Bob Macadoo

1) Alta guidelines don't apply in BC.2) Those criteria would also be the choices for principals....you know the people who "run" things. Hmmmm investors taking advantage of their investment, on the terms granted to them....novel. There are tax penalties involved, its not all roses.

Nice deflect. Did they receive increased funding, more open admission/eligibility, less ridicule from Repub.? Nope. Nope. Nope. Good compromise. Take this poisonous pill or this bitter pill......see compromise.

That is the attitude of most things/most times. If I ignore it, it has to eventually go away. In some cases it works.....most other times not so much but we keep defaulting to it. Curious.

I think needs clarification by BC members. Are working retirees considered "full" union members or are they designated "retiree" member status? If they are the latter then they should enjoy ZERO seniority rights. They fight with the other "temp" worker equally and the administration decides. If the retiree is employed take it up with your principal if you don't like it as a parent/taxpayer.

I'm sure Egypt sees their political landscape as mainstream too. I prefer MB's adjectives.....more precise.

What did the democrats get for the work for welfare bill from a Repub. Senate/HOP? Other than the death knell for Gingrich.

Well me in my disturbing brain connecting logic;1) There are majority parts of the constitution that apply to "persons".....ie non-citizens and citizens alike. 2) USSC has declared that the right of habeas corpus (one of those "person" rights) applied to detainees even though they weren't on american soil. 3) Ipso facto direct detainees of America, are considered "persons" under the constitution, and should be guarateed the rights therein. 4) Torture/interrogation comes at a price. I suggest you with your Southwest ON might should suggest to the 'merican gov't to shoot them in the head on the battlefield.

When 900 years old you reach, look as good, you will not.

USSC seems to disagree with your learned view of a foreign document. Your doctoral thesis on US Gov't Framework might be in jeopardy.

The request was for hard to swallow legislation that passed as they got support for their submission before/after. I acknowledge bills were put forward that both supported (ie stimulus), the other needed for functioning gov't is compromising legislation for the more partisan aspects (eg. Cuts to welfare vs. Increase spending on education, etc.)

I wouldn't call legislating a flush hand. That's an Ace pair high bluff.....you think you got something but its dicey. The union risks losing control of future class composition. Which unlike wage/benefit is likely an all or nothing wager......there is a winner/loser in that one, where the other is a loser/loser split scenario.

An opinion does not a fact make.

You play that card too often. Much simpler than that. The other is by an antagonist. Squeaky wheel gets the grease.

British and balding? Cripes.....how did we let you in?

Hey wasn't Argus looking for any legacy accomplishments by Chretien? Hmmm.....seems a walk in the snow to me.

Well looks like there is a new independent witness who reports Brown was chased down and shot......no ongoing struggle.....no charging.....I wonder how the police will impugn his reputation......

Well you two were baited with not much. Way to keep the stereotype alive. Here's the holy trinity......NEP!

What is business model for R&D? That amount over status quo (inflation, age demographic). You know actual economic based funding.

Education/Poor/Elderly funding.......those were things supported.....there was no need for horse trading....you know when a gov't puts forward reasonable legislation for both sides. Stimulus/TARP were ransom legislation....again what horse trading? The energy bill may have been...I'll have to read up on that one.

Wasn't really referring to pay, was about the $2 million damages award. Never will get blood from a stone but you might find some gold. Unless previous management entered into a binding contract to the contrary, which was the ruling. They weren't minors, as childish as the ministers are.....contract in effect. Standard legal procedure. Which is again why you can place restrictions on arbitration to delineate scope which the gov't dare not do else screw up their plans to further bog down the court. There is no incentive for the union to move on this item as they have the flush hand....trading in for a possible straight flush would be ill advised.

What don't I get? The gov't hopes that arbitration will wipe away the billion $$$ owed, by showing that they were "correct" in prohibiting the term as obviously the arbitrator agreed. It may be untrue but it certainly will cause delay/confusion in the appeal process. Goddamn lawyers.....include politicians with that. They think the public is dumb to weasel machinations.I believe if the order is upheld and the gov't doesn't negotiate a compensatory settlement with the union in lieu of cash (eg. benefit, defferred investment, etc.) then yes they will be cutting a restitution cheque of some amount.

Not quite double dipping is a separate and distinct problem the union and boards must clear on their own. Due to early retirees and boardsunwilling to invest time in new teachers. Its laziness on both sides......the union could fix their end easily, lazy administration......thats harder.

Wrong. Just because future control of workload was arbitrated should and cannot dictate how past negotiated control of workload was established, nor unilateral dictate by the employer. If the arbitrator says future class size can be 35 but previous contract said 25, the gov't must compensate the teachers for the unilateral change they made. The court case covers up to the arbitration. The arbitration cannot be retroactive.

What was traded other than jabs and insults? Detail the quid pro quo that happened......other then the pork barreling to get votes.

Close. The risk is associated with muddying the waters of the court case. Prolonging it, giving the gov't to offset the liability therein. If in the arbitration framework it was explicit that future arbitration has no affect on past actions then I bet youxd get the union on board. I'd bet the gov't isn't in with that. Iker threw out the offer, again to get a response/counter and got political rhetoric.....go figure.