KRC

How much detail can Alito get into if it is a potential case for SCOTUS? It seems pretty clear that some sort of legal battle is going to happen over this stuff, which will probably reach SCOTUS. Therefore, he cannot go into too much detail on a case he may preside over, correct?

We know that the Libertarian streak you display is just for show. Deep down, we know you are a Liberal.

We are a special breed.

Are the points based on calories? Carbs? Combo of both? You can adjust the beer recipe accordingly, so you can have four beers and a pretzel each day.

Well, you are not going to get an argument from me regarding bureaucracy. The Dems have been increasing it for a long time now and the Republicans have now joined suit. Hell, that was my major campaign topic in 2004. The Dems kept pressuring Bush to create DHS and he relented. Bad move, IMO. As far as Intel agencies not lacking tools, I strongly disagree. Back in the 90s, intel agencies were no longer allowed to "associate" with people of questionable nature. Well, who the hell do you think has the most usable information? The friggin' Girl Scouts? No. The bad people. I agree that the bureaucracy also plays a role, but it is not the sole reason.

Yeah, that is who helps them keep their power. Point taken. You lie.

You lost me at "no beer." Seriously, you have to be extremely careful about making sure you get the proper nutrition. Having only 3 bananas and a kiwi as a replacement for two meals worries me. Are you getting the proper nutrition with only one meal a day? To me, it gets back to what everyone always says but never does: Eat smaller, sensible meals and exercise regularly. When you start cutting out foods, you risk causing damage to your body through specific deficiencies. You may lose weight, but you might also cause damage to internal organs in the process. Eat sensible meals (smaller meals more often) and get regular exercise. You will increase your metabolism which helps burn fat. You are on the right track with more walking and taking the stairs. That will also help.

They only care about themselves. Not much is going to change as long as people vote for the "lesser of two evils." The people can regain control over their elected officials, but they need to get past their apathy, first.

Now you did it. Shhhhhhhh...you are not supposed to bring that stuff up. History started January, 2001. Please be more careful in the future.

Since you have done it so often, you have become predictable.

Al Gore? Jamie Gorelick of the 9/11 Commission and the administration that I am not allowed to bring up for fear of Libs getting their panties in a wad?

I wonder what the compromise is? Obviously withdrawal of troops from not only Iraq but all of the ME is one of the provisions. I am guessing that the elimination of Israel is also on the list.

Why?

"Democrats may do it, but Republicans are worse." I thought I would pre-empt the response to save time.

I never had a problem with seeing female doctors. Stop being a wuss.

A 30 second search of GG's site (the check is in the mail, GG) reveals the following Police to Population ratios: Thailand: 1:228 Malaysia: 1:249 Germany: 1:343 United States: 1:410 South Africa: 1:415 New Zealand: 1:416 England: 1:429 Australia: 1:457 Obviously, this is not complete. Sorry. I just cannot put the US in the same league as Myanmar or the DPRK.

Qualifications like the color of your skin? You are not being brought in based on qualifications. You are being brought in based solely on your skin color. To get where we need to be, we need to interview based on qualifications, not skin color. This policy, IMO, makes this problem worse because it does not address qualifications. It is only based on skin color. No, because you are not addressing the root cause of the problem. You are not treating them equally. You are treating them differently. That is my whole point. You cannot force equality through legislation/policies/etc. You have to change mindset. No amount of "reparations" is going to correct the problem because reparations do not address the actual problem. You need to treat the root cause if you expect to solve the problem. If an owner does not want to hire an A-A coach, how does this policy correct that? You are forcing the owner to interview a person he is not going to hire. You have demeaned the interviewee and wasted time and money. In the end, what did you accomplish? The interviewee feels humiliated because it was not about the hard work he has put in over the decades. It is based on his skin color.

No question. I disagree. It demeans the interviewee. You are not solving anything with affirmative action, only making the problem worse. People resent the CEO's spawn getting the job, just like they resent someone getting the job based solely on their skin color. By implimenting AA, you are not fixing (or even addressing) the root cause of the problem. You are only expanding the existing problem to include other people, thereby making things worse.

Since I am not going to register and I do not have time to check bugmenot, I am guessing that this writer is using 20/20 hindsight to revise history?

They are not going to give you that much for him. How about a Tic Tac?

Sounds like our wonderful lawyer is trying to argue that you and CTM are correct.

How is this program not a slap in the face to A-A's? Take the Detroit example. They wanted Mooch. Everyone knew they were going to hire Mooch. Now, you need to fine an A-A who was willing to be the token interview or risk a fine. That would be absolutely humiliating to be that person. You are only being interviewed based on your skin color and it has nothing to do with qualifications. Now look at other teams. If you interview an A-A, how could they not possibly think that they are just a token interview? I have always had a problem with programs like this. You cannot stop basing interviewees on skin color by implimenting a program where you interview people based on skin color.

...because Ted Kennedy being a hypocrite is not news.

It's not my fault you are incapable of holding Democrats to the same lofty standards to which you hold Republicans. Instead of addressing my post, you try to deflect to other topics. I noticed you still have not addressed my statement.

Ralph is going to have trouble paying for one of them. There is no way he pays for two head coaches. Having two head coaches is a recipe for disaster. One needs to be in charge.