funjumper101

Yeah, damn those Republicans for cutting the tax that the working class pays... If you think that the tax cuts benefited working class people, there is only one thing I can say to you. Did you know the word "gullible" is not in the dictionary? If you really understood what the tax cuts have done and for which income group, you wouldn't be quite so keen on them. Do you really think that huge tax cuts for the extremely wealthy while running up record federal budget deficits is good public policy? The deficits are being mostly funded by the Chinese. If they call in the debt, you'll see interest rates jump 6-8%. That will improve the economy a lot. Y'know, the lefties keep crowing about "huge tax cuts for the rich", but oddly enough, can't show any proof. What kind of proof do you need? The kind readily available by doing a google search? The numbers don't lie. http://www.ctj.org/html/gwb0602.htm The rescumlicans and their lackeys in the right wing controlled media do. And credulous morons believe them. More info here http://www.counterpunch.org/freeman05302003.html and here http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/323.html and here http://www.factcheck.org/here_we_go_again_bush_exaggerates_tax.html

Yeah, damn those Republicans for cutting the tax that the working class pays... If you think that the tax cuts benefited working class people, there is only one thing I can say to you. Did you know the word "gullible" is not in the dictionary? If you really understood what the tax cuts have done and for which income group, you wouldn't be quite so keen on them. Do you really think that huge tax cuts for the extremely wealthy while running up record federal budget deficits is good public policy? The deficits are being mostly funded by the Chinese. If they call in the debt, you'll see interest rates jump 6-8%. That will improve the economy a lot.

Have you been taking lessons from Amazon? No. Rescumlicans as a descriptive epithet has been around since Reagan was fucking up the country. The fucking continues at warp speed. A working person voting Republican is like a chicken voting for Col. Sanders.

That relates to the subject of this thread how? There is plenty of material on the web from Fitzgerald himself that will answer your question. The short version is that the rescumlicans were EXTREMELY successful in obstructing justice and impeding the investigation. They were so successful that charges couldn't be brought. This is considered to be proof of innocence by righies. I consider it to be proof of their complete lack of morals, ethics and utter contempt for the rule of law. A successful obstruction of justice is an evil against all of us, right or left. Start your own thread for that discussion.

The judge that sentenced Scooter to 30 months seems to think that it is a really big deal. He has also stated that "The facts are not in dispute". The judge was appointed by Shrub himself, on the basis of his record in harsh sentencing, among other "positive" attributes. Perjury related to a consensual act between consenting adults is enough to try a sitting president for impeachment. Perjury in the course of obstructing an investigation into the outing of a covert CIA agent is no big deal, according to the talking heads and a lot of the righties. During the trial, Valerie Plame and several high level CIA officals testified under oath that Plame was a covert CIA agent when Novak printed the story that outed her. Righties, don't start with the bullshit about "She wasn't covert, there was no undelying crime, etc etc.". None of the people who testified under oath during Scooter's trial have been charged with perjury. If they had been lying, or saying things that they know to be untrue when they say it, AKA, committing perjury, charges would have been filed. The Justice Department would have been all over it. No charges have been filed, so that talking point is dead. Don't even start. Perjury strikes to the heart of the judicial process. Taking an oath "to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" means what it says. Perjury is a major crime, in and of itself. It doesn't matter if it happens during the course of the investigation of a blow job or the outing of a covert CIA agent. Even if there is no underlying crime discovered during the investigation, perjury is a serious crime. No matter who does it and when. Scooter is a lawyer and was a high government official for many years. By all accounts he has a brilliant intellect. With his training and background, he knew exactly what he was doing when he knowingly lied under oath. He got caught and needs to serve his time. I challenge the righties to come up with good reasons why perjury is a good thing when some people do it and a bad thing when others do it.

I'm not going to read all of that article since i consider that rag to be extremely biased politically and therefor any "evidence" they cite to be suspect. HOWEVER, even if we assume for the sake of argument that everything they say and claim is true, and all the election results in Ohio were changed to suit the Dems wishes, that would mean Kerry would have won the electoral vote but not the popular vote...something the Dems have been complaining about since the 2000 election. Would they then do what they wanted the Repubs to do and concede to the winner of the popular vote?? You can't read Rolling Stone? You are joking, right? Is the courage of your convictions so weak that merely reading an article in an "extremely biased politically" magazine would put them in doubt? The article is fully documented and well written. You can check the facts yourself. The facts presented in the article are not in dispute. The events occurred as documented. It is horrifying if you are a true American. The Republicans have been operating in the "Party over Country" mode for a long time.

