mrcleanup

"Yeah his mindset didn't include women or people of color but it doesn't make the core idea invalid"

I'm not sure how you could think that the founding fathers could exclude people and still mean everyone. "Everyone" specifically means not excluding anyone.

Yeah, it definitely wasn't a given for the founders. There was a whole lot of talk about only letting landowners vote at one point.

Thomas Jefferson even invented a term for a specific type of political elite that he thought should be in power.

Look at the treatment of black people. Article one, section two of the Constitution counted enslaved people as three-fifths of a person when determining congressional representation. Rights were definitely different based on who you are.

Heck, they still are... There are plenty of examples of modern subcultures with different rights. Gay marriage, etc.

Sure, I'd go a step further though and argue that even if the founding fathers could conceive of a modern high-rate-of-fire firearm, they probably never expected then to be readily available to the masses though, only the well to do. The question of "what they envisioned" is not just a technical puzzle, but a social one too.

While revolutionary at the time, thris is still more in line with a bolt action than a semi auto. And other than some potential rich collectors these would have been in the hands of the military, not civilians due to their cost and complexity. Notice that they also switched back due to their lack of reliability. These clearly didn't work quite as well as people hoped.

"Our surprising findings at Abric Pizarro show how adaptable Neanderthals were. The animal bones we have recovered indicate that they were successfully exploiting the surrounding fauna, hunting red deer, horses and bison, but also eating freshwater turtles and rabbits, which imply a degree of planning rarely considered for Neanderthals,"

brilliantly distressing

I had a two part visit, about 45 min each, to test to see if I had asthma. My out of pocket after insurance was about $1,200.

Why would anyone question anything based on your comment?

You didn't link to an article presenting information that supports you. You didn't link to information showing why mercury in this type of use would be low.

You didn't present any factual... Anything.

You didn't even claim to be someone with training in this area that would give your opinion weight.

Your comment is the equivalent to saying you don't believe elephants are real, but not even saying it is because you have never seen one, which would have still been a weak argument.

Opinions without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Well, if *YOU * don't see any reason to worry we should probably just assume they aren't polluting then.

Thanks for setting us straight.

You sound like someone with ADHD who has been made feel inadequate, told they don't have it, and are continuing the cycle of shaming for something outside your control.

There are no roles, only consequences. The real question here is what are the consequences, and we can't know that.

I can't read that, but if it's a communism joke,. I meant that the plane is government property it doesn't belong to the person inside.