Posted on 09/29/2001 7:44:31 AM PDT by Joe 6-pack
A Leftist would side-step the issue by banning tests that would determine the "gay predisposition" of a fetus, as being a "hate crime".
There is a direct relationship between a company's labor costs and the prices they must charge for their products to stay in business. So it happens every day that consumers get to choose between, for example "Brand A" which is listed as "made in USA by union labor" and equally-good-but-much-cheaper "Brand B" which is made in Indonesia by $10/day peasants
Most people look for price and quality, and don't care about the labor force which made it
The facts of life are that employers go for the cheapest labor, and labor tries to get jobs with the highest-paying employers.
If an area's labor force is cheap-but-competant, lots of employers will locate themselves there. Once close-to-full-employment is reached, labor will start job-hopping to the highest-paying employers, and wages will get bid up. But if you artificially set wages high to begin with, employers will have to incentive to relocate there, and unemployement will stay high there
I didn't see "education" delegated to the US anywhere.
1) Ghandi won over the British because the British public back home would not have approved of harsh repressive measures on non-violent protestors. Nazi Germany would not have cared
2) Yeltzin and the Eastern European revolutions succeeded because of a general discontent with the status quo, which included the members of the armed forces. The armed forces would not have tolerated their own relatives being shot at.
3) The China Tienamin Square revolt initially succeeeded when the local military forces refused to fire upon their own countrymen. It was crushed when troops from far away were brought in, who felt no kinship with the locals
True, true, true...can't have him going to one of those inferior lube-and-oil joints that claim to "care" about the machinery.
-Lee (who regularly changes her husband's oil and polishes his sword)
I originally posted this some time ago, but could not find it in the archives...
...I still LOL at the way some people view it as a test and try to rationalize answers to all the questions. These are the same people that showed up for their SATs with a #3 pencil...
I'm not trying to be smart, but why does the age of consent differ then depending on the age of both people?? For instance, in Texas the age of consent is 17, but if you are within 3 years (I believe) the lowest age of consent is 14... That is, two 14 year olds, or a 17yo and 14yo could have sex without any legal problems, but a 18yo and 14yo having sex would mean that the 18yo could be prosecuted.
I'm not saying that a 18-14 relationship is "right".. I'm just asking your opinion on the consent issue... Why isn't it a set age for everyone???
No -- I understand *that* issue...
What I'm saying is that why is legal for a 16 year old to have sex with a 14 year old (in Texas, for example), but it is not legal for an 18 year old to have sex with that same 14 year old??
Either they can consent or they can't IMHO...
Oh perverse generation!
Try reading the constitution first. Second, I gave you a link to an article that illustrates the subversion of the constitution quite well. For those of you in Palm Beach County, the 9th and 10th admendments to the constitution restrict the governance of the federal government. The powers of the federal government were understood to be "enumerated".
IOW, the Fed had only those limited powers so described by the constitution. The socialists came along and decided that the "general welfare" clause was not what the framers really meant. The socialists redefined the general welfare clause (they found penumbras) to mean anything they wanted it to mean.
But, hey, don't let facts get in the way of your agenda.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.