penniless

The way the US is headed, the disparity between rich and poor here is becoming a serious problem too.

So now the Post takes the other tack: All the President's Leaks By E. J. Dionne Jr. Washington Post, Tuesday, April 11, 2006; Page A21 What's amazing about the defenses offered for President Bush in the Valerie Plame leak investigation is that they deal with absolutely everything except the central issue: Did Bush know a lot more about this case than he let on before the 2004 elections? But first, let's offer full credit to the Bush spin operation for working so hard and so effectively to change the subject. The news was the court filing by Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald reporting that Bush, through Vice President Cheney, had authorized I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby to leak sensitive intelligence information in July 2003 to discredit claims made by former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV. Wilson had fired a direct shot at the White House's rationale for the war in Iraq by saying the administration had distorted intelligence concerning Saddam Hussein's supposed efforts to obtain nuclear materials. The threat that Hussein might go nuclear was an emotional centerpiece of the administration's case for war. Condoleezza Rice, then Bush's national security adviser, made the case with great dramatic effect on Sept. 8, 2002: "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." The president's defenders want you to think that when it comes to leaking, every president does it. Why should Bush be held to a different standard? Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) told CNN on Sunday that the Bush administration was innocently asking itself, "How do we get the full story out there?" Besides, since the president can authorize the declassification of anything he chooses to declassify, he can't be involved in anything untoward. "This was not a leak," Joseph diGenova, a top Republican lawyer, told the New York Sun's Josh Gerstein. "This was an authorized disclosure." Ah, yes, it depends on what the meaning of the word "leak" is. That sounds familiar, doesn't it? These arguments merely distract attention from why Fitzgerald's disclosure was so important. When a fuss was kicked up in the fall of 2003 about the leaking of the name of Wilson's wife, former CIA operative Valerie Plame, to the media earlier in the year, the president spoke and acted as if he knew nothing and was incensed that any leaking was going on in his administration. In its issue of Oct. 13, 2003, Time magazine quoted Bush as saying: "Listen, I know of nobody -- I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information." Then the magazine's writers made an observation that turns out to be prescient: "Bush," they wrote, "seemed to emphasize those last two words as if hanging on to a legal life preserver in choppy seas." The key words here are classified information. Did Bush at the time he made that statement know perfectly well that Cheney and Libby were involved with the leak, but that it didn't involve "classified information" because the president himself had authorized them to act? Talk about a legalistic defense. Could it be that Bush -- heading into what he knew would be a difficult election -- was creating the impression of wanting the full story out when he already knew what most of the story was? Which leads to another question: What exactly did Attorney General John Ashcroft know when he recused himself from the leak investigation? Did he know the investigation was getting dangerously close to Bush, Cheney, Libby and White House senior political adviser Karl Rove? In announcing Fitzgerald's appointment on Dec. 30, 2003, Deputy Attorney General James Comey said that Ashcroft, "in an abundance of caution, believed that his recusal was appropriate based on the totality of the circumstances and the facts and evidence developed at this stage of the investigation." What were the "facts" and the "evidence" on which Ashcroft acted? Did the administration consciously consider if passing off the investigation to someone else would delay the day of reckoning to beyond the 2004 election? And, yes, what exactly did Bush tell Fitzgerald and his staff when they questioned him on June 24, 2004? What had Cheney told Fitzgerald earlier? The most heartening sign that all the spin in the world will not allow the administration to evade such questions was Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter's statement on Fox News Sunday that "there has to be a detailed explanation precisely as to what Vice President Cheney did, what the president said to him, and an explanation from the president as to what he said so that it can be evaluated." Specter, a Republican and a former district attorney in Philadelphia, is just the right man to take the lead in breaking the spin cycle.

would you tax wealth? (i.e., would you take money that already was taxed the first time?) Kallend just pointed out the fallacy in rushmc's argument. I didn't see any suggestion of taxing wealth. Where did you get that idea? However, your question is equally fallacious, it's all taxed multiple times anyway (income is used to purchase stuff (sales) which pays the employees (income) or becomes corporate profit which pays dividends... with tax due at every step of the way. This multiple taxation argument is a totally bogus right wing myth.

To compensate for a small penis

Just waiting for him to sober up?

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=61781 Maybe they are worried that more than 2/3 of the electorate will vote to reject. (Any less than 2/3 against and it passes! what kind of rigged ballot is that?)

Maybe we just ignored it hoping it would go away.

But it's still cool when they get discovered doing it.

All this activity - does it mean they peregrinate a lot?

