Lucky...

Dealing with AIDS is an emotionally and financially crippling ordeal. In some cases, it is simply better to not be aware that you are infected. With our current health care system, many people simply cannot afford the treatment, why should they deal with a disease they can do nothing about? Ignorance is bliss. Use a condom. I say jackoff to internet porn

This is going to be resisted, and with good reason. HIV status will continue to have a severe stigma attached, and the combination of data mining and sloppy records handling makes it foolish to do HIV testing that isn't anonymous. It wasn't that long ago that people still proposed concentration camps for HIV+ people. As it is, refusing to allow the test will likely also have consequences in terms of insurability. It's a good step for progress on the health issues, but terrible on the rest. Agreed. If an infected person wants to have sex, they will. Prosecution won't do much but spread AIDS throughout the prison population. Like skydiving, if ya want to play, some will pay. It's a sad reality of both skyding and sex, but to have the government forcibly intrude into our bodies is too far for me.

Your words, not mine. I disagree and think he's done a lot wrong. I am correct, obviously. Thanks for noticing. Perhaps you can lead Lucky down the path of enlightenment with regards to that issue. Get over yourself.

Instead of a pompous reply, reveal your supposed knowledge of gov contracts and how it applies here.

I wonder if they used the same shredder that Hillary used. Chris If they did, would that make them less culpable?

If they're in fact guilty, I hope so too. Do the words "Kenny Boy" ring a bell? Way to invoke the oh-so-original "but Clinton..." argument. Do you have a selective memory? Enron really went apeshit once Shrub took power. They use the same lame arg for the economy and the debt/deficit..... I don;t see howthey can argue that since all objetive data establishes that under Clinton the economy grew huge, debt leveled off and he left w/a surplus for the 1st time in 40 years.

so you're saying it's ok to pardon them because Clinton pardoned people? I would think that just because someone else did it wouldn't make it right. While it *could* happen, I don't think there's much to worry about... Clinton pardoned 456 people where Bush has pardoned 29 as of mid-2004. The page I linked has a lot of interesting statistics on Presidential pardons... Most pardons, especially sticky ones like the Enron boys, would occur atthe very end of his term.

Which places him right at the middle of all presidents, but you would rather point out a pres that pardoned an avergage amount rather than one that pardoned the most or close to. Agenda noted. http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/pardonspres1.htm

This will really exemplify the truth of the Bush admin if this occurs and I think it might. Clinton pardoned Symington, but he was on the other side of the fence politically. To pardon a bud, Pres Ford style really shows colors.

Learn a little about constructing your own arguments, and then get back with us. Until then, keep duckin-n-runnin

Oy ve.... Look in the phone book at all the phone numbers...with names...some with addresses...that equals: PUBLIC RECORD Would you want Skunk Works to publish that they're spending $xBillion on the next generation stealth fighter or bomber? Even if that means it exposes the concept to the Chinese or North Koreans? Chances are, you've not even invested in these companies. We are not living in peace time people. There are some very nasty people out there that would love to see the US fall. Hmmmm, I believe all phone companies are private corps..... oh yea, corpoartions, US governemnt; same thing via Fascism.... yiu are right. BTW, do you have a phonebook that details which number called which and what time? Weak, er, nonexistant copmaprison. How about just the dollars? Chinese? Bush has ensured that they have our money, so they care not what we do. Oh God, spare me. We ARE living in peacetime, it's just that the Reoubs won't let it happen - it interrupts their corporate plans. The world is very peaceful, with the exception of us. There are also some very descent countries that wouldn't come to our aide of we were attacked due to our presence in world hate.

Please, by all means, enlighten us as to why you want such information disclosed to the public. Well, those of us who aren't really excited about handing over "freedom for security" would like to know if the phone companies are handing over our records. I don't know who scares me more, this administration or their apologists who blindly accept, no, actively defend whatever they dish out without question. Just as an aside, what was Negroponte's role in the Iran/Contra scandal again? Covering things up? Now Libby is borrowing the ole, "I don;t recall."

Fixed that for ya. The only "news" about this is Bush authorizing Negroponte to do the waiver. Please note that there's not any information on any companies receiving an exemption, either. Of course, that *would* tend to derail your bash a bit, wouldn't it? That makes more sense, but at least disclose the monies given and not the details of the project - I think that's teh issue.

Please, by all means, enlighten us as to why you want such information disclosed to the public. Uh, government contracts and the asociated monies given. It;s not as if we expect them to reveal formulas to manufacture nuclear weapons, just their profits. Why shield them from disclosing their gifts from Bush?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/24/AR2006052402597_pf.html Vice President Cheney was personally angered by a former U.S. ambassador's newspaper column attacking a key rationale for the war in Iraq and repeatedly directed I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, then his chief of staff, to "get all the facts out" related to the critique, according to excerpts from Libby's 2004 grand jury testimony released late yesterday by Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald. Libby also told the grand jury that Cheney raised as an issue that the former ambassador's wife worked at the CIA and that she allegedly played a role in sending him to investigate the Iraqi government's interest in acquiring nuclear weapons materials. That issue formed the basis of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV's published critique. In the court filing that included the formerly secret testimony, Fitzgerald did not assert that Cheney instructed Libby to tell reporters the name and role of Valerie Plame, Wilson's wife. But he said Cheney's interactions with Libby on that topic were a key part of the reason Libby allegedly made false statements to the FBI about his conversations with reporters around the time her name was disclosed in news accounts. "The state of mind of the Vice President as communicated to defendant is directly relevant to the issue of whether defendant knowingly made false statements to federal agents and the grand jury regarding when and how he learned about Ms. Wilson's employment and what he said to reporters regarding this issue," he said. The prosecutor also left open the possibility that Cheney will be called as a witness at Libby's trial, scheduled to begin next year, and denied an assertion last week by Libby's lawyers that Cheney would not be called. Fitzgerald was appointed in late 2003 to investigate the disclosure of Plame's name to the media after the CIA complained that it was an illegal act because she was an undercover officer. His probe has led to a series of disclosures about efforts by the White House to rebut Wilson's published critique, but no official has been directly charged with leaking Plame's name. Instead, Libby was accused of making false statements, obstruction of justice and perjury, mostly based on his statements that he did not confirm Plame's employment at the CIA and alleged involvement in Wilson's trip when he was talking with two journalists. Libby has denied wrongdoing and said in court filings that he may have forgotten what he said to the journalists because of the press of other business. Fitzgerald, in contrast, has sought to build a case that Libby was preoccupied with the task of rebutting Wilson's July 2003 column, which accused the White House of twisting intelligence to support its invasion of Iraq -- and that this preoccupation stemmed from Cheney's intense focus on Wilson's assertions. While yesterday's filing largely concerned a side issue -- whether Libby's attorneys are entitled to see more government documents -- it provided the first detailed look at what Libby told investigators about his interactions with Cheney on this issue. According to the excerpts from testimony on March 5, 2004, Libby recalled that he and Cheney discussed Wilson's article on multiple occasions each day after it appeared. Cheney, Libby said, "often will cut out from a newspaper an article using a little penknife that he has" and "look at it, think about it." That's what Cheney did with the column, Libby said, because Cheney saw it as attacking his credibility. "He wanted to get all the facts out about what he had or hadn't done, what the facts were or were not. He was very keen about that and said it repeatedly. Let's get everything out," Libby testified. A previous court filing by Fitzgerald revealed that Cheney had annotated his copy of the column with this question about Wilson: "Did his wife send him on a junket?" Cheney's defense lawyers said in a subsequent filing that Libby had testified he never saw those annotations until the FBI showed him a copy. In Libby's actual testimony, as released by Fitzgerald, he said, "It's possible if it was sitting on his desk that, you know, my eye went across it." An apparently key issue to be contested at trial is precisely when these conversations took place: Did they occur before or after Libby's discussions with reporters that included Plame's name? And did Libby have reason -- as his attorneys have asserted -- to forget some of what Cheney said about Plame and her employment at the CIA? The grand jury excerpts record Libby as saying at one point that he did not recall Cheney asking about the Plame connection "early on . . . although he may well have." Libby also said that he did not recall such a discussion with Cheney before he heard Plame's name from reporter Tim Russert -- a conversation that Russert has disputed in his own testimony. _____________________________________________________________ Oh God, another Ollie North, I don;t recall.... What a joke

And Jr is the bastardchild he didn't want.

being retired, they no longer have to take their differences (past or present) personally. What would be the point? They instead can enjoy being members of a very exclusive club. I doubt it has any relevence to Hillary Clinton's bid. Agreed 100% - they don;t give a shit anymore; they're in teh club.

Excuse me for a sec...... Bahahahahahahahahahahahahaahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahhah... OK, I'm better now . Uh, even after being impeached, he still had an approval of over 50%, while Bush can't even muster 30%. He had the best economy in 40 years, maybe more depending upon how you look at it. He stopped the bleeding of the debt and left a surplus (annual), then Bush threw it all away and exceeded Regaan's fiscal fiasco. I'm not sure what part of his legacy he is rebuilding, perhaps you can help. You're a 26%er, so you're going to say that, but the average opinion is that Bush Sr was a trainwreck. He is the only military hero of the last 4 presidents, so that is admirable, Reagan an actor/politician, Jr and Clinton draft dodgers, but his inherited economy and tax increase was murder for him. I think if he were not attached to Reagan he might have been a better pres. So to a moralist would think Clinton has a poor legacy, but everyone else loves him. Uh, "proclaimed peacetime economic growth" meaning most prolific economy ever. Go ahead and write it - it hurts I know. And how unstable? He inherited crap and constantly turned it into gold, when unstable? That is insane!!! Call him a womanizer, but having an unstable economy? That's a first.

