“Stops ordor at its source.” 😂“Because personal daintiness is so important”.
So true.
Gives me a new level of respect for the sheer toughness of women from that era. I mean seriously, flushing out their lady bits with freaking Lysol?!! Mmmmmm Pine Forest clean. 😆“Because personal daintiness is so important”.
So true.
Ha!Rose Kennedy says "howdy.....derrrrrr..."
Too soon?
You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make that motherf***er drink.Did ya not watch the video in my post above?
I'm over here slaving over a hot stove to get you guys fresh vittles to eat.... and you ain't eating.
Bingo. And that’s why long ago I stopped wasting my time on the blind horse that doesn’t want to be led to water. Let that MF horse die from dehydration.You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make that motherf***er drink.
It won't work. Ev's are for a select few. The limitations are endless.Bell....sadly, the energy sector will be/has been legislated out of existence. I saw where Chrysler has stated that by 2030 they will be 100% producing all electric vehicles. All the rest are being moved that way. The oil lobby better be trying to get the power plants on Nat gas or even going all oil fired quick! They have a chance as the west will be out of water by then....so no Lake Meade
We won't see the end of fossil fuel usage in our or the next generations lifetime. Nothing against owning an EV but too many people are naive as to where that charge comes from.Bell....sadly, the energy sector will be/has been legislated out of existence. I saw where Chrysler has stated that by 2030 they will be 100% producing all electric vehicles. All the rest are being moved that way. The oil lobby better be trying to get the power plants on Nat gas or even going all oil fired quick! They have a chance as the west will be out of water by then....so no Lake Meade
We won't see the end of fossil fuel usage in our or the next generations lifetime. Nothing against owning an EV but too many people are naive as to where that charge comes from.
Trace electricity back to the source and fossil fuels are used in the process 100% of the time. Yes, that includes solar and wind farms but when you tell them that, you can literally see their brains explode. That damn wall outlet doesn't magically produce electricity out of thin air.
Ignorance is bliss and the rest of us real world people get blamed for ruining the world.
Forgot where I read this a while back but an average underwater volcano fart (my term) releases more CO2 than all of human history combined. Crazy if accurate considering it happens dailyI'm in the energy business and you're spot-on. Ignorant people don't realize how the majority of what we consume comes from fossil fuels. You can't just flip a switch and change everything. The residual affect would shut down the world and ruin economies. Don't me started, but climate change isn't caused by industrialism and a few smoke stacks or car exhaust. The climate has been naturally changing for centuries, and it will continue to change naturally, and there is nothing than can change that.
Ok...... ready?Anyone here a JD and can explain how/if the new ruling by the USSC applies to the work force?
I haven't had a chance to review the ruling. I'll be reviewing it today and will revert with comments when I get a chance.Anyone here a JD and can explain how/if the new ruling by the USSC applies to the work force?
Stupid political theater.
Sleep on your stomach. Zinc up.Well I finally got the vid. In the process of kickin’ it’s monkey ass.
I've had it. Not bad. Go out to SisterDale to Blackboard BBQ and have the Wagyu brisket. It isn't fair.
Seems the Supreme Court remembered their readings from Locke and Voltaire, with a measure of Adam Smith thrown in. Asking them to review the Federalist papers might be a reading too far....1. It's the right thing to do. It's following the Constitution. You can't make me do something against my will, even for the "greater good".
2. When the sh!t goes down, the Supreme Court won't be targets # 1 through 10.
So many ways I can go with this-- but are you saying that beliefs are a product of their environments?Seems the Supreme Court remembered their readings from Locke and Voltaire, with a measure of Adam Smith thrown in. Asking them to review the Federalist papers might be a reading too far....
Seems the Supreme Court remembered their readings from Locke and Voltaire, with a measure of Adam Smith thrown in. Asking them to review the Federalist papers might be a reading too far....
I'm saying that the Supremes recalled Locke's assertion about natural rights to life, liberty and property, and his statement about the rights of a people who find themselves abused by their government. That they might have recalled Voltaire's declaration that freedom of speech must be preserved, especially when it is critical of church and state. (The current church being progressive political ideology) That by making this decision, they offered proof of Adam Smith's dictum that people act in regards to their own self-interest, as you implied their decision was at least partially based upon. Forgive me if I'm putting words into your keyboard.So many ways I can go with this-- but are you saying that beliefs are a product of their environments?
When I was teaching government in Nevada, every semester I would go to the local offices of our good representatives and pick up pocket copies of the US Constitution. I would pass them out in class, telling my students that they were courtesy of Senator Reid or Ensign or Heller, or Congressman Gibbons or Amodei. I'd also tell the students that the offices were glad to get rid of them since they weren't using them.My 18 year old government students will leave my class with a better understanding of the constitution than many of our elected "experts."
But they'll be told to "...try and read the constitution sometime..." lol
We cover many of the federalist papers too btw...even though most of them are not in the TEKS
The last couple of years have provided ample opportunities to develop hypotheticals for courses in Constitutional Law or government. E.g.,:I'm saying that the Supremes recalled Locke's assertion about natural rights to life, liberty and property, and his statement about the rights of a people who find themselves abused by their government. That they might have recalled Voltaire's declaration that freedom of speech must be preserved, especially when it is critical of church and state. (The current church being progressive political ideology) That they made this decision, they offered proof of Adam Smith's dictum that people act in regards to their own self-interest, as you implied their decision was at least partially based upon. Forgive if I'm putting words into your keyboard.
When I was teaching government in Nevada, every semester I would go to the local offices of our good representatives and pick up pocket copies of the US Constitution. I would pass them out in class, telling my students that they were courtesy of Senator Reid or Ensign or Heller, or Congressman Gibbons or Amodei. I'd also tell the students that the offices were glad to get rid of them since they weren't using them.
The last couple of years have provided ample opportunities to develop hypotheticals for courses in Constitutional Law or government. E.g.,:
I teach a graduate level law course on the side and spend a few weeks on the Constitution.
- Free speech and rights to assemble (and whether law enforcement could have regulated the 90 days of unabated riots in Portland)
- Federalism and the extent of federal powers
- The extent to which the executive branch can exact its authority (very relevant to the OSHA mandate issue)
- The issue of packing the court
I can tell from the spirited discussion that it’s the first time many students have had these discussions . . . grad level students!
Is it because undergraduate professors are afraid of taking on what may be perceived as sensitive topics and making remarks that may come back to bite them? I.e., they’re afraid of being cancelled?