A new Principal has been selected for Copeland Middle School. The announcement will be made tonight at the Board of Education meeting, 7PM in the Copeland Cafeteria.
Yes, the principal was appointed, Scott Allshouse (sp). But even bigger news; perhaps some knew already. 140 Greenpond will NOT be considered for school expansion
quote: Originally posted by: Tell us something new tED "I told everyone a month ago that 140 was out of the running."
According to the BOE they made the decision last week. The concern was cost, notpollution as you suggested. Member Eric Smith left the door open to reconsidering the property at a later date.
Of course it is - never claimed it wasn't. The point is it will take YEARS to gain all the approvals to cleanup and certify that property for redevelopment - to long for our school needs projections numb-nuts...try to keep up...
It was clear to anyone following this situation that 140 GP Rd. was NOT going to be the space.
It was said here and in other places that it simply did not look like a good choice.
Why is it such big news???
Oh and by the way what the BOE does has NOTHING to do with the CC application - lumping the 2 together is tantamount to claiming we are in Iraq because of 9/11...one has NOTHING to do with the other.
quote: Originally posted by: guess who "... we are in Iraq because of 9/11...one has NOTHING to do with the other. "
9/11 and Iraq are of course linked. Here's how:
Bush is blamed because he didn't stop the 9/11 attacks because he "should have" seen that there was a growing threat from within Afghanistan.
Then Bush (and Clinton and Kerry and the UN) see that there is definitely a growing threat from within Iraq and he (NOT Clinton, NOT Kerry, NOT the UN) takes action to eliminate it.
For political gain now, the liberal media and dems try to paint a very different picture of a failed war. But the wise have not forgotten. Clinton, Gore, Kerry and the UN all knew (and said so many times) that there were WMDs. Where are they? Some were destroyed by US bombs, some are buried in Iraq and some have been smuggled to surrounding terrorist friendly countries. But only an idiot thinks they never existed.
Back to the connection: both countries were teaming with terrorists that want to kill you and your families.
Under Bill Clinton, these terrorists were pretty much ignored while the US Military and Intelligence budgets were slashed (with the willing help of Senator Kerry).
Hence, we were so vulnerable after the 8 years of Clinton, that an attack was inevitable.
Now the vulnerability is not near as bad as it was. There is always a chance for an attack in a country as free as ours. But now we are killing terrorists on their own turf, in Iraq. And liberating the formerly tortured, decapitated and oppressed Iraqis to boot.
There is an active effort well underway with the Homeland Security Dept. that seeks to unify and coordinate the nations law enforcement groups to provide the best protection possible.
We are so much less vulnerable than we were four years ago, thanks to "W" and those working with him.
And that, my friends, in several nutshells, is the connection, and then some.
And the connection between the school and CC was obvious by those opposed to CC on this board who shouted "CC will lose because a school will be built there". A school was seen as a great way to block CC. The opposers said "we'll gladly pay higher taxes for a school if it blocks CC". To them, there WAS a connection.
LOL, that post was hilarious. Actually you are correct regarding the connection folks on the board saw b/w the school possibility and blocking the church.
That Bush stuff was hilarious though. I almost thought is was a spoof for a minute. Try something closer to the truth: Bush, acting with the support of all right thinking people, goes into Afganistan and strikes a direct blow against the terrorists who struck our nation. But not a fatal blow, as Bush's promise to bring down bin Laden has yet to happen. Then once the easy part of the war is over, conveniently, the Cheney-Wolfowitz group starts to point to Iraq. After all, they are a nice easy target, and these guys never liked them much anyway (that is once he stopped doing what we told him to do). So Bush starts making noise about Iraq. Now why was it? Terrorism? Sure, let's try that one. Uh-oh, no connection there (although he felt no shame at taking advantage of the fact that 70% of Americans thought Saddam was involved in 9/11 - in fact took advantage of that ignorance instead of educating the masses). So anyway, it was WMD for excuse #2, and off to the UN we go (btw, where is bin Laden? Why are bombing happening in the Phillipines, Spain?). Moving on, the rest of the world seemed to have a much better clue that there were no WMD to be found than Bush (if you have been paying attention recently you have seen the admission that the Iraqi exiles we were listening to were lying. Of course, people were saying that back when, and our fearless leadership chose to ignore it, since they were being told exactly what they wanted to hear). All this on top of UN inspectors nto finding anything (and yes they were allowed in) So, ok the wimpy UN won't go along, screw 'em! We'll do it on our own! Wolfly and Rummy say it'll be a blast, a piece of cake, Iraqis throwing rose petals at our feet. Sounds like fun!! Uh-oh!! They are throwing bombs and not roses? What happened? Oh, no planning for the post-war, no clue that the presence of American troops on Arab soil might spark instead of stop terrorists, and no international support b/c we acted like a bunch of arrogant cowboys throughout! Shocking outcome! So now we have wasted almost two years during which we should have been (a) finding bin Laden, (b) using international pressure to nudge our arab "allies" towards democratic reform from the inside and (c) actually funding homeland defense measures (without trampling our civil rights please).
Was there a good reason to invade? Not really, but actually I can find you one (it was not one that the Bush folks cited as a reason until all the others were proven foolish) - a democratic Iraq might cause a chain reaction of reform in the arab world. This is true, unfortunately, the way in which we approached this war made that outcome almost impossible, since it requires an international involvment to make possible.
So, if you enjoy an America that is viewed as a bully instead of a role model, an America that goes it alone in the world instead of leading nations, then Bush is your guy!! (John Wayne for President!) Here's hoping for an America of moral integrity and strength, honesty and hope, to lead the world by a shining example instead of our present world-as-WWE-battle-royale outlook.
quote: Originally posted by: Jarret "LOL, that post was hilarious. blah blah blah blah ...royale outlook."
