search results matching tag: Power Lines
» channel: learn
go advanced with your query
Search took 0.002 seconds
Videos (59) | Sift Talk (0) | Blogs (13) | Comments (152) |
Videos (59) | Sift Talk (0) | Blogs (13) | Comments (152) |
Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Already signed up?
Log in now.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Remember your password?
Log in now.
Romney - What Does The Constitution Say? Lets Ask Ron Paul!
Hrm, interesting since I am drunk... But you said, "Also too," which makes all that you wrote moot! Ha, also can mean "too!" I win!
All jokes aside...the constitution, as I said, is understood backwards by Paul. If it isn't wrote, the government has the ability to do (At least the State.)
Universal healthcare is legal, not because of the commerce clause...but because it is.
>> ^NetRunner:
@heropsycho ahh, but you do need to be careful with the whole "enumerated powers" malarkey. After all, there's nothing in Article I, Section 8 about Congress being able to create an Air Force -- just an Army and a Navy. The Air Force is unconstitutional.
Also too, it doesn't say the government is allowed to build roads, just "Post roads" for the post office's use! Don't even get us started on things like power lines or telephone cable.
According to the likes of Ron Paul, the Constitution isn't open to even a little bit of reinterpretation, but instead that it's a straightjacket that should constrain the Federal government from doing anything that isn't explicitly listed in Section 8.
Hell, he's even implied that since the Constitution uses the verb "coin" to describe Congress's authority to create money, that paper currency (backed by gold or otherwise) is also unconstitutional.
IMO, I'd be fine with that interpretation, as long as people stopped pretending that the constitution was some holy scripture filled with infinite wisdom passed down to us by messiahs. We should be rewriting and re-ratifying the Constitution to fit with our modern ideals of how things should function.
For example, there should be something in the constitution about the nexus of money and politics, but there isn't.
There should be something more about the legal definition of "people" -- do fetuses or corporations count?
There should be something in there about the Air Force, and the Marines too, for good measure.
Do we have a right to privacy, or don't we?
Right now we mostly let the Supreme Court decide these things by letting them "interpret" a 200 year-old document based on their supposed ability to divine the mental state of the long-dead authors of the sections they feel are relevant.
Why shouldn't those questions be put to a vote?
Romney - What Does The Constitution Say? Lets Ask Ron Paul!
For the record, I'm not a strict constructionist. However, I do recognize the danger of looser interpretations, even though I'm politically moderate person. I don't have a good answer for example about the Civil Rights Act of 1964, because that law was sorely needed, but it sure does open Pandora's box about what the gov't can and can't regulate. Regulation of interstate commerce allowed for things like environmental regulation, the formation of the EPA, etc. But it sure can cause the gov't to regulate things it shouldn't, too.
The formation of an Air Force though is an easier argument constitutionally, and it's a useful thing to review because it illustrates the thought process of the Supreme Court. When something isn't outright said in Article I, Section 8, those powers in combination with interpretting other sections such as the Preamble ("provide for the common defense..."), or sometimes other documents the forefathers wrote such as the Federalist Papers, the Declaration of Independence, etc., provide ideas about their intent. It's clearly implied that since they could form an Army and Navy for defense, once flight was possible, it's implied we need an Air Force.
As to the things below you're saying should be put to a vote, they are, but not directly by the people. That's how the Amendment process works. Should it be a direct vote by the people? In my opinion, that would be a horrible idea. The people simply for the most part do not understand the ramifications of amending the Constitution.
>> ^NetRunner:
@heropsycho ahh, but you do need to be careful with the whole "enumerated powers" malarkey. After all, there's nothing in Article I, Section 8 about Congress being able to create an Air Force -- just an Army and a Navy. The Air Force is unconstitutional.
Also too, it doesn't say the government is allowed to build roads, just "Post roads" for the post office's use! Don't even get us started on things like power lines or telephone cable.
According to the likes of Ron Paul, the Constitution isn't open to even a little bit of reinterpretation, but instead that it's a straightjacket that should constrain the Federal government from doing anything that isn't explicitly listed in Section 8.
Hell, he's even implied that since the Constitution uses the verb "coin" to describe Congress's authority to create money, that paper currency (backed by gold or otherwise) is also unconstitutional.
