chucK

Yeah, me too. Where is that crack?!

So getting back to the topic of this thread (Supreme court justice). I'm no legal scholar, but reading in the main stream media leads me to believe that Alito, if confirmed, would be pretty far to the right of most of the current justices. Now, I was thinking, this (Alito's rightness) in itself won't really guarantee that all hell is going to break loose in terms of our lofty lefty values. What is really going to matter is who is going to be the next swing justice? Who will be bumped into O'Connor's place if Alito is confirmed? Whoever of the nine has 4 on his/her left and 4 on his/her right is gonna be the one to be deciding a lot of issues. So c'mon you Court afficionados out there, who will it be? Are we in trouble? What's it mean?

Thank you Peter, for graciously conceding to our point that the alleged deceptive marketing practices committed by the Bush administration would, if true, lay low their justifications for this war. Of course, I would go a bit further and remove the alleged from the deceptive marketing practices (for another example, see Stonehead's second link). I'm not sure if you wish to argue that the Bush administration was not being deceptive at all because they carefully distinguished between imminent and whatever you're saying they said. Though I may not understand it totally (your previous post does help though, thanks!), I will concede your point of imminent versus whatever. I think there are still ample grounds to call bullshit on much of this administration's justifications for war. So feel free to say that many democrats (including yours truly) don't really understand your "imminent" argument. But also understand that most of us don't really care much about this careful distinction, in the face of the ever clearer storyline that the crooks in the Whitehouse lied their asses off to get us into this war.

Current govt.'s got some good state intervention and protectionism going on with respect to the drug industry. Medicare prescription drug company giveaway, protection of their monopoly rights, forbidding imports, and pressuring other nations to crackdown on the comptetion. I consider myself left of center. I previously posted what would appeal to me.

Peter, I just don't get your continual arguments about "imminent" versus italics-highlighted stuff. Are they meant to in some way minimize the more and more obvious deceptive marketing practices used by the Bush adminstration to lead us into a disastrous foreign-policy blunder? Or are they merely semantic pedantry?

Depends on what your defintion of "read" is.

You're doin' a heckuva job Brownie!

"You're doin' a heckuva job, Brownie!"

More juicy Michael Brown email: "On Aug. 31, in response to a message detailing how people are being ``kicked out'' of New Orleans hotels and that food and water had run out at the Superdome, the city's primary shelter, Brown responded, ``Thanks for the update. Anything specific I need to do or tweak?''" link

"Riot the unbeatable high Riot shoots your nerves to the sky Riot playing into their hands Tomorrow you're homeless Tonight it's a blast!"

And here's our payoff! (for avoiding all aspects of socialism, even the good ones)

You calling Peter Puget a liberal? Please reference his repeated discussions centering on the meaning of imminent threat.

I wonder which White House Official(s) spilled the beans on this one. Or perhaps it was from a former Hill staffer. And this story too! http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/11/02/alqaeda-escape051102.html Though, I think the coolest news from "inside the beltway" is the fact that Harry Reid spurred the formation of a Senate committee to report on a Senate committee. And some people say the dems are rudderless!

What about that route on Baring? What about Condomorphine? That's 7 pitches, right?

I clip using dogbone draws only when I'm climbing with someone else's rack.

There's a pay-site on the West side now? You climbed Wasteland from the West side?

For like half a buck more per sling you can get those mammut dymneema superthin slings. They are supple and thin and really nice when tripling up the 24" sling to make a quickdraw. They alleviate the problem of bulkiness of the tripled-sling quickdraw method. Get as many of those as you can, then fill out the rest of your quickdraw rack with whatever. I find no need for any double-length slings. If I need a longer extension, I just clip two single-length slings together. It helps that my quickdraw rack is almost exclusively of the tripled-sling variety. There are sport routes out there (Prince of Darkness, Infinite Bliss, Chossmaster ) that have pitches with 15+ clips, so don't stop at 12. Though 12 will get you through most situations (you can usually combine with your partner for those maxi-clipups). Finally, if you don't know what the hell we are talking about by the "tripled-sling" thing. Then ask away. I'm sure someone here knows a link that has a picture and explanation of this super-handy method.

