fancypants Wrote:
Billzebub Wrote:
Borg166 Wrote:
Also, the authors have university backgrounds so it's not just a bunch of kids throwing this together.
Well, I guess the world needs bad universities too, if only to make more clear the value of a good one.
Simply having a university background is not enough credentials in my book. I've had some professors who are morons.
Quote:
"A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system."
How should this question be answered? I wouldn't like a one-party system, but yes, this IS a significant advantage of having a one-party system.
I'm not sure what that question is driving at, but a one party doesn't really cut down on shit. The legislatures of both houses will always have their constituents and their own fifedoms to control. The overall governing principles would, in theory, be the same, but John Connelly and Lyndon Johnson were never friends of political allies, neither were say, Zell Miller and Tom Murphy. or, say Bush and John McCain (despite McCain's campaigning for Bush which has more to do with his own aspirations than any love for Bush)
_________________
Throughout his life, from childhood until death, he was beset by severe swings of mood. His depressions frequently encouraged, and were exacerbated by, his various vices. His character mixed a superficial Enlightenment sensibility for reason and taste with a genuine and somewhat Romantic love of the sublime and a propensity for occasionally puerile whimsy.
harry Wrote:
I understand that you, of all people, know this crisis and, in your own way, are working to address it. You, the madras-pantsed julip-sipping Southern cracker and me, the oldman hippie California fruit cake are brothers in the struggle to save our country.
FT Wrote:
LooGAR (the straw that stirs the drink)
