Guard Dog

I think a Bladerunner type game will fill an empty niche. And since WB going to release an 25th anniversary edition this year, they better get jumping on it if they want to capitalize!

Ummm, you do know that Libby did not out Plame right? It was Richard Armitage. Ironically, he was not prosecuted. I think your half right actually, it was Richard Novak right? That was who she was outed to, Novak is a reporter, Armitage told him she was Wilsons wife and CIA.

Ummm, you do know that Libby did not out Plame right? It was Richard Armitage. Ironically, he was not prosecuted.

Well, I have been hoping for a PC port of Mass Effect. Instead, we get this.... Well, maybe it won't be so bad.

Apologies to Wals, but I must answer this. To date, no credible evidence has been offered that the CIA falsified intelligence on the orders of the administration. Yes, it was bad intelligence and there is enough blame to spread around there. From bad info out of Mi6 to Clinton and George H Bush's decimation of the CIA to the GWB admin presenting only facts they thought "relevant". And you could argue Congress did not do their due diligence in fact checking. But you seem to believe there was some kind of deliberate conspiracy to deceive here, and there is simply no evidence of that. That is hyperbole and does nothing to contribute to the debate. I believe the "bill" you are referring to here was actually an executive order signed by Bush on 11/13/2001 which did, in effect, suspend Habeas Corpus for anyone who was designated an "enemy combatant". It was later codified into law by Congress in the Defense Appropriation Act. It did not make the news because it was buried in an otherwise non descript bill. And yes this is a sickening and despicable thing to do. And it was also shot down by the Supreme Court in 2006 in Hamdan v Rumsfeld. The court ruled that Congress could not limit Habeas Corpus motions by American citizens. Congress revisited this in 2006 in the "Military Commissions Act". Only now the wording specified that non US citizens who were enemy combatants could not seek Habeas Corpus redress from the court. THAT has since been upheld by the US Court of appeals in Boumediene v. Bush. The SCOTUS has declined to review the case so it will stand. So, no they have NOT suspended Habeas Corpus for citizens. But yes, they did try. The system worked as it should. No argument there. It should never have come to that but it does not change the fact the the President of the United States committed a crime (Perjury and Obstruction of Justice) during an investigation that should never have taken place. But I was only citing this example to illustrate my point. Of course you have the right to that opinion. And you are not the only one who thinks that way judging by the approval ratings. But to return to topic, I was only pointing out that the people crying over Libby not going to prison were the same people who had no problems with Clinton not being punished for the same offenses. And had no problem with anyone he pardoned.

The first assumes facts not in evidence. There has been no credible evidence supporting the theory that the CIA deliberately falsified intelligence at the behest of the Bush admin. The second is not an impeachable offense.

@Tale, I have this self destructive behaviour problem. Sand, being proven wrong about something does not necassarily mean you lied about it to begin with. If you were absolutely certain I was harboring space aliens in my garage because some educated people presented good evidence of it. And I added fuel to the fire by refusing to let you see inside, then if you kicked down my door and barged in, if I did not have them would that make you a liar? Or just wrong?

What I'm driving at is, the majority of posters here wanted Libby in prison. On the surface they say it is because he comitted a crime that warrants the sentence. But underneath I think (based on many comments) it is because they hate Bush so much they want SOMEONE to go to jail for every percieved wrong Bush has ever done. I'm just trying to get them to admit that by pointing out that when Clinton did the exact same thing under similar circumstances none of those same people who want Libby punished, wanted Clinton punished. And the main reason (not the only) is that Libby is a Republican and Clinton is a Democrat. That is why so many posters here are angry at the commutation. Clinton gives free and clear pardons to drug dealers and bank robbers, corrupt politicians and terrorists and nobody here has a problem with it. Bush commutes part of the sentence of a political flunky and they are ready for a civil war. That is the bias I'm just trying to get everyone to admit to. I'm not saying it is right or wrong to be that way, but I do think it's important for people to understand why the feel the way the do. And kudos to Sand who was honest enough to admit it way back on page one! I understand where you guys are coming from. I just disagree on that point.

Such as?

No you are right, the more counts you have, usually the stiffer the sentence. But the counts almost always run concurrent so you will not be in prision longer than it takes to seve one count. For example, in FL, one count will get you six months. But two might get you two eight month terms that run concurrent. It does not matter what you lied about. The law makes no distinction as to how serious the offense is because that can be completely subjective (once again that is Florida, I'm not sure about other states of federal. We have a Truth-In-Sentencing law here). Perjury is perjury. But what I'm trying to do is force eveyone to see their own bias here.

No you are right, the more counts you have, usually the stiffer the sentence. But the counts almost always run concurrent so you will not be in prision longer than it takes to seve one count. For example, in FL, one count will get you six months. But two might get you two eight month terms that run concurrent. It does not matter what you lied about. The law makes no distinction as to how serious the offense is because that can be completely subjective. Perjury is perjury. But what I'm trying to do is force eveyone to see their own bias here.

No, I agree the concept of special prosecutors has been much abused in recent years. However, let me turn this around on you. Clinton would never have committed the crime if there had not been an investigation into an matter unrelated to the crime. Can we not say the same for Libby? The DOJ began the investigation KNOWING it was Armitage who leaked Plame's ID. So does that not make the whole investigation unnecessary? And if there had been no investigation Libby would never have had the opportunity to commit the crime. So I ask again, and please answer this: If Libby deserves to go to prison for perjury, doesn't Bill Clinton deserve to go for the exact same offense committed under the exact same circumstances?

