If that was true, then wouldn't it be more likely that they'd end up in a 'east-west' alignment(or something similar depending on latitude) during daylight hours , with the facing direction dependant on time of day than 'north-south' and random directions at night.
If this turns out to be a repeatable study, it's one of the most shocking discoveries ever, if only because everyone who's ever waited on a dog to 'do it's business' has seen that twist every time.
Of course it doesn't really answer 'why', but at least there seems to be a method to their madness.
Pass what? All I see is another crybaby objectivist whining that 'things were better when I was young'. Maybe the editor removed the 'stay off of my lawn' from the first draft.
Really? A TV show using made up science, next you'll claim that Scottie of Star Trek didn't really have any engineering skills and was simply some actor spouting out nonsense.
Actually, the Whig party fell apart before the GOP was formed, most of its northern based joined the new party. If (when) the GOP fails another party will gain steam, but not before.
the insurance will not be affordable and additionally many of the plans will actually end up being inferior to what many had before.
So says the 'chicken little' AC. Next year we'll find out if everything the GOP has been claiming for the last 5 years is really true. I believe that they will be proven wrong while millions of Americans who had pre-existing conditions will be able to find coverage at normal cost and many thousands will not lose coverage in the middle of an illness. While many millions more American will find better coverage, many at significant savings than they would have paid previously.
Meanwhile, the medicare cuts made by the ACA (aka Obamacare) which the GOP claimed would kill, have contributed to a 5% savings in Medicare costs which has reduced the budget deficit even more than expected. Every year the Republicans have been claiming that we are at the doorstep of disaster, and seemingly despite their best efforts, it has not happened. The question is when the stop being pessimistic and start claiming 'victory', how do they claim Obamacare was their idea?
So when a rich looking white guy (new shoes, button down shirt seems to be enough) who might have every reason to be on a particular street, gets mugged, is there anyone who claims that 'he deserved it'? Or why did all those victims in the mass shooting look all fleshy and human, just begging to be shot?
Most bad government has grown out of too much government. - Thomas Jefferson
Whenever I see a quote like that attributed to Thomas Jefferson, I always [use a popular internet search tool] to find more often than not that it's simple right wing fantasy. Why am I not surprised, that it's fake?.
Here are some more things to chew on:
All of our founding fathers spent their entire lives as politicians both during the colonial era and after the revolution. The idea that they were somehow 'afraid of government' is ludicrous.
The idea that revolution was 'a bunch of farmers with their personal guns' is ridiculous, it was funded by state governments (Continental Congress) and supported by the French crown.
Thomas Jefferson didn't write the Constitution, nor the bill of rights, as he was minister to France that entire time, he wasn't even on the committees. Was he really even a 'Framer'? Also, for all his views, when given the chance as a President he governed with an expansive view of both executive and federal power.
After spending some time now as a corporate drone, I've come to believe that all 'major' plans are variations of either 'consolidation' or 'diversification', and that all big shifts in corporate power come from presenting the opposite of the last budgeted plan to senior management. However, it's important that the presenter get himself promoted to a new unrelated position before the halfway point of the project.
What I don't understand is how anyone could mistake 'Top Gear' for being a car show. I've seen it a few times on BBC America and much like Stephen Colbert mocking right wing punditry, it seem more like three comedians mocking a show about automobiles.
This map of districts 'servicing' downtown Austin is from the Texas's 21st congressional district on wikipedia. One should note that the street in the dead center of that mess is named 'Martin Luther King Jr', I'll leave it to the reader to figure out what the means. It includes the 25th District and the 10th district which includes both some of 'downtown' Austin and Huston suburbs. So Austin, arguably the most liberal city in Texas has three Republicans representing it.
As a programmer, it just seems best to use the most dangerous function ever created for a lazy coder GOTO:41621277, sure that you bushed it off quickly and seem to expect that simply restating your positions time and time again somehow will make them better, but to me at least it doesn't.
I would need to do further research to really claim the founders all agreed on this point in theory.
I've seen lots of people though the years say such thing, I see it as sort of 'the halfway point' of a lucid point of view, not in their own lives, but generational (perhaps you're a gen-xer?). However, ask yourself this: when was the last time you muttered that word about another person? A black guy who cut you off you off on the highway, perhaps a slow store clerk, or a young man with baggy pants and a strait billed hat, statistically all them are likely tax payers and many of them have families to support.
