I get my profit-sharing bonus next week too. I guess I know where its going. When is it on the market? It sounds like a good Never Winter Nights 2 server.
If someone does not have a photo-ID, there should be secondary options at a minimum, i.e.: in Minneosta they allow a phone bill addressed to your current address. Provisional ballots are often issued in these cases as well. Requiring a photo-ID has been suggested to disenfranchise a voter and seems like a serious enough risk to avoid the requirement. A study by the U.S. Department of Justice indicated that a study showed, "African-Americans in Louisiana were 4 to 5 times less likely to have government-sanctioned photo ID than white residents."
With all the new technology, however, one would think that with a valid photo ID with a magnetic stripe, a registered voter could go to any polling place in the nation, swipe his or her card, and see the ballot on the machine in front of them that would be presented to him as if he had gone to his primary polling place. The vote would be registered and counted. No need for absentee ballots, unless you travel outside of the country.
This idea seems like a dangerous step, it could easily lead to tracking of what should be an anonymous vote. Having more than one way of "officially" counting a state vote seems like a better step to me. So that you can have more than one official count and be able to see if they match up.
The point is, there needs to be oversight. The FISA court provides this and still allows for the secrecy that the FBI, or in this case the President, might need. The judges presiding on the FISA court are all appointed by the Department of Justice. So, in a way, the President appointed the people who in turn appointed the FISA court panel. With the rampant cronyism in the Executive branch, I have to doubt your claim that the FISA Court is politically motivated to deny the President's requests. I don't understand why you may think the court is unconstitutional, or the law providing for the FISA court itself. There is a large body of precedent for the oversight. The congress implemented a way to make sure that the rights of the people come first, which was set down as the very fundamentals of our, American, self government. The President must not be allowed to arbitrarily order investigations into persons without good cause, the FISA court is a simple check for this.
Conversely to Bush, Clinton did use the FISA court properly. Otherwise, there would have been this same scandal which the republican congress at the time would have at least been curious about. The FBI, is constitutionally an arm of the exective branch, but obviously not Clinton himself.
I'm no advocate for Clinton, or the Democratic party itself, although I am a progressive thinker. I often think the two party system is a farce and has become dangerous to the country. Yet, I have never heard of any claims of Clinton being vindictive. Perhaps its because I do not listen to the right wing radio personalities that are likely to bring up hateful rhetoric that is against some of my progressive ideals. I'm just guessing here, yet it brings to question - for me at least - just how famous Clinton's vendettas may have been. So, I guess I just simply don't know.
Even so, is what Clinton did, really relevant to whether Bush is wrong in regards to avoiding using the system properly. Of courese, I suppose, the only way to contest a law is to break it and see what happens in court.
The last question was rhetorical. I know what the intent of the wiretap was. The point I was trying to drive home was that there is no reason for the President to not apply for a warrant.
It is my opinion that.
Also once it was identified that the person was a US citizen they were passed on to legal methods. There were no US citizen directly wiretapped under this program.
May not be entirely true. Also, without a written document of the reason for the action and its limits (aka: warrant), it is impossible to prove this one way or another.
The president should be using warrants. Thats the whole point. Without warrants, there is no solid record of who or why someone had their phone tapped. There should be some level of oversight. Failure to include a warrant should be illegal, that's why there is the Foreign Intelligence Service court. All the president has to do is file who and why he wants to wiretap someone with them, they sign the okay, the paper document gets filed. Nothing to it, but the Pres wants to do everything his way, with no oversight. Why? What possible reason could he have to not want to record which terrorist loving citizens are being tapped?
The Clinton claim is simply wrong and dishonest and is a flat out lie, you may want to reconsider the source of that info. Clinton did use warrants, and we have a full record that used to be accessible via a FOIA request.
The temperature below ground makes no difference, it still warms up once in a car's fuel tank. Additionally, the fuel will expand further until it reaches air temperature. The less dense fuel is, the less efficient it is.
Travel season is in the summer. More people buy the majority of the gas in the summer. Summer is hot.
The cost effectiveness does change by about $.03/gallon for every 10F over 60F. Atleast that is what I remember hearing from a few different sources. Sure geographical location and time of day you purchase it will help mitigate these costs.
What is the real reason GW is only commuting the sentence? What kind of precedence or future implication does it have?
I know what the Republican spin is, and I have also heard the Democrat spin. What is the truth? Will we ever know the truth of what is going on in the administration?
Armitage has nothing to do with "Scooter's" indictment on obstruction, false statements or perjury. Only one man is fully accountable for that.
