pcs

One problem there, the committee membership actually rotates. So the number of lawmakers informed on at least some period of the operation will increase dramatically. Considering the propensity for lawmakers' staffs to leak classified information (remember, with only a fixed number of eight legislators personally responsible for keeping quiet, we had to wait three years for the leak to come out of the Administration), I can't help but sense that we're paddling into dangeorus waters.

I find this curious. The Democratic Party will not even get behind sanctions for Iran and North Korea, obvious enemies in the global war on terror. But they will rally around the political lynching of Middle Eastern allies like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and UAE--their principle defense being that no Iranians, Iraqis or North Koreans were onboard the four aircraft that slammed into the WTC and Pentagon on 9/11. In short, I can't think of a single openly hostile nation the Democrats have considered more worthy of their muscular "anti-Islamism" than those with governments actually aiding American efforts. In the unlikely event that Democrats ever again gain the reigns of government, how does attacking Middle Eastern investment in the US shape the Democratic "proposal" to redeploy to the "periphery" as they order American forces to retreat from Iraq? For all the Left's talk about "complexities" (God knows why we've let them butcher the English language so much to pluralize that word), the Democrats seem especially tinny when when it comes to comparatively simple responsibilities like being able to read a map.

More here. And here are the briefs. It strikes me that a test relying on Hurley v. IGLB might be relevant in establishment clause case law. Discussion?

I can't find any case law suggesting that they were ever necessary, and one to two hundred years ago the vast majority of actions against other nation states conducted without the cover a declaration. Hell, even the Hague Convention on opening hostilities didn't come until near the turn of the century.

Two questions. 1. What is the prevailing legal definition of a declaration of war? What's it's purpose and zone of concurrent action? 2. Is a DOW an authorizing instrument? 3. Where does the current case law stand on whatever distinction may exist between AUMFs and DOWs?

I'm unclear as to what responsibility, if any, employers should have to accommodate their employees with respect to gender roles. I can't say I know of any evidence supporting Phi's point on the efficacy of home office work environments as compared to other systems; largely because most the scholarship in ILR is highly conditional and rarely, if ever, supports judgements as general as that.

Do you mean to say that we shouldn't try to predict how a public official would approach an issue by considering his record on it?

Which is why you shouldn't read more into someone's remarks than is necessary to make sense of them. I said that serving men and women have arrived at a judgement, based on some evidence, that the Hussein regime collaborated with al Qaeda--specifically in the 9/11 attacks. It is a prudent judgement in my mind. Even if I had said that, the argument remains at least internally consistent (iif not very explicit). You'd want to try and show us where the argument breaks down, not simply point out that you do not have confidence in the evidence informing the judgement. I disagree. I would argue there's more than sufficient evidence to arrive at a similar perspective in today's threat environment. And once again, you confuse a dispute over the facts with fallacious reasoning You need to stop assuming so much. Now that's an explicitly fallacious argument, specifically the improper disjunctive. You'll need another term to ensure that prudence fails on the basis of al Qaeda's decade old statement of hostility for Hussein's regime. But I'm not interested in changing your mind. I'm interested in your characterization of an internally consistent point of view as fallacious and your remarks regarding the indoctrination of the American warfighter. Good for you. I'm still wondering why I should give your point of view greater weight than that of the troops.

President Bush has stated, in agreement with the publically available judgements of the Senate Intelligence Committee, that there is no evidence of Hussein's cooperation in 2001 al Qaeda attacks. The President did not say that he was ruling out a judgement that Iraq had some hand to play in the operation.

Two social networks for our wireless hotspots and a document management system with a Powerpoint-to-Web app as its first front end.

You just can't call a potential error in fact a logical fallacy. It's just not...right or something like that. Yeah, and Jay-Z and Nas went at it in 2002. Now they're cutting an album together. Point? Probably not, seeing as I've been indoctrinated apparantly. The moral of the story is this, if you think that the vast majority of uniformed servicemen are wrong on a point of fact, argue the point of fact. If you're not prepared to do so, then just say "well, I guess we agree to disagree."

Yeah' date=' that's his most recent hsish. Dude, the dun's also one some high quality hsish; I mean just look through his posts, he's gone through the math and physics forums just devouring what he can; and that's only what he does here. I agree, but looking at PF that's the problem. It looks like folks don't go there in their first two years or so if at all. But if they do, sure why not? I'll chip in. Maybe if revprez comes back he would too. No, but then just imagine how short my posts could be then. Stay drunk, I'm 26 today.

Actually yes. How did you know?

As far as I know, he's also been banned from here, here, and of course here. Rumor has it he was banned from this site first, but made a comeback. What can I say? Looks like persistence works for the guy.

At the risk of belaboring a point laid out by others in a less than civil way... Starbug1, understand that the evidence you've linked to amounts to judgements reached by persons of dubious authority. Since you're not an expert, and few if any people who've posted here (including yourself) have a background in basic continuum mechanics, let alone specific background in aerospace engineering, there are few people here (once again, including yourself) in a position to evaluate these claims either way. The point I think others are trying to make is that absent that sort of expertise and trust in the authority of the judgements you've posted, there may be reason for you to remain skeptical of these 9/11 conspiracy theories.

This is why it's important to remember that we transform across inertial frames of reference. Your stationary friend is not the one experiencing an applied force (in this case, the thrust of your rocket).

Can't speak for rev, but I'm not qualified to be an expert in physics, at least not for the bulk of topics in those forums. My background is in EE/CS. Add to that h=16's been piling away like a mo'fo through analysis, abstract algebra, topology and all that good stuff--I've barely scratched the surface of three of those. Maybe in a few years. Definitely do that. SFN already has the core expert group, I don't think it's much larger than PF. But I know Tom's actually given online recitations over at PF, and something like that over here just might get the blood flowing. Of course, the reason you want a large number of PF's is to run into that lucky someone who has enough free time (for whatever reason ) to go through an online text book. Then there's the matter of attracting members actually willing to do the extra assignments. SFN's most active membership, if they're up to the challenge, should be enough to get that ball rolling.

Sarcasm aside, the uniformed serviceman has clearly made a judgement, based on some evidence, regarding the likelihood that a Middle Eastern dictator hostile to the west would have collaborated with al Qaeda. I don't know about you, but the judgement is prudent in my mind.

Buckets more of credentialed members with a background and enthusiasm for teaching and training. You have to wonder if Physicsforums grows because its homework help forums are stuffed with helpers. Just ask yourself, where does Tom Mattson spend most of his time? Everybody else here seems to be honing in what goes on in the non-science forums (particularly Philosophy and Politics). Question, why hasn't h=16 been promoted to expert yet? Oh, thicker skin would help.

I'd like to nominate yoyo and basc as "No. 1 revprez and pcs fans." They've shouted out some great off topic props in two threads today.

Might be a good idea to find out what phcatlantis, patcalhoun and philcandless think.

It's also by and large inaccurate.

If by indoctrination you mean similar selection mechanisms to those in academic cultures, then possibly. I prefer not to think of a population that is by and large better educated than its civilian counterpart in such terms.