Uh, yeah, possibly, unless they're either (a) planning to replace the ablative shield once for every two hour cross-continental flight or (b) will also be equipping this bird with frictionless force fields. Atmospheric heating begins to be a significant issue for anything going over mach 3. I believe the SST fleet only does about 8000mph on re-entry, and it does cause them a lot of grief.
"Assuming they've done the same stuff we've done, they'll be just like us." Right. I dunno, why am I even reading this thread? Is there anyone on it with two brain cells to rub together?
And the fact STILL remains that what the CIA thinks about Plame's covert status is entirely relevant, both under the act and as a matter of triable fact. Your argument (and it is precisely that, because your facts are incomplete and your interpretation of their significance biased) is at least stupid, and if also disingenous, then very likely just more of the "right-wing spin" you so casually dismiss.
The prosecutor had abundant reason to believe Plame was covert within the meaning of the act, and listed every one of those reasons in his "Summary". As the following points out, that was never even an issue at trial, and the probability that the judge would have agreed had the judge not ruled it prejudicial to the central case approaches 1.0 by any reasonable interpretation -- assuming, of course, that Fitzgerald didn't lie like a rug in his "Summary" the way Libby did in practically every statement he made to investigators: http://anewerworld.org/?p=1011.
Finally: Why are *you* apparently *not* angry about this? It doesn't bother you that a White House functionary is free to endanger the lives of our secret agents in order to protect what more and more appears to be the outright lies of his superiors? Why, if you don't actually care about Plame's covert status, are you trying to pretend that the right wing spin on this is anything but exactly that?
"Doesn't change the substance of my post"???!! Hell, man, your entire case about what *DEMOCRATS* intended in this bill just falls flat if congress wasn't Democratic when the bill was passed.
This is really so typical of little wingnuts everywhere. It's the O'Reilly Technique: Just make shit up, pretend you're completely unbiased about it, and never admit you lied.
Really, you've earned my contempt, don't you think?
Wow, a wingnut who can do arithmetic. Fascinating.
Notice you don't mention what's stated clearly in the link: "The law passed the House by a vote of 315-32, with all opposing votes coming from Democrats. The law passed the Senate 81-4, with the opponents being Democratic Senators Joseph Biden, Gary Hart, and Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and Republican Senator Charles Mathias." So, essentially, the majority of opposition to the bill, in both houses, came from Democrats.
Well then, indeed, welcome to my planet, Mr. Asshat Jack, where history is actually a matter of record, instead of a prop for whatever idiot arguments you find convenient to make this year.
The Identities Protection Act was passed in 1982, not 1981. It was authored by Republicans, and passed *against* majority Democratic opposition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_Identiti es_Protection_Act. It received that opposition from Democrats because it was written solely to go after guys like Richard Agee, who opposed the misuse of the CIA since 1950 as an agency of right-wing empire-promoting assassination and dirty tricks -- the kind that included the overthrow of the democratically-elected government of Iran, for which the USA has been paying a price for over 50 years -- and who made the mistake of going too far in furtherance of that aim by outing actual CIA employees and getting them killed.
It's remarkably humorous today to watch Victoria Toensing and other Republican operatives (such as yourself) come forward to object that going after Republican shills, tools and traitors like Scooter Libby wasn't what they intended. They *still* don't get what "blowback" is all about.:-)
The reason you cannot explain it any more clearly is because your entire argument is a fact-free turd which you are trying to polish. What the "Democratic Congress that laid out the rules" (and which "Democratic Congress" would that be? The Republican Congress that wrote and passed the agent-identities protection act? Or the Republican Congress that reenacted the special prosecutor law?) wanted or did not want had absolutely nothing to do with this investigation. That investigation was undertaken *entirely* at the behest of the CIA, in response to their *criminal complaint*, which compelled a reluctant DOJ to find out who leaked Valerie Plame's name.
1. It's a Fox News report. They have zero credibility. 2. Just look at the list of related stories. Not a single positive one, and there's even stuff like Wifi laptops endangering children.
Wow! So: - Peer review and scientific consensus are forms of superstitious mass group-think - Or, if not, peer review and scientific consensus == new forms of hysterical politico/religious pogrom - A non-practicing MD novelist == Newton and Einstein - These thoughts are all +5 Insightful May I please have some shoyu with my Refried Straw Men?
Folks, if you bother to look at statistics, NEARLY ALL street crimes involving theft or some other form of pecuniary gain (like burglary, robbery, and the related murders) are committed BY poor people ON poor people, not by poor people on the rich. That's true in the US, and around the world. What most of the comfortable idiots in the US are terrified of is that poor people will finally wake up to the sources of their situation and do precisely what parent assumes is already occurring. Laughable; they've never done it before, why should they start now?
