Crap Throwing Monkey

It had to be a bad snap/hold. Just being in the pros implies a basic level of competence that generally means you get close to the goal. Kickers generally don't miss that badly without help.

In a great many meanings of the phrase.

Let's see...FCS, DD(X), LCS, and FCS...that's about $35-$50B right there in DoD programs that haven't a prayer of developing a viable weapons system. Okay, Congress...your job is done. You can thank me later.

Yeah, draw it for me. Given that you're idiot enough to link to Alex Jones' crap, I expect the drawing will be rather like a JP-Era helmet design.

That's !@#$ing whacked. sh-- like that's the main reason I'd never want to be president. We live in a country that laughs at the kings and worships the court jesters.

A good chunk of that (100 yards) was on two runs. And the 'Skins offense hasn't done anything. End of the third quarter, and this is the first time all game they've crossed midfield. 111 yards offense right now...and most of THAT came on the current drive. Tough for any defense to perform with offensive support like that.

Particularly as that would have been ten years after we kicked their asses out of power.

Why the hell not? A special prosecutor hunts until he finds something, thus embarrassing the incumbent. Only difference here is: it's not the president directly (yet. I'm sure they're working on that), and the lies they're accused of telling were at the very least peripherally related to the investigation (because what the hell did shtuping a White House intern have to do with Whitewater anyway? Why would Starr even ask? At least Fitz is staying on topic...)

Personally, I'd rather see them go 0-16 than see Mike Williams in a tutu.

You have gasoline in your neck?

That was actually funny the first forty times I heard it. You can't just let a joke die a natural death, can you? You've got to beat it into submission...

Why would Martha Stewart? Because they're uncertain... In Libby's case, I wouldn't be surprised if it went something like: when the investigation started, Libby wasn't sure what, if any, his role was in "outing" Plame, as while he knows he talked about her, he was by no means certain he was in the clear. Ergo, he lied ("obfuscated" seems a better word, actually), just in case he needed to cover his ass.

No administration is going to avoid the appearance of impropriety as long as the media frenzy for scandal inspires special prosecutors to empower themselves with the mandate "investigate until you find something." Happened with Clinton, happening with Bush, it'll happen with whoever comes next...

If you've lost perspective, it's time to pull out. Seriously. My biggest mistakes (holding Loral well into bankruptcy, for example - I've got a $20k investment that's worth, at today's close, seven dollars. Since the commission on the sale would be twelve, I'd actually have to pay five to close the position. ) have happened when I've lost perspective.

It just occurred to me, too, that with all the dust the collapse threw into the air...by now, probably everyone in the country has inhaled at least one particle of bone dust from lower Manhattan. Creepy...

Single most important thing is to identify the fool in the market...and if you can't identify him, assume you're the fool. In other words, if you can't decide if the fools are selling...sell. And I've never gone wrong selling a position. I've only gone wrong holding one. If there is any doubt, there is no doubt. Sell.

Given your screen name and the fact that I'm an active trader...I can't tell if you're serious or mocking me... But assuming you're serious...what do you mean by "get over it"? Financially get over it? Emotionally? Financially...it depends on how much you lost, how much of what you lost you need, and what your responsibilities are (for example: I take smaller risks now that I'm married than I did when I was single. I take smaller risks with my IRA than I do with my "play money" - i.e. money I can afford to lose - in my trading account). Emotionally...well, personally, I just accept the fact that it happens. Sometimes you ride the bull, sometimes the bull rides you. I've made $30k in a day before...and I've lost $10k in ninety seconds (yes, ninety seconds. No sh--. Established a position, the phone rang, I got up to answer it, and by the time I got back to the computer the position had caved in. That was pretty !@#$ed up.) And I think the bottom line is: if you can't sleep at night with those kinds of events running through your mind, trading probably isn't for you. Chalk it up to experience, and next time either develop a more philosophical and phlemegatic attitude towards it, or invest in some decent mutual funds.

What? So because her position was classified, they're guilty because they didn't ask what she did? That would therefore mean that they couldn't "out" her, as they couldn't have known her presence at CIA was classified...and you're saying that - not asking and not knowing - is somehow worse than knowing and consciously talking? You're seriously reaching. No, the fact that she was in DO is neither significant nor relevant. The fact that she was working under a cover story to mask her work at CIA is significant and relevant. That the work was under the Directorate of Operations...where, precisely is the significance of that? Is working under Ops, as opposed to say Intel or Sci-Tech, supposed to make a cover more important? Again...reaching...

Of course, Halloween is most properly called All Halloweds' Eve, as the evening before All Saints' Day. So, in effect, those whose religious beliefs are offended are basically saying they're offended by All Saints' Day... ...so maybe they're Islamic? Hell, maybe they're just Protestants who dislike Catholicism...

That's pretty much irrelevent. Just working in DO doesn't mean you're maintaining a cover to the point that you can't admit you work for the CIA. Not that there isn't other evidence that she was...just that that little tidbit isn't evidence.

Or you could have just put on a !@#$ing sweater, you big crybaby. Or didn't FEMA give you one?

Actually, I think the defense they should use is the one Martha Stewart should have used: if he's charged with lying, what's he lying for? To cover up the commission of a crime...that the prosecution themselves can't establisih the commission of anyway? So Libby's accused of lying to cover...what? Where's the predicate criminal act here that necessitated lying? Yes, I know that's not the law...in the eyes of the law, lying to prosecutors is a crime in and of itself not requiring a predicate act. In the eyes of the law. In the eyes of a jury, however...a good attorney arguing it might just cloud the issue enough to get a "not guilty" verdict. Particularly in this case; in Stewart's case, the prosecutors at least had enough evidence to bring the predicate act (insider trading) to trial, though they couldn't get a conviction. Here, they can't even manage that much.

That'll probably be his defense strategy. "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury...the defendant calls himself 'Scooter Libby'. Clearly mens rea doesn't apply, as he couldn't possibly expect anyone to take him seriously as 'Scooter Libby'...so he must be found not guilty..."

Any game with Joe Theisman is a good game to mute.

That there was no FEMA in the '70s may have had something to do with it. Personally, I think anyone who forsakes cleanup duty for bitching on the internet about the lack of people cleaning up might want to take a step back and reexamine their situation. "God helps those who help themselves..." and all...