Take a look at the web site link before you leave. The launches can be postponed and often are.

This is a quote from an email list I subscribe to. The weather should be good. The launch is for a polar orbit, so the viewing should be OK throughout SoCal. begin quoted text >>> This evening's launch of a Delta II rocket from Vandenberg AFB appears to be on schedule. The Delta is scheduled to lift-off at 19:21 PDT, the start of a launch window that closes at 19:34 PDT. The launch occurs before sunset on the West Coast and during dusk for observers in Arizona and Utah. A good source of countdown status for the launch is the Spaceflight Now web site. Space journalist Justin Ray is now providing current countdown status on a web page devoted to this launch. Point your browser to: www.spaceflightnow.com/delta/d324/status.html This page will be updated frequently beginning at about T-1 hour. Be sure to regularly hit the refresh button on your browser to see the latest information.

There is a thread about the 2.7 at http://www.yotatech.com/showthread.php?t=117044 Proper gearing is critical, especially if you go to oversize tires. You might look at pirate4x4 and TTORA for more info.

My nephew was at pre-school at the local church. He was about 2.5 years old. He was struggling with some toy for quite a while and got a bit frustrated. When one of the staff asked him how it was going, he blurted out "This motherfucker is really pissing me off". Not quite the answer she was expecting. Dad got quite a talking to when he picked up his son that afternoon...

The USPA was fawning over Blackwater's skydiving employees in past Parachutists.Made me ill. I know what Blackwater is and what they do. Professional mercenaries with the stamp of US Government approval. Blackwater can do what the US Military can't. There are no laws that apply to them and their activities in Iraq. Shrub signed an executive order. NONE of the contractors are subject to any law, Iraqi or US. The righties are very proud of the complete disregard of the rule of law by ShrubCo and their lackeys.

Did you know that the "gullible" is not in the dictionary? Check it out. If you believe the AF announcement, then you'll believe what I just wrote...

Once the child is born, neither parent can "terminate" involvment in the way that you describe. If the guy doesn't want a kid, he should be getting a vasectomy, use a condom, whatever it takes to make his personal decision to not give life. The guy chose to take his chances with a one night stand and it bit him in the ass. I don't see why he shouldn't live with the consequences of the decision that he made. Condoms break. Women sometimes lie about BC. People like to have sex. It is human nature. They guy from Colorado got a bolt out of the blue, 8 years after a one night stand. Yet you hold that he should still be responsible. Even though he knew nothing about the pregnancy, the delivery, or any of the child's life. I think that is a case of gender specific ethics on your part. In my opinion, that position is inconsistent and wrong. He was "terminated" out of the child's life by the mother. What you say can't happen, did happen. When she made that decision, she took on 100% responsibility. The issue I have is with those that equate the "man who impregnated a woman" with the person financially responsible for child support. It takes two to get pregnant. Equal rights means equal responsibility. Pro-Choice. Equal rights. Personal responsibility. It is really simple. There can't be two sets of rules, depending on if you are male or female.

That's all well and good until the BORN child needs help. It's all well and good to say the guy shouldn't be participating in the mother's medical treatment, etc. But once you've got that kid, it's a despicable thing to say, "Yeah, I knocked her up. She's struggling with that fuckin' kid. Bitch deserves it." It's about the kid. Yep. Sucks, eh? Consequences for our actions? Equal rights means equal rights. It cuts both ways. When the woman went ahead and delivered the child with no knowledge or involvement on the part of the sprem donor, the way I see it, she took on 100% of the responsibility for the kid. If she decided to keep the kid instead of putting it up for adoptions, she took on 100%. When she went on welfare, the state picked up the tab she couldn't pay. The state can pay welfare until the kid is self supporting, then she can work to pay back the state the welfare $$. She made the choice, she pays 100%. What would your position be if the woman wanted an abortion and the man wanted to prevent it? Should an un-married man be able to stop an un-married woman from having an abortion, if he is the sperm donor? What about a married couple? What would your position be if the man wanted the woman to have an abortion and the woman didn't want it? Why should a woman have 100% of the decision about keeping a pregnancy and the man have 100% of the financial responsibility for supporting the child? Womens liberation and equal rights for all. Pro-Choice for all. Painful as it may be, right is right.

