syntax252

At the risk of getting back on topic....... I guess when I posted that I am a capitalist, I should have clarified that by saying that I believe in capitalism rather than that I am one. I think that Capitalism and the free market system has returned more wealth to the proletariat than socialism or communism ever could and simply because it creates more wealth in the first place. Although I would agree that without the emergence of the labor union, it probably would not have created as much wealth as it has.

What does he do for a living?

The majic man evolved into today's politition. It was he who made a majic potient to apply to peoples illnesses and if they lived' date=' took credit for the cure, but if they died, said that the great spirit had spoken. Today the modern politition spends 1/2 of his time convincing the public that we have a serious problem and the other 1/2 of their time explaining that only by re-electing [b']him[/b] will we have a chance to solve that problem. Usually there is no problem in the first place.

Well then, never mind.

In my part of Michigan, there are many Amish people. This is a problem among the Amish. Their church leaders take pains to try to bring in "new blood" but over the years the Amish are all pretty much related in some fashion. I do not know for a fact, but I don't think that retardation or other birth defects are any higher among the Amish that among us "English" as they refer to us.

Well we wouldn't wanna upset the Queen, you Brits might get to thinking we Yanks ain't civilized.

The way it was explained to me is that in a cloud of dust, created by a (the) big bang, and in a vacume (or close enough) that two particles would be attracted to one another because of the attraction between masses. This would create a larger particle of dust which would in turn attract other particles and over a great deal of time, clumps of dust would be formed, which, upon comming close to each other would also tend to be attracted to each other, again, because of the attraction between masses, and that would form even bigger clumps. Sounds a little like making a snowman, doesn't it? Anyway this guy on the other stool says that through the building process planets are formed and the bigger they are, the more stuff they attract, the faster. Now, if they are lucky, and if they are moving at just the right speed, they will wind up orbiting a larger body instead of just flying off into space, or colliding with said larger body. Apparently we (Earth) was lucky .

Perhaps "politics" is not where this belongs, but if not someone can move it. My proposition to you is, if the world becomes industrialized over the next 50 to 75 years, will the old planet have enough resources to support all 6 billion of us in the rather opulent fashion that we Americans and most Europeans are used to, or will we have to make adjustments? Actually, it will probably be more like 10 billion by that time. We do consume a lot of energy and other resources with just a few of us living high off the hog, so to speak. What do you think will happen?

So they are "independent" but that can't do as they choose? What you bloaks need is a writtin constitution.

Originally Posted by Sayonara³ I don't really feel that I need to. Wielding the stick at all is questionable in itself, and to a certain degree so is diplomatic meddling. Democracy has a tendency to arise when the society is ready for it. Our attempt to enforce democracy could be catastrophic, and it will most likely hurt them the most. ******************** To which I replied...... ****************** Judgeing by the turnout for the recent election in Iraq, and that under the threat of death, I would say that if democracy is being "forced" on the people of Iraq, they are certainly willing to have it imposed upon them. I can't think that the people will not be better off choosing their leadership than they were submitting to the biggist and baddest thugs in the country.. ******************* And then you come back with this? Tell me---what was the point then, since you seem to think I missed it.

Well OK' date=' if you [b']insist[/b] on being among the last to regain conciouseness....

Austrailia is not independent of the UK? I am surprised by that. Canada has, as I understand it, been independent for over 100 years. Since sometime around the 1860s or so? In any event, as appealing as Austrailia would be as a state, I suppose we should start with Mexico, they being next door neighbors and all....

Actually it has. That is what the amendment process is for. We amended it to abolish slavery, to allow women to vote, to outlaw booze, then to reinstate the legality of booze, to lower the age of majority to 18, to allow for an income tax, to insure equal protection under the law to all citizens and on and on. Here is a copy of the US Constitution: http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html Here are the amendments:http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendments.html Keep in mind that the first 10 of these amendments are what is referred to as "the Bill of Rights." They were passed before the Constitution was ratified and probably were necessary to achieve that ratification.

We think so.