Although I feel that mandatory remedial English is a bit mean, I agree that something of that nature is necessary for any educational institution.
I cant really find anything about class changes on the website at a glance, but I'm going to have to dig deeper and/or talk to the admins after the weekend.
Lolz.
Sorry but the headaches, (I ache all over cause of those stupid backless lab stools)
My classes are fine so far, but I have a math prof. with a thick polish/french accent, which is sad cause I cant understand him, and also bad cause I need all that math to transfer to UofM. :-(
Ah...Ok, you're entitled to your opinion I suppose. I see from your profile that you're just a child. I suppose I should expect those sorts of comments from you. You're naive (that means ignorant, or, in plainer terms, un-educated), so I guess comments like yours are to be expected. I'd suggest that you get a proper education on the topic before you comment on topics that are beyond your educational or conceptual scope.
Further, you aren't even American, so it really doesn't involve or apply to you, now does it? (that's what's called a rhetorical question, which means that I neither desire, nor intend for you to reply)
after they have heard evidance from the witnesses, and what if the "gunman"
is inocent and all but one of the linchmen just want to see a hanging? that
is a democrocy.
In US Law... ALL of your peers must agree the evidence shows you are guilty for a guilty verdict. If even one peer believes you are innocent, then the verdict is not guilty. Colloquially you may have heard "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." This is where law protects you from your fellow man (or woman :p).
I can't speak for other countries. But the point was, the process is by law and not mob.
No, all your peers must decide one way or the other, otherwise the jury is "hung" and a mistrial is declared, then retrial is at the discretion of the DA.
That was to trebuckets explenation. When Tool using animal corrected him, my comment basically became invalid.
The major flaw was if one person thinks your innocent, then your free to go, meaning you could pay the person to vote not guilty, or the person could be your friend, and vote not guilty because of that.
I too weep for our future, especially with the likes of the flat earth society and conservapedia affiliates walking our streets. *checks coming apocalypse survival kit*
Think of it like our economy. It gets bad, but it gets better...after a while...Sometimes a long while, but better is still better, no matter how bad it is.
Hmm.. this is a persuasive, rational-sounding argument, certainly- I was expecting something a bit more like The End of the World from the animated bit on the thumbnail.
I was watching for any thinly-veiled references to contemporary political arguing points (NAFTA, gun control, health insurance reform, etc.- the usual things people argue about on the internet) using the past as a metaphor to promote a certain viewpoint and I didn't really catch any besides "small government FTW" which seems to be the whole point. Did anyone with more political acumen than me catch any?
Alternatively, can someone who knows their history/classics comment on how accurate the portrayal of the decline of the roman empire was? I had an idea it was more complicated than the video made it out to be, and "excessive government -> subsidies and trade restrictions -> economic downturn -> issues" has some parallels with what's going on now, though I'm not qualified to comment on possible motivation for drawing this parallel.
Still, it's interesting to learn about the real intent behind the DoI and the Constitution.
I can't say that I have more or less politicial acumen than you, but I suppose if one is opposed to a Republican form of government, then I'm sure they could find fault, but I sure couldn't. I've been arguing much the same point to deaf ears among my contemporaries for years. And I supose if many of them were to watch it, they'd be foaming at the mouth claiming the video is a well-financed product of
you'll have to trust me on the foam thing...
Discussions
10 years ago
Although I feel that mandatory remedial English is a bit mean, I agree that something of that nature is necessary for any educational institution. I cant really find anything about class changes on the website at a glance, but I'm going to have to dig deeper and/or talk to the admins after the weekend.
10 years ago
Lolz. Sorry but the headaches, (I ache all over cause of those stupid backless lab stools) My classes are fine so far, but I have a math prof. with a thick polish/french accent, which is sad cause I cant understand him, and also bad cause I need all that math to transfer to UofM. :-(
10 years ago
That, in my opinion, is one beautiful video. I just wish I could force a few people I know to watch it.
Reply 10 years ago
@sean - forcing other people to do things is totaltarianism.
Reply 10 years ago
lol....If you knew them you might feel the same, totalitarianism or not.
Reply 10 years ago
This video is terrible anyways.
Reply 10 years ago
Ah...Ok, you're entitled to your opinion I suppose. I see from your profile that you're just a child. I suppose I should expect those sorts of comments from you. You're naive (that means ignorant, or, in plainer terms, un-educated), so I guess comments like yours are to be expected. I'd suggest that you get a proper education on the topic before you comment on topics that are beyond your educational or conceptual scope. Further, you aren't even American, so it really doesn't involve or apply to you, now does it? (that's what's called a rhetorical question, which means that I neither desire, nor intend for you to reply)
Reply 10 years ago
OUCH! thats got to hurt! sean, dude, try not to be sooo patronizing to others, remember rules #3-9!
Reply 10 years ago
Bad mood rising... patience @ 2.8%
Reply 10 years ago
No coffee this morning, I suspect?
10 years ago
Wait, so in a Republic, unless every one declares the *gun man* guilty, he goes free?
