New York Times Readers Opinions
The New York Times
Home
Job Market
Real Estate
Automobiles
News
International
National
Politics
Business
Technology
Science
Health
Sports
New York Region
Education
Weather
Obituaries
NYT Front Page
Corrections
Opinion
Editorials/Op-Ed
Readers' Opinions


Features
Arts
Books
Movies
Travel
Dining & Wine
Home & Garden
Fashion & Style
New York Today
Crossword/Games
Cartoons
Magazine
Week in Review
Multimedia
College
Learning Network
Services
Archive
Classifieds
Personals
Theater Tickets
Premium Products
NYT Store
NYT Mobile
E-Cards & More
About NYTDigital
Jobs at NYTDigital
Online Media Kit
Our Advertisers
Member_Center
Your Profile
E-Mail Preferences
News Tracker
Premium Account
Site Help
Privacy Policy
Newspaper
Home Delivery
Customer Service
Electronic Edition
Media Kit
Community Affairs
Text Version
TipsGo to Advanced Search
Search Options divide
go to Member Center Log Out
  

 [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Science  /

    Missile Defense

Technology has always found its greatest consumer in a nation's war and defense efforts. Since the last attempts at a "Star Wars" defense system, has technology changed considerably enough to make the latest Missile Defense initiatives more successful? Can such an application of science be successful? Is a militarized space inevitable, necessary or impossible?

Read Debates, a new Web-only feature culled from Readers' Opinions, published every Thursday.


Earliest Messages Previous Messages Recent Messages Outline (4587 previous messages)

lchic - 02:39pm Sep 27, 2002 EST (# 4588 of 4617)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

Repost

"" Their lawyers sought to show that Ford knew the Bronco's roof was unsafe but decided to save the small extra cost of reinforcing the roof with steel, a change made on post-1979 Broncos. Plaintiffs' witnesses included a former Ford executive vice president, Tom Feeney, who said company officials knew the roof was virtually certain to fail in a rollover.

Ford spokesman Jim Cain said Feeney ``never worked in truck product development'' and was not credible. Ford said the Bronco was sound and met federal safety standards, and blamed the deaths on Romo and the driver he was passing.

NO - he's not the Feeny who's running for office.

http://www.accidentreconstruction.com/news/jul99/071399c.html

If an upper limit were put on payouts - or if 'wins' went into a fund paid weekly ... there could be some leeway for syphoning funds to those in need - but - not able to get via legal tussels.

Whereas -

http://www.sptimes.com/News/042901/Columns/Tom_Feeney_s_dictator.shtml http://election.dos.state.fl.us/campfin/1994pcf/0014166.shtml http://www.feeneyforcongress.com/cf/index.cfm

lchic - 03:08pm Sep 27, 2002 EST (# 4589 of 4617)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

Interesting - here i put up the two organisations that Feeney is connected to - and post and adjusted re-post were held in the ether. The guy's right of right ... Reagan style.

~~~~~~~~

"Madison understood that all human freedoms–political, economic, intellectual, and religious–formed an integrated whole and that restricting one was tantamount to restricting all." http://www.acton.org/research/libtrad/madison.html

Madison would be for the CIA sending you 'that letter' Showalter to ensure your intellectual freedom.

lchic - 03:18pm Sep 27, 2002 EST (# 4590 of 4617)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

"The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse." --James Madison, Speech before the Virginia State Constitutional Convention, December 1, 1829. http://www.billofrightsinstitute.org/article.php?sid=321

Interestingly Madison didn't live through the political party system - rather - he used 'the constitution' (US Golden Rules) upon which to base decisions.

Later Deming would look to deviation from statistical norm, and, incremental improvement.

lchic - 03:23pm Sep 27, 2002 EST (# 4591 of 4617)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

Looking re constitution & foreign policy

book title : The Constitution and the Conduct of American Foreign Policy / Edited by David Gray Adler and Larry N. George

... authors forcefully argue that the president is not the supreme crafter of foreign policy and that Congress must provide more than a rubber stamp for the president's agenda. Unilateral presidential control of foreign relations, they warn, can pose a grave threat to our nation's welfare and is simply without constitutional warrant.

Combining constitutional theory with keen historical insights, these authors illuminate the roots of presidential abuse of executive power and remind us of the past and potential costs of such disregard for our unique system of checks-and-balances. An essential guide for all concerned citizens and members of Congress, this volume should help revive a proper understanding of this crucial dimension of American democracy.

http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/adlcon.html

lchic - 03:26pm Sep 27, 2002 EST (# 4592 of 4617)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

Republican Congress'men' and Senators who said YEAP Mr Reagan Sir - send those bio-weapons into Iraq in the 1980's ... were doing their job ? !

lchic - 04:05pm Sep 27, 2002 EST (# 4593 of 4617)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

690 US

670 Ru

145 Aus

134 uk

102 can

85 fr

48 jp

Prioners per 100,000 pop

So America's good at something!

More Messages Recent Messages (24 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Your Preferences

 [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Science  / Missile Defense





Home | Back to Readers' Opinions Back to Top


Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company | Privacy Policy | Contact Us