idrankwhat

Honesty is easier than the alternative I'm not a complete phreak and I don't keep a file with all that stuff in it. But here's something I dug up from a right wing media watchdog group. They were pissed because the person interviewed was from Common Cause and wasn't identified as being a liberal. Regardless, the basis of the story is the same. Here's a snippet from Peter Jenning's report on May 22, 2001: "In Washington, it’s been a big week for fundraising, and you shouldn’t be surprised if the Republicans in this next report remind you of the Democrats they so recently criticized. ABC’s John Martin is on the money trail tonight." Martin began his piece, as transcribed by MRC analyst Brad Wilmouth: "The presidential gala tonight will draw thousands of party donors to these tables and raise millions for the Republican National Committee. Four hundred of those donors came to a thank you dinner last night here at the Naval Observatory, the official home of Vice President and Mrs. Cheney. In limousines and vans and on foot they arrived, including Edison Electric Institute President Thomas Kuhn and his Wife Wendy." Martin to Kuhn outside the Naval Observatory on Massachusetts Ave. NW: "This is an event on public property for political donors. What’s your thought about that?" Kuhn: "I don’t have any comment on that." Martin: "The Kuhns and the Edison Institute, which lobbies for electric power companies, have given a total of $830,075 to both political parties since 1997. Other guests also declined to talk. A security officer threatened arrest." Security officer, a little too power hungry: "The next person that walks in that you talk to, you get locked up." Martin: "What has upset critics is this letter inviting donors to tonight’s presidential gala with promises of briefings from Cabinet and sub-cabinet officials, congressional leaders, and White House staff." Scott Harshbarger, President of Common Cause: "I think it not only doesn’t look right. It’s also hypocrisy because these are the very people who criticized the Democrats for doing it." Martin: "In the 2000 campaign, candidates Bush and Cheney criticized the use of the White House for receptions and sleep-overs for Democratic donors. Today the White House defended its actions as proper, saying the Clinton administration sought funds on a far more organized and broader scale." White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer: "They used the White House for the ability to get more money out of people. This is a way just to say thank you." Martin concluded: "After tonight’s gala, the President and his party will be saying thank you to some of the most powerful people in the country for about $22 million in donations." edited to add: It's a nice stroll down memory lane but let's not forget what this thread is about

That was it, "reception". I can't find the link to the story, I'm almost positive it was in the Washington Post. The only thing I can find was a NYT article leading up to the soirée, so I don't have the actual post party figure. It may have been only $22 million in the article. I just remember arguing with a Bush apologist about it, damn.....six years ago! Maybe they purged the articles from washtingtonpost.com to make room for the Iraq war. If I stumble across it I'll let you know.

What are you talking about? Cheney had a fund raiser at the Observatory in 2001. Of course, even though it was organized by the RNC, and it raised about $24 million, they didn't call it a "fund raiser". I think it was just a "party".

I turned on CNN this morning promptly at 6:00 AM to catch the news headlines before running off to work. What was the lead story? Iraq? Congress? Tornados? Nope. It was "American Idol". I turned it off. GOOD MAN!!!!

Not to re-direct the thread but I don't recall hearing many of those who damned Gore for making those calls condemning Cheney for having a $24 million fund raiser once he settled in to his new VP digs. It is kinda funny though, the Clinton admin was supposed to respond to the nearly 1100 subpoenas (that I'm certain were ALL very important, like pics of Willy's willie) but the Bushies don't think that questioning their war propaganda is suitable scrutiny.

What is it with you guys and the binary thought process? But back to the topic: Start reading on page 11 http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL30240.pdf

So you don't think that the Executive branch has a duty to respond to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee?

Full story here... Normally you would be correct. But in the Bushie new world the Constitution serves at at the pleasure of the president, the Geneva Conventions are "quaint", and "Congressional oversight" is the executive power to overlook the Congress. Don't believe me? Just ask the Decider, and his little dog too. What about "no controlling legal authority" - does that one play, too? I think you mean "out of control legal authority", goes by the name of Alberto. I didn't mention him because he's got his own thread

Because the "news" is in the business of making money. That's why you have to click past the front page with Rosie, some entertainer's toilet paper habits and Britney's liposuction so you can read the couple of paragraphs about an attempted impeachment of the VP. But don't worry about it too much. Get out there, know less, be happy and by all means, consume!!!! It's patriotic!

Full story here... Normally you would be correct. But in the Bushie new world the Constitution serves at at the pleasure of the president, the Geneva Conventions are "quaint", and "Congressional oversight" is the executive power to overlook the Congress. Don't believe me? Just ask the Decider, and his little dog too.

I think I can speak for many when I say, that if you honestly are interested in why the above statement is wrong, "search the forum for this subject".

Bring back Lady Justice's burkhas! But you're right. I'll take that holy warrior any day over Gonzo the interpreter. Wow, that choice is about as bad as most Presidential elections.

