GottaHurt said:
O.K., in reference to the poll, it was a bit tongue in cheek, any poll can be slanted. Poll a certain group in San Fran in regard to gay rights , it'll be favorable, poll a certain group on the same topic in Pigs Knuckle Arkansas, and it won't be favorable. Got it.
The bogus legislation being passed in Congress, is window dressing.Elections coming up in '06 & '08, and our elected officials are covering their a$$es before the campaigns start.They'll hold up their "voting records" touting how they passed legislation holding the President accountable.Gimme a break, these folks are snakes in the grass, period.
When poll after poll come out with similar findings, I believe it shows that there is truth to the findings. Look at the presidential election polls of 2004. Both Kerry and Bush were neck-in-neck. The only reason Bush won was because he won Ohio. Those polls had it pegged. Same with the polls in the 2000 race.
The link does work, it's for a book called "The Art of War" by Sun Tzu.
Know your adversary, everything about them, their habits, their habitat, their customs, etc... The more knowledge you gain, the more beneficial it is to you.
I am not going to lie to you and tell you it doesn't work if it does. This book does not answer the question I asked you. I will ask you again:
please explain to me how someone has to know the specific location of Iraq to have an understanding of what is happening there. I remember learning about Pearl Harbor when I was a kid. I didn't know where it occurred, but I understood what happened there and what we did in response to that.
Social Security runs a surplus every year, if our elected officials would leave that surplus alone, let it roll over and draw interest, Social Security would have no problems meeting the current and future demands.But, the fools in Washington skim that surplus off, and allocate it elsewhere, which is what is creating the problem.
In a nutshell, they take our money, invest it, promise us a whopping 2% return, then tax us on our benefit!?! The clincher is, in and around 2018, Social Security will go into the red, they're either going to have to cut our benefit, or raise our taxes to cover the deficit they created!
IT'S OUR MONEY! The taxes wipe out the 2% return on our money, then they want to cut our benefit and/or raise our Fed Tax to cover their criminal behaviour?
The reason Bush's plan was so unpopular is because 1) It'll wipe out the slush fund the "criminals" have been accustomed to paying for their pet projects. 2) The criminals use scare tactics mainly aimed at the elderly telling them that their benefit will be cut here and now, which isn't true.
The true suckage, is that my generation, and the ones that follow, are going to get hosed. We're going to pay more, and receive less. They've already raised the age of eligibility. I can't collect full benefit until age 67? I'm forced to pay my entire life, then they tell me when I can collect my money? I get a 2% return, then they tax me 8-12%? What kind of lunacy is that?
This isn't a partisan issue, this is our money, that they're stealing, and then playing it off as if nothing is amiss.
I don't mind paying in the money, which will help cover those who didn't or aren't going to plan for their future, but at least give me/us a fair shake. Is that so unreasonable?
I don't have enough knowledge on this topic to be able to argue specifics. I agree that something needs to be done. I have been paying Social Security taxes since I was 16 years old. While I am planning my retirement without relying on that money, I believe I am due what I have been paying for for the last 20 years. Regardless, what Bush wanted to do was not going to fix the problem. For him, there was only one option--agree with me or go to hell. The man never listens to anyone. A uniter? OMG, this president has been the worst divider I have ever personally witnessed.
First of all, Libby had a conversation with his boss (Cheney) about Plame.They both have security clearance.No crime. What's in question, is who outed Plame. Word has it, she is well known in D.C. as an "operative".
The fact that this story or non-story has been buried suggests that there's no wrong doing.We'll see.
He is charged with lying under oath, GottaHurt. I agree that a discussion between Cheney and Libby is lawful. Based on my reading of the statute involved, I do not believe that it was violated because Plame does not appear to meet the criteria of being "covert." Her status at the CIA was classified.
You can tell me until you're blue in the face that it was well known in DC that she was an operative for the CIA. Sorry, I'm not buying it. The FBI went to her neighbors's houses and NOT ONE OF THEM knew she worked for CIA. Her next-door neighbors have been friends with them for over 5 years and they were stunned.
Anyway, I see that you are failing to acknowledge that Libby is charged with lying under oath. You can continue to defend him and say that there was no crime (lying under oath is a crime) and that there's no wrongdoing. That will be up to the jury to decide. I am according NO WEIGHT to anything you have to say on this subject. I am not saying that he is guilty, but your attempts to say he is innocent without acknowledging that there is evidence against him ring hollow to me. But I must remind myself that if this was Clinton in office and the VP's Chief of Staff was in deep doo doo, I might make a case saying that he was innocent too (although I think I am far more realistic than you are).
Delay, he's been charged for a crime that occured before the law was passed, making it a crime!?! The fact that it took 3 grand juries to get an indictment is the real story.
Hmmm, that's why a federal judge chose to keep the charges on conspiracy--you know, because the crime that was allegedly committed occurred after the law was passed. Sorry, GottaHurt, but I highly doubt you are a federal judge
and have seen all the evidnece
and have a full understanding of the legalities involved in this case, so I won't be giving anything you say on this subject any probative value. I am not saying that DeLay is guilty, although in my heart, I believe he has committed some wrongdoing. But I am willing to wait to see what the jury decides in this case.
Clinton, he was playing grab a$$ with some ho's and denied it under oath. He could have avoided the whole scandal if he would have just admitted it. No one would have cared.I didn't.
I can't believe we actually agree. :shock: Apply this to Libby's testimony. GottaHurt, have you read the indictment? Have you read the transcript from the press conference that Fitzgerald had? If so, you would see the different stories that Libby told while under oath.
I pointed out the State of Florida where I reside, our local and state governments handle the crisis. California they have mudslides, fires and earthquakes, never any sqwauking going on when those natural disasters occur. The Govenor of Louisiana, and the Mayor of New Orleans knew in advance that a cat 4-5 hurricane was approaching.They were ill prepared, and the people of Louisiana payed the price.The burden was on them to evacuate, safeguard and police their state. They had little or no security at their shelters, along with basic necessities such as food, water and toilet facilities as well.
It's not the President of the United States' job, to make sure the Superdome has porta-potties!
FEMA is a check writing agency, plain and simple, they have no emergency equipment.They work with local and state officials, writing checks for goods and services after disaster strikes.They wrote me a check for temporary roof repairs until my insurance company awarded me my claim.
Why they were made the scapegoat is beyond me.
I agree with this to some extent. It appears that the Mayor and the Governor were not fully prepared and that they should take some blame. Sorry, but Michael Brown deserved some blame. He claimed NOT to know about the people in the Superdome, when e-mails showed he knew about them. Have you read the e-mail exchanges he was having with others while people drowned in New Orleans? I'm glad his flabby a$$ was removed, as it should have been. The man didn't know what the hell he was doing.
Then you might want to dig through these very forums a little bit more.There's several individuals here who are always touting how far superior France is in terms of taking care of their people, again, a little tongue in cheek jab at those individuals.
I am not one of them, and I don't care what others say about France. Therefore, your excuse for using France as a model of how we are better than France means nothing to me.
