Basically, it comes down to this. when English speakers began using the word vodka, they already had words for distilled beverages which had distinctive character, odor, or taste. As a result, especially considering that there was no distinctive character, odor, or taste that defined vodka, vodka came to mean in English a neutral spirit with no distinctive character, odor, or taste.
If you've ever read "This does not affect your statutory rights", it's an acknowledgement of this (and, in fact, they don't even need to say that - because not saying it wouldn't affect those rights either!).
Actually, the reason contracts have such language is because that language increases the odds that a court will allow the parts of the contract which do not call for your statutory rights to be violated to stand even if other parts are found to be inapplicable because of laws which state they cannot be enforced. It is a form of severability clause. Those parts of the contract which are not contrary to law are allowed to stand when those that are contrary to law are struck down.
is that it's played by republican douchebags in khakis. you know, the type of people who are against universal health care because f you they've got theirs.
I am not sure how President Obama fits into that description.
You make an interesting complaint but you provide no argument or evidence that the government doesn't have a good reason to propose this rule.
But you see that is exactly his point, he should not have to present anything in order to prevent the government enacting a new rule. It should be up to the government to present an argument or evidence that this proposed rule is not only a good idea, but necessary. When the government proposes a new rule, the first reaction of a free people should be, "Not until you convince me that it is necessary for this branch of government to implement this rule."
Wealthy areas have students that do well, poorer areas, less so.
Right the explanation must be the fact that they have more money to spend on schools. It could not possibly be because those who have values that encourage their children to value getting an education are more likely to be wealthy, while those who do not encourage their children to get an education are more likely to be poor. It is not possible that the same factors which cause the parents of children in wealthy neighborhoods to be wealthy are the same factors which cause those parents to raise well-educated children.
On the other hand, such districts can be poorer. While the suburban schools are wealthier. My state used to have heavy state funding of schools, to even out disparities), but that started to be cut. According to a quick google search, the year it came under heavy attack involved a state congress that leaned Republican.
That would make sense if not for two things. First, those inner city schools were already failing before the state funds were cut. Second, there is no correlation between how much a school district spends per student and its success at teaching those students. A few years back, the Washington, DC school district was spending more per student than any other school district in the country, yet was one of the worst school districts in the country (I have not seen the numbers for a few years, so it may no longer be spending the most per student).
Also, the urban areas don't "lean" Democratic, they are overwhelmingly Democratic. There are occasions when a Republican will win the Mayor's office, but that is rare and the overwhelming majority of other elected offices are controlled by Democrats.
More importantly the idea that we are collectively responsible for anything is part of the problem. The only kind of responsibility that matters is individual responsibility.