|
Post by magellan on Nov 29, 2014 0:21:08 GMT
Benjamin Franklin on Safety Nets Welfare
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Nov 29, 2014 0:36:48 GMT
SG. Big difference today. The founders were not trying to enforce religion via govt. Jefferson would be one of the 1st to get wild at some of today's stupid. The origin of the 'Religious Freedom' in the Bill of Rights is to be found in " The Gordon Riots". To fight the war of Independence the British government was running short of manpower so the Catholic Relief Act of 1778 was passed that allowed Roman Catholics to join the army and enter the civil service and attain officer status. Lord George Gordon fomented trouble and generally talked up the protestant mob into rioting throughout Britain against the catholics but to a greater extent in London. If you go into the Royal Bank of Scotland building - Drummonds Bank on the Western side of Trafalgar Square in London, you will see a case of muskets that were used by the bank security men to protect the bank from rioters. Many London pubs developed hides for Catholics in the pubs if the rioters were to burst in. Hence the paper at the link " The Gordon Riots of 1780: London in Flames, a Nation in RuinsSo against this background of massive religious riots in Britain, the Framers of The Constitution and The Bill of Rights who were after all British until the Declaration of Independence added the concept of Religious Freedom being a fundamental inalienable right that must not be infringed by the government. They did not want to repeat the problem of rioting Catholic vs Protestant that had been set in law by the British Parliament one way then changed back again. They agreed that government should stay out of religion. Of course what they meant was stay out of the particular flavor of Christianity that people followed. Note that 'The Troubles' in Ireland were/are a continuation of the same religious intolerance between protestant and catholic. The Framers would have been aghast at the idea that religious symbols should be removed by law from 'the public square' that was not their intent at all. Indeed their intent was the diametric opposite that it should be immaterial to the government what religious symbols were in the public square. They envisaged a federal government that was tightly constrained to enumerated powers, State governments that were limited and local decisions being left to The People. In many ways the Framers seem to have had a better grasp of 'world politics' than the Congress, Senate and Administrations that we have seen in the last decades, which have been more about accruing more power and control than governing according to The Constitution. These federal entities should be told that they are only the federal government - and as such their powers are limited.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 29, 2014 19:28:56 GMT
Isn't it amazing that there is always someone "offended" etc? If you are obese, you are going to have health problems. If you smoke, the odds are you are going to have health problems. So, one hand of the fed govt sues because you feel discriminated against?............ Sheeeeeeeeeeeesh.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 29, 2014 19:29:47 GMT
President Obama really has no clue how to effectively manage. I hope he doesn't encounter a wet paper bag any time soon.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 29, 2014 20:07:23 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Nov 29, 2014 20:55:23 GMT
From the article: "However, that is both unfair and unrealistic. Adopting the sort of zero-risk, zero-tolerance approach which the Times advocates would have ensured the shale boom never happened."But that is precisely what the Malthusian greens wanted. The very last thing the greens want is everyone to have plentiful cheap energy. " Mankind is a cancer on the planet" according to them and they actually want people to die. Although this is expressed in mealy mouthed terms that the human population should be (name a number below 3 billion) - so somehow 6 billion or so should be 'disposed of' - but of course the greens and their families get a pass on that as they are more equal.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 29, 2014 21:27:25 GMT
From the article: "However, that is both unfair and unrealistic. Adopting the sort of zero-risk, zero-tolerance approach which the Times advocates would have ensured the shale boom never happened."But that is precisely what the Malthusian greens wanted. The very last thing the greens want is everyone to have plentiful cheap energy. " Mankind is a cancer on the planet" according to them and they actually want people to die. Although this is expressed in mealy mouthed terms that the human population should be (name a number below 3 billion) - so somehow 6 billion or so should be 'disposed of' - but of course the greens and their families get a pass on that as they are more equal. They feel that they are smarter than the rest of us...........just saying. But I would really enjoy having some of those folks come "help" me for a .....mmmmmmmmmmmm(giving them a break)........month.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Nov 30, 2014 17:29:05 GMT
Figures can be played with on population. The population density of London UK is approximately 15 per hundred square meters. This is the number of people in the London metroplex divided by the area of the London metroplex, so it includes all the facilities shops schools water football stadia parks etc.
