These chicks act like junior high girls who just got blown off by the quarterback. Wow.
Senator Judd Gregg is awesome in this, because he’s specific and pointed and clear, even while these women get all huffy at him.
LOVE.
Other Stuff We Write That You Should Totally Check Out
Buy Chicks On The Right Stuff!
Searching for Something in Particular?
Wanna Support Chicks On The Right With A Donation? Awww!
Contact Us!
Recent Comments
- Pink Slip on A Nation Of Ankle-Dwellers
- Laurel on Next In Senator Judd Gregg’s Spanking Spree Line: Peter “Dungeons and Dragons” Orszag
- Laurel on I Need To Weigh In On The Whole “Retarded” Controversy.
- Laurel on Just In Time For Valentine’s Day – The Bromance Is Over.
- Laurel on A Nation Of Ankle-Dwellers
- Laurel on OMG. HOW Have We Not Made Fun Of Him Yet?
- Laurel on In Honor Of What Would Have Been His 99th Birthday…
- Laurel on And Today, In Political Correctness Gone Haywire News…
- genetics73 on A Nation Of Ankle-Dwellers
- genetics73 on A Nation Of Ankle-Dwellers
- Pink Slip on A Nation Of Ankle-Dwellers
- Daisy on And Today, In Political Correctness Gone Haywire News…
- Tazzy on And Today, In Political Correctness Gone Haywire News…
- Papa Kilo on And Today, In Political Correctness Gone Haywire News…
- Papa Kilo on And Today, In Political Correctness Gone Haywire News…
Other Stuff
Archives
Get the 2010 Hunks On The Right Calendar Here! Just Click The Picture Below!
These chicks are the reason that we still make 80 cents to a man’s dollar. God.
Yeah, but they’re kinda cute…and that’s more of the reason why women still make less. Paid for looks, not for performance.
They got spanked right on national tv. You just can’t have an intelligent conversation with an unarmed person.
Gregg voted for an amendment in 1996 that would have abolished the Department of Education.
PS: So?
Well, just saying—he was asked if he’d cut education spending and he replied that it was a ridiculous question. It would seem that it was a very appropriate question, considering his voting history.
PS…that was over ten years ago! Get real! AND for the record I would dump the Dept. of Education as well.
Yeah, the Department of Education is not synonymous with funding education. If fact, millions of educators will tell you that the abolition of the DOE might be the best move for education and a Boom in terms of cost savings.
Eliminating Education Department in NO way means eliminating funding of education. The Department is a wasteland. It is contributing as much to educating Americans as Ministries of Culture were contributing to making Communist countries cultured.
MD and genetics: BINGO!
Has the Department of Education done as well as the Department of Energy?
Begun officially on August 4, 1977 during the Carter administration, now with 16,000 employees, 100,000 contract employees and an annual budget of over $24 billion, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) was created to reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil; develop energy efficient technologies; strengthen America’s energy security, environmental quality, and economic vitality; and …bring clean, reliable and affordable energy technologies to the marketplace.
From what I have seen the Department of Education is a bigger money pit than this. I think all of these departments should be dissolved.
“Department of Education is not synonymous with funding education.”
In the video, when Gregg is asked about cutting education spending he specifically mentions the Department of Education and it’s budget.
Did he mention cutting their funding?
OMG, that’s the intellectual equivalent of “When did you stop beating your wife?”
Weak.
He voted to abolish it in 1996. I think that would be considered cutting their funding (all of it).
PS is not reading – perhaps he’s been one of those “educated” by the Department of Education. So, I’ll type it s-l-o-w-l-y: elimination of the Department AND cutting off its funding is NOT equivalent to abolishing funding for education in America.
In and of itself, abolishing the Department of Education DOES cut education funding.
Here is a little about that budget. How much B.S. is this?
Hundreds of Billions per year that they shouldn’t have their hands in. Schools should be private or left to the states.
http://www.ed.gov/blog/2010/01/duncan-new-investment-will-fuel-reform-and-boost-economy/
Oh good grief PS, cutting their budget is not synonymous with abolishing them! You should want them abolished since they don’t actually directly educate anyone, they just take money that is supposed to go to the schools. Nothing but bureaucracy that produces nothing but more bureaucracy.
PS,
When the mean girls from msnbc mentioned cutting all funding to education, he rejected the notion.
When he suggested abolishing the DOE he did not simultaneously suggest cutting all funding to education. Those things are not synonymous.
Are you an idiot or are you just trying to be an ass?
Let me run this by you again.
The question was whether or not Gregg would cut spending for public schools. He indicated that is was a ridiculous thing to say. My point was that is was indeed a valid question since he has voted in the past to abolish the Department of Education. Abolishing the Department of Education WOULD cut some spending for education, considering that public schools DO receive SOME federal funds from the Department of Education. GET IT YET? I never suggested that Gregg’s vote to abolish the DOE would abolish all funding for education.
You know, you’re totally right. I’m sorry I didn’t see the wisdom of your point from the outset. Your take was eloquent, succinct, and fully developed. I’m not sure how I missed it.
Glad you’re here.
Actually, abolishing the DOE woud free up money spent on the bureacracy to run the DOE and make that money available for actually educating children. Not that throwing money at schools cure the ills of public education, as any of us in Chicago know all too well.