IMO, I'd be fine with that interpretation, as long as people stopped pretending that the constitution was some holy scripture filled with infinite wisdom passed down to us by messiahs. We should be rewriting and re-ratifying the Constitution to fit with our modern ideals of how things should function.
For example, there should be something in the constitution about the nexus of money and politics, but there isn't.
There should be something more about the legal definition of "people" -- do fetuses or corporations count?
There should be something in there about the Air Force, and the Marines too, for good measure.
Do we have a right to privacy, or don't we?
Right now we mostly let the Supreme Court decide these things by letting them "interpret" a 200 year-old document based on their supposed ability to divine the mental state of the long-dead authors of the sections they feel are relevant.
Why shouldn't those questions be put to a vote?
Romney - What Does The Constitution Say? Lets Ask Ron Paul!
@heropsycho ahh, but you do need to be careful with the whole "enumerated powers" malarkey. After all, there's nothing in Article I, Section 8 about Congress being able to create an Air Force -- just an Army and a Navy. The Air Force is unconstitutional.
Also too, it doesn't say the government is allowed to build roads, just "Post roads" for the post office's use! Don't even get us started on things like power lines or telephone cable.
According to the likes of Ron Paul, the Constitution isn't open to even a little bit of reinterpretation, but instead that it's a straightjacket that should constrain the Federal government from doing anything that isn't explicitly listed in Section 8.
Hell, he's even implied that since the Constitution uses the verb "coin" to describe Congress's authority to create money, that paper currency (backed by gold or otherwise) is also unconstitutional.
IMO, I'd be fine with that interpretation, as long as people stopped pretending that the constitution was some holy scripture filled with infinite wisdom passed down to us by messiahs. We should be rewriting and re-ratifying the Constitution to fit with our modern ideals of how things should function.
For example, there should be something in the constitution about the nexus of money and politics, but there isn't.
There should be something more about the legal definition of "people" -- do fetuses or corporations count?
There should be something in there about the Air Force, and the Marines too, for good measure.
Do we have a right to privacy, or don't we?
Right now we mostly let the Supreme Court decide these things by letting them "interpret" a 200 year-old document based on their supposed ability to divine the mental state of the long-dead authors of the sections they feel are relevant.
Why shouldn't those questions be put to a vote?
Crazy Lady Catches Turkey
Seems like a poor choice for an area to drop a turkey. Power lines, lots of trees, etc.
Stick + Power lines + Fire + Giant arc = PROFIT!
5 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.
Shrieking Tree Branch On Power Lines
This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by garmachi.
Like a Bird on a Wire
Tags for this video have been changed from 'electric, wire, repair, high, voltage, danger' to 'Hi voltage line, voltage, faraday cage, straight up, power line, live wire, electric' - edited by BoneRemake
Power Line Fliers
Tags for this video have been changed from 'birds, power lines, perch, fly, amelie, yann tiersen' to 'birds, power lines, perch, fly, amelie, yann tiersen, flyers' - edited by Fusionaut
Eagle drops deer on power line, causes outage
>> ^Longswd:
I suspect it was a swallow. He could have gripped it by the husk.
It's not a question of where he grips it! It's a simple question of weight ratios! A five ounce bird could not carry a 10 pound fawn. Now supposing two swallows carried it together?
Eagle drops deer on power line, causes outage
>> ^Longswd:
I suspect it was a swallow. He could have gripped it by the husk.
What do you mean? An African or European swallow?
mintbbb (Member Profile)
Your video, Eagle drops deer on power line, causes outage, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.
This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 27 Badge!
Eagle drops deer on power line, causes outage
We don't know how high up the deer was dropped from. Dropping that kind of wieght on the wire would yank the ends of the wire, posibly ripping several of the internal wires from the post.
>> ^mxxcon:
But why would a deer landing on a single wire cause any outage? There's no shorting or line breaking...
Chopped Down Tree Fail
and the other option would have been dropping the tree on the power lines and the camera man or maybe another house
Train Has A Crazy Electrical Fault
>> ^MaxWilder:
It looks more like a downed power line than an electrical fault.
It sounds distinctively DC, and the pantograph (thingy that connects the train to the overhead line) is engaged.
Indeed it is a grounding fault if it moves to a different pantograph rather than burning out at one spot.
Train Has A Crazy Electrical Fault
It looks more like a downed power line than an electrical fault.