Campy

Looks like you're in good company... http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20051...?tbd1005044.asp

If Buffalo didn't want them to score, they could have considered tackling him.

Most states I've been to require that a person be 18 to serve drinks (21 in many of them). Also, it is my understanding that you must be 18 years old to work aboard a commercial vessel per USCG regs.

Scowcroft attacks? Shoot, Bush 41 attacks:

This'll be my last post in this thread, but I'll just reiterate that people tend to obstruct justice for a reason. Whether enough evidence can be compiled to indict may be another matter, but people generally don't, I wouldn't think, lie and hide the truth unless the truth would be damaging. I'm of the opinion that Rove and Libby did, but that's only based upon what I've been able to piece together from various news reports. Of course, it is certainly within the realm of possibility that nobody perjured himself, nobody lied, and the events of the past couple of years were more of a mutual misunderstanding than anything else. As an American, that would be my best-case scenario.

Fortunately (for me anyway), I have no problems with my digital cable DVR. But I do know one person who can probably help you out. Fezmid posting in three... two... one...

My fave is still CIVII (yes, I have III). The animated advisors - especially the drunken military advisor - still make me laugh out loud.

It is so. I felt the impact of this thread, or more specifically, that post, all the way down here in Va Bch.

My condolences.

If you don't care whether US interests are harmed, whether senior level officials perjured themselves (a felony), or obstructed justice (another felony), you're more of a lemming than I've ever given you credit for. Wake up man. It's serious business, not a partisan game. Perhaps there was no wrongdoing. Or perhaps there was. The CIA sent a "crime report" to DOJ for investigation. That speaks volumes. It should make any person with half a brain realize that there may be something funny going on. But either way, it is hardly a "waste of tax payer dollars" to determine if a crime was committed- especially one of this magnitude. We're not talking about shady land deals and blowjobs in the oval office here. And remember, it was John "where the eagle soars" Ashcroft who appointed Fitzgerald as the investigator. Surely he wouldn't waste your money, you being lock-step and barrel with the GOP and all... Thinking people should want to get to the bottom of this, which may very well explain why you don't.

Whether she was a "spy," or her status (as far as being covert vs overt) doesn't matter. What matters is whether it potentially harmed US interests. Get that through your thick partisan skull.

Can't say I was disappointed when I checked NFL.com's Gamecenter and saw that Rasta-Ricky had 4 carries for -1 yards.

That would have been Andrew Jackson and his infamous Spoils System. Did I win somethin'? I don't care if a sitting president appoints nothing but frat buddies to posts - provided they're qualified and competent.

You can stick to your talking points, that's cool. I guess my take is that the CIA probably wouldn't have requested an investigation if they didn't think it was serious. If it turns out that the leak could potentially harm US interests (including humint and established contacts), that law most certainly applies, regardless of her status now.

Where's Captain Mcgillicuddy when you need him?

It says two seconds, but it's closer to about 5 seconds in.

Great stuff Lori. Thank you.

I hope I'm right too. That pass was thrown as the Bills were facing a stiff wind. I think (hope) that as the weather turns he'll quickly learn how to contend with The Ralph's unique swirling winds. EDIT: I saw Rubes' post above after responding - but I echo his sentiments

RMPL Look at the previous page Have you read any posts besides the last 3?

As far as I can tell, I'm not ignoring any facts. -Whether or not he broke a law being cited by the media doesn't mean he didn't break other laws. Surely you're aware there are other laws on the books? -The person who you claim authored the bloody law that you keep citing said that it was written for one person - in the link you provided! Laws can not be written for one person according to former Chief Justice Rheinquist's opine, which was included in the link I provided about Bills of Attainder. Doing so means that the person's actions are adjudicated as illegal while denying him due process. That's why they're illegal. See Federalist Paper 44, also in that link I provided for more information. Why do you keep ignoring the Espionage Act of 1917? Why do you keep ignoring that lying to a criminal investigator is obstruction of justice?

No kidding. You'd think they'd at least allow it to be televised regionally for the folks getting out of Dodge, wouldn't you?

I think KH takes what he's given. If they give us the long ball, I think he's not afraid to take a shot downfield. If no one gives us that, then we'll let one of the WRs run 'em off deep and take the underneath stuff. As long as the chains are moving, I'm happy.

I'm sure the lawyers around here could verify, but I think they have jurisdiction because the suit was brought before their court. They have venue until/unless it's challenged? A couple of friends of mine are attorneys and from their conversations with each other, I gather that venue is, or can be anyway, one of the more confusing subjects in law.

Sorry if that made you feel like I was calling you out, but I was quoting the article, not you.

Yuppers. I be reel smart! Frankly, I digressed in those posts. To me the real issue is that we have senior administration officials lying during a criminal investigation about leaks from said administration. Regardless if the leak itself was illegal, lying to cover it up is. Granted, it won't get the airtime that Clinton's lies about his extramarital hummer did (sensationalism sells), but it's not an entirely different set of circumstance either - provided no law was broken by the leak.