Yes, but a civil works project can employ people and cut down on the amount of unemployment so more people can afford housing. And a more efficient infrastructure will make the country as a whole wealthier, so there is more wealth to redistribute to the poor. "Let's stop doing anything else until we've ended poverty" is a great way to create more poverty.
We could invade the Vatican and bomb the Pope, but we could not sue him in a U.S. court of law any more than we could the Prime Minister of the U.K.
You mean the Queen. The Prime Minister is the head of government, not the chief of state. While he has considerable power, he is by law simply a British subject appointed by the Queen under the advice of the House of Commons.
Are you kidding? We had to sit around for years waiting for the Church to finally fess up because politicians are too weak to take a hard line. They shouldn't have waited on the Church, they should have started arresting priests for molestation and bishops for obstruction of justice.
Not that they needed as Kiev class aircraft carrying cruisers did not use a steam catapult anyway. They did not need to as all of their aircraft are VTOL. It is just about now they start looking into using steam catapults on the latest generation of aircraft carriers.
Why do you think it took them so long? The Nimitz class was built in the 80's. If Soviet Russia could have matched that at the time, they would have.
Bush appointed two justices, both of whom appointed already-right-leaning justices. The net effect is insignificant, and even the new Roberts court has ruled against Bush more than once.
Which is, after all, an ordinary English word and is not supposed to be trademarkable.
That's a shaky legal foundation, considering the fact that lots of trademarks are ordinary English words, trademarked for use within specific contexts. (Apple, Time, Signet, GAP, TaB, Fox, Adobe, Ford, ARM, Canon, Fiat, Axiom, Explorer, Focus, Accord, Escort...).
I think we've done this sort of thing before. I used to know a Navy captain who had the occasion of meeting a Russian counterpart during or after the Cold War. Evidently we had let fall into Russia's hands plans for a steam catapult (for use launching fighters off aircraft carriers), but the plans were severely wrong and the Russians couldn't fix them without redesigning the whole thing themselves anyway.
Libertarian Party: "In 1988, Paul left the Republican Party and ran for president on the Libertarian ticket. He appeared on the ballot in 46 states and received 432,000 votes. Paul remains a life member of the party and frequently speaks at its national conventions."
Because of the difficulty of a massive takeover and the resistence and uprisings it would cause, freedom is almost never taken away all at once. Instead, it's eroded gradually, little bit by little tiny bit (always "for the children", "for your safety", "to stop terrorists", "to fight [some] drugs"), which suits the statists because it is never given back, making the resulting police state inevitable.
Demonstrably false--the fall of Jim Crow, numerous Supreme Court rulings, the Posse Comitatus Act, the abolition of slavery, and many other historical events have not only given back seized freedoms, but have created new ones.
What you're really dealing with here is an almost religious, always unstated belief that the artificial construct of the nation, as personified by state power, is like a massive all-powerful organism and the individuals of which it is composed are akin to cells in the body in the sense that any one of them is expendable and insignificant and they only matter in large numbers.
This is a constant in human history. Even hunters and gatherers identified with their own bands.
Thanks to the War on Terror, it is now considered acceptable for the feds to intercept communications and execute wiretaps without all that hassle of demonstrating probable cause and obtaining a warrant.
It isn't "considered acceptable" at all. It's happened, but it's prone to being overturned by the Supreme Court just like other Bush administration experiments have been.
terrorism is a particularly despicable form of guerilla warfare
That's revisionism. The term "terrorist" was first coined to refer to the Jacobins, who perpetrated the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution. At the time, they were the closest thing France had to an actual governing authority. "Terrorism" is the use of violence to incite terror and submission within a greater population. The purges of Lenin and Stalin, the bombings of London, Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, and the "shock and awe" campaign in Iraq are examples of state terrorism. All of these actions were taken directly and from a position of overwhelming conventional strength--the precise opposite of guerrilla warfare.
Why do you think that the main objective of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was to sink the US carriers - and not finding those carriers sealed their fate?
Actually, the main objective was still the battleships--even Japan, ironically, did not yet realize the value of the carrier.
That's one interpretation. I don't want to get into theological discussions or biblical interpretations, but suffice it to say that the Bible can be interpreted to suggest that Christ gave the apostles in general, and Peter in particular, a mandate to establish a church to hold spiritual authority on Earth. To say that's not the best interpretation is reasonable--to say it's not in there at all is a bit overreaching.
