Why are true statements by Romney reciviing more scrutiny than our embassies burning down?
That video was taken in May. They must have been saving it for the perfect time. What he said also was that the Palestinian leaders refuse to negotiate for peace in Israel. Its difficult to say how the citizens feel about it. They were offered an excellent deal way back in the 70's but Arafat refused it demanding that Israel disappear.
Which of the following statements about Puritans is NOT true?
I cant find this anywhere. please help? a. Puritans considered the Bible as the true law of God that should guide church government. b. Puritans emphasized grace, devotion, prayer, and self examination to achieve religious virtue. c. A strict code of behavior was enforced in a Puritan community. d. Most of the Puritans settled in the Midwest area. e. Puritans formed the first school in 1635 and later established Harvard University.
The POTUS starts supporting radical/hateful beliefs, how would this scenario likely play out today?
If the President suddenly started to support radical hateful beliefs the following would probably happen: 1. Hate groups who agree would speak out and start acting out their beliefs in a violent fashion since this would be giving them support, 2. People who disagree would immediately question this behavior and speech. 3. Groups who are dedicated to democracy within the U.S. would question this activity and speak up loudly. 4. Dictators and foreign leaders of nations who agree with these statements would speak up and see this as the U.S. supporting their behavior. 5. Leaders of allied nations would question the motivation and leadership of the U.S. and be critical. This type of speech would allow hate groups all throughout the world to act upon their beliefs. (To see example of this type of phenomenon take notice of what happened when Mr. Trump made comments that were racial slurs against Mexicans and Islamics—-Nazi groups were quick to support him and his party.
When it comes to racism, does banning racist behavior (mostly political correctness) solve the problem, or is it just pushing it underground?
Racist behavior such as violence and hate crimes are already banned. So I'll assume that by racist behavior you mean currently legal racist behaviors such as spreading hate speech.Racism is wrong, but suppressing the freedom of speech is also wrong. One of the founding pillars of our democracy in the United States is the freedom that people have to express their views. Without this, communities like Quora could not exist.Banning racist speech, although perhaps dealing with bigots, undermines one of the major foundations of our country.I despise racism. I love democracy. And I love fairness and my right to speak my mind.But this does not mean that we should remain silent against the outcries of racists and bigots. Accepting their right to speak is one thing, but we must also recognize our right to speak out against this. In the words of Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, "Every decent person should go out of his or her way to condemn... racist statements." Recognizing that racism is wrong, we must speak out against these statements, but we cannot ban them altogether because that is a restriction of a person's right to free expression.Besides, banning speech would only push it underground. It would also lead to another problem, again detailed by Dershowitz: "If speech that is deeply offensive to many African-Americans is prohibited, then speech that is deeply offensive to many Jews, gays, women, Asians, Muslims, Christians, atheists, etc. must also be prohibited...we should stay out of the business of trying to pick and choose among types and degrees of offensive, harassing or discriminatory speech." This leads to an impasse where debates arise over what is considered racist and to what degree is it racist, never mind destroying our First Amendment rights.So the moral we have here is: People have an Inalienable right to express themselves. When such expressions become racist or hostile, one should decry such expressions with full force. Here's the link to the Dershowitz article: Page on sduhsd.net
2 Gravitational Orbits questions!!! need your help!!!?
Based on your observations of the behavior of your computer model of a planet orbiting a star, and on your reading in the textbook, which of the following statements about a circular orbit are true? The magnitude of the planet's momentum is constant. At every instant, d/dt points from the planet to the star. The direction of the planet's momentum is changing at every instant. At any instant the momentum of the planet is tangent to the planet's trajectory. The gravitational force on the planet due to the star always acts at a right angle to the planet's momentum. Based on your observations of the behavior of your computer model of a planet orbiting a star, and on your reading in the textbook, which of the following statements about an elliptical orbit are true? At any instant the momentum of the planet is tangent to the planet's trajectory. The magnitude of the planet's momentum is constant. The direction of the planet's momentum is changing at every instant. The gravitational force on the planet due to the star always acts at a right angle to the planet's momentum. At every instant, d/dt points from the planet to the star.
