SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: tejek who wrote (184075)3/10/2004 1:39:26 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) of 1574196
 
You said that Bush's rollback was based on "solid science". So I am asking.....what solid science?

Its questionable if it could be called a rollback because the lower ppb standard was never actually enforced but for sake of argument I'll accept that term for now.

I didn't directly say the policy was based on solid science. I did say "Bush tries to base the environmental policy in this area on solid science but he takes a big political hit." I don't think there is solid science that says 50ppb is a good safety level. (or that 60ppb is not or that 30ppb or 10ppb is). What I meant by "tries to base the environmental policy in this area on solid science" is that changes shouldn't be made without solid scientific levels to support them. Sorry if my point was unclear before but it should be clear now.

I would not be surprised if contingency plans had been made for invading each and every country in the world, and that someone at some level of the administration isn't pushing for military intervention in at least a half dozen countries. That doesn't mean that this administration is planning to take over the world or even to intervene in 6+ additional countries.

But you don't know that for sure, do you?

Don't know what for sure. That the military doesn't make contingency plans for all sorts of unlikely situations? That there are not people somewhere in the administration pushing for some interventions in new areas, or that the administration isn't planning to take over the world?

Your right I don't know any of these things for sure, but they are about as sure as the idea that the next American presidential election will be won by either Bush or Kerry.

Its only reasonable to say the administration is planning an invasion when Bush signs off on it and supports the idea of an invasion.

Thanks for letting me know but just for the record, that's not the way its supposed to work according to the Constitution.

???

How is the determination of when it is fair to say that the administration is planning an invasion a constitutional issue?

Tim
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News