redlegphi

I believe that was William Kristol. Which is why he is now in a public fight with the poor campaign manager who had to try to convince the American public that Gov. Palin was fully capable of running the United States government.

So, just so I'm clear, had Obama come out against the deposition of the President but also said something about the President overstepping his Constitutional authority, you'd be cool with that? As far as Iran goes, Honduras is not Iran. "Meddling" in Iran would most likely produce the exact opposite result from what we want (though it would now appear that that will be the result anyway). This is because the Iranians mostly don't like/trust us and their government is run by loons who don't give a fuck what we say. Compare that to Honduras, where the combined pressure of the US, OAS, and other countries around the world that have diplomatic, economic, and social ties to Honduras may force them to look at what they just did and possibly reconsider a civil option for getting rid of their aspiring dictator as opposed to standing by their military coup, which pretty much sets the country all the way back to 1972.

I find it odd that you think a democratic Iraq is necessarily a pro-America and pro-Israel Iraq.

The last military coup down there was in 1972, so your "this is how things work down there" argument doesn't sit very well with me. I actually agree with that. However, I don't think we were anywhere near the end here. The military jumped the gun here and once again made themselves the arbiter of who gets to be in power before things could be worked out on the civilian side. I don't think I'm tracking what you're saying here. Are you saying his response is different, and therefore you don't like it? Or are you saying that they were both weak responses, so you don't like it? Explain further, please.

And to expand a little bit on what I said before, do I think Zelaya's a great leader? No. In fact, he seems like a total douchebag. However, sending the military to the President's house to arrest him and deport him isn't really the best way to do things. Especially given Central American history of the last 100 years or so. The preferred route would have been for the legislature to impeach him or for him to get some kind of fair and open trial for the crimes he was accused of. I could be wrong, but I think that's what most of the world is up in arms about (except Hugo Chavez, who is acting like a complete douchebag himself...but I digress).

That's not the reason. The reason is to demonstrate the hypocrisy of the politically correct mentality that cries "oppression" in only one of the two cases when the exact same term is used. It does take a pretty good victim complex to somehow think that the exact terminology, caricatures and names, when recycled by the other side, are somehow extra bad this time around. Yeah. Why can't you all understand that white people like GWB have historically been de-humanized and oppressed just as bad as black people have? Therefore, calling GWB a chimp is exactly the same as calling Obama a chimp.

You can always tell that a military coup is completely valid and legal when they start shutting down opposing media outlets and arresting the political opposition. Yay democracy!

I suppose that depends on how you define nation-building. Do I think we should be in Afghanistan for the next decade guiding their government? No. But I think we should try and get them to a point of stability where they can keep control of their nation on their own so that it doesn't revert back to Taliban control the second we leave. And, of course, if their government asks us to leave, then it's time to go, regardless of what state they're in (though I doubt Karzai would ask us to go until he has solid control).

Right. Which is exactly my point. The minority believed that an absence of bias in the test wasn't relevant. The majority held that it was relevant, and that without bias in the test, the results were fair, regardless of whether they clove to some preconceived notions of racial balance. The idea that a totally fair process must be discarded because it doesn't give the result you want is practically the definition of social engineering. Point being that it can be an unbiased test and still not be a totally fair process, as was illustrated in Griggs.

I've asked you this before but you have declined to answer: Humans put approximately 30 Billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year. The measured CO2 content of the atmosphere increases annually by roughly the same amount. Explain your belief that human activity has nothing to do with the increaasing CO2. Never took that position. The question is, does it affect global temps. The answer? Yet to be determised but I think no. There are records of more CO2 in the atmosphere than where we are today. Years before mans industrial age. Those same records seem to indicate temps lead CO2 level changes, Not follow. You next. OK, so you don't deny that humans are adding to the CO2 content of the atmosphere. So onto the next question: How do you reconcile humans increasing the CO2 (A KNOWN GREENHOUSE GAS) content of the atmosphere by 30 Billion tons each year with your position that human activity has nothing to do with climate? Dont have too. Studies suggest that CO2 levels FOLLOW temp increases and decreases. Therefore, CO2 levels have no (or very very little) impact on global temps. ... Well, that's pretty piss-poor logic. Never before in history has any species raised the CO2 levels the way we are doing it, so you have absolutely no way to use past events to predict what will happen now. In fact what you are suggesting will be a positive feedback, which will be doubly bad. So try again - explain how OUR increasing the greenhouse gas content of the atmosphere will have no greenhouse effect. Yours is the piss poor logic I know you are but what am I.

