I believe that in accordance to minimum wage the courts should be involved as well as in safety issues and regulations.
Answer:
I don't know...call me crazy, but I don't think this would be such a bad idea (at least sometime in the future.) With the advent of the internet, there really is no reason why people can't have more input on legislation. Remember, congressmen act as representatives of the people for logistical reasons. Were voting allowed via internet, mail, or permanent polling places, the logistical roadblocks are reduced.
This country has an annoying quality where senators and representatives are elected and then inject their own personality into their voting. They are supposed to represent the people of their district. If 60% of the people in their district feel a certain way about an issue, why is the congressman/woman allowed to vote a different way? Why do their personal beliefs really matter at all? They are supposed to be voting the way their district wants regardless of what they personally believe.
I know, I know, things can be horribly complicated and the average person can't possibly understand all the issues they are voting on, but last I checked their is no intelligence requirement to be in the government...many people in governement now are dumb as a box of rocks. They don't have to be smart to be elected, they have to be personable and have good advisors working in the background.
Imagine being able to directly vote on education issues, warfare issues, and being able to prioritize budget items. Instead of blaming the morons in congress we would only be able to blame ourselves when things went horribly wrong. Of course, some form of standing governement would still be needed for a lot of reasons.
Again, I know the technology is not hot enough right now to provide the secruity that would be needed, etc, but it won't be long...
\n. \n Not necessarily \n. \nFanciful and preposterous lies aren't necessarily a symptom of chronic lying. Chronic, in the context of your question, implies a habitual or pathological behavior or trait. Lying to avoid getting caught for committing a more serious offense is neither chronic nor irrational. In fact, it is quite rational inasmuch as the "big lie" is often easier to believe than a small prevarication. After all, the reasoning goes, why would someone make up a patently incredible story? so, he MUST be telling the truth.\n. \nFar more likely is the liar isn't very good at lying, whether or not he (or she) is experienced at it.\n. \n Answer \n. \nYes, he definitely has a problem and is a pathological liar. The above poster made some fine points, but lying is lying. If it's repeated over and over again this person has a problem and should seek psychological counseling if they want to have a successful relationship. People can lie for various reasons. They may feel less of a person because they came from a bad or poor background and they want to appear equal with their peers. They may lie simply because they got away with it as a child and they were never reprimanded for it and therefore they don't know any better. Sometimes if the child told the truth they got a beating for it so it was easier to lie than tell the truth. Pathological liars don't mean to be this way and may not even know they are. It would take someone else to perhaps a few other people to tell this person to get some help. Once people have the label of being a liar they can't be trusted and when they do tell the truth no one will believe them. You've heard about Peter & the Wolf!
Andrew Jackson was the seventh President
Answer:Im pretty sure its false
Explanation: