FlaSoxxJim

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 12, 2006 -> 08:33 AM) Do you wanna piece of me? I'll take you back to the woodshed... GMAFB. I do have one serious question, to turn the conversation back to abortion, you know, the lightning rod issue... I've said before that Roe v. Wade is NOTHING but a political hack law that Dems and Repubs spend millions and millions of dollars on, and really, neither party wants to see it overturned for that very reason. Now, let's think about this, though. If Roe v. Wade gets overturned, what happens? It doesn't mean that abortion is illegal!! WHAT A CONCEPT! It cracks me up how everyone just assumes that. All that simply means is that the STATES will determine their own law... which is the way it should be anyway. Interesting slant? Just curious what you think about that (no matter what your belief on the ISSUE is). Laike Balta said, there is no reason to think it would be left up to the states for very long. If the powers that be are willing to consider a constitutional ban on gay marriage then or course a constitutional ban on abortion would be dearer still to the anti-abortion powers.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 12, 2006 -> 10:42 AM) Boy, that book sale is going well, isn't it? I haven't seen how it is selling actually. I think there is a lot more he covers in the book, including some more on the Siebel Edmonds story. Hopefully it sells well.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jan 12, 2006 -> 10:02 AM) He wasn't in that episode, but the lady who played Pearl in "227" was a friend of the family who lived in the building in that particular episode. She pretended to be a "black japanese" in order to not answer any of the FBI's questions. What happened to qualityy entertainment like that? Was that cute little Janet Jackson in that episode?

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 11, 2006 -> 11:37 PM) BUt if you carry only one, and use it, wouldn't you then be in trouble for not carrying one? Or wait, does it say it has to be new? One unused prophylactic. One soiled.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 12, 2006 -> 07:41 AM) I'm glad you know the man personally and can make that WONDERFUL, INSIGHTFUL comment about him. Again, GMAFB. Your words, not mine. GMAFB.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jan 11, 2006 -> 11:54 PM) This thread is just like the Episode of Good Times where the Evans get investigated by the FBI because Michael wrote to Cuba asking for some information to do a school project. Except the Good Times show wasn't a pain in the ass to watch. I call the part of Bookman the fat building superintendent.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jan 11, 2006 -> 11:23 PM) As long as Republicans are running Congress there will not be any meaningful investigation. They will be busy investigating who it was that leaked word of this classified program to the press and rightfully so. The chief whistleblower/patriot has been identified as Russell Tice. Risin declined to identify him, but Tice copped to it on Nightline Tuesday.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 11, 2006 -> 09:40 PM) So if this was some pointless organization he joined, why did he feel it was important enough to include it on later job applications? Well, when it's Ed Meese you are trying to impress. . . Until Ashcroft/Gonzalez, I didn't think it was possible an Attorney General could wipe his ass with the Constitution anymore than Meese.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 11, 2006 -> 09:24 PM) Yea, the f***ing bumper sticker to the organization had on it "we are racial, bigoted assholes who profile against minorities of all kinds... future supreme court nominees need not apply..." and Alito signed right up to become a part of a huge ass witch hunt 30 years later. GMAFB. :rolly No. He signed right up because he's a racial (and sexist), bigoted asshole.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 11, 2006 -> 10:33 PM) And YOU say he broke the law and many other scholars say he hasn't. Take it all the way up and let's have a ruling. I don't believe any constitutional scholar has opined that the flimsy argument of BushCo that S. J. RES. 23 granted the President any explicit or implied authority to bypass the FISA courts and order wiretaps of (presumed innocent) American civilians. If I missed some that have (I have been lloking), please link the arguments. At best, I've only seen a shaky argument that the office of the President inherently has this authority, but without a fomal Congressional War Declaration this also seems to be a flawed interpretation. But, for now, forget what the scholars have to say and tell me how you can interpret the authority to order the wiretaps as deriving from this: So, first of all, it says "all necessary and appropriate force," which is not nearly the same as "all means necessary." In fact, as SECTION 1 or the Resolution states, The NSA is an arm of the military, but does electronic surveilance constitute use of force. Several of the Senators who drafted the Resolution do not believe it does, nor do they think that by passing the Resolution they were granting the power to bypass the courts in conducting surveilance. Also, even this explaining clause does NOT allow that the President may use this force to make a determination that 'nations, organizations, or persons . . . planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks . . .' It only allows that he can use force against those entities once he has made that determination. It's a shame that this whole thing is unlikely to ever see the light of day in a court as the secrecy of the program means the American citizens who were spied on will never know it and therefore will never know they have standing to bring suit. The only hope (unlikely I know) is that the Republican Congress will undertake the investigation with seriousness and not in a smoke and mirrors way that will allow them to circle the wagons and again protect BushCo.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jan 11, 2006 -> 08:53 PM) At least Senator Byrd has admitted it, and confronted it head on. There's something to be said for that. Plus, he rose to the level of 'Exalted Cyclops,' so you gotta tip your hood, er. . . , hat, to that accomplishment.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 11, 2006 -> 05:36 PM) 30 fricking years ago - on an application. Who here would want to sit in front of Congress answering some lame ass question about this kind of stuff? And before I get the "well, it's important" pure bulls*** answer, no, it's not. If you think it is, get over yourselves. I certainly wouldn't want to – if I had been a member of a campus anti-diversity organization, that is. :rolly If 30 years ago I was an active member of the KKK, you don't think that knowing this today would shed the tiniest bit of light on where my ideologies lie? Congress can't ask nominees anything about an aything that a nominee might potentially have to rule on in the future, so they are stuck looking at past rulings, briefs, and opinions, and also these sorts of forks in the paper trail. But, in the spirit of full disclosure: 30 years ago I was a card carrying member of the both the KISS Army and Friends Of Old Marvel. Yessireee, I got a closetfull of skeletons.

