The real reason why Rice decided to testify under oath. No precedence my a$$

[Pennstate]

9/11 commision threatened to release 1945 photo of Chief of Staff before Pearl Harbor Panel

 

[conjur]

Wow!

 

[sMiLeYz]

wow!

 

[alphatarget1]

pwn3d

 

[sMiLeYz]

owned hardcore

 

[Pennstate]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/04/rice.testimony/

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Pennstate
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/04/rice.testimony

linked

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
owned hardcore

You can say that again. If they were any more owned, they'd have to repeal the 13th Amendment.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
owned hardcore

You can say that again. If they were any more owned, they'd have to repeal the 13th Amendment.

lol

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz owned hardcore

You can say that again. If they were any more owned, they'd have to repeal the 13th Amendment.

BUWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Clearly, the administration was being principled in witholding Dr. Rice's testimony. The sole reason the administration has slightly modified its position is because Dr. Rice's impeccable credentials and performance has been impugned by Mr. Clarke's wanton disregard for truth as he pursues profit . . .

This ends a FOX News alert . . . we inform, you decide . . .

 

[wkabel23]

:beer: for Philip Zelikow

 

[Deleted member 4644]

Originally posted by: wkabel23
:beer: for Philip Zelikow

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
owned hardcore

You can say that again. If they were any more owned, they'd have to repeal the 13th Amendment.

They have already repealed just about everything. You have no amendments under a Police State Regime:

"The photo, from a Nov. 22, 1945, New York Times story, showed presidential chief of staff Adm. William D. Leahy, appearing before a special congressional panel investigating the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

The point was clear: The White House could no longer get away with the claim that Rice's appearance would be a profound breach of precedent."

Interesting Newsweek link

"The cover story in the April 12 issue of Newsweek (on newsstands Monday, April 5) focuses on the "dirty little secret" of the tax cut and examines why it's smaller than you think. "

 

[conjur]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4660655/

Why Your Tax Cut Doesn't Add Up
Behind the promises to save you money, a hidden agenda is at work, with a stealth tax to pay for it all

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: conjur
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4660655/

Why Your Tax Cut Doesn't Add Up
Behind the promises to save you money, a hidden agenda is at work, with a stealth tax to pay for it all

From your linked article:

"If Bush gets what he wants, the income tax will become a misnomer?it will really be a salary tax. Almost all income taxes would come from paychecks?80 percent of income for most families, less than half for the top 1 percent. Meanwhile taxpayers receiving dividends, interest and capital gains, known collectively as investment income, would have a much lighter burden than salary earners?or maybe none at all."

"By drastically favoring investment income over salary, fees and other "earned income," Bush would make it harder for people who start out with nothing to earn their way up the economic ladder, because they'd pay full taxes on almost everything they make, but he'd shower rewards on people who have already made it to the top rungs."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah the wonders and powers of the RBC at the expense of the general citizenry. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.