This map of districts 'servicing' downtown Austin is from the Texas's 21st congressional district on wikipedia. One should note that the street in the dead center of that mess is named 'Martin Luther King Jr', I'll leave it to the reader to figure out what the means. It includes the 25th District and the 10th district which includes both some of 'downtown' Austin and Huston suburbs. So Austin, arguably the most liberal city in Texas has three Republicans representing it.

Considering that soap hadn't been invented yet, ancient Rome wasn't as 'fresh smelling' as you'd seem to expect.

As a programmer, it just seems best to use the most dangerous function ever created for a lazy coder GOTO:41621277, sure that you bushed it off quickly and seem to expect that simply restating your positions time and time again somehow will make them better, but to me at least it doesn't.

They didn't.

I've seen lots of people though the years say such thing, I see it as sort of 'the halfway point' of a lucid point of view, not in their own lives, but generational (perhaps you're a gen-xer?). However, ask yourself this: when was the last time you muttered that word about another person? A black guy who cut you off you off on the highway, perhaps a slow store clerk, or a young man with baggy pants and a strait billed hat, statistically all them are likely tax payers and many of them have families to support.

One thing that I notice about myself is that I used the phrase 'Jesus' a lot (or could it be 'Geeze'), not that I'm religious, it's just something I say when frustrated. I'm not really sure where I picked it up I suspect that many people such as yourself have a similar fixation to 'the N word'. As I see it, rather than making a real attempt at modifying what society has (fortunately IMHO) bad behavior, you just claim to have a special use for it. Sure there are people who will harass and beat up people based on race regardless of that person's view, however it's far more likely to be a black man at the 'wrong end of the stick' than a white guy. Yet you might never acknowledge such a reality, because it wouldn't fit with your politics.

Who's the 'we'? Do you have a mouse in your pocket? Does 'we' mean, you and the ditto heads? You and the Ayn Rand fan club? If 'we' is you and me, I'll have to warn you about the most I'm willing to generalize about the founding fathers is that they were white men of respectable backgrounds who were representatives of their states. Also, many of them were lawyers, some of them were slave owners. Otherwise they were a diverse group who fought fiercely over the role and responsibility of government (both federal and state for that matter). Hamilton's Report on Manufactures is very clear about what that founding father intended about the 'general welfare clause'.

The wikipedia article has this under 'Opposition to the Report':

I bring this up for two reasons, a to show more graphically just how different these founding fathers differed and to infer the idea that Jefferson was all over the map with his opinions. The man who wrote the Declaration of Independence wasn't even invited to the constitutional convention, he did not sign it nor did he participate in its first congressional session, as he was away in Paris as the minister to France and attempting to negotiate an end to various British claims (also 'hanging around' with a married woman, and later his deceased wife's slave half sister). Madison, who had also 'beat out' Jefferson for the all but the preamble of the VA constitution, was largely very quite about 'what he meant' when he wrote it, I researched it once and found only three quotes that mostly seemed to be against a broad interpretation of the 'general welfare clause'. Which might seem to be 'good news' for your cause, but as I remember it one of them basically claimed that it was 'copied over from the Articles of Confederation by accident' (not a direct quote, I'm too lazy too look, but I did once research it well) and all of them weren't statements of policies, but a few lines in private correspondence, after his two terms in the White House. Not exactly the stuff of case law and I believe that he wanted it that way. In fact several thing for which he championed were voted out, including establishment of a national university, export taxes and rules governing national elections, which of course are not exactly the ideas of a extremely limited government.

Huh, I thought what we were talking about how the Constitution was interpreted, why would you ask that leading question?

It's interesting that even after agreeing with me on much of it, you still insist on making generalities about the framers. I'll note that there were only six people who signed both documents (George Read, Roger Sherman, Benjamin Franklin, Robert Morris, George Clymer, and James Wilson), which further diversified 'the founding fathers'. The people who were at the Constitutional Convention are usually referred to as 'The Framers', which (as I mentioned before) did not include Thomas Jefferson, even if his work on the VA Constitution seemed to show up in it. To me the people who use his words to present some idea of a 'Jeffersonian Democracy' as being the intentions of 'the founding fathers', is full on ass hattery, which ignores the political realities of the time, seeming forgets how the man actually governed (even he thought that his Louisiana purchase was unconstitutional, but he did it anyways), and even forgets the various lessons learned. I have no idea why they get away with it.