A)Due to Libby's loose implications and subsequent obstruction, the American people are unable to determine the truth. B)You are right about the reporters, except its spelled "contempt".:)
A)Libby was not indicted over the leak, it was two counts of perjury, one count of obstruction of justice in a grand jury investigation, and one of the two counts of making false statements to federal investigators--and acquitted him on one count of making false statements. B)Irv Libby's defense team has already decided not to persue a new trial. (Consider the implications as to why)
A)I don't know how anyone can be happy with the idea that faking amnesia or Alzheimer's Disease as a proper defense. I haven't heard so many people, say "I do not recall" so many times in such a short period of time as recently done in the Attorney Firings investigation. Forgetfulness should not be allowed as a defense, it should in most cases be considered obstruction. Our whole criminal justice system depends on the full truth be told in cases, not just of this level of importance, but all. B)You may want to look into Bush's priors, who else has been pardoned, had sentences commuted, or not. I don't see a difference in Clinton's pardon versus than any other previous American president.
You might want to try and sell your senators on the Fairness Doctrine, and have them somehow include the internet(s). I too prefer my facts\information to not include spin unless it is in the commentary. Oh wait, I don't recall this story having any biased statements. Perhaps I better go read it again.
You may want to double check that fact. Sure Wikipedia isn't perfect but, this is what it says:
Walton served as an Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia from 1981 to 1989 and from 1991 to 2001. He also served as associate director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy and was appointed in 2001 to his lifetime seat on the federal bench by President George W. Bush. In 2004, Bush appointed him to chair a commission investigating ways to curb prison rape. In May 2007, [U.S. Supreme Court] Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. appointed him to a seat on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
Despite his appointments by Republican officials, The Washington Post reported, "fellow judges and lawyers who appear before him say Walton's decisions do not appear to be guided by politics but by a tough-on-crime mentality". Walton is known by local defense attorneys as a "long ball hitter" - a judge willing to impose long sentences in order to deter future crimes.
The trick is of course, that the Grand Jury has access to more information that any of us do. Apparently they had no reasonable doubt of Lewis Libby's guilt.
Plame was a covert agent. In fact she was the top agent whose cover actually protected many other agents as well as her own. Not only that, but she was the top undercover investigator on Iraq's weapons before she was outed.
Make a guess about how much information was lost. Make a guess as to how many other agents have been forced out of their own positions or related positions. We don't even know if any agents were killed in the aftermath of the debacle because of the need for secrecy.
In his press conference of October 28, 2005, Special Counsel Fitzgerald explained in considerable detail the necessity of "secrecy" about his Grand Jury investigation that began in the fall of 2003--"when it was clear that Valerie Wilson's cover had been blown"--and the background and consequences of the indictment of Lewis Libby as it pertains to Valerie E. Wilson.
Who or what source do you get your information from? You may want to get a second source to verify the truth of that source in the future.
On March 16, 2007, at the hearings about the disclosure of information to the public, Chairman Henry Waxman read a statement about Plame's CIA career that had been cleared by CIA director Gen. Michael V. Hayden and the CIA itself:
During her employment at the CIA, Ms. Wilson was under cover.
Her employment status with the CIA was classified information prohibited from disclosure under Executive Order 12958.
At the time of the publication of Robert Novak's column on July 14, 2003, Ms. Wilson's CIA employment status was covert.
This was classified information.
Ms. Wilson served in senior management positions at the CIA, in which she oversaw the work of other CIA employees, and she attained the level of GS-14, step 6 under the federal pay scale.
Ms. Wilson worked on some of the most sensitive and highly secretive matters handled by the CIA.
Ms. Wilson served at various times overseas for the CIA.
Without discussing the specifics of Ms. Wilson's classified work, it is accurate to say that she worked on the prevention of the development and use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States.
In her various positions at the CIA, Ms. Wilson faced significant risks to her personal safety and her life.
Subsequent reports in various news accounts focused on the following parts of her testimony:
"My name and identity were carelessly and recklessly abused by senior government officials in the White House and state department"; this abuse occurred for "purely political reasons."
After her identity was exposed by officials in the Bush administration, she had to leave the CIA: "I could no longer perform the work for which I had been highly trained."
She did not select her husband for a CIA fact-finding trip to Niger, but an officer senior to her selected him and told her to ask her husband if he would consider it: "I did not recommend him. I did not suggest him. There was no nepotism involved. I did not have the authority...."
