What I'm saying is that the universities which fit the description given by the OP - bloated, "feather-bedded" monstrosities flush with cash and slurping up federal funds through effective lobbying and kickback-y type behavior, to provide an attractive product that undercuts the offerings of competitors, are playing the "game" essentially the same way any other big company plays it.
It's a cover story for the real grudge, which is that in the dispensing of the product kids might learn things that make them less likely to become Republican voters.
It's fine when ExxonMobil is dependent on public largesse, as their product is simply petrochemicals, not ideology.
An educated population that's well-employed is not good for Republican voter rolls.
Remember that millions of Americans are dispensationalist Christians - they _want_ things to be bad, as if things get bad enough it means Jesus is gonna be due back Any Time Now.
So every time they get a Conservative president who invades the Middle East or starts blustering about nukes, they have a big orgasm moment thinking "Oh wow! It's happening! IT'S HAPPENING"
I've had to live in an America full of a bunch of fanatic religious psychopaths with an eschatological death-wish, who call themselves Christians, for a very long time now.
The problem with that fashion of fanaticism is that by asking you to show "respect and willingness to listen", i.e. empathy, what they're really asking is if you're willing to be stupid for them. They really do think liberals are stupid for feeling sorry for them, and if you do they'll stab you in the back for it, every time.
A goony ol' businessman like Trump gets elected and suddenly it's "game over" for everyone else? Wow, talk about power-drunk delusions of hubristic grandeur! Everyone was talking about how the Republican party was doomed not five minutes ago.
I'd vote for a Republican candidate who used the expansion of Federal power under a Democratic presidency as a reason to legislate the _reduction_ of Federal power, sort of like what their talking points have always said, not a justification for "Well, I'm pretty sure they did it, so we need to double down."
George, for eight years I've had Democrats I've never met literally scream 'racist' at me, and a president constantly suggesting the same. Speaking of totalitarian, the tactic goes back to Lenin, IIRC.
I, my friends, and some of my clients all got Lois Lerner's attention. My accounts were seized. Twice. Simply for saying America's spending too much money that we can't afford, and for daring to suggest that this
formatting link
wouldn't work? In the end, all tallied and re-tallied, they owed me a few thousand.
And it's Pelosi & Schumer & Reid, who say if I don't want the government to administer children's tooth-brushing, I must be against tooth-brushing, (or teaching them how to tie their shoes).
Sounds unpleasant, and a good reason to have an apolitical civil service.
But don't worry. I expect President Bannon and his minions will soon do the equivalent to the commie leftists - thus demonstrating that two wrongs do make a right.
It's really not that hard to understand George--it was written for the common man. And the guys who wrote it left us lots of writings to explain what they meant in painstaking detail.
It's only when we pretzel-ize it that we need lawyers.
At bottom the federal government's job is to keep people safe from attack, and restrain Americans from harming one another.
OK did your liberal friends yell at you? (It's easy to demonize someone you don't know.) And of course it's suggested here (roughly daily) that the US would be better off if I was shot or otherwise done away with.
Right, We can all point to examples of politicians saying and doing stupid things. (on both sides.)
OK so "men" in the original constitution refereed to white males. (I'm not sure if they had to own land or not...) Do we need to amend it to include women? Or is that understood now?
...promote the general welfare and secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our prosperity... (I watched "Schoolhouse Rock" as a kid on Saturday mornings. So you should read that with a sing-songy voice :^)
For those not from the US or not of my generation.
If a bunch of students throw a fit and don't want some guy with "alt-right" beliefs giving a talk about things like "is the elimination of the Black race a necessity?" or whatever gets them off these days, you realize that it's not the government's problem, right?
All rationalizations from very intrinsically angry people who are furious that they can't pound gay people's heads in with rocks anymore and get away with it. Sorry, snowflakes, if you want to be a "hard man" tough guy these days you don't get to hide behind the law.
Government+cops generally protect the public safety, against things like molotov cocktails and thrown rocks. That's reasonable. The cops in Berkeley didn't do that.
Seems to me that a Constitutional right of free speech should be protected, by government, against opponents who use violence to prevent speech that they don't like. There is no Constitutional right to violence; quite the contrary.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement
jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com
That might be partly because with the end of the cold war, instead of cutting back on your military spending you increased it. Exactly WHO are you spending that money for? How many aircraft carriers do the terrorists have? How many jet aircraft? You can fight terrorism with regular police forces for the most part, you only need to call in the military when they get nasty armament.
If you put the excessive money your government spends on military (we all need some sort of military strength - how much is the question) since 1990 and put that extra in into US infrastructure and education your country would be in mighty fine shape by now.
Instead you were tricked into spending your inheritance on the military, the same as the USSR was. They didn't turn out very well as a result, and we all worry about where the USA is heading.
It's going to be a great time for free speech under the Trump school voucher program. Since they'll be funded by my tax dollars I'd hope evangelical educational institutes will be okay with me showing up on campus to hand out passes to my educational seminar titled "A Woman's Right to a 'Partial-Birth' Abortion."
Do you think they'll like it? I put my chances of being shot to death at only 50% or so.
Nonsense. It was written for the Constitutional Convention, with an eye to satisfying the separate states that were going to have to ratify it.
The Federalist Papers were written to sell it to the newspaper-reading publ ic, at a time when the common man couldn't afford a newspaper. Only 6% of t he population ended up being allowed to vote, which doesn't include the com mon man.
It has been described as "a makeshift series of unfortunate compromises".
The Federalist papers are extended set of smoke-blowing documents. Hamilton 's claims for the Electoral College in Federalist 68 were demonstrably unre alistic. You've got yourself a demagogue as president - which the electoral college was claimed to be designed to prevent - when a simple popular vote would have saved you from that fate.
It's a cobbled-together antique. Plenty of people have written better const itutions since then, and you've had to amend what you were given. This isn' t a lawyer-free environment.
At the moment the top 1% of the US income distribution is harming the remai ning 99% by hogging the products of any growth in the economy. The US Feder al Government - far from acting to reduce the damage - seems hell-bent on m aking the rich richer and doing as little as possible for the rest of the p opulation.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.