I totally disagree. I believe in equal rights for all. In the USA, for the most part, a woman can have an abortion on demand. This reality is sometimes referred to as "pro-choice". Men should have the right to have a "financial and emotional abortion" whereby they have no financial or emotional responsibility to support/raise a child. Pro-Choice goes both ways. Once the decision is made, it is irrevocable. Equal rights cut both ways. Just because your sperm fertilized an egg shouldn't put you on the hook for 18 years of child support. There is a case out of Colorado where a man was found liable for back child support for a kid he never knew he had. He boned some gal on a one night stand. He never saw her or heard from her again. Eight years later the State of Colorado tracked him down and took him to court. She was on welfare and the state was looking for someone to pay up. He appealed it as far as he could, but still got stuck for back and future support payments. He never saw the kid, didn't know anything about the kid, but was still liable. Completely 100% wrong. Legal, but WRONG. I am 100% pro-choice. But pro-choice should mean that the sperm donor has equal rights to "terminate" involvement in a pregnancy and bringing up a child, same as women do. Equal rights for all.

OK, how did it happen? You want me to pull the facts for you?? Even though there were how many resolutions over how many years? Thanks but no thanks. As for the French, they were in so deap with the UN and SH that they could not afford to stop. But of course the UN and it's officeres and family will never get prosocuted. Why, because the world loves the UN, (no matter how corupt they are) I fully understand that the facts can't be left to themselves but, I do wonder how many times those changing the stories have to tell them before they belive it themself? In as much as you seem to be a loyal Bushie, yes, we do want to see your version of the facts. It should be amusing reading. I expect it to be sourced from Faux news and NewsMax, those beacons of journalistic integrity... Bwa ha ha. Bill has written a short and concise summary of how ShrubCo led the Sheeple of the United States into a premeditiated war of agression against Iraq. Facts are facts, no matter how you spin them.

He's not buying into it, it's just the usual bullshit posturing of American politics. Everyone knows there's no line-item veto. Everyone knows that congress has attached a major rider to the budget setting a deadline for troop withdrawal. Bush has no obligation to accept this and congress cannot force the issue without a greater majority. So despite everyone knowing exactly what's going on you get these vapid arguments and phoney posturing over absolute bullshit. There's no acceptabe budget on the table, it's been politically hamstrung by the withdrawal rider. Now we get to watch the pantomime play out. The only question most of these D.C. assholes care about is who will come out of the shitstorm smelling the sweetest. Politics is a filthy business. In 12 years, the Repubs made the business much nastier than it had ever been before. They changed the rules so as to grind down the Dems. The sheeple went along with it for quite a while. Now that the sheeple can't ignore the disgusting reality that is the current Republican administration, the sheeple voted in the opposition party, in spite of the Repubs best efforts. The Dems are playing by the new rules, as established by the Repubs. Their excesses are coming back to bite them in the ass. It is fun to watch. Righties, how do you explain that the polls are well over 50%, mostly in the 70-80% range, for getting the hell out of Iraq? Why does it surprise you that Congress is doing what it supposed to do? We, the people, want the troops out of Iraq. ShrubCo isn't listening to us. In case you have forgotten, Congress is supposed to rein in the Executive branch, according to the will of the people. It is called "checks and balances". It is part of how the government is supposed to operate. If you started paying attention to politics in the past 5-7 years, you haven't really seen the process in action. The Republican Congress did zero oversight of ShrubCo, and the USA is paying the price. We will be for generations.

Simple parroting of the Republican talking points. The reality is much different than the talking points. Google is your friend. Pay attention to what the career CIA people have to say on the issue. Discard anything from those outside the intelligence community, both Dem and Repub. Then decide if Plame was covert or not. By their standards, she was.

It doesn't seem that you followed the story in much detail. DAGS on the matter a bit. Pay particular attention to what Fitzgerald had to say about why the investigation fizzled out. What you will find is that the obstruction of justice was so extensive that it wasn't possible to conduct a successful investigation. No one would talk.

I'm pretty much immune to reading stupid things on the internet but this sincerely, honestly made me sad. I wonder how prevalent this basic, outrageous, 180-degree misunderstanding of american government is. There's not much to hope for any more is there? Pretty scary, isn't it? When someone swears an oath to protect and defend something, one would hope that they had read and understood it. Let's see how many righties chime in and say "Gawain is correct!!". This could be quite amusing.