What official source still claims that Ms. Plame was an overt agent and had not been covert for the five years prior?
Actually, from all I can tell, the only reason that nobody has been convicted, is because the entire Executive branch of the American government suffers from Alzheimer's.
Gee... There is a whole section for Politics that has been there for several years now. Are you saying it should be blank? Despite whatever you may think, American politics do make a difference to nerds whether you pay attention to them or not.
I don't follow this. He posted the anonymous submitter's straight facts. There is no opinion or bias in the story at all. You may want to be a little more open to the truth yourself, or so it seems.
Everyone knows that no one is perfect, political parties included. People make mistakes, some bigger than others. You can see that in the Lousiana Governor is now doing time for taking bribes.
As far as Mr. Libby goes, I think the report leaves it up to the reader to decide whether the President's action is right or wrong.
I think you a Kuhn have made the mistake of not seeing the difference between a belief and an idea.
Proper sciencetific theory envolves no faith. Certainly a scientific mind can have faith, and some scientists have made the mistake of believing in the expected results of an experiment to a point. Usually this is the result of poorly planned thought experiments.
A scientific theory must be dropped or modified when it has been proven false through repeatable experiments. You cannot simply believe in a theory on a matter of faith alone when evidence shows it not to be true. It has been shown that the creation story of the Old Testament while great alegory, is certainly not a true "historical fact" as often toted by those of the many Jewish and Christian faiths.
Basically, science doesn't "plug holes", it attempts figure out what actually is the correct answer when a theory is shown to be in error. Science contiues to experiment in attempt to learn the truth. It does not, if performed properly, does not make excuses for a disproven theory, it should include the new evidence in its ever changing theory(ies).
Slashdot Mirror
I get my profit-sharing bonus next week too. I guess I know where its going. When is it on the market?
It sounds like a good Never Winter Nights 2 server.
This idea seems like a dangerous step, it could easily lead to tracking of what should be an anonymous vote. Having more than one way of "officially" counting a state vote seems like a better step to me. So that you can have more than one official count and be able to see if they match up.
Does Taps require any kind of royalty fee to be payed? Perhaps web radio stations should play it all day, every day, until their final day.
The point is, there needs to be oversight. The FISA court provides this and still allows for the secrecy that the FBI, or in this case the President, might need. The judges presiding on the FISA court are all appointed by the Department of Justice. So, in a way, the President appointed the people who in turn appointed the FISA court panel. With the rampant cronyism in the Executive branch, I have to doubt your claim that the FISA Court is politically motivated to deny the President's requests. I don't understand why you may think the court is unconstitutional, or the law providing for the FISA court itself. There is a large body of precedent for the oversight. The congress implemented a way to make sure that the rights of the people come first, which was set down as the very fundamentals of our, American, self government. The President must not be allowed to arbitrarily order investigations into persons without good cause, the FISA court is a simple check for this.
Conversely to Bush, Clinton did use the FISA court properly. Otherwise, there would have been this same scandal which the republican congress at the time would have at least been curious about. The FBI, is constitutionally an arm of the exective branch, but obviously not Clinton himself.
I'm no advocate for Clinton, or the Democratic party itself, although I am a progressive thinker. I often think the two party system is a farce and has become dangerous to the country. Yet, I have never heard of any claims of Clinton being vindictive. Perhaps its because I do not listen to the right wing radio personalities that are likely to bring up hateful rhetoric that is against some of my progressive ideals. I'm just guessing here, yet it brings to question - for me at least - just how famous Clinton's vendettas may have been. So, I guess I just simply don't know.
Even so, is what Clinton did, really relevant to whether Bush is wrong in regards to avoiding using the system properly. Of courese, I suppose, the only way to contest a law is to break it and see what happens in court.
It is my opinion that.
May not be entirely true. Also, without a written document of the reason for the action and its limits (aka: warrant), it is impossible to prove this one way or another.
Kill the non-believer!
The president should be using warrants. Thats the whole point. Without warrants, there is no solid record of who or why someone had their phone tapped. There should be some level of oversight. Failure to include a warrant should be illegal, that's why there is the Foreign Intelligence Service court. All the president has to do is file who and why he wants to wiretap someone with them, they sign the okay, the paper document gets filed. Nothing to it, but the Pres wants to do everything his way, with no oversight. Why? What possible reason could he have to not want to record which terrorist loving citizens are being tapped?
The Clinton claim is simply wrong and dishonest and is a flat out lie, you may want to reconsider the source of that info. Clinton did use warrants, and we have a full record that used to be accessible via a FOIA request.