Jarret,
You must enjoy your time watching ABC, NBC, CBS & CNN. They've filled you with that spin that you managed to regurgitate quite effectively. Not too heavy on facts, just lots of rhetoric without any substanance.
But hey, I understand, it's the liberal way. I guess you'd have prefered Al Gore in office for the 9/11 attack. Oh wait, I know, it wouldn't have happened if Gore was president because those nasty terrorists wouldn't have had anything to be mad at us for. They would have just pulled the plug on all those years of planning (that started in the mid 90's). Sure, I'll bet if there was an attack with Gore as President, he would have done a much better job than the Great Stainmaker did with stopping the terrorists who attacked the WTC in '93.
And I see you failed to address the fact that you libs have been cutting the CIA & military budgets for years. But hey, why do we need to shore up our Intelligence Agancies when we have peace loving tree huggers at the helm?
And you didn't even touch on the valid points I made concerning the fact the the Dems are attempting to score points on Bush by saying he could have prevented 9/11, when it's obvious that oportunity was during the 90's with Slick Willie. So now, Bush stops an evil, murdering, terrorist dictator in his tracks, and all you libs can talk about is a few bad soldiers who put undies on some terrorists heads. You certainly seem in no hurry to bring up the beheading of the innocent Mr. Berg. And why not? Maybe because that act reveals exactly what we're up against.
We'll maybe you're happier just sitting back and looking at life through your rose colored glasses, ignoring the fate of some 3000 innocent souls lost across the river. But such a short sited view of history will be just the ticket to make sure that it happens again.
So I am sorry if you think that the Iraq war is unjust, but I am quite happy with any justice that will save the lives of thousands of Americans.
And I am truly sorry that you probably will never have any idea of just how tragically wrong your ideas are.
Hmm, your quote did not come through when I hit "quote" - although the blank "" is actually an accurate portrayal of how much intelligence was in your quote, so I guess I will leave it at that.
You must be right Connections, I mean of course you are, you agree with Bush, and as we know Bush is never wrong, just ask him. Of course, no one asks exactly how one sustains a foreign policy like his.
By the way, I find it quite amusing that you label me a "lib." I am quite sure that most liberals I know would be greatly offended to find someone putting me in their group. You see the truth is that Bush is not a conservative at all. He is far more radical than that. Back to our foreign policy, how does a country sustain a foreign policy based on complete arrogance? We profess to be a nation of laws, but refuse to play by any. I love the "Bush went in and stopped a ruthless dictator" argument. That is lovely. I will even put aside the fact that the reason he was in power is because we supported him, let's just start with the "he is a ruthless dictator" part. He is alone? There are no other ruthless dictators? Of course not, there are a bunch. Truth is, if we were interested is invading somewhere where there is genocide far worse than in Iraq coupled with a real environment of the extremist groups that produce terrorism, we'd be in the Sudan. But it isn't about that!! Wake up, stop falling for the sucker's play. So please, save me the "Iraq is better off than before argument." It is lame. There are a whole slew of nations that might be better off if we were so gracious as to invade them, crush their infrastructure, kill thousands of civilians, remove their dictators and then instill a new government. I mean that seriously (but I paint the more realistic picture). SO, who is next? You see, it is an absurd foreign policy, based on idealistic dreams and not reality. Guns have never effected real positive change. They are great to have, and have to be used sometimes, but alone they do nothing. It is ideas that matter. Until we are exporting ideas and not explosions, we won't see anti-americanism decrease. It'll just increase.
Goodness, let's please stop letting 3rd graders run the country.
quote: Originally posted by: Jarret " Hmm, your quote did not come through when I hit "quote" - although the blank "" is actually an accurate portrayal of how much intelligence was in your quote, so I guess I will leave it at that. You must be right Connections, I mean of course you are, you agree with Bush, and as we know Bush is never wrong, just ask him. Of course, no one asks exactly how one sustains a foreign policy like his. By the way, I find it quite amusing that you label me a "lib." I am quite sure that most liberals I know would be greatly offended to find someone putting me in their group. You see the truth is that Bush is not a conservative at all. He is far more radical than that. Back to our foreign policy, how does a country sustain a foreign policy based on complete arrogance? We profess to be a nation of laws, but refuse to play by any. I love the "Bush went in and stopped a ruthless dictator" argument. That is lovely. I will even put aside the fact that the reason he was in power is because we supported him, let's just start with the "he is a ruthless dictator" part. He is alone? There are no other ruthless dictators? Of course not, there are a bunch. Truth is, if we were interested is invading somewhere where there is genocide far worse than in Iraq coupled with a real environment of the extremist groups that produce terrorism, we'd be in the Sudan. But it isn't about that!! Wake up, stop falling for the sucker's play. So please, save me the "Iraq is better off than before argument." It is lame. There are a whole slew of nations that might be better off if we were so gracious as to invade them, crush their infrastructure, kill thousands of civilians, remove their dictators and then instill a new government. I mean that seriously (but I paint the more realistic picture). SO, who is next? You see, it is an absurd foreign policy, based on idealistic dreams and not reality. Guns have never effected real positive change. They are great to have, and have to be used sometimes, but alone they do nothing. It is ideas that matter. Until we are exporting ideas and not explosions, we won't see anti-americanism decrease. It'll just increase. Goodness, let's please stop letting 3rd graders run the country."
Got any facts, Jarret? If you have, you're doing a great job of hiding them.
