway, I don't much care one way or the other. Whatever her exact position is on the matter, I'm simply defending her right (as a school board member) to make a judgement and express her opinion. Obviously, there may be budget issues we don't know about.

And I notice you cleaverly left out the issue of potential liability that may result from serious injuries. Who would pay, for example, a multi-million dollar judgement, if not taxpayers?