One thing that I notice about myself is that I used the phrase 'Jesus' a lot (or could it be 'Geeze'), not that I'm religious, it's just something I say when frustrated. I'm not really sure where I picked it up I suspect that many people such as yourself have a similar fixation to 'the N word'. As I see it, rather than making a real attempt at modifying what society has (fortunately IMHO) bad behavior, you just claim to have a special use for it. Sure there are people who will harass and beat up people based on race regardless of that person's view, however it's far more likely to be a black man at the 'wrong end of the stick' than a white guy. Yet you might never acknowledge such a reality, because it wouldn't fit with your politics.
However, that doesn't mean we can't come up with some agreed upon generalizations.
Who's the 'we'? Do you have a mouse in your pocket? Does 'we' mean, you and the ditto heads? You and the Ayn Rand fan club? If 'we' is you and me, I'll have to warn you about the most I'm willing to generalize about the founding fathers is that they were white men of respectable backgrounds who were representatives of their states. Also, many of them were lawyers, some of them were slave owners. Otherwise they were a diverse group who fought fiercely over the role and responsibility of government (both federal and state for that matter). Hamilton's Report on Manufactures is very clear about what that founding father intended about the 'general welfare clause'.
Leading opponents of Alexander Hamilton's economic plan included Thomas Jefferson (until later years) and James Madison, who were opposed to the use of subsidy to industry along with most of their fledgling Democratic-Republican Party. Instead of bounties they reasoned in favor of high tariffs and restrictions on imports to increase manufacturing; which interestingly was favored by the manufacturers themselves who desired protection of their home market.[citation needed] Although the Jeffersonian stance originally favored an "agrarian" economy of farmers, this changed over time to encompass many of Hamilton's original ideas,[3] while "the Madison administration helped give rise to the first truly protectionist tariff in U.S. history."[4]
I bring this up for two reasons, a to show more graphically just how different these founding fathers differed and to infer the idea that Jefferson was all over the map with his opinions. The man who wrote the Declaration of Independence wasn't even invited to the constitutional convention, he did not sign it nor did he participate in its first congressional session, as he was away in Paris as the minister to France and attempting to negotiate an end to various British claims (also 'hanging around' with a married woman, and later his deceased wife's slave half sister). Madison, who had also 'beat out' Jefferson for the all but the preamble of the VA constitution, was largely very quite about 'what he meant' when he wrote it, I researched it once and found only three quotes that mostly seemed to be against a broad interpretation of the 'general welfare clause'. Which might seem to be 'good news' for your cause, but as I remember it one of them basically claimed that it was 'copied over from the Articles of Confederation by accident' (not a direct quote, I'm too lazy too look, but I did once research it well) and all of them weren't statements of policies, but a few lines in private correspondence, after his two terms in the White House. Not exactly the stuff of case law and I believe that he wanted it that way. In fact several thing for which he championed were voted out, including establishment of a national university, export taxes and rules governing national elections, which of course are not exactly the ideas of a extremely limited government.
Let me ask you this, if the federal government was not intended to be bound by the Constitution, then what was the point of writing it in the first place?
Huh, I thought what we were talking about how the Constitution was interpreted, why would you ask that leading question?
It's interesting that even after agreeing with me on much of it, you still insist on making generalities about the framers. I'll note that there were only six people who signed both documents (George Read, Roger Sherman, Benjamin Franklin, Robert Morris, George Clymer, and James Wilson), which further diversified 'the founding fathers'. The people who were at the Constitutional Convention are usually referred to as 'The Framers', which (as
I was wrong about the admission of states, and I remember it's source, 'how the states got their shapes' got stuck in my head when they said 'the Constitution doesn't say how to admit a state' (or something like that). I had several conversations like this over the years and I am sorry that I didn't verify a newly formed argument.
I don't agree with your interpretation of Madison's statement, as you fail to understand that a significant portion of the objection to the Bill of Rights wasn't that we' shouldn't have any rights at a federal level, but that enumerating them at all would be too limiting. People such as yourself have been proving Hamilton right for two hundred years. Can you show me which part of the Constitution allowed George Washington to charter the First Bank of the United States (other than a broad reading of the commerce clause)? Show me which part allows 'judicial review'.
We do, however, need to abide by the Constitution in whatever way we choose to interpret it.
OK, more than two hundred years of case law says that I'm right overall, because you'd argue that much of what the feds does is already 'unconstitutional', and I am exactly arguing the opposite (I think).
Learning from their insights and perspectives can help us decide what the best way to interpret it may be.
There were more than two founding fathers and none of them agreed with each other anywhere near as well as you seem to think. Saying as you seem to say that 'The Founding Fathers' wanted this or that is ridiculous, which was one of my original assertion. Clearly you know differently, but still you choose to present them as categorically sympathetic to your argument. It's like you think of the term as a brand name, sort of like 'conservative', as not really meaning what it should, but as it works best for your political cause.