Crack this up, dummy: So-called "leftist" people and organizations (such as the ACLU, which all you Bush Suckers love to excoriate) have defended the First Amendment rights of Nazis, Skinheads, the Klan and lots of other racist trash for DECADES.
I guess I must have missed the day in Management 101 where they taught us that all profit-making shareholder-owned businesses, by definition, MUST support evil in every way, and refrain from doing anything principled, public-spirited, or courageous, under penalty of total loss of shareholder confidence.
You know, I'm a leftist, and I have a better impression of capitalism than most of the Reagan-era "libertarian" idiots here.
Totally agree. Sex is a fact, people, get used to it. I'd rather have my 16-year-old "addicted" to porn than to cigarettes, booze and legal painkillers....
In the livestock sense of "service", perhaps. If that isn't what you meant, then please tell that to:
- All the iPod users with dead batteries, cracked cases, failed mainboards, etc., who've gone to Apple in hopes of getting any kind of real help at all. Make sure you don't do this face-to-face or you may not survive. Then Google "iPod Repair" and look at the thriving aftermarket in non-Apple-authorized businesses providing just that. Do you also need a whack on the head to wake up to the fact that the suction factor with Apple "service" is enough to pull a bowling ball through a cocktail straw?
- All the Apple-purchase-contemplating Window/*nix users who've gone into an Apple store and had their perfectly reasonable queries publicly dissed by some 22-year-old twat with moussed purple hair and an earring. In the immortal words of Meier Kahane: "Never again."
And if that seems trollish, please, by all means, experiment with what I've just described. YMMV, but mine (and that of everyone I know) has not.
Slashdot Mirror
I stand corrected. Thanks for the info.
Uh, yeah, possibly, unless they're either (a) planning to replace the ablative shield once for every two hour cross-continental flight or (b) will also be equipping this bird with frictionless force fields. Atmospheric heating begins to be a significant issue for anything going over mach 3. I believe the SST fleet only does about 8000mph on re-entry, and it does cause them a lot of grief.
"Scramjets, on the other hand, can theoretically fly as fast as Mach 15--nearly 10,000 mph"
Not in an atmosphere, they don't. Unless you think flying droplets of metal and scorched fragments of composites still counts as a "scramjet".
"Assuming they've done the same stuff we've done, they'll be just like us." Right.
I dunno, why am I even reading this thread? Is there anyone on it with two brain cells to rub together?
But only for sufficiently small values of one....
And the fact STILL remains that what the CIA thinks about Plame's covert status is entirely relevant, both under the act and as a matter of triable fact. Your argument (and it is precisely that, because your facts are incomplete and your interpretation of their significance biased) is at least stupid, and if also disingenous, then very likely just more of the "right-wing spin" you so casually dismiss.
The prosecutor had abundant reason to believe Plame was covert within the meaning of the act, and listed every one of those reasons in his "Summary". As the following points out, that was never even an issue at trial, and the probability that the judge would have agreed had the judge not ruled it prejudicial to the central case approaches 1.0 by any reasonable interpretation -- assuming, of course, that Fitzgerald didn't lie like a rug in his "Summary" the way Libby did in practically every statement he made to investigators: http://anewerworld.org/?p=1011.
Finally: Why are *you* apparently *not* angry about this? It doesn't bother you that a White House functionary is free to endanger the lives of our secret agents in order to protect what more and more appears to be the outright lies of his superiors? Why, if you don't actually care about Plame's covert status, are you trying to pretend that the right wing spin on this is anything but exactly that?
"Doesn't change the substance of my post"???!! Hell, man, your entire case about what *DEMOCRATS* intended in this bill just falls flat if congress wasn't Democratic when the bill was passed.
This is really so typical of little wingnuts everywhere. It's the O'Reilly Technique: Just make shit up, pretend you're completely unbiased about it, and never admit you lied.
Really, you've earned my contempt, don't you think?
Wow, a wingnut who can do arithmetic. Fascinating.
Notice you don't mention what's stated clearly in the link:
"The law passed the House by a vote of 315-32, with all opposing votes coming from Democrats. The law passed the Senate 81-4, with the opponents being Democratic Senators Joseph Biden, Gary Hart, and Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and Republican Senator Charles Mathias." So, essentially, the majority of opposition to the bill, in both houses, came from Democrats.