Was Jemele Hill a “SportsCenter” co-host right to use her ESPN post to make political statements labeling Trump a “white supremacist”?
Irrelevant, yes and no.First off, what did she actually do? She tweeted. This isn’t using her ‘ESPN post to make political statements’, this is someone with an ESPN job tweeting. Do you see ESPN anywhere in this tweet?Do you see “Official ESPN source” anywhere in this tweet?It’s irrelevant as she has had the twitter account since 2009 under her personal name. I’m sure her Twitter profile has changed a few times since then as she took various jobs. This was someone sounding off on twitter, and furthermore, a random D-list minor celebrity who is a talking head about sports. It’s not like she’s the editor of the New York Times. Yeesh.Yes, she’s right to use her minor celebrity. As a black woman in the USA, she has every right to call it as she sees it. She’s apparently well known enough that people saw it, including Trump himself. Freedom of speech applies to black woman too, don’t forget.No. Regardless of anything else, she’s part of an advertising-fuelled entertainment machine which undoubtedly has social media policies which have now been carefully explained to her. Her careful restatement that it was her personal opinion and that it’s unfortunate it reflected on ESPN shows that she understands she’s a piece of a money-making machine, not a deeply principled public philosopher (and that’s just fine, by the way).The much better question is whether Trump and his press secretary are impinging on the spirit if not the letter of the First Amendment to the US Constitution. While it starts ‘Congress…’, it’s generally understood that it’s about the government of the USA not stomping on citizens’ freedom of speech.When the President attacks your employer for something you said as a private citizen, putting your livelihood at risk, that’s a breach of decorum and tradition. When his Press Secretary, standing at the White House behind the official podium in front of the US flag, says that Hill should be fired, that’s a breach.Hill is not in the wrong here except in the minor way of likely breaching the social media provisions of her contract with ESPN. Trump and his Press Secretary are definitely off the reservation.
Why do Americans support their political parties like a religion?
People have an investment in religion. The salvation of their soul, saving others, and teaching right from wrong. Political parties fashion themselves in a similar way and adherents of a political party tend to filter information “through the eyes of the party”. Americans are not unique. Lenin and Stalin were gods of the Communist Party and life depended on the party line. Hitler. Mussolini.The more invested you are in a political party the more it changes your thought processes. My daughters are reflexively very liberal, they are “believers”! I’m more agnostic to any party-that happens to people in their late 50’s.Political parties carry the teachings of the party that will save the soul of a nation. That is wgy you don’t talk about religion or politics, or anything for fear of offending.
What is the difference between a political prisoner and a criminal?
In most cases, there is no technical difference, as the behaviors that get political prisoners thrown into jail are usually crimes. However, the political acts themselves are prohibited, and one can argue that these acts should be permitted in a free society. For example, in the United States, you can say just about anything you want in regard to the President of the United States or any other government official, providing you don't threaten violence against them. You can call them liars, cheats, and thieves or accuse them of treason. In fact, you can probably say more about a public official than a private citizen, as public officials are generally regarded as "public figures" and the rules about slander and libel are more liberal than for private persons. In many other countries, making a disparaging comment, even one that is subtle, about a public official can land you in prison, living a very unpleasant existence. Similarly, if you protest that a law or policy is unfair, the incumbent power can have you thrown in jail. The law is what they say it is, and each country gets to define what is criminal and what is not. Because these statements or actions are arguably political in nature, people held in custody for saying or doing them are regarded as political prisoners. An important distinction concerns people who commit acts of violence for political reasons. If you plant a bomb at a military recruiting office because you don't think your country should be involved in a war, the act is clearly criminal, even if the motive is political. People who share your point of view may regard you as a hero for stepping up to stop an act of war, but planting and detonating a bomb on U.S. soil is going to be a criminal act. no matter who does it or why it's done.