If enumeration was the idea, why does the 10th Amendment say 'delegated' rather than enumerated as is used elsewhere?
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,...
Delegated is a very broad term, so is 'the general welfare', which is used twice in the original document, but you'all don't like that one either. As there is no constitutional dictated way to add states, every state save the first thirteen should be considered territories directly under federal authority, if 'enumerated' was the law. Also, if you think that you clearly understand the founding fathers intentions, you'd have to ignore the way that the governed, because the ruled using more expansive federal authority than you seem to think they wanted. Lastly, even if we were able to clearly discern 'their intentions' (as if they'd speak with a single mind) thinking that we should govern modern America based based on it is silly in itself.
What's wrong with supporting the idea of smaller government? It's one of the concepts that this country was founded upon.
Huh? The role of the federal government is an argument that we've been having since the first days of the Washington Administration, that libertarians consistently claim that our country was founded on the idea of 'smaller government' is indicative of just how poorly they understand American history. In fact the constitution itself was a second try because the Articles of Confederation proved too weak; the whole idea of it was for the Constitution to grow as needed. Why is it that the ones who are calling for the most radical changes call themselves 'conservative'?
If you read the survey methodology (at the end of TFA), you'd under stand that there 'should be' a huge margin of error attached to it as it's an email survey sent to those on a law firm's mailing list.
This was the pervasive theme throughout DLA Piper’s fifth Technology Leaders Forecast survey, which was developed in conjunction with the firm’s 2012 Global Technology Leaders Summit
The 2012 survey is the fifth such technology market analysis developed by DLA Piper, with the last survey issued in the Spring o 2012 and the inaugural survey issued just prior to the recession in October 2008
DLA Piper is a law firm, not a survey company, it's mailing list is based on people who have responded to their previous surveys (or don't trash them) and those who have an interest in their services. Selection bias can be accounted for, but I don't see any control questions. A good one would be 'who did you vote for in 2008?'
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe we're just the first to develop? Or simply faster than light travel hasn't been invented.
If that was true, then wouldn't it be more likely that they'd end up in a 'east-west' alignment(or something similar depending on latitude) during daylight hours , with the facing direction dependant on time of day than 'north-south' and random directions at night. If this turns out to be a repeatable study, it's one of the most shocking discoveries ever, if only because everyone who's ever waited on a dog to 'do it's business' has seen that twist every time. Of course it doesn't really answer 'why', but at least there seems to be a method to their madness.
Actually politics is one of the most 'nerdist' topics. Nerds tend to obsess over topics most would rather ignore.
Also, heh: "QIp vIghro' pum" is Klingon.
(fetches Okrand from the shelf...)
Hah...I get it now. I knew it! Thirteen years ago, when I bought the damned book, I knew it would come handy one day! Thank you so much.
(looks up 'Klingon translator' on google, finds oddly enough that Bing translator is the first hit)
"QIp vIghro' pum" translates to "stupid cat falls" without a 'investment' and braving more than a decade of dust.
Pass what? All I see is another crybaby objectivist whining that 'things were better when I was young'. Maybe the editor removed the 'stay off of my lawn' from the first draft.
Really? A TV show using made up science, next you'll claim that Scottie of Star Trek didn't really have any engineering skills and was simply some actor spouting out nonsense.
Phrenology is a great way to find such people.
I agree! Anyone who believes in such junk science should be immediately removed from society.
There's gold in them thar hills, literally and figuratively.
Actually, the Whig party fell apart before the GOP was formed, most of its northern based joined the new party. If (when) the GOP fails another party will gain steam, but not before.
the insurance will not be affordable and additionally many of the plans will actually end up being inferior to what many had before.
So says the 'chicken little' AC. Next year we'll find out if everything the GOP has been claiming for the last 5 years is really true. I believe that they will be proven wrong while millions of Americans who had pre-existing conditions will be able to find coverage at normal cost and many thousands will not lose coverage in the middle of an illness. While many millions more American will find better coverage, many at significant savings than they would have paid previously.
Meanwhile, the medicare cuts made by the ACA (aka Obamacare) which the GOP claimed would kill, have contributed to a 5% savings in Medicare costs which has reduced the budget deficit even more than expected. Every year the Republicans have been claiming that we are at the doorstep of disaster, and seemingly despite their best efforts, it has not happened. The question is when the stop being pessimistic and start claiming 'victory', how do they claim Obamacare was their idea?