Remember a libertarian would not harp on Microsoft, would not have guns laws restricting the use of bazookas, and would not restrict people from following creationism. Libertarian means to live and let live, and most importantly it means for people to be idiots!
Of course a libertarian could harp on Microsoft. A libertarian harps on whatever the hell he wants to, and recognizes your freedom to do the same, as long as it doesn't come to force. I doubt a libertarian would want the government to break up Microsoft or ban them from commerce, but a libertarian could easily criticize their business practices, product quality, and so forth. I'm also pretty sure that actually using bazookas outside a controlled range would be considered vandalism, murder, etc., although libertarians are pretty cool with people owning them. That leaves creationism--and no one really wants to violate anyone's right to believe in it, we just think it's a stupid belief that shouldn't be foisted on schoolchildren.
There are 300 million people in the United States and between 1 and 50 million people in a given person's state. Do you really think your individual vote makes any difference to the elected official? Voting is a sham in any group of people larger than 12.
So don't turn on the radio. You're complaining that the record industry is behind the times but you're using a 20th century way of finding music. Good music still exists, you just need to look for what you like and make peace with the fact that no one else will recognize who it is unless they like the same genre.
Do you think there is ever going to be another dinosaur of a band like Pink Floyd or U2 or the Beatles that will earn hundreds upon hundreds of millions for the record companies?
No, but not for the reasons you point out. It's the long tail. In the olden days, there were relatively few artists to choose from. If you wanted psychedelic-sounding proggish rock, you were pretty much stuck with Floyd. But today, for any given sound, there are dozens of bands to choose from. Most people don't even listen to progressive death metal but there are more prog death metal bands nationally available than there were prog bands in the heyday of prog--except, while you've probably heard of Yes, ELP, Genesis, King Crimson, Rush, and Kansas, you're not likely to be familiar with Opeth unless you actually follow the genre.
Back in the day, someone who wanted to listen to sophisticated rock was stuck with late Beatles or The Who, and then a handful of prog bands. Today, somebody who wants to listen to sophisticated rock has a wide selection of everything produced since The Who to today.
Then you should look a bit closer at Matthew 16:18-19, which quotes Christ thus: "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
If you can't use birth control for religious reasons, don't have sex. It's not hard.
I guess this makes sense if you presuppose a great deal of freewill, but not even the Church does that (if people had all the freewill they could, it would be possible to never fall into sin). By the Church and by reality, people are flawed and vulnerable to temptation. Not having sex is hard--that's why marriage is sanctioned in the first place, as an acceptable outlet for those urges. (1 Corinthians 7: 1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.)
Slashdot Mirror
Put down the bong and close your copy of "Chariots of the Gods". It is not a work of reputable archeology.
Yes, but a civil works project can employ people and cut down on the amount of unemployment so more people can afford housing. And a more efficient infrastructure will make the country as a whole wealthier, so there is more wealth to redistribute to the poor. "Let's stop doing anything else until we've ended poverty" is a great way to create more poverty.
You mean the Queen. The Prime Minister is the head of government, not the chief of state. While he has considerable power, he is by law simply a British subject appointed by the Queen under the advice of the House of Commons.
Are you kidding? We had to sit around for years waiting for the Church to finally fess up because politicians are too weak to take a hard line. They shouldn't have waited on the Church, they should have started arresting priests for molestation and bishops for obstruction of justice.
Why do you think it took them so long? The Nimitz class was built in the 80's. If Soviet Russia could have matched that at the time, they would have.
Bush appointed two justices, both of whom appointed already-right-leaning justices. The net effect is insignificant, and even the new Roberts court has ruled against Bush more than once.
That's a shaky legal foundation, considering the fact that lots of trademarks are ordinary English words, trademarked for use within specific contexts. (Apple, Time, Signet, GAP, TaB, Fox, Adobe, Ford, ARM, Canon, Fiat, Axiom, Explorer, Focus, Accord, Escort...).
I think we've done this sort of thing before. I used to know a Navy captain who had the occasion of meeting a Russian counterpart during or after the Cold War. Evidently we had let fall into Russia's hands plans for a steam catapult (for use launching fighters off aircraft carriers), but the plans were severely wrong and the Russians couldn't fix them without redesigning the whole thing themselves anyway.
Libertarian Party: "In 1988, Paul left the Republican Party and ran for president on the Libertarian ticket. He appeared on the ballot in 46 states and received 432,000 votes. Paul remains a life member of the party and frequently speaks at its national conventions."
