Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
The work by that UT researcher is exactly what the article/video is about that I linked to in the original post. He's trying to document it before the people die out.
Well, I'm still not convinced that Britain gets it. It seems that unless politicians can stand up to the terrorists who commit crimes and those who enable them, as well as liberals who hinder this under the mantra of political correctness, the terrorists will continue to hammer away.
I lived in Texas for a while as well but it was closer to North Texas. I might have heard that an area further south had German descendents in it, but I didn't know that they preserved their own dialect.
Maybe the five men were trying to impress the two ladies in their company with their knowledge of reservoir operations.
The only thing is that I think not all of those would survive long. For example, could see additional departments being created via amendment after you're gone.
They didn't say how she paid for it, either…although perhaps she owned it outright (still would probably have to pay some fees, though). And yeah, you'd think that a water leak or something would have occurred so that access would have been needed. In my apartment, the apartment workers access my place on their own every few months for routine maintenance and fire marshal activities. Also, now that I think of it, I am surprised she did not have a massive mold problem in her place.
This is kind of a weird question, since this is like asking “if I were king, what would I promulgate?” It's even more problematic knowing that imposing a law on the land out of the blue could be extremely disruptive to people, leading to unrest, riots, etc. With that in mind, I might make minor clarifying changes to the Constitution. The very notion of the “wall of separation” between Church and State is not really rooted in the First Amendment, but that is how it has evolved over time. The First Amendment really has little to say on the matter, so if we were to expound on it with more than just a few words, I think we could protect the Founder's original vision of how they wanted this to be. I would also redraw the power of Congress to regulate commerce via the Commerce Clause. In other words, I wouldn't abolish it altogether, but more strictly define it. I can't imagine that the Founders had envisioned Congress stepping into so many remote areas of life that they do now.
He may have, but that would make such a concentration of wealth a means for making the overthrow easier….effectively a minor point in the larger plan to redistribute the wealth. Why not just address the problem from the get-go and effectively spread the wealth to begin with through multiplicity of shareholders? That's what owning stock allows for. To me, it seems that capitalism provides the mechanisms which address at least this one flaw that Marx saw in the system.One thing that gets me is that owning shares in corporations had been done for several hundred years by the time Marx was writing (c. 1860-1870s), so he would have known about their advantage. Perhaps we can say that trading shares was not widely done back then and was effectively a bourgeoisie activity. It wasn't until sometime in the twentieth century that buying and selling share became a reasonably accessible activity for the proletariat.I also wonder what Marx would have thought about possibly paying laborers in shares of company stock, in lieu of or as part of monetary compensation.
I tell you, if you start watching it you may be sucked in. I still recommend it. The only big problem is that they skip through about 8 years of history (1912-1920) in the first two seasons, probably so they can discussion contemporaneous historical events, but the characters themselves do not seem to age 8 years.I have finished the first two seasons and will watch the third when it comes out on Amazon Prime this June.
I recall that as well about Souter, but you'd think that Bush had to know some stuff. Otherwise, he was negligent for pulling a rabbit out of a hat without thinking it through. I can understand where John Roberts was coming from, even if I do not like the outcome. Hypothetically, justices are supposed to decide on the merits of a case without regard to the outcome. It just so happened that the outcome of the Obamacare case was huge.
I read Drudge everyday and I must have missed that story. I think if the story had legs – that they were in the employ of the U.S. government? – it would have been all over the news in other places as well. That's quite a story.
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.