If the entire world population were to be magically put into Texas then the population density would be 1 per hundred square meters or less than a fifteenth of the current population density of London - still with space for all the facilities shops schools water football stadia parks etc.
Having in the past traveled from North of the Northern hemisphere to the South of the southern hemisphere in one hop - the world is a very big place much of it totally empty.
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Nov 30, 2014 18:55:28 GMT
Most people struggle to grasp population density.
Ask most people what portion of their country is urbanized and they come up with high numbers. As you say Naut Texas is very big but tiny on the globe as a whole. The UK one of the most densely populated areas of the earth is under 10% urbanized, virtually everywhere else is simply sparse.
|
|
|
Post by walnut on Nov 30, 2014 23:56:34 GMT
Holy crap oil futures are falling through the floor tonight. ($64.34 at this moment)
"Peak oil" was a myth. Just like Global warming, among other liberal myths. Despite their great insistence 2 years ago. But there is no accountability. Unless they were holding oil futures haha
Peak oil might come one day in the distant future, or maybe not.
I read on a message board the other day some guy who said he lost on his first attempt at bond futures, so he's scared of them now, he's sticking with CL (oil futures) LOL A fool and his money were really lucky to come together in the first place according to Gordon Gecko.
|
|
|
Post by walnut on Nov 30, 2014 23:59:03 GMT
Back from church where I spend the whole morning talking with a homeless fellow who is suffering the effects of isolation, poor nutrition, lack of shelter etc. Sad. I think he could work and I think he would take the work if not for the catch 22. It's hard to work without housing, living in the woods is not what an employer wants to see. Said he would enjoy learning a trade, would enjoy being a blacksmith. Blacksmith trade sounds interesting, and almost romantic, but with flat black painted cast iron coming from China or Indonesia with $1 a day wages, there is very little money to be made trying to sell wrought iron knick knacks. If he is serious about a trade, he should get a truck driving CDL or learn welding. I would put him to work tomorrow stacking pallets of building stone for $10 an hour but he will need to man up and work all day. Talk is cheap...
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Dec 1, 2014 2:51:34 GMT
Back from church where I spend the whole morning talking with a homeless fellow who is suffering the effects of isolation, poor nutrition, lack of shelter etc. Sad. I think he could work and I think he would take the work if not for the catch 22. It's hard to work without housing, living in the woods is not what an employer wants to see. Said he would enjoy learning a trade, would enjoy being a blacksmith. Blacksmith trade sounds interesting, and almost romantic, but with flat black painted cast iron coming from China or Indonesia with $1 a day wages, there is very little money to be made trying to sell wrought iron knick knacks. If he is serious about a trade, he should get a truck driving CDL or learn welding. I would put him to work tomorrow stacking pallets of building stone for $10 an hour but he will need to man up and work all day. Talk is cheap... You get decent labor for $10.00 an hour???
|
|
|
Post by walnut on Dec 1, 2014 3:14:12 GMT
Not college grads haha
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Dec 1, 2014 3:29:55 GMT
I am at $15-20 an hour for unskilled labor. The reliability sucks. Need 13 able bodies, hire 16 people to get 13 at one time. Then the rare occasion when they all show up they get mad at each other because they think one is working harder than the other. Group dynamics is an interesting study.
|
|
|
Post by walnut on Dec 1, 2014 4:52:37 GMT
Wow that seems really expensive. We are at around $15 for fairly skilled equipment operators. $8 to $10 for hands. But it doesn't cost much to live in the hills and small towns around there. And expectations are still pretty low. Turnover is high, but it would be high at $20 too because people don't like to work that hard that many days in a row. The Mexicans are the best way to go, actually. Loyal and smart and diligent.
|
|