So when a rich looking white guy (new shoes, button down shirt seems to be enough) who might have every reason to be on a particular street, gets mugged, is there anyone who claims that 'he deserved it'? Or why did all those victims in the mass shooting look all fleshy and human, just begging to be shot?
Most bad government has grown out of too much government. - Thomas Jefferson
Whenever I see a quote like that attributed to Thomas Jefferson, I always [use a popular internet search tool] to find more often than not that it's simple right wing fantasy. Why am I not surprised, that it's fake?.
Here are some more things to chew on:
After spending some time now as a corporate drone, I've come to believe that all 'major' plans are variations of either 'consolidation' or 'diversification', and that all big shifts in corporate power come from presenting the opposite of the last budgeted plan to senior management. However, it's important that the presenter get himself promoted to a new unrelated position before the halfway point of the project.
This thread would seem to prove you both right and wrong. Also some of the comments make recommendations on fixes.
What I don't understand is how anyone could mistake 'Top Gear' for being a car show. I've seen it a few times on BBC America and much like Stephen Colbert mocking right wing punditry, it seem more like three comedians mocking a show about automobiles.
This map of districts 'servicing' downtown Austin is from the Texas's 21st congressional district on wikipedia. One should note that the street in the dead center of that mess is named 'Martin Luther King Jr', I'll leave it to the reader to figure out what the means. It includes the 25th District and the 10th district which includes both some of 'downtown' Austin and Huston suburbs. So Austin, arguably the most liberal city in Texas has three Republicans representing it.
Considering that soap hadn't been invented yet, ancient Rome wasn't as 'fresh smelling' as you'd seem to expect.
As a programmer, it just seems best to use the most dangerous function ever created for a lazy coder GOTO:41621277, sure that you bushed it off quickly and seem to expect that simply restating your positions time and time again somehow will make them better, but to me at least it doesn't.
I would need to do further research to really claim the founders all agreed on this point in theory.
They didn't.
I've seen lots of people though the years say such thing, I see it as sort of 'the halfway point' of a lucid point of view, not in their own lives, but generational (perhaps you're a gen-xer?). However, ask yourself this: when was the last time you muttered that word about another person? A black guy who cut you off you off on the highway, perhaps a slow store clerk, or a young man with baggy pants and a strait billed hat, statistically all them are likely tax payers and many of them have families to support.
One thing that I notice about myself is that I used the phrase 'Jesus' a lot (or could it be 'Geeze'), not that I'm religious, it's just something I say when frustrated. I'm not really sure where I picked it up I suspect that many people such as yourself have a similar fixation to 'the N word'. As I see it, rather than making a real attempt at modifying what society has (fortunately IMHO) bad behavior, you just claim to have a special use for it. Sure there are people who will harass and beat up people based on race regardless of that person's view, however it's far more likely to be a black man at the 'wrong end of the stick' than a white guy. Yet you might never acknowledge such a reality, because it wouldn't fit with your politics.
However, that doesn't mean we can't come up with some agreed upon generalizations.
Who's the 'we'? Do you have a mouse in your pocket? Does 'we' mean, you and the ditto heads? You and the Ayn Rand fan club? If 'we' is you and me, I'll have to warn you about the most I'm willing to generalize about the founding fathers is that they were white men of respectable backgrounds who were representatives of their states. Also, many of them were lawyers, some of them were slave owners. Otherwise they were a diverse group who fought fiercely over the role and responsibility of government (both federal and state for that matter). Hamilton's Report on Manufactures is very clear about what that founding father intended about the 'general welfare clause'.
The wikipedia article has this under 'Opposition to the Report':
Leading opponents of Alexander Hamilton's economic plan included Thomas Jefferson (until later years) and James Madison, who were opposed to the use of subsidy to industry along with most of their fledgling Democratic-Republican Party. Instead of bounties they reasoned in favor of high tariffs and restrictions on imports to increase manufacturing; which interestingly was favored by the manufacturers themselves who desired protection of their home market.[citation needed] Although the Jeffersonian stance originally favored an "agrarian" economy of farmers, this changed over time to encompass many of Hamilton's original ideas,[3] while "the Madison administration helped give rise to the first truly protectionist tariff in U.S. history."[4]
I bring this up for two reasons, a to show more graphically just how different these founding fathers differed and to infer the idea that Jefferson was all over the map with his opinions. The man who wrote the Declaration of Independence wasn't even invited to the constitutional convention, he did not sign it nor did he participate in its first congressional session, as he was away in Paris as the minister to France and attempting to negotiate an end to various British claims (also 'hanging around' with a married woman, and later his deceased wife's slave half sister). Madison, who had also 'beat out' Jefferson for the all but the preamble of the VA constitution, was largely very quite about 'what he meant' when he wrote it, I researched it once and found only three quotes that mostly seemed to be against a broad interpretation of the 'general welfare clause'. Which might seem to be 'good news' for your cause, but as I remember it one of them basically claimed that it was 'copied over from the Articles of Confederation by accident' (not a direct quote, I'm too lazy too look, but I did once research it well) and all of them weren't statements of policies, but a few lines in private correspondence, after his two terms in the White House. Not exactly the stuff of case law and I believe that he wanted it that way. In fact several thing for which he championed were voted out, including establishment of a national university, export taxes and rules governing national elections, which of course are not exactly the ideas of a extremely limited government.