I'm not saying I think Bush chose to pick A new candidate to distract from the Libby problems (though the timing of Meiers' withdrawal does seem pretty coincidental). My point was that I think Bush picked an overtly extreme right-wing candidate mainly for the two reasons I stated above. Because of these reasons, I predict you're gonna get your brawl instead of the evade-a-thon that characterized the Roberts confirmation.

I think we will see a "bareknuckles brawl" this time as you wish. The reason being that Bush needs a distraction from his current problems. He has shown again and again that a good way to distract attention from important issues and solidify his right-wing base is to divide the country. I predict a much more "forthcoming" judicial candidate this time around

Ha Ha! All these hardcore biker dudes on the website but it's Dave Shultz that gets the chicks with his biker appeal. Rock on Dave Suck it Cobra Commander bitch! Jon you been played! And you other biker wannabees DAVE'S THE FUCKING KING!!!!!

Minx, AFAICT he did not let it go. He outed the bastard on his last post! Tomtom and Archie, I think Minx has a point on the fact that you'd be paying for the insurance anyway. It seems that you could reasonably charge a rider for any marginal cost (extra dollars it costs you to drive to-from the crag). Since you're paying for the insurance anyway, there is no marginal cost for the extra hundred miles that weekend. Wear and tear, car cost/expected mileage and gas all have pretty easily defined marginal costs per/mile. Now whether it's reasonable to pass these costs on is pretty academic. The practical rule followed in capitalism is supply and demand. What can you get for it? Actual marginal cost is a reasonable way to justify expenses so the person feels they are not being gypped. If they feel gypped they might not ride with you again. If you care about that (i.e. you want some "return business") then you might not want to charge so much next time. Let's also not forget the fact that the driver has to get up earlier and get home later, and also has to drive, which though not terrible, I'd rather not do if I don't have to. If both people trade off driving it's the best as all of this stuff works out. No money needs to be exchanged at all. If one person is always doing the sponging (e.g. Gary), then they really should consider that however much they are paying, it really isn't enough . Oh yeah, and with some of my regular partners we have a loosely followed rule that the rider brings the beer

I find that UW piece a striking revelation. I never realized that politics is all political!! Whew.

"In the coming days, the left will broadcast -- with a muted glee that should repulse every American -- the exact moment when the Iraq War's death toll reaches 2,000 American lives. Nancy Pelosi will shoot off a press release, Howard Dean will update the DNC talking points, MoveOn.org will send out a disingenuous fundraising E-mail and Cindy Sheehan, who has already announced her plans for the event, will return to the White House to be arrested (in front of television cameras, naturally). This is pure politics, and the left is playing its hand well." From the UW Daily!!!

Which event this week will come first? a) Plamegate indictments (or announcement of no indictments) link or b) The 2000th US soldier is killed in the Iraq debacle? link

"HUTCHINSON: I certainly hope that if there is going to be an indictment . . . that it is an indictment on a crime and not some perjury technicality where they couldn't indict on the crime and so they go to something just to show that their two years of investigation was not a waste of time and taxpayer dollars. So they go to something that trips someone up because they said something in the first grand jury and then maybe they found new information or they forgot something and they tried to correct that in a second grand jury. . . . "MR. RUSSERT: But the fact is perjury or obstruction of justice is a very serious crime and Republicans certainly thought so when charges were placed against Bill Clinton before the United States Senate. Senator Hutchison. "SEN. HUTCHISON: Well, there were charges against Bill Clinton besides perjury and obstruction of justice. And I'm not saying that those are not crimes. . . . I think that it is important, of course, that we have a perjury and an obstruction of justice crime, but I also think we are seeing grand juries and U.S. attorneys and district attorneys that go for technicalities, sort of a gotcha mentality in this country." For the record, there were two articles of impeachment against Clinton: One for perjury, one for obstruction of justice. No other charges. Hutchison, like most Senate Republicans voted "guilty" on both of them. And in a statement , she explained her vote this way: "If only the President had followed the simple, high moral principle handed to us by our Nation's first leader as a child and had said early in this episode 'I cannot tell a lie,' we would not be here today." from here