A related note, I read up on the Madison and the Constitutional Congress, Jefferson and the Constitution and Jeffersonian Democracy I'll leave you with this quote of Thomas Jefferson in 1789, from a private letter to James Madison:

Who knew that TJ was into socialist redistribution?

Or miss by a couple of hundred miles and rack up a few billion dollars in lawsuits for taking out most of Las Vegas.

I was wrong about the admission of states, and I remember it's source, 'how the states got their shapes' got stuck in my head when they said 'the Constitution doesn't say how to admit a state' (or something like that). I had several conversations like this over the years and I am sorry that I didn't verify a newly formed argument.

I don't agree with your interpretation of Madison's statement, as you fail to understand that a significant portion of the objection to the Bill of Rights wasn't that we' shouldn't have any rights at a federal level, but that enumerating them at all would be too limiting. People such as yourself have been proving Hamilton right for two hundred years. Can you show me which part of the Constitution allowed George Washington to charter the First Bank of the United States (other than a broad reading of the commerce clause)? Show me which part allows 'judicial review'.

OK, more than two hundred years of case law says that I'm right overall, because you'd argue that much of what the feds does is already 'unconstitutional', and I am exactly arguing the opposite (I think).

There were more than two founding fathers and none of them agreed with each other anywhere near as well as you seem to think. Saying as you seem to say that 'The Founding Fathers' wanted this or that is ridiculous, which was one of my original assertion. Clearly you know differently, but still you choose to present them as categorically sympathetic to your argument. It's like you think of the term as a brand name, sort of like 'conservative', as not really meaning what it should, but as it works best for your political cause.

If enumeration was the idea, why does the 10th Amendment say 'delegated' rather than enumerated as is used elsewhere?

Delegated is a very broad term, so is 'the general welfare', which is used twice in the original document, but you'all don't like that one either. As there is no constitutional dictated way to add states, every state save the first thirteen should be considered territories directly under federal authority, if 'enumerated' was the law. Also, if you think that you clearly understand the founding fathers intentions, you'd have to ignore the way that the governed, because the ruled using more expansive federal authority than you seem to think they wanted. Lastly, even if we were able to clearly discern 'their intentions' (as if they'd speak with a single mind) thinking that we should govern modern America based based on it is silly in itself.

Huh? The role of the federal government is an argument that we've been having since the first days of the Washington Administration, that libertarians consistently claim that our country was founded on the idea of 'smaller government' is indicative of just how poorly they understand American history. In fact the constitution itself was a second try because the Articles of Confederation proved too weak; the whole idea of it was for the Constitution to grow as needed. Why is it that the ones who are calling for the most radical changes call themselves 'conservative'?

If you read the survey methodology (at the end of TFA), you'd under stand that there 'should be' a huge margin of error attached to it as it's an email survey sent to those on a law firm's mailing list.

DLA Piper is a law firm, not a survey company, it's mailing list is based on people who have responded to their previous surveys (or don't trash them) and those who have an interest in their services. Selection bias can be accounted for, but I don't see any control questions. A good one would be 'who did you vote for in 2008?'

When they do that send them the 'form' for such requests, just be sure that it has clear instructions, The form itself shouldn't be too hard to put together as many developers will, in the absence of other processes, put together a release plan based on previous companies, just pick the best one (or logically combine a couple of them).

As a system admin if you are making that decision then there is likely something institutionally wrong with your company's IT strategy. What to release and when is a QA/management issue in most places.

It's fairly easy to get a first post, the hard part is to get a +5 comment that's also a first post. I'm pretty sure that I've done it, but not in a while (didn't want to look to confirm)

Considering that the longest government note is 30 years, by your apparent standards all of Reagan's debt will be paid off in a couple of years. Conservatives should be happy that St Reagan has finally 'balanced his budget'.

I'm sure that there will be thousands of volunteers from both sexes, but the problem is that we don't know what the effect of lowered gravity, etc on pregnancy, growing children, or even the decades long affect on adult humans. I can't begin to describe the ethical, legal and moral problems presented by such a venture, a careful scientist would have 20 years of animal studies in such an environment alone before trying to gestate/raise a human child under such conditions. Oh wait.

When I was a kid, the McDonald's large was the size of their smallest adult cup today, and the largest sandwich you could buy was a single quarter pound of meat.