Correction: They believe they have it. They can't know of the existence of something which can't be proven to exist. Once again, see Russell's Teapot. This makes Christians different from just about every other religion and ethnic group in the world...how?

As I've said several times, the presence of any bias in the test is irrelevant. The law is (or at least, was) fairly clear. The test must directly test the ability of the applicant to perform the job. If it doesn't and it results in a racial disparity, even if there is no clear bias in the test, the test is invalid. This has nothing to do with social engineering. If you check out the Griggs v. Duke Power case, you'll note that the justices had a very good reason for putting this provision in place. Companies were attempting to get around the 1964 Civil Rights Act by imposing arbitrary requirements for jobs and promotions. The requirements they'd pick would be ones that would heavily favor white candidates (in Griggs, a high school diploma). Obviously, this was companies trying to violate the Civil Rights Act, so the Supreme Court closed that loop hole. They also found in Griggs that the intent of the company was irrelevant. Which means that all of the talk of bias in the test and the intent of the test-makers is completely irrelevant to this case. So I don't know why it's continuously brought up as if it matters.

It didn't. And no one is saying that it did. Even the dissent doesn't claim the test was biased--just that it didn't meet the social engineering targets, I don't know why I bother, but once again, not true. The dissent makes no mention of social engineering targets. It's based largely around precedent. I'm beginning to think that you're just saying this over and over to cause my post count to go up.

EXCLUSIVE: Cheney fears Iraq withdrawal will 'waste' U.S. sacrifices From the above-linked article: Does anybody else find it odd that the former VP is expressing concerns about a plan that his administration was part of creating and that was mandated by the Iraqi government?

Why won't you just accept that God loves you so much that He'd send you to burn in hell for all eternity?

Now you just have to prove that New Haven's test was biased. No, he doesn't. Griggs v. Duke Power held that it doesn't matter if the test is biased (either intentionally or unintentionally). All that matters is: 1) The test produced results with a significant racial disparity AND 2) The racial disparity was caused by elements of the test which don't directly test the applicants ability to do the job. In this case, people who went before the CSB brought up that the written portion of the test doesn't test the actual job of a LT or CPT nearly as well as the oral portion. They also pointed out that nearby Bridgeport used a test that had the oral portion weighted heavier and that that resulted in less of a racial disparity and a better testing of the actual skills required. This is what led the CSB to decide to not validate the test, which led to the lawsuit. Which then led to the majority of the Supreme Court inventing a new standard out of whole cloth and then deciding the case based on that previously unknown standard.

See also: David Koresh See also: Jim Jones See also: Osama bin Laden It's a logical impossibility to prove that something doesn't exist. It's up to you, as the person asserting that something does exist, to prove it. Please look up "Russel's Teapot".

Not to mention that when you turn prisoners over to corporations, those corporations can start to look at those prisoners as a cheap source of labor. This can quickly lead to prisoners becoming something a lot closer to slaves.

It says some of his ideas were incorporated, not all of his conclusions. The fact that he had some good ideas in his paper does not make the entire paper, or its conclusions, correct.

He's identified as "not a scientist" because his concealed (but not really concealed) report makes scientific claims. That's also why they point out that he was not part of the group that was working on this issue.

He already fucking replied to this for Christ's sake! For the love of God, read his replies before you hit the reply button.

The "internal study" was conducted by a man who works for the EPA but is not a scientist. Also, the report wasn't buried. According to the EPA's statement, some of what he said was included in their final findings. From the EPA's statement on this matter: "The individual in question is not a scientist and was not part of the working group dealing with this issue. Nevertheless the document he submitted was reviewed by his peers and agency scientists, and information from that report was submitted by his manager to those responsible for developing the proposed endangerment finding. In fact, some ideas from that document are included and addressed in the endangerment finding." Yup. Sure sounds like they buried it.

Subjective "evidence" isn't evidence. It's just faith. Which is great and all, but just because one person feels strongly about their faith doesn't mean everybody else should rush off to follow them.

Do you have a reference for that? My understanding was that they had frozen all promotions pending the outcome of the litigation. That was my understanding as well - since they were afraid that the results of the testing could be construed as a racial bias, they did not do ANY promotions. Then it seems even stranger to say there was discrimination in promotion - bias hasn't taken place at all. The fireman are suing to insist on this test being the method to determine who should be promoted. I disagree - the promotions were cancelled for FEAR that a discrimination suit would be laid - which did happen, just not the suit that the city feared. Technically, the promotions were never initiated. To be initiated, the test had to be certified. It was not. Also, I'm pretty sure the city knew it'd be sued either way. They just chose the case they thought they had a better shot at winning.

Verifiable by who?