I think that both prostitution and Drugs would loose their stygma if we were to just legalize them and make them live up to certain standards (like prostitutes must have a blood test every week type of thing.) So do it. Write your State rep and suggest a bill to him. You live in California right. Just let him/her know how much money could be made in taxing and licensing. Nevada did it and it works there. That is how we do things in America.

There is one thing you are missing here Teeth, and as much as it sucks, there is no getting around it. The Iraq war was legal. Unconventional to be sure, but the Congress did give the President permission to attack Iraq on Oct 11, 2002 in a joint resolution. The Constitution grants Congress the authority to declare war. They chose to give that authority away in this case and that was also legal. And a little stupid. You cannot impeach a President unless he violates law, and Bush has not done that. Most of the arguments on this board are based on emotion rather than cold reasoning. You (not you Teeth, just a general term) hate the war, the man, the political philosophy, therefore think he deserves to be impeached. You THINK Constituitonal freedoms have been violated. But you cannot say which ones because the answer is none. But if people THINK they have it takes on a truth of it's own. The cold truth of the matter is Bush has not comitted a crime. Clinton on the other hand lied under oath and obstructed justice. Granted, I do not think he deserved to be impeached, but he actually DID something illegal and opened the door. If he had just come out from the get go and said "Yes, I did that. So what?" the whole business would never have happened. Technically, yes. I'm not sure about federal sentencing guidelines but in Florida we allow judges very little wiggle room in determining sentencing. The penalty for perjury under Florida Criminal Code is 6-18 months in prison with a fine. Perjury is perjury. The court may not take motive under consideration in determining sentencing. That is the jury's job. That is why I dislike the concept of "Hate Crime" because it makes a judgement on motive, which is unknowable, and unmeasurable. I could easily get side tracked here but to stay on topic, my whole point here is not to defend Bush or impune Clinton. I am simply pointing out that everyone is screaming about "corruption" from one political party, but is mute about the same actions from the other political party. That is hipocrisy.

I'd say that pretty well makes my point. You and Gorgon have both openly stated your dislike for the current administration and everyone in it. You have both stated you like the democrats. And here you have just said that the same crime committed by both sides deserves different punishment. Harsher for the side you dislike, less for the side you like. Remember, perjury is perjury. I'm not saying being a partisan is a bad thing, Pop. I'm just trying to point out the inherent hypocrisy you must accept as soon as you make yourself into one.

Pop, you side stepped the question. Both commited the same crime. Do they both deserve prision? Perjury is perjury right?

It is a lie under oath, that is Perjury, de facto and de jure. But by trying to put a happy face on it you are side stepping my question.

Bloody Brits for always changing English at a whim. No kidding, they act like they think THEY invented the language or something.

Excerpts from a long article: Link! Article The article does go into good detail about the hard science of the mission, and some good details about Ceres and Vesta. But the part I find most interesting is the evolution of the Ion Engine. For those who do not know, it works by applying slow steady acceleration rather that short powerful thrusts. The advantage is that as velocity begins to increase, acceleration is still applied at a constant rate. In a chemical engine, fuel is burned until sufficient speed is reached then the engines shut town to conserve fuel. An ion engine is always accelerating. It's unclear if this will ever be useful for manned spacecrafts but I think is is a big step in the right direction. One of the big hurdles to manned interplanetary travel is that to carry sufficient fuel for the journey increases the mass of the spacecraft (because of the mass of the fuel) to the point that... well, you get the idea.

For those of you calling for impeachment, try pointing out to me what law, or Constitutional clause or amendment Bush has violated. I won't hold my breath waiting for your answer. At least with Clinton there was a crime committed. Perjury. It did not merit impeachment and that entire debacle was less about rule of law than it was about politics. I find it incredibly ironic that Libby was also convicted of perjury and most people here seems to think he deserved to go to prison for 30 months. His prosecution was political also, just like Clinton. As Enoch correctly pointed out. I wonder, since Bill Clinton was censured and disbarred by the court for Perjury why none of you who thought Libby deserved prison are calling for Clinton to go to prison. Perjury is a crime right? Or is it only a crime when committed by someone of the opposite political party from you?

Actually, I remember reading somewhere that Christian holidays were timed to coincide with Roman holidays as a measure of protection from persecution. I guess the Roman got suspicious when people were celebrating when there was no official holiday. Not sure if that is true but it is plausable. Your theory makes sense too. Did not know that bit about Mary/Diana though, pretty interesting. Im not Catholic and the Protestant faiths do not venerate Mary though. I'm Baptist. But my anwwer about Christmans applies to Easter as well. If you believe in the significance of the event pick a day to celebrate it. That it is probably not THE day it happened should not be a show stopper.

As religious holidays go, Christmas is pretty low key. There is just a 1 in 365 chance that Dec 25 is actually the anniversary of the birth of Christ. But it is important to pick a day to celebrate the fact that it happened. Yes I know some of you atheists and agnostics and miscellaneous others clenching your fists at what I just said. Jesus of Nazareth is a historical fact. Now the significance of him is left up to what you believe but you cannot deny the man existed. But, since I got divorced, I don't really celebrate beyond getting presents for my dogs. To me Easter is much more important because that celebrates the event that actually makes Christianity what it is. Or at least what is should be. Thats my $.02

I'm about 300 pages in and you are right about pondering style. Reading it is like trying to eat a boot. But is is getting better as it goes on.

I got one in South Dakota back in 1993. It was around $60 and the cop (state police) gave me the option of paying him there and then. I handed him three $20 bills and that was it. I always wondered if he just went to lunch with that $60 rather than turn in the ticket.

You are a wise man Tale, and you have the coolest avatar.