ShrubCo really is amazing. For the first time EVER, a Justice Department official invokes the Fifth Amendment. Where is the right wing outrage? Isn't the Justice Department supposed to "appear" to be above partisan politics? Kyle Sampson has just testified that Gonzales is a liar. So is Miers. How come you righties aren't all over this? If it was eight years ago, you would have been screaming bloody murder. Why the silence now? What happens in the future when the crap that ShrubCo has pulled is done by Dems? It's only wrong when Dems/liberals do it, eh? A bad case of situational ethics? What else could explain it?

Lieing to congress perhaps. Using WMDs as a reason to invade Iraq was based on faulty intell, the same intell that other countries had and that members of congress had access to. Remember, Hillary herself said we could not stand by and do nothing if we had reasonable cause to believe Iraq did have those WMDs and she subsequently voted to go to war. You would be hard pressed to prove Bush intentionally misled congress about WMDs, and though he has made a lot of bonehead decisions that in itself is nothing near an impeachable offense. If anything, "censure and move on" would be the best course if congress wants to do something. BZZZZT, wrong answer. Thanks for playing "Parroting the Republican talking points". There is tons for documentation that ShrubCo "fixed the "facts" around the policy". Start with the Downing Street Memos. The lying shitsacks decided to engage in a premeditated war of agression against Iraq. WMDs were a convenient pretext that the Conservative/Corporate media bought hook, line, and sinker. Saying lies over and over again does not make them true. Even if Shrub himself says so.

An example might be exactly along Diverdriver's line of argument: you may trust yourself more but start realising that you can't trust other people. The string of incidents on canopy collisions just reinforces that type of thinking. Put another way, you start to realise that there are risks in the sport that are different to the ones you accepted when you got into it. DiverDriver has it exactly right. I am fine with the risks that I assume when I jump. I have a real problem with the "its all about me" people who are killing themselves and others by flying canopies that are inappropriate for their skills, the conditions, or both. Being told to land out so that I am not "in the way of my swoop" is unacceptable. Due to injury, I don't like parahiking much. Punk-ass kids telling me to stay out of their way... I don't think so. I have the skills to land my canopy close to the pickup point. If I can do that safely, I will. If the swoopers have to cut off their swoop because of traffic (me), tough shit. You aren't entitled to all of the air space, all of the time. Hang back, pull higher, or swoop farther out. Stay the hell out of my airspace. And keep your mouth shut when you have to thump in your landing because you jump a canopy that is too small. If you are going to be stupid, you better be tough. These same people have the way cool full face helmets studded with fancy electronic gadgets. They can't hear a damn thing under canopy. Their ears are covered. No matter how loud I whistle, they can't hear it over the iPod.

Did you really expect to get a sensable response when you post a degrading, insulting general attack against everyone you disagree with?? Now that is funny Emphasis mine. You wouldn't describe the post as degrading and insulting if it didn't hit close to home. I am glad that it made you think a bit.

Back to the topic of the post. Why does the Bush administration feel that they are above the law? Congress has the right to subpoena any white house staff that they feel will help in the investigation, even if the investigation is over trivial bullshit. That was established during the last administration. What makes ShrubCo think they can get away with this crap now that there is a Democratic majority in Congress? What goes around, comes around. Man up and deal with it. It makes a lot of sense that they are trying to wriggle out of testifying under oath. The facts on this matter are quite clear. US Attorneys were fired and replaced via a newly enacted law that was snuck into the "patriot act" by the sleazebag republicans. The decison making process was heavily politicized. A part of the government that is supposed to be politically neutral has been politicized in a major way. If it was Dems doing it, the Repubs would be screaming for blood. Since it is Repubs doing it, all is good, according to the conservatives. 7-1 investigations of Dems vs Repubs. Those numbers don't lie. ShrubCo put the heat on the US Attorneys and they did as instructed. Hey, conservatives, how about some consistency in your ethics and judgement? Do you really, honestly believe that what ShrubCo did was morally and ethically correct? For the good of this country, I sure hope not. This whole thing stinks. It never should have happened. We, the people, deserve much better from the people who work for us. Weaseling around denying the politics of the decisions, getting caught, then weaseling more, is unacceptable. I don't care if you are liberal or conservative. What happened and how it happened is wrong. So wrong that heads need to roll. The hubris that has set in due to six years of zero oversight is incredible. It is time to rein these dirtbags in and keep them on a really short leash.