Berg

Damn, I'd love to see Sarah Palin "exposed"!

God must have helped him.

I became a moderator for all forums on this site in 2000. It remained that way until about a month ago, when I asked SDS to remove me as a moderator.

No one has ever been banned for their stance on any issue or party affiliation. To claim otherwise is whining, plain and simple. One only needs to see a list of those banned to debunk your hypothesis.

Hmmm. I don't think I've ever run across that situation. I might, however, in my new reserve job. Maybe that's because the releasability is inherent in the "compartment", and I've not handled other than SCI for TS. I don't know, I'm just guessing. Don't you have an SSO or ISSM or some other security goober who would get off on answering that one? That's probably what I would do. On second thought, maybe blowing it off is the best idea....

Hehe, good point. By derivative, I just meant that I'm not deciding if something is classified, I'm just using an SCG to determine if it is or isn't. I mostly don't do portion marking just because 90% is classified and it is more pain that its worth to slice up a document so that it can be portion marked in any meaningful manner. Probably. I never have figured out how that really works (or doesn't). Most of my world is associations and multiple unclassified pieces which add up to classified stuff. That's not much fun, but as long as you work in an open storage SCIF it's not that big of a deal. Me neither.

BiB, You and I make derivative decisions about groupings (documents, etc.), but at least I know that I cannot declassify (nor classify) the undelying information. If you have that power, I am impressed. At any rate, I for one am more comfortable with DC making these decisions that I would be with GWB. But that's me.

Well I thought it was funny...

Both of them are rumored Depends wearers, so I doubt either of them was the source of the leak...

Except he allegedly won't be micromanaging Mularkey. It will be MM's call, right?

Semantic game?? Dude, you're losing it. Redondo Beach has good air quality. That's where I'd be. Your analogy doesn't hold, since I would not be in a city with the "filthiest air in the country so can attend a smoke free bar". That's quite straightforward. As for the rest, well, go ahead and play coy, I guess, but we both know what you were implying, whether you admit it or not...

I thought the smiley face meant you were happy...

I don't know if the UN has its own spying capabilities, but certainly everyone else is.

Mickey, Irrespective of any treaties, we spy on everyone and they spy on us. It has always been this way. Is it right or wrong? Depends on who you ask and who is being spied on. The only thing surprising to me here is that you are surprised.

Now you're playing games. There is FEDERAL in your post title. FEDERAL referred to in the link (Federal spending). If you knew that your sentence did not apply to the FEDERAL government, it had no place in your post.

Oh my God (pun intended) Darin, don't challenge me on LA. I lived there for 10 years. Redondo Beach - virtually all the beach cities- have extrodinarily clean air. All the crap blows inland. That's where I hung out.

Since when has the Federal Government ever outlawed smoking in private establishments??? Check your facts.

But ND won't beat OSU. Maybe I'll go visit my buds in LA and watch the Fiesta Bowl in a wonderful, smoke-free bar, provided at no cost by the people of the State of California. You can go help VA fire-bomb an abortion clinic....

Sorry, but if you thought what I've said previously was rude, you'll think this is too. I really don't give a sh-- if you're getting irritated. The only poster I was "rude" to was dumb-sh-- blue fire, because s/he started trying to tell me what my opinion really is. If you thought I was being rude to Darin, then you don't know anything about him or me. Ask him yourself and see what he says. I'm sure he'll say something similar to what I say about him - I enjoy debate with him especially when he's wrong and I never let any post on a stupid message board bother me; I know him well enough to know I respect him quite a bit. Lastly, in response to your dorky paragraph about what you'd like me to say, well why don't you pay attention too. I just want to be able to go to a bar and/or restaurant and not breathe smoke since I don't smoke. The rest is bull sh--. I'm a tobacco user; I don't want it made illegal. How do you people not get that by now? Not only am I not ashamed, I am in fact proud that I live in a country where, as a member of the military, I support and defend each citizen's right to voice their opinion freely about any topic they so choose. Anything else I can help you with???

EDIT: Dead wrong? I never claimed it was legal. I doubted Darin because it seems to be such a stupid thing to be illegal. However, after doing a little more searching, I found that Indiana, by coincidence, has a battery by bodily fluids charge. So analogy retracted, as I said I would do. Unlike most on this board, I can admit when I don't know something and will revise my argument or stance if necessary based on new information. Trivial in this instance.

You obviously aren't paying attention, and of anyone here, I feel comfortable claiming to be the expert in my own opinion. I'm arguing for no one but myself, so re-read the entire thread - or don't - and choose to comprehend - or don't. In any case, I have no intention of re-hashing everything I already said just because you don't get it.

Yeah, it has times infinity. From post#1: "Maybe smokers will eventually get the hint that their individual rights do not extend to people around them, especially kids."

I'm knee deep in present wrapping and toy putting-together, but more later on why I have no Orwellian fears.

That's been my point all along.

Regarding illegal spitting, do you expect me to just take your word for it? Sorry, I don't. Prove it and I'll retract that analogy. Remember, just because you can't think of an intelligent quip in response, that doesn't mean something is stupid. What it actually means I'm smarter than you are. What you've failed to address even in passing is how society is supposed to operate if not by setting general expectations for acceptable behaviour then enacting legislation to enforce that which it deems appropriate. Laws have been a classical gauge of how civilized a society is. And mob mentality is exactly why laws are necessary. If you get a whole bunch of idiots...err people together, say for a Bills game. Sprinkle liberally with alcohol, and what do you get? Imagine how that would be without even the hint of repurcussions. Smokers do not have to smoke at bars. They do not have to smoke at restaurants. I don't appreciate watery eyes and stinky clothes due to their personal choice on the very small amount of times I go each year. If I had the choice to go to non-smoking bars or restaurants, I would. I don't have that choice unless I go to CA. And if you can convince my Wife that we should stay home for her birthday and our anniversary rather that go out to eat, I'll buy you a cigar. Or a can of Cope. Or an "I'm with stupid" T-shirt or somethin'. Now I gotta go finish watching the 4th Q of the Bills game. Later "butt"-head...