Releasing the documents really has become important, seeing as Alito's conveniently selective amnesia seems to clear up once his past is put under his nose for him to see. When a critical review of CAP published by an alumni committee that featured alumnus Bill Frist found that the group's "distorted, narrow and hostile view of the University" had "misinformed and even alarmed many alumni" and "undoubtedly generated adverse national publicity," then maybe we can understand why his membership in the group was something he flaunted for Ed Meese but hid during all his other job interviews.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Jan 11, 2006 -> 01:27 PM) I'm sure that this will do wonders in preventing the spread of HIV. Link The outrage! This is nothing but a license for teens to have sex.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 11, 2006 -> 01:29 PM) I see what you're saying, but I still think that if you're stupid enough to get involved, then you might have people listen in on a phone conversation. Then there are potentially millions of stupid Americans (yes, something we already know) who may have unknowingly gotten involved. This is from yesterday's Nightline interview with NSSA whistleblower/patrion Russell Tice: How comfortable are you going to be with the warrantless surveilance if it turns out that all you needed to do to "get involved" was to be stupid enough to place or receive an overseas call?

QUOTE(Kid Gleason @ Jan 9, 2006 -> 06:08 PM) Not one of my faves, but anytime a beer finally makes a debut at a new area is always a reason for celebration. I quite enjoy Fat Tire, but their Grand Cru is 10x as amazing. I have a good clone recipe for Fat Tire that was a homebrew staple a couple years ago. I'd do a double batch and batch sparge two identical runnings, and I'd ferment one with a good Belgian Abbey yeast and the other with Chico 1056 (Sierra). The Chico yeast actually came out closer to fat tire, but the abbey yeast gave a lot more complexity and was always my preference.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 8, 2006 -> 12:05 PM) Now Bush meets with the guy a couple of times, and that IS enough to tie him to it? Laughable. That clearly doesn't implicate him in anything, you are correct. And that has been my point. Why put Scotty on the podium and claim they didn't know each other and probably never met, etc., when there is no real harm in saying that Bush met Jack and 2,000 other people that year in the course of his duties as president. It seems they are just incapable of telling the truth about anything anymore, even matters of little consequence like this.

I agree that it's of little consequence whether they knew each other. But for me the point is, again, the administration getting caught in a deceit. For Scotty Mac to be given marching orders to tell the press 'He doesn’t know him. He doesn’t know him . . . He never met him except maybe at a party . . . ' just shows how little they care about looking stupid. How can there not be a searchable record of all the scheduled meetings the president has? No, I don't expect he's going to remember them all, but I assume there is a way staffers can turn up a record of the meeting by typing Abramoff's name into a White House database or something. As for the meeting itself, I'm sure it was inoccuous as far as the president's side of things. So why not arm Scotty with the correct information so he can say, 'The President has met with thousands of individuals on official presidential business. ThePresident has met with Mr. Abrammoff and a client on at least one occassion as far as we can tell, on this date, and that's the extent of their relationship beyond Mr. Abrammoff's membership in the Bush Pioneers.' At least then he'snot going to be blindsided when a reporter takes five minutes to check the claim that the two dodn't know each other.

I love the Townsend/Daltrey/Entwistle/Moon Who. I respected the Townsend/Daltrey/Entwhstle/Jones Who. I accepted the one-off gigs and was happy for them with their success on the Tommy Revival. That said, they should have called it a career as anything with 'Who' in their name after John Entwhistle died.

You got a li'l something on your chin there, Kap.

There are no words. My deepest condolances to Joey's parents and to Jim and yourself as well.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 6, 2006 -> 09:28 PM) Chris Matthews: Tom Delay " lives basically, like a regular middle class person. He doesn’t live well at all." I want to be that middle class! And I want to make like Stealer's Wheel. . . . and be stuck in the middle with you.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 6, 2006 -> 11:38 PM) Of course not. Anything you will be looking for would never substantiate ANY reason that this could be legal.... "non-partisan" Congressional Research Service? CONGRESSIONAL... anyway... next... Well, I see the current NSA director thinks it's legal. Shocking. Other than that, though, you're not exactly tripping over all the legal and constitutional experts that have sided with BushCo on this one are you? The Congressional Research Service IS non-partison. If you read the piece you saw it said what we basically already know - namely that the presidential authority to order this surveilance can not reasonably be said to derive from statute. And it concludes again what we basically know - that the sole Bush argument is that the power derives from the "whereas" clause in the 9/18 Congressional Resolution and it's 'any and all reasobable and necessary means' or whatever the exact statement is. The Research Service says that some courts might accept this argument, although the historic role Comgress has played in overseeing and shaping surveilance policy strongly suggests that Congress would not likely have all of a sudden decided it would cede all responisbilities in that regard to the executive. And the fact that the BushCo argument all hinges on the "whereas" clause and not the "resolving" clause ('It is hereby resolved that. . .' ) is still really squirrely (sp?) It's fairly well accepted tthat the whereas statements are the tone-setters, but the resolving clauses are where the teeth usually reside. The truth remains that the administration doesn't care that they do not have the authority to do what they are doing. It only concerns those of us in the "reality-based community," as the administtration has scornfully described those of us who feel the need to be bothered by trifflinng matters like the law and the Constitution.

QUOTE(The Critic @ Jan 6, 2006 -> 03:43 PM) God damn beer AND guitar elitists. Nah, burn the Gibson. Just don't f*** with me Fender.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 6, 2006 -> 05:08 PM) Definately not suggesting Sharon was going to hell. Sorry if anyone thought that. [OK, here's where I fling s*** like the higher primate that I am] There are some folks who were at Sabra and Shatila that are probably thinking that.