Demonstrably false--the fall of Jim Crow, numerous Supreme Court rulings, the Posse Comitatus Act, the abolition of slavery, and many other historical events have not only given back seized freedoms, but have created new ones.
What you're really dealing with here is an almost religious, always unstated belief that the artificial construct of the nation, as personified by state power, is like a massive all-powerful organism and the individuals of which it is composed are akin to cells in the body in the sense that any one of them is expendable and insignificant and they only matter in large numbers.This is a constant in human history. Even hunters and gatherers identified with their own bands.
Thanks to the War on Terror, it is now considered acceptable for the feds to intercept communications and execute wiretaps without all that hassle of demonstrating probable cause and obtaining a warrant.It isn't "considered acceptable" at all. It's happened, but it's prone to being overturned by the Supreme Court just like other Bush administration experiments have been.
terrorism is a particularly despicable form of guerilla warfareThat's revisionism. The term "terrorist" was first coined to refer to the Jacobins, who perpetrated the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution. At the time, they were the closest thing France had to an actual governing authority. "Terrorism" is the use of violence to incite terror and submission within a greater population. The purges of Lenin and Stalin, the bombings of London, Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, and the "shock and awe" campaign in Iraq are examples of state terrorism. All of these actions were taken directly and from a position of overwhelming conventional strength--the precise opposite of guerrilla warfare.
I never said it did make sense, since I'm not a Christian.
You're essentially right--the bands existed all along, the main difference now is distribution.
OK, 1988. Ron Paul is still a life member of the LP, though, even if he does run for office as a Republican.
Actually, the main objective was still the battleships--even Japan, ironically, did not yet realize the value of the carrier.
Paul's views are part of the canon--it's not quite accurate to characterize him as just another theologian.
It looks like they were taken by surprise.
That's one interpretation. I don't want to get into theological discussions or biblical interpretations, but suffice it to say that the Bible can be interpreted to suggest that Christ gave the apostles in general, and Peter in particular, a mandate to establish a church to hold spiritual authority on Earth. To say that's not the best interpretation is reasonable--to say it's not in there at all is a bit overreaching.
Of course a libertarian could harp on Microsoft. A libertarian harps on whatever the hell he wants to, and recognizes your freedom to do the same, as long as it doesn't come to force. I doubt a libertarian would want the government to break up Microsoft or ban them from commerce, but a libertarian could easily criticize their business practices, product quality, and so forth. I'm also pretty sure that actually using bazookas outside a controlled range would be considered vandalism, murder, etc., although libertarians are pretty cool with people owning them. That leaves creationism--and no one really wants to violate anyone's right to believe in it, we just think it's a stupid belief that shouldn't be foisted on schoolchildren.
Ron Paul is a member of the Libertarian Party. He was their 1984 presidential candidate.
There are 300 million people in the United States and between 1 and 50 million people in a given person's state. Do you really think your individual vote makes any difference to the elected official? Voting is a sham in any group of people larger than 12.
So don't turn on the radio. You're complaining that the record industry is behind the times but you're using a 20th century way of finding music. Good music still exists, you just need to look for what you like and make peace with the fact that no one else will recognize who it is unless they like the same genre.
No, but not for the reasons you point out. It's the long tail. In the olden days, there were relatively few artists to choose from. If you wanted psychedelic-sounding proggish rock, you were pretty much stuck with Floyd. But today, for any given sound, there are dozens of bands to choose from. Most people don't even listen to progressive death metal but there are more prog death metal bands nationally available than there were prog bands in the heyday of prog--except, while you've probably heard of Yes, ELP, Genesis, King Crimson, Rush, and Kansas, you're not likely to be familiar with Opeth unless you actually follow the genre.
Back in the day, someone who wanted to listen to sophisticated rock was stuck with late Beatles or The Who, and then a handful of prog bands. Today, somebody who wants to listen to sophisticated rock has a wide selection of everything produced since The Who to today.
Then you should look a bit closer at Matthew 16:18-19, which quotes Christ thus: "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
I guess this makes sense if you presuppose a great deal of freewill, but not even the Church does that (if people had all the freewill they could, it would be possible to never fall into sin). By the Church and by reality, people are flawed and vulnerable to temptation. Not having sex is hard--that's why marriage is sanctioned in the first place, as an acceptable outlet for those urges. (1 Corinthians 7: 1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.)
You mean "cue". "Queue" is a data structure, or the thing you stand in at the post office (which functions just like the data structure).