That’s an argument against an executive branch of government, not an argument against a constitutional monarchy.

You could have (and many countries do) a parliamentary system like you describe without having a monarch figurehead.

The question I think OP is asking is: why have the monarch figurehead.

There’s a kid who calls her father dada (dadda?..sp?) throughout the movie

Titanic was a hit, but in retrospect, horribly overrated and IMHO absolutely cliche, disrespectful, sacrilegious garbage.

Ah, I’ve even seen that one! Good call

Agree he had a very high hit rate, and personal life aside, I enjoy most of his movies.

But MI:2 and MI:3 are mediocre at best, and Knight and Day and Rock of Ages were massive flops (I haven’t seen either, but i they look horrible). Cocktail earned him a razzie nomination.

Saving Private Ryan is at least “very good” if not one of the greatest war movies of all time.

And The Burbs is classic 80s screwball comedy simmered to perfection (even if it isn’t a 'high art ’ genre)

Ah yes. “If you’re rich, nothing is illegal, there’s just a fee”

That’s definitely a thing, but something different.

I don’t think you get what I was saying. I’m not debating the definition of the word “fee.”

I’m saying that in most states in the USA, there’s often a fee for many things that can get gotten completely for free if you prove your income is low enough.

So I guess you could say you “pay a fee” of the extra time and hassle to prove your low income. But for something like a state ID, for instance, you can get one absolutely free (no money paid) if your income is low enough.

One small point to correct/adjust is the idea that these sites were “ignored.”

The pyramids have been a tourist attraction for thousands of years. The Romans talked about visiting them. I’m guessing there was never a time when they weren’t of interest to people in the area. Same for something like the Colosseum, Parthenon, or Pantheon. They might not have always prioritized preservation, but they certainly didn’t forget they existed.

Reverse. It’s only a fee if you can afford it. If you can’t afford it, it’s free.

A viable protest of decent size in my city that I can join. Even a few hundred people would be enough. Organized enough that I hear about it a week out and can shift my plans to be there.

I live in Nashville (and my sister lives in Germany). You should be fine. It’s a great place to visit.

Any place in the world has the small chance of a drunken idiot making a fool of themselves by revealing themselves to be racist. We’re no different. But you’re not going to be harassed by police officers or anything like that (unless you’re doing something worthy of their attention anyway).

The only places where I’d be the slightest bit concerned would be in the small town rural areas between Nashville and the national park. Even then you should be fine, but the odds of running into a racist idiot will go up from like 1% to 3%. And even if you do, it’s not like you’ll be in danger. They’ll just do their best to make you uncomfortable by saying something nasty. They won’t refuse you service or anything crazy like that.

Honestly, even in those areas you’re likely to be looked at suspiciously because of your foreign accent more than the color of your skin.

Being kind and giving extra resources to those with disabilities, and to some degree even those of lower status. In theory, pure evolution should operate selfishly (more for me less for you) most of the time and even a more complex evolutionary pressure that seeks the benefit of the species vs the individual. There’s no benefit to caring for and giving resources to those who can’t or objectively (again, to from a pure genetics perspective l shouldn’t be allowed to breed. But morally, as a society, we care extra for them, not less. Anyone who wants to be rid of or take from those unfortunates are (rightly) considered sociopaths.

That side is definitely the most interesting, but the reverse side of the Problem of Evil is interesting too: if there is no god/God, then why do we call things evil. How can we apply some objective morality if everything is random and subjective?

There are good and interesting arguments related to evolution creating a sense of common morality, like an instinct, to drive behavior that is beneficial to the continuation of the species and a bloodline. But some of what we consider moral is uniquely against a ‘survival of the fittest’ framework.

Like I said, at the very least it is interesting

One you’ve seen before and enjoy.

Probably better if it is dialog-heavy vs one that’s mostly visual and action

Your explanation says that a post with 100k actually has 20k. What this guy is saying is that it does actually have 100k.

There’s a chance that Musk has bought himself enough influence to turn conservatives on climate change. I don’t know if I expect it, exactly, but there’s a chance at a scenario where there is at least some progress there.

Granted Musk will mostly use it to enrich himself, but if he at least stops then from repealing green subsidies and the like, that’s movement in the right direction.

Baroque classical

Most of the people you’re thinking about as a problem haven’t read the Bible either. They’d think the stuff Jesus said was commie, bleeding-heart, socialist stuff (because it is)

You can pick your friends and you can pick your nose, but you can’t pick your friend’s nose.

Or my favorite variation: You can pick your friends and you can pick your nose, but you can’t wipe your friends on the underside of the car seat.