There has been a net transfer of $$$ from northern "Blue" states to southern "Red" states for years. Did you see that FEMA took out a 6 month contact with Carnival Cruise Lines to provide housing for the displaced, when Greece had offered to provide ships FREE. Money to the cronies again, or just incompetence?

Yeah, but it sure is a nice numbers game, if you can get away with it.... your adherents will use it for YEARS afterward... Of course, the current administration wouldn't do such a thing. Or the Reagan and Bush(41).

I think it suggests that whatever link there may have been between SH and OBL was no diferent than the proven link between the Reagan administration and SH, and between the Reagan administration and the rebels in Afghanistan who became the Taliban/Al Qaeda. Bad case of pot/kettle.

Even the most gullible eventually see through lies. It's a start, I suppose.

What you wrote could apply equally well to female "circumcision"; just the removal of some bits of tissue. Most of us consider that to be mutilation.

Aha, a more indepth search brought up a few stories on CNN and MSNBC, and one on Fox News, but they are pretty much a rehash without any new information. Perhaps that explains why Fox hasn't published more than one. Unless you think good journalism is yammering on with regurgitated information. You should apply for a job in the White House press room. If Bush barfed on Japan's prime minister you'd find a justification for it.

100% agreement here. I bet girls who say they don't like it have never tried it with a complete male.

It's all about posturing politicians pandering to jingoism. The flag is just a bit of cloth. The substance, not the symbol, is what's important. Worst thing we did is rebuild DC after the Brits burned it in 1814.

unfortunately, what people believe is not always in line with the facts. A large % of Americans believe extraterrestrials are walking among us, yet no evidence exists. What we DO know for sure is that Gitmo is run under rules that have no place in the western values system.

Would you think someone with 10 jumps doing a 300-way is wise because they are jumping with an AAD? How come I can’t find anyone that will drive two identical cars, one with airbags and one without any differently, but I can find people that will make a riskier jump because they have an AAD? What is the difference? If someone says that a 100-way has more risk than benefit for them,but goes on a 100-way because they have an AAD, doesn't that defeat the concept of a back-up device? Derek All the people I know who've been on 100+ ways (and that includes me) have been on them because they were invited. I don't know anyone that got on one because she had a AAD. Your argument is a strawman, and it is stupid and dangerous because it encourages poor judgment.

And I haven't disagreed with that. I'll say it again. Going on a riskier skydive BECAUSE you have an AAD means you are relying on it and it is no longer a back up. I don't see the difference between driving a car faster because you have an airbag and going on riskier skydives because you have an AAD. Can anyone explain the difference? Does anyone think it is OK to not treat an AAD as strictly a back up? Derek You have no objective evidence of any kind to support your position. It is based entirely on what you as an amateur psychologist think someone else is thinking. The hard evidence comes from the fatality statistics that show without any doubt that AAD use makes skydiving safer, regardless of what decision making process anyone utilizes, and whether or not you like it.

No, I'm not. If I was I wouldn't have given a crap about my main. I maintained and packed my main so that it would open. If it didn't, then I had a reserve as a back up. The main I jumped and how I packed it was below my risk/benefit ratio. I didn't do anything more dangerious because I had a reserve. No, I chose the main I jumped because it was below my risk/benefit ratio, not because I had a reserve. Your argument is getting really silly, Hooknswoop. Calling someone that wants to use a proven safety device on a "high risk" jump LESS safe than someone who doesn't care if they use it or not, is absolutely ridiculous. Are you a licensed psychologist? If not, then stop trying to analyze other peoples' motives for their jumping decisions. You can only change yourself. As has been said already, deliberately jumping without an AAD on a skydive with higher than normal collision risk is not an indicator of safety, it is an indicator of poor judgment, and poor judgment makes for an unsafe situation in any branch of aviation.

I had one of those. Very difficult to transport a Marimba in it. Kept having to borrow my Dad's wagon.

In 1781 in his Notes on the State of Virginia, Query IX, Thomas Jefferson described the militia: "Every able-bodied freeman, between the ages of 16 and 50 is enrolled in the militia. .... In every county is a county lieutenant, who commands the whole militia of his county. .... The governor is the head of the military, as well as the civil power. The law requires every militia-man to provide himself with the arms usual in the regular service." Well, those regulations have been long ignored. Maybe it's time to reintroduce them to satisfy the 2nd amendment and make sure that the militia is "functioning as expected". How would you propose going about that? First find out who has what weapons, maybe? The require some training?

Is this like the predictions of the Bible Code?

No evidence, but true in their own minds, though.