Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
But even if he were liberal, how did he pull it over on the rest of us, on Republican members of Congress, etc.? SCOTUS nominees are typically scrutinized pretty highly by the media and public. From what I recall when Souter was nominated, no one knew much about him. It seems like he was given a “pass”. I guess it was a lesson for people not to blindly trust the decisions of their elected officials, even if they have a friendly political affiliation attached to their name.
True about the liberalization of the Democrats. I think the polarization of politics became particularly acute beginning in the 1980s, such as with the Borking of Robert Bork (1987) and later with the treatment of Clarence Thomas (1991).While we're on topic, perhaps the biggest SCOTUS blunder of this era was the selection of David Souter by GHWB. How that happened is mind-boggling to me.
I find it interesting that far more people identified themselves as Democrats in '83 than today, yet a Republican easily won the election in late '83 and a Democrat won in '12. How can this be explained? The infogram shows that many people who considered themselves Democrats in '83 shifted to Independent identification whereas the % of Republicans stayed the same. I think the may indicate a cultural shift to the left over the decades. Whereas many Democrats could still vote for a conservative in Reagan, people who are now Independent still vote for the liberal guy in Obama, even though they don't think of themselves as Democrat. At least, this the most plausible explanation I can think of.There's also the fact that in 1983, the Democratic Party still retained many of the socially-conservative, working-class types who had not yet come to break away from their party on ideological grounds.
I think it's one of those things where it adds something to the story, but the degree to which it was a factor in the accident may be hard to come by. I think that astronomy can be an important tool in investigating historical mysteries, but the help it provides in this case seems limited.
That struck me as well. Merely showing the moon's course that night can we come to circumstantial evidence about Jackson's death. If it were corroborated with testimony suggesting the same kind of thing, then it would be a more solid case.
I'm sure you could find a lot of nice things at flea markets in Germany. Do they also have garage sales like they do in the U.S.?
So then how does this mesh with your other statement that he was “greatest general of the Civil War”? Brilliant strategist with no common sense?
Well, part of the problem is going to be our dependence on oil. Cutting off Saudi Arabia from the international community would not go over well. As far as I know, attempts to address this problem through more oil exploration closer to home has been hampered by liberal environmental policies. There is a vicious web of problems leading to our current state. Where to begin, where to begin.
Like many things in life, there's a balancing act which takes different concerns into account. Going to one extreme and cutting off immigration from target countries is one solution, but it would come at a high cost. Would it be worth the cost? I doubt it. There are legitimate reasons for people to immigrate from those countries you named. This is not to say that immigration from those countries should not be stricter. I think we take a chance by allowing any immigrant into our borders. There's always going to be risk. The task is to reduce them while maintaining channels for international development which aid the position of the United States.
What is acceptable risk? is only 3 dead and several hundred wounded acceptable risk? I don't think any level of risk from known jihadis is acceptable, it is bad enough trying to find and stop the ones we don't know of. Known jihadis is a risk we can greatly lessen through deportation. If they are non-citizens then they have no rights of residency, especially if they espouse beliefs and sentiments contrary to freedom and our democratic traditions. They have a word for that you know, sedition.
I think the reality is that some pose greater immediate threats than others. I don't know how the terror watch list is compiled, but I imagine that a person's name might show up on it for being linked to the financing of terrorist camps. All that person's friends might also therefore show up on the list, and the children of those friends. I think it's clear the person doing the financing would be a more immediate threat than the child of a friend of that person, even if they are both on the list.
I assumed that the Huffington Post piece made a story out of it less because it was a gamer's fantasy to play the game that long and more because it provides a plausible scenario of future events. Is this true that Civilization II creates realistic scenarios? I find it interesting that the world evolved into three powers and three powers only.
That is a good question. I am guessing not all 750,000 pose the same threat, because if they do, then we've lost.