Let me ask you this, if the federal government was not intended to be bound by the Constitution, then what was the point of writing it in the first place?
Huh, I thought what we were talking about how the Constitution was interpreted, why would you ask that leading question?
It's interesting that even after agreeing with me on much of it, you still insist on making generalities about the framers. I'll note that there were only six people who signed both documents (George Read, Roger Sherman, Benjamin Franklin, Robert Morris, George Clymer, and James Wilson), which further diversified 'the founding fathers'. The people who were at the Constitutional Convention are usually referred to as 'The Framers', which (as
The problem comes when the thing misses your couple of square miles of desert,
Or miss by a couple of hundred miles and rack up a few billion dollars in lawsuits for taking out most of Las Vegas.
I was wrong about the admission of states, and I remember it's source, 'how the states got their shapes' got stuck in my head when they said 'the Constitution doesn't say how to admit a state' (or something like that). I had several conversations like this over the years and I am sorry that I didn't verify a newly formed argument.
I don't agree with your interpretation of Madison's statement, as you fail to understand that a significant portion of the objection to the Bill of Rights wasn't that we' shouldn't have any rights at a federal level, but that enumerating them at all would be too limiting. People such as yourself have been proving Hamilton right for two hundred years. Can you show me which part of the Constitution allowed George Washington to charter the First Bank of the United States (other than a broad reading of the commerce clause)? Show me which part allows 'judicial review'.
We do, however, need to abide by the Constitution in whatever way we choose to interpret it.
OK, more than two hundred years of case law says that I'm right overall, because you'd argue that much of what the feds does is already 'unconstitutional', and I am exactly arguing the opposite (I think).
Learning from their insights and perspectives can help us decide what the best way to interpret it may be.
There were more than two founding fathers and none of them agreed with each other anywhere near as well as you seem to think. Saying as you seem to say that 'The Founding Fathers' wanted this or that is ridiculous, which was one of my original assertion. Clearly you know differently, but still you choose to present them as categorically sympathetic to your argument. It's like you think of the term as a brand name, sort of like 'conservative', as not really meaning what it should, but as it works best for your political cause.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,...
Delegated is a very broad term, so is 'the general welfare', which is used twice in the original document, but you'all don't like that one either. As there is no constitutional dictated way to add states, every state save the first thirteen should be considered territories directly under federal authority, if 'enumerated' was the law. Also, if you think that you clearly understand the founding fathers intentions, you'd have to ignore the way that the governed, because the ruled using more expansive federal authority than you seem to think they wanted. Lastly, even if we were able to clearly discern 'their intentions' (as if they'd speak with a single mind) thinking that we should govern modern America based based on it is silly in itself.
What's wrong with supporting the idea of smaller government? It's one of the concepts that this country was founded upon.
Huh? The role of the federal government is an argument that we've been having since the first days of the Washington Administration, that libertarians consistently claim that our country was founded on the idea of 'smaller government' is indicative of just how poorly they understand American history. In fact the constitution itself was a second try because the Articles of Confederation proved too weak; the whole idea of it was for the Constitution to grow as needed. Why is it that the ones who are calling for the most radical changes call themselves 'conservative'?
If you read the survey methodology (at the end of TFA), you'd under stand that there 'should be' a huge margin of error attached to it as it's an email survey sent to those on a law firm's mailing list.
This was the pervasive theme throughout DLA Piper’s fifth Technology Leaders Forecast survey, which was developed in conjunction with the firm’s 2012 Global Technology Leaders Summit
The 2012 survey is the fifth such technology market analysis developed by DLA Piper, with the last survey issued in the Spring o 2012 and the inaugural survey issued just prior to the recession in October 2008
DLA Piper is a law firm, not a survey company, it's mailing list is based on people who have responded to their previous surveys (or don't trash them) and those who have an interest in their services. Selection bias can be accounted for, but I don't see any control questions. A good one would be 'who did you vote for in 2008?'