While I would gnaw of my left leg to support legalization of pot. Lets be clear when discussing the financial benefits. Bureaucracies would need to be created staffed and funded to oversee the governmental, uh... oversight of legalized but controlled and taxed weed. Though perhaps that would be offset but the tens of thousands of people who would presumably be let out of prison. Perhaps they could be given jobs with the newly created Pot Oversight Board.

That being said, let me follow up with PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEEEEEEESE!

Operating from the assumption that the only agenda repubs have is reviving their party. To that end, they argue against a truth commission which would hurt their party further without tarnishing dems too much, in the sense that without prosecutions the dems can't be screamed at incessantly about conducting witch-hunts. There hope, I believe is to go for a win/win by either getting the dems to drop it, or go for actual investigations/prosecutions which would give them something to scream about (witch-hunts) because while hypothetically for prosecutions as argued against the truth commission, they'd never actually support them in fact claiming that the country was in such dire need, it would be irresponsible to focus on witch-hunts. And although I feel nothing else is more important, frankly I feel the MSM would gladly jump aboad the 'dems have shirked their responsibility to help the ailing country to 'go after' bush/conservatives' meme.

If the state's sex ed strategy is the same as the one used by priests to molest kids, something is VERY wrong.

I hate the fucking tiered legal system of the U.S.! Few things make me more angry about being an American. You know what happens to me if I dismiss a subpoena? Nightstick to the head and jailtime. Makes me fucking sick.

"What if Batman was in "The French Connection"?"

After I saw the movie "Seven" I thought the same thing. That would have been (and how it should have been) a great Batman movie. The bad guy was a perfect Batman villain. Just imagine the scene near the beginning where the cops are investigating the glutton's death. The cops come in, do their investigation, leave. Batman slips in the window, (with cops still outside) and begins his investigation. The look and feel of "Seven" would have been a spectacular vehicle for Batman. Glad to hear Watchmen might not be bad. I'd be happy if it didn't insult my intelligence.

Its really simple if you look at it this way: Its hard enough to find TWO people who can have a mutually fulfilling, emotionally mature physical relationship. Its almost impossible to find 3. Somebody is going to have a problem. You have to anticipate this and be willing to work with it, because it can't be negated.

Its obvious then! To prevent suicide in our soldiers, we NEED to send them into combat.

Having been a long time fan of 'V for Vendetta' it was of course impossible that I view the movie from a blank slate. That being said, no the movie was not good. If it can be said that being based on the comic it attempted to convey the depth and intelligence of the source material, then it failed miserably.

Couldn't Padilla or Al-Marri force the issue by simply swearing out a complaint against the govt on charges of kidnapping? the govt would have to defend that their detention was legal.

I know it wouldn't be allowed to proceed but interesting to think about.

I'd appeal on that basis alone? How can past factual activities be rendered moot? Regardless of current circumstances, past circumstances still happened?

If I rob a bank, get caught, go to trial, then in the middle of the trial I return all the money: Can I have the case thrown out because the robbery is now moot?

Horseshit.

I'm sure this is old news to some but i recently noticed that the shout-outs to sponsors at the beginning of programs are now sponsor-produced commercials now for those sponsors? Isn't it supposed to be non-commercial?

Regarding PBS showing infomercials, the point of view of the hawker is of no importance. Whether or not his product works has no actual impact on the fact that PBS is showing infomercials.

Who I would love to hear from on this issue is someone from PBS, and specifically I do NOT want to hear a defense of the product but an explanation/justification for running infomercials.

A post from 4 economists, basically said as 73% stake holders in AIG, the govt could force AIG to spin off the division in question as a separate company, let it go bankrupt, all contracts are null and void.

The double standard was made apparent in 2000. And hammered home the next 8 years. Where you been?

So, the guy who at the time of the comments had already been elected president, would “never make it in the major leagues”?

Nice analytical powers there, Dick. No wonder the wars went so well.

What do you mean Cheney is telling the truth? Cheney was saying that Obama wouldn't make it in the big leagues AFTER Obama had already won the election for... the president of the USA. I don't know what leagues you're thinking of but prez of the US is about as big league as you get.

In other words, Cheney was wrong. As usual.

If they're made with the same production values and sense of class that your average local car dealership commercials are made.

When the going gets tough, the tough haul ass?