The speaker does not own the house and does not represent the whole of Congress. Opposing the speaker’s wishes is not the same as opposing free speech and an invite to speak is not a subpoena.
If it was a subpoena to speak before Congress then it would be a violation to oppose under a contempt charge like any American citizen would get, just like the previous administration violated subpoenas that should have resulted in charges except for Senate Republicans who chose not to do their job and enforce the law.
The speaker can invite whoever they want and the opposition party can try to prevent that within the bounds of the law if they oppose the invitee.
Yes, www.mathsisfun.com/numbers/bases.html has a bunch more examples to show why the base of the number system is always represented by 10, because 10 is a short hand we use for d1b^1 + d2b^0 where d is a digit between 0 and base-1, and b is the base. b^0 is always one and represents the first digit at the first position. b^1 is the base, so 1b^1 = the base. And since 10 is 1b^1 + 0*b^0 it represents the base in any number base system.
We assume a 1 in the 10’s place and a 0 in the 1’s represents 1,2,3,…,10 of something instead of 0,1,2,3,10 of something because from our perspective we learned numbers in base 10 with 9 digits, but the alien learned 10 means 4 of something in base 4.
I’m not sure because google.com requires JavaScript and then when I enable it it says it’s had too much malicious behavior from my VPN address and to enable another host gstatic to connect to I’m guessing for a rechaptcha and I gave up
The article defers to NBER but then says they are purposely excluding inflation and the higher cost of living from their criteria. Call it whatever you want, but if you’re going to use a definition most people don’t use to pretend there isn’t a problem you’re fucked.
Anyone who feels the freedom to fuck with our elections or disenfranchise voters should have the book thrown at them, maximum penalties under the statutes.
If anarchists are often misunderstood I’d imagine libertarians even more so. Both philosophies advocate for the lack of a state, splitting between preference towards the community/collective vs individual, and are often misinterpreted to mean every thing the state does or should provide today can’t exist without it.
My assumption is economic in that they will continue to spend as oil and hydrocarbon fuels dependency drops worldwide as it’s replaced with renewables. It seems dogmatic organizations like religions, theocracies, etc tend to do poorly with incremental change, but we’ll see over the next couple decades. 30% of their trade is with China so it largely depends on Chinese markets and how/if they decide to change as the markets change.
If you’re actually asking how to reach people about a delusional belief they hold it seems often if you try to show them evidence that directly contradicts their belief, argue reasonably, etc they will often become more entrenched in a defiant ‘you can’t teach me anything’ stance to protect their perceived self identity from unwarranted attacks. You have to demonstrate the warrant first.
A possibly more effective method seems to be temporarily accepting their proposed perspective, and asking skeptical questions to reduce their confidence in the delusion. Providing the questions to work it out themselves instead of forcing the conclusion. I haven’t read it yet but I’ve seen en.wikipedia.org/…/Combating_Cult_Mind_Control recommended as a study on cults and breaking their indoctrination & control tactics but I’m open to more contemporary recommendations if anyone has them.
The sex obsessed wet blankets in the clergy morality police probably shut down a concert or dance hall they weren’t invited to where people were actually having fun.