The cost effectiveness does change by about $.03/gallon for every 10F over 60F. Atleast that is what I remember hearing from a few different sources.
Sure geographical location and time of day you purchase it will help mitigate these costs.
I suspect that cost more than the temprature adjustment sensors. It also would not change the temperature of the air at pump level.
What is the real reason GW is only commuting the sentence? What kind of precedence or future implication does it have?
I know what the Republican spin is, and I have also heard the Democrat spin. What is the truth? Will we ever know the truth of what is going on in the administration?
I agree. At minimum you can make statement about your distrust of the other options.
On a related note, the Independence Party of Minnesota did quite well last go-round. Perhaps a similar party in other states would be beneficial.
You might want to try and sell your senators on the Fairness Doctrine, and have them somehow include the internet(s). I too prefer my facts\information to not include spin unless it is in the commentary. Oh wait, I don't recall this story having any biased statements. Perhaps I better go read it again.
If you haven't read the report of Libby's own testimony, you may be missing something.
The trick is of course, that the Grand Jury has access to more information that any of us do. Apparently they had no reasonable doubt of Lewis Libby's guilt.
Make a guess about how much information was lost. Make a guess as to how many other agents have been forced out of their own positions or related positions. We don't even know if any agents were killed in the aftermath of the debacle because of the need for secrecy.
In his press conference of October 28, 2005, Special Counsel Fitzgerald explained in considerable detail the necessity of "secrecy" about his Grand Jury investigation that began in the fall of 2003--"when it was clear that Valerie Wilson's cover had been blown"--and the background and consequences of the indictment of Lewis Libby as it pertains to Valerie E. Wilson.
Who or what source do you get your information from? You may want to get a second source to verify the truth of that source in the future.
On March 16, 2007, at the hearings about the disclosure of information to the public, Chairman Henry Waxman read a statement about Plame's CIA career that had been cleared by CIA director Gen. Michael V. Hayden and the CIA itself:
Subsequent reports in various news accounts focused on the following parts of her testimony:
What official source still claims that Ms. Plame was an overt agent and had not been covert for the five years prior?
Actually, from all I can tell, the only reason that nobody has been convicted, is because the entire Executive branch of the American government suffers from Alzheimer's.
Are you saying that Mr. Libby did not obstruct the investigation into the truth behind the CIA Leak case?
Gee... There is a whole section for Politics that has been there for several years now. Are you saying it should be blank? Despite whatever you may think, American politics do make a difference to nerds whether you pay attention to them or not.
Wouldn't the more important precedence be how many pardons were granted by Bush during his time as Governor of Texas?
Its something I would like to know.
I don't follow this. He posted the anonymous submitter's straight facts. There is no opinion or bias in the story at all. You may want to be a little more open to the truth yourself, or so it seems.
Everyone knows that no one is perfect, political parties included. People make mistakes, some bigger than others. You can see that in the Lousiana Governor is now doing time for taking bribes.
As far as Mr. Libby goes, I think the report leaves it up to the reader to decide whether the President's action is right or wrong.
Perhaps if these childish lawmakers want a new immigration law, then they should enforce the immigration laws they already have.
Or perhaps any of their "friends"
I think you a Kuhn have made the mistake of not seeing the difference between a belief and an idea.
Proper sciencetific theory envolves no faith. Certainly a scientific mind can have faith, and some scientists have made the mistake of believing in the expected results of an experiment to a point. Usually this is the result of poorly planned thought experiments.
A scientific theory must be dropped or modified when it has been proven false through repeatable experiments. You cannot simply believe in a theory on a matter of faith alone when evidence shows it not to be true. It has been shown that the creation story of the Old Testament while great alegory, is certainly not a true "historical fact" as often toted by those of the many Jewish and Christian faiths.
Basically, science doesn't "plug holes", it attempts figure out what actually is the correct answer when a theory is shown to be in error. Science contiues to experiment in attempt to learn the truth. It does not, if performed properly, does not make excuses for a disproven theory, it should include the new evidence in its ever changing theory(ies).
Actually it could become a source catalog for a list of all the image file SHA values. Then it could be used as a filter to block them all.
Correction
1) Impeach Cheney.
1.5) Remove Alberto Gonzales.
2) Impeach the sock puppet.
3) Try Karl Rove for treason.
4) Ferret out every GOP minion, operative, flunkie, and vote-rigger who had a hand in Bush's election(s) and investigate the life out of them.
5) Get a free press and use it.