"Democrats contend that requiring government-issued photo identification could discourage or prevent some people from voting."
I would like to see some real data on this statement. I have heard it repeatably ever since this issue started coming up and have yet to see it proven. I would like a non-political survey regarding whether or not it would be a burden on the poor, the elderly, or any other citizen to obtain a photo id. If this is a problem for a small segment of the citizenry, say, less than 1%, then it would be reasonable to make some concession to that small segment, and require it for everyone else.
As the Democrats historically pull all kinds of shenanigans to prevent the military serving overseas (who all have ids!) from casting absentee ballots, it rings hollow for them to cry foul.
Not so, ghost hunting is real. In fact, I too used to hunt ghosts. The season is year long and there isn't a limit. But my wife made me give it up because when you get them mounted, they just end up leaking ectoplasm and it ruins your drywall.
So Bob, I guess next year you will be celebrating Eaarth Day?
I took courses at Lincoln as part of my undergraduate degree (Engineering from the University of Missouri). I can say that the classes that I took at Lincoln were every bit as professional and useful as any I have taken since.
I also don't think anyone was disparaging less educated people when you jumped in with your rant, so I don't know where that is coming from.
Next time, try to make a coherent response. You may disagree that the problem is not with JC, but rather with LU, but your post doesn't advance your belief.
The North was not trespassing. South Carolina was in the USA. The United States, not "the North" held Fort Sumter. Just like it held every other Fort in the US and still does. The United States (not "the North") held that the South did not have the right to secession, had the South believed they were "in the right" they could have settled the issue in court, but hotter heads prevailed and the war was on.
The slavery issue was far from dead and the South could see the writing on the wall. There were bills in process that would have prohibited any new states from being slave holding states (Kansas, for example). The South was facing a loss of the balance of power that allowed them to keep human beings as property as more and more states entered the Union.
Yes, it was about State's rights. Specifically, it was about the Southern State's rights to own human beings.
Graceful, the North didn't go to war to end slavery. The North went to war because they were attacked in an act of war by the South. But the South went to war because their slave rights were being threatened. So, the war started over slavery and it ended over slavery. Note that only slave holding states joined the Confederacy. Every State that was interested in State's rights didn't join the Confederacy. Every State that believed they had the right to leave the Union didn't join the Confederacy. Only slave owning states. What does that mean? It means that the issue was slavery.
The civil war was indeed about slavery. It is revisionist history to say otherwise. Here's a real good, although brief, article showing that:
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
The permit includes the technical description of the plant and that means that a great deal of the planning and design have to be completed prior to submittal of the permit request. So, a lot of the money goes to engineers, designers, machine designers, probabilist safety assessors, computer modeling, etc. Although a lot does go to lawyers.
I work in the energy sector, not related directly with Ameren although I have done business for them in the past. I can tell you two things. In the current economic climate it is almost impossible for any publicly held private company to begin a construction project the size of a nuclear plant with private money. The reason is that the debt from that project would cause the company's stock prices to go down. As the stock prices dropped due to debt, the company would be ripe for a hostile takeover. So, it would be unwise to take on such a debt, if possible.
The second point is that I was at a seminar a couple of years ago in Washington DC where the Undersecretary of the Energy discussed the results of computer modeling which showed that if 1. we don't keep the majority of nuclear plants currently in operation running and 2. we don't immediately (within the next 10 years or so) begin construction of new nuclear plants, the US will begin experiencing rolling blackouts around the year 2025. The first areas hit will be Florida, then the SW, then the central US.
Fossil plants cannot fill this role because of CO2 emissions issues, Solar and Wind are politically cute but cannot begin to fill the need. So, it is Nuclear Power (unless you figure out a way to harness the energy of unicorns and other imaginary solutions).
Last login: Tuesday, July 23, 2013
© 2014 News Tribune Publishing.