Reply 10 years ago
after they have heard evidance from the witnesses, and what if the "gunman" is inocent and all but one of the linchmen just want to see a hanging? that is a democrocy.
Reply 10 years ago
I'm sorry that doesn't answer my question. I'm not saying I am supporting democrocy, I just wanted to see if that's what the Narrator meant.
Reply 10 years ago
In US Law... ALL of your peers must agree the evidence shows you are guilty for a guilty verdict. If even one peer believes you are innocent, then the verdict is not guilty. Colloquially you may have heard "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." This is where law protects you from your fellow man (or woman :p). I can't speak for other countries. But the point was, the process is by law and not mob.
Reply 10 years ago
No, all your peers must decide one way or the other, otherwise the jury is "hung" and a mistrial is declared, then retrial is at the discretion of the DA.
Reply 10 years ago
So basically, if one person believes that your innocent, they go other everything again and again before they all agree?
Reply 10 years ago
Generally because people are social animals and want approval of the groupo, the dissenter is bullied into submission.
Reply 10 years ago
Gee, haven't you seen Twelve Angry Men? It works the other waydoesn't it?
Reply 10 years ago
Haven't seen twelve angry men, but last time the hotwater heater broke, I saw two dirty boys and a frustrated woman!
Reply 10 years ago
Doh! That'll teach me to write so late :p
Reply 10 years ago
BTW I was half expecting you to present the HPV project in Senior Design last night.
Reply 10 years ago
I'm not in O-town anymore (or at least at the moment) :(
Reply 10 years ago
I usually try to avoid posting early, that's when I've posted some major mistakes, same reason I avoid morning classes ;-).
Reply 10 years ago
Huh. That prove a major flaw.
Reply 10 years ago
oh, and if you can come to me with a better form of goverment be my guest
Reply 10 years ago
That was to trebuckets explenation. When Tool using animal corrected him, my comment basically became invalid. The major flaw was if one person thinks your innocent, then your free to go, meaning you could pay the person to vote not guilty, or the person could be your friend, and vote not guilty because of that.
Reply 10 years ago
well, they carfully interview the jurry, and they make sure that none of them know anything about the case or about being in the jurry.
Reply 10 years ago
I see. That's a good idea.
Reply 10 years ago
oh and the only reason your friend would be in there is if he was a characture witness or just plain witness.
Reply 10 years ago
have you ever seen twelve angry men?
Reply 10 years ago
I'm sure I have, but just don't remember it,
Reply 10 years ago
???
10 years ago
The Amarican form of government?
I weep for our future...
Reply 10 years ago
No....."goverment". :-)
Reply 10 years ago
I too weep for our future, especially with the likes of the flat earth society and conservapedia affiliates walking our streets. *checks coming apocalypse survival kit*
Reply 10 years ago
Think of it like our economy. It gets bad, but it gets better...after a while...Sometimes a long while, but better is still better, no matter how bad it is.
Reply 10 years ago
I meant the misspelling...
Reply 10 years ago
Its not America, its the interwebz and text talk.
Reply 10 years ago
That's why she weeps for the future, not just Amarica's future ;-)
Reply 10 years ago
Oh, ok. I thought she was implying America's future.
Reply 10 years ago
Well, if she weeps for the global future, that implies she also weeps for the local future.
Reply 10 years ago
ok.
Reply 10 years ago
oh haha sorry
Reply 10 years ago
I didn't notice that misspelling. At all...i fele stoopid write aboot now.
Reply 10 years ago
hahahahha....
10 years ago
Hmm.. this is a persuasive, rational-sounding argument, certainly- I was expecting something a bit more like The End of the World from the animated bit on the thumbnail.
I was watching for any thinly-veiled references to contemporary political arguing points (NAFTA, gun control, health insurance reform, etc.- the usual things people argue about on the internet) using the past as a metaphor to promote a certain viewpoint and I didn't really catch any besides "small government FTW" which seems to be the whole point. Did anyone with more political acumen than me catch any?
Alternatively, can someone who knows their history/classics comment on how accurate the portrayal of the decline of the roman empire was? I had an idea it was more complicated than the video made it out to be, and "excessive government -> subsidies and trade restrictions -> economic downturn -> issues" has some parallels with what's going on now, though I'm not qualified to comment on possible motivation for drawing this parallel.
Still, it's interesting to learn about the real intent behind the DoI and the Constitution.
Reply 10 years ago
I can't say that I have more or less politicial acumen than you, but I suppose if one is opposed to a Republican form of government, then I'm sure they could find fault, but I sure couldn't. I've been arguing much the same point to deaf ears among my contemporaries for years. And I supose if many of them were to watch it, they'd be foaming at the mouth claiming the video is a well-financed product of
you'll have to trust me on the foam thing...
10 years ago
So, from what I gather from this video, a republic is the ideal form of government as long as the politicians are good people?
Reply 10 years ago
And you misspelled America.
Reply 10 years ago
And government.