Here's a quote from the article, "Schools, teachers and area nonprofits can come in and take supplies for little or no charge."
This give-away was actually done in response to the privatization of school bussing (a way to save money on the school budget). Now the school no longer needs to pay for the bus maintenance buildings that were also being used to store stuff for the Share Center. The Share Center needed to get as many donations out of that building as possible before they got kicked out. I could go on, but just read the article I linked to above.
I'm not totally buying Joe Gray's recounting of this things, but I'll go off of what he said was said anyway. By his own account, he started out being rude and demanding and got stonewalled because of it.
If he had responded to the volunteer's polite query of "Can I help you?" with an appropriate answer of "Yes." instead of immediately demanding things. Then maybe the exchange would have gone a lot better.
He could have followed up with, "I'm concerned about where these donations came from. Can you give me that information, or let me know who I should be asking?"
If he needed to clarify he could have said something like, "I'm concerned that school property is being given away when it could be used by the school system and save the taxpayers some money."
Proper advertising by the Share Center and/or civil discourse by Mr. Gray could have prevented this exchange form being a problem.
Communication is key on both sides of this issue. (and people need to grow up)
I'm a veteran and proud of our armed forces, but this is garbage legislation. Your assumption that it's either this bill passes or the draft will be back a false dilemma and a poor attempt at fear mongering.
Rejecting this bill does not prevent recruiters from wearing uniforms to the schools they visit. You failed to comprehend that very simple fact, and then based a rant on that misunderstanding, your unfounded assumptions, and a slippery slope argument. Sorry, try again.
It could be that those who decided to change their votes did so simply because they learned more about the bill and acted in the best interest of Maine's people.
Good, and before I get flamed off the face of the earth, Here's why. This is anecdotal based legislation that effectively gives military personnel authority over the civilians charged with the care and education of our children. They should have no such authority. There was no law against them going to a school while in uniform anyway.
Schools are supposed to be learning institutions, not a government mandated platform for a sales pitch. I respect the uniform and am glad I served but I've always maintained that it gave me no authority to exert my will over the civilians of the United States.
Good to know that motorists are enraged bulls who will trample everything they can in order to get where they are going.
So what's next Ken? Liability insurance for pedestrians?
Excise tax? Sure, I'll pay, once all roads have bicycle lanes and the tax rate is based on the weight of my vehicle.
Inspections? Fine, I inspect my bike before each ride anyway.
Licenses? Age Requirements? How much regulation do you want?
9 Year old kids riding alone through downtown Portland? Sounds like a parenting issue.
Cyclists don't have to meet the same requirements as motorists because they aren't driving a 2 ton machine that's powered by a series of controlled explosions. Cyclists push pedals on a machine that weighs about 1% of the average car. These 2 ton machines are putting out a couple hundred horsepower. The bicyclist? Usually, less than 1 Horsepower.
We should all me mindful and do our best to stay safe (cyclists and motorists), but your comments lack perspective.
Insurance companies need to be reformed, and I commend him for taking a stand. However, I also see problems with it.
Is he also a pharmacy? Does he have cut-rate medicine he can distribute? I don't think so. So, you'll need to either pay full price for prescriptions or carry prescription insurance. Oh, yeah, even if you do have prescription insurance, they may not pay for what he wants to prescribe to you. Let's say he prescribes medicine 'C'. In many cases insurance will require you to try med 'A' and 'B' before 'C' is even allowed.
If he has to refer you to a specialist, do his low prices come along with you? No, and most likely the specialist will require you to have insurance before you can be seen. What if you need to be hospitalized or need surgery? You'll run into the same problem.
What if your a very healthy person and all you ever need throughout your life is to see one doctor? Good for you, but that won't really matter. Under the Affordable Care Act (and please don't turn this thread into an "I hate Obama Care" rant) we will all be required to carry insurance. I'm sure the good doctor knows this. So, if we have to carry medical insurance anyway, then where are the savings to the patient? There are none, because they'll still be paying for insurance.
Medial costs need to be brought under control, and insurance companies need to let doctors treat their patients the way the doctor sees fit, not the way the insurance company allows. This is huge and complex problem so I applaud anyone who is trying to change it, but this isn't the way.
The governor has decided in his "infinite wisdom" that old people and people on disability (it effects them too) are so healthy that they couldn't possibly need the same level of care as young healthy folks. He is restricting mental health care based on a demographic. Mr. Lepage, it is sounding more and more like you need some therapy there yourself "buddy".