Uhhhh, no. I see Sr and Clinton as close to teh same, always have, but Jr? No way. Sr started NAFTA, Clinton signed it. There are other similarities, can't think of em now. So how is it that Hillary would beneify from Bill anyway? And being disinfranchised will hurt Hillary how?

Maybe they should have voted themselves criminal immunity instead of their huge pay raises. Cunningham, now this clown..... ever wonder why the US is so corrupt? The corruption doesn't bother me as much as the selectivity.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060524/ap_on_go_pr_wh/intelligence_chief_companies_1&printer=1;_ylt=Av1ITZkrhaql_zfjJgb05sYGw_IE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE-

Which speaks volumes as to your motive in this argument; attack the poster and not the issue. Why is it your place to tell me how or when ot post? If you look back, I stay out of a post for a couple days, then reply. BTW, I didn’t address every post. But not signing as a form of protest is ridiculous on so many levels and could result in an arrest. As much as I don’t like cops, I do obey their directions and then deal with it later. OK, here it is: “For all the wackos who are ADAMANTLY against this law about our plates... “ And here: “Was I talking to you? And for anyone who's ONLY against this license plate thing... it stands.” So how is my rendition different from your own words? 1) I didn’t say all cops are corrupt. If you go back you will read that I stated that most have some degree of corruption. I didn’t state, “all” as you claim. And some degree is also a variable. 2) You’re not a cop! You have no, what they call, “legal standing” here, as you are not a cop, not that I blanket defamed all cops. One break, commin up….. You can speak up fro anyone you want, but it doesn’t fall under the guidelines of this forum and abuse of others. You can claim it offends you when people call Bush a criminal, but that is too vicarious for the rules of this forum to cover. 1) I didn’t call anyone a name 2) I classified most of the people of a group to have propensity toward corruption 3) You called anyone in this forum who thinks a certain way to be a wacko No, it’ taking a direction of legislation and policy and assuming it will exacerbate. This is not some paranoia scheme where there is no indication of movement in a given direction, this is an actual case where laws are stretched to ridiculous proportion to further police agendas of zero 4th. Look at Mapp v Ohio, or I will post it if you care….. Do you care? Show me you do and I will find it for you. I have never said that this is the initiation of the slippery slope. Quit grandstanding. So now we go to absolute extremes? Why not say that we need cops, which we do, but we hold them to higher standards as to dissuade police misconduct? If the courts actually prosecuted them instead of coddling them then they would be a group of honorable people….. Truth is that the courts immunize them and they are a group of gang-bangers for the most part. Now you’re calling me nuts… no personal attacks here. How about this scenario, you buy a new car or a used car, don’t see the plate frame there, then get pulled over. Why even have a 4th if they’re not going to follow it? Oh wait, that’s your argument. That’s even a weak reason in my opinion, but at least it’s legitimate. Remember, the issue here was about the word, “Texas” being partially covered, not the letters/numbers to the plate. I’m not sure you can’t legally do that. There are laws about forward facing red/blue lights, but the word, “police” I dunno if there is a law prohibiting that. To paint it in the scheme of an actual cop car is different than just the word, “police.” Well, it’s not the Dems advocating police brutality, the Repubs love it - keeps people in line.

what? Don't expect a lot more from him. Ask a stupid question............ Get a Gravitymaster answer?????

Can you explain to me how when the price of crude goes up, the price of the pump goes up the next day. But, when the price of crude goes down, it takes a couple of days for the price at the pump to go down? Couple days hell, it takes months for them to return and only weeks to rise.

F your wife is aware of any bad cops by way of their actions and she doesn’t report it, she is an dirty. Special relationship. Is this a justification to lie and be dishonorable? And then let their friends go, or let influential people go while citing some poor slob….. It’s outta gas man. What of they lie to get their cop buddy off the hook for a shooting, killing, vehicle accident, etc? Happen ALL the time; the rationalizations don’t get anymore fun for those who are screwed. By you posting the worst of the worst scenarios I think we see your agenda. Absolutely true, but the difference is that I’m not sworn to uphold the law and the …… truth. I expect cops to be honest as their contract requires, a far cry from perfect. I have no problem being far more critical of a cop. ____________________________________ Wow! With logic like yours, I'm just at a loss for words! Chuck Instead of attacking my logic, attack the assertions..... I don;t think it will happen.