I agree it's a sticky issue. But this may one of the times that I would be ok with letting the government reign in "free speech" if it was done fairly. I heard this the other day and thought it was interesting. Give it a listen. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9692280#email

Yea, you're right. There are a couple of things wrong with the idea. First of all, we'd have to dial in the spin rate so as just to launch the people into a graveyard orbit. Secondly, my idea would leave those who "biggie up" with a distinct advantage. Gonna have to re-think this one. But in the meantime, I think we could all walk around with our rigs on, just in case.

I may not be the best one to comment on this issue. I think that money does not equal free speech and this notion is why our government is so screwed up. I also think that if ANYone gives ANY politician money then they should be convicted of bribing a public official, and the public official should be convicted of accepting a bribe. $0.02

Funny you should mention this. I was talking about this with a co-worker. I of course thought of the skydiving potential, but then realized the ultimate value of such a rotation rate altering device. It would solve all of our pollution and over population strains on the planet. Periodically spin it fast enough to fling people into orbit.

they are idiots - "hours from sunrise to sunset" it's not that hard - ask any DZO Apparently the golf industry estimates an extra $200 million in sales with DST, BBQ, about $100 million. And the candy industry went so far as to put candy filled plastic pumpkins on the seats of the senators in 1985 when they were debating the issue. And while I agree with you, because I'm up before sunrise every morning anyway, I don't think that DZO's would be the best to ask. I'm willing to bet that they get more loads in with a later sunset than with an earlier sunrise. We even cut prices for a while for early loads at our DZ but we still had a hard time getting people on manifest. Never an empty slot on the sunset load though. Maybe if we started denouncing DST as simply "welfare for the hungover" we could get them to drop it.

....still developing. According to some blogs, I'm not sure that Connie is a she. Man, you're right. This does smell like Onion. Please someone, put a 4/1/07 stamp on it or something! But on the more practical side, if we could figure out a way to slow the earth's rotation down like Connie said, we could sell daylight credits to the poorer, darker, underdeveloped countries as well as put a fiscal strain on China in an effort to slow it's growth. I think he/she is on to something!

I'm still trying to find out if this is a joke but it doesn't appear to be. And the only thing that might make it funnier (or scarier) would be if Connie was a Lawyer. Oooops!! http://pview.findlaw.com/view/2772782_1?noconfirm=0 As for reasons for DST, just ask the Chamber of Commerce, and the golf, candy and barbecue industries because they're the heaviest lobbyists.

Ok, I really don't know where this thread will go. Reasons for Daylight Saving Time? Who's responsible, Libs or Cons? Failures/successes of the education/re-education system? or Some people should not be allowed to vote? Regardless of where it goes, enjoy.

"General Heathens", sounds like a character from the movie "Heavy Metal". I'm sure he'd fit right in at the DZ. SterrrrrrrrrrrRRRRRNN!!!!!!!

At best, this is a rather creative interpretation of what was actually written. Then again, most people would read it as a blatant lie. Here's the quote from "Rebuilding America's Defenses" , September, 2000. I'll report, you decide. "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor."

But when you do that, make sure that you read past Ashcroft's first mention of the "wall". I wouldn't want you to miss the part where he admitted that there wasn't really a "wall". WTF are you talking about? I could give a shit less about what Ashcroft said about it - the bald fact is that she DID issue directives that prevented information to pass between agencies. Of course, the 9/11 commission wasn't going to find one of it's own members culpable... For "bald facts", there was no wall. Ashcroft threw out the red herring, got called on it and admitted that he made an overstatement. The so called "wall" was created during the Reagan administration. Gorelicks memo dealt with internal communications within the justice dept only and had absolutely no bearing on communications between the DoD, FBI, CIA etc and therefore had nothing to do with able danger. But for grins and giggles, let's say that her memo put up a barbed wire fence and hog tied, muzzled, and blind folded every employee in the Justice and Intelligence and defense communities, Ashcroft renewed it a few months prior to 9/11. Not that that last part really matters, since there was no "wall". That's WTF I'm talking about.

But when you do that, make sure that you read past Ashcroft's first mention of the "wall". I wouldn't want you to miss the part where he admitted that there wasn't really a "wall".

I think that the conspiracy to blow up the buildings stuff is overblown and very easy to argue against, thereby making it the perfect story. Propping it up and shooting it down clears the government of any wrong doing in most people's eyes. Now I'm not saying that this happened but I think this is a much more reasonable story for the conspiracy theorists. We all know that the PNAC was running our government at the time. They may have been willing to accept a "Pearl Harbor like event" in order to implement their ideas. (the notion of "acceptable losses") Everyone knew that aQ wanted to attack us, maybe with planes. Who's to say that they didn't simply deliberately pull resources from terror threat analysis and let an attack happen? There seems to be plenty of evidence that they turned a blind eye to terror issues and focused elsewhere early in 2001. Just a thought