Well then, indeed, welcome to my planet, Mr. Asshat Jack, where history is actually a matter of record, instead of a prop for whatever idiot arguments you find convenient to make this year.
i es_Protection_Act. It received that opposition from Democrats because it was written solely to go after guys like Richard Agee, who opposed the misuse of the CIA since 1950 as an agency of right-wing empire-promoting assassination and dirty tricks -- the kind that included the overthrow of the democratically-elected government of Iran, for which the USA has been paying a price for over 50 years -- and who made the mistake of going too far in furtherance of that aim by outing actual CIA employees and getting them killed.
:-)
The Identities Protection Act was passed in 1982, not 1981. It was authored by Republicans, and passed *against* majority Democratic opposition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_Identit
It's remarkably humorous today to watch Victoria Toensing and other Republican operatives (such as yourself) come forward to object that going after Republican shills, tools and traitors like Scooter Libby wasn't what they intended. They *still* don't get what "blowback" is all about.
The reason you cannot explain it any more clearly is because your entire argument is a fact-free turd which you are trying to polish. What the "Democratic Congress that laid out the rules" (and which "Democratic Congress" would that be? The Republican Congress that wrote and passed the agent-identities protection act? Or the Republican Congress that reenacted the special prosecutor law?) wanted or did not want had absolutely nothing to do with this investigation. That investigation was undertaken *entirely* at the behest of the CIA, in response to their *criminal complaint*, which compelled a reluctant DOJ to find out who leaked Valerie Plame's name.
"it is not relevant what the CIA thinks"?? And what brand of crack are *you* smoking? Jesus.
"Propaganda"? Who are you fucking kidding. Cite precisely ONE example of Moore's so-called propaganda. Idiots.
1. It's a Fox News report. They have zero credibility.
2. Just look at the list of related stories. Not a single positive one, and there's even stuff like Wifi laptops endangering children.
I dunno. "Will all we"? Or perhaps we all will.
Wow! So:
- Peer review and scientific consensus are forms of superstitious mass group-think
- Or, if not, peer review and scientific consensus == new forms of hysterical politico/religious pogrom
- A non-practicing MD novelist == Newton and Einstein
- These thoughts are all +5 Insightful
May I please have some shoyu with my Refried Straw Men?
Folks, if you bother to look at statistics, NEARLY ALL street crimes involving theft or some other form of pecuniary gain (like burglary, robbery, and the related murders) are committed BY poor people ON poor people, not by poor people on the rich. That's true in the US, and around the world. What most of the comfortable idiots in the US are terrified of is that poor people will finally wake up to the sources of their situation and do precisely what parent assumes is already occurring. Laughable; they've never done it before, why should they start now?
Crack this up, dummy: So-called "leftist" people and organizations (such as the ACLU, which all you Bush Suckers love to excoriate) have defended the First Amendment rights of Nazis, Skinheads, the Klan and lots of other racist trash for DECADES.
I guess I must have missed the day in Management 101 where they taught us that all profit-making shareholder-owned businesses, by definition, MUST support evil in every way, and refrain from doing anything principled, public-spirited, or courageous, under penalty of total loss of shareholder confidence.
You know, I'm a leftist, and I have a better impression of capitalism than most of the Reagan-era "libertarian" idiots here.
Duh, because individuals can just go back in and re-edit whatever lies the government shills put in.
OK, Hemos, you've had about 40 people rip you a new one over your lack of copyediting. When, exactly, are you gonna fix this?
Oh, a bought-and-paid for industry lobbyist in a Bush White House cabinet position! Of course! What was I thinking?
Are here: http://www.textronfasteningsystems.com/pressroom/p r/intevia/photos.htm.
Totally agree. Sex is a fact, people, get used to it.
I'd rather have my 16-year-old "addicted" to porn than to cigarettes, booze and legal painkillers....
In the livestock sense of "service", perhaps. If that isn't what you meant, then please tell that to:
- All the iPod users with dead batteries, cracked cases, failed mainboards, etc., who've gone to Apple in hopes of getting any kind of real help at all. Make sure you don't do this face-to-face or you may not survive. Then Google "iPod Repair" and look at the thriving aftermarket in non-Apple-authorized businesses providing just that. Do you also need a whack on the head to wake up to the fact that the suction factor with Apple "service" is enough to pull a bowling ball through a cocktail straw?
- All the Apple-purchase-contemplating Window/*nix users who've gone into an Apple store and had their perfectly reasonable queries publicly dissed by some 22-year-old twat with moussed purple hair and an earring. In the immortal words of Meier Kahane: "Never again."
And if that seems trollish, please, by all means, experiment with what I've just described. YMMV, but mine (and that of everyone I know) has not.
Frankly, fuck 'em.
And Daily KOS supported the bill's passage. The actual story is *slightly* more complicated than the /. headline would suggest.