LV426

and will that decision affect voter turnout?

I've looked all over thinkprogress.org, huffingtonpost.com and moveon.org, but not one of them seems to provide a link to where I can get either an "I am Christopher Lane" or "Justice for Christopher Lane" t- shirt.

Can someone who's all into that "justice" stuff point me in the right direction?

The protest supposedly started as concern either about corporate influence in government affairs or shady banking practices.

Whatever the original intent of the protest, it appears to have disintegrated into a protest concerning whatever anyone with an axe to grind, a piece of cardboard and a marker can cobble together and thrust into the air.

It's like, whatever your personal beef is with the country, come on down and have your say.

Now, that * sounds * noble, but does the lack of focus reduce any original legitimacy and sympathy the average workaday schlub may have originally considered for the movement or does the "big tent" philosophy actually increase it?

Just curious.

After reading through some of the USPS union chatter, I wondered if any of the private firms would want to take on the work currently forbidden by Private Express Statutes. I guess I'm specifically referring to first class mail.

This isn't a union-bash, nor is it a "USPS sucks" rant. I'm just curious. Have any organizations ever seriously looked into taking on this type of business and then challenging the PES?

I was surprised to read that the PES requires that such mail delivered outside the USPS must be the greater of $3 or double what the USPS charges for a Priority letter. Yes, I realize this already unabashedly carries the unfair competition banner high in the air, but I wondered if any of the other companies ever seriously wanted the business.

Thoughts?

I ask this question in response to this question:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=201108...

This individual bemoans our practice of considering race, yet mentions it himself in his opening question. People pointed this out and were met with TDs in response.

So, is his question hypocritical or not? Can he bring up the racial make-up of a group and then claim that we shouldn't be hung-up on race?

Just curious.

(1) Blow it on dinner tonight

(2) Fund a soup kitchen for a month

(3) Buy a new Mitsubishi Evolution

Thanks!

I normally shell script in Unix, but I've a need to create a batch script in Windows Server 200x (not sure of which).

I need to create log files with the current date.

A bit of poking around led me to the %date% env variable and some substring-type functions on it.

Unfortunately, I am seeing the following behavior at the command line prompt:

C:> set stuff=%date%

C:> echo %stuff%

%date%

The variable %stuff% doesn't contain the translated date, but, rather, contains the string '%date%.

When I put those lines in a cmd file, it works just fine. Even more confusing, when my co-worker tries it on an identically-configured machine, %stuff% has the translated date.

Why would %stuff% not translate interactively for me? Any ideas?

Thanks!

According to this individual (link to his/her question included), homosexuals are giving it up to random fellows in truck stops only because the gay-hating government won't legally recognize their unions.

Now, being Libertarian, I don't care how these guys while away their time, but this individual seems to think that you're all incapable of engaging in anything but one-night stands unless legislation is passed.

Is he right or is he missing something?

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=201107...

I was listening to an NPR program the other day, which discussed corporations requiring homosexuals to get married if the particular state in which they were operating allowed such unions and the employee wanted to insure the other individual.

Oddly enough, homosexuals were furious, stating that a civil union should be good enough.

This reaction appears to give credence to the stance that homosexuals do, indeed, want some sort of special, easily-exited union, giving them all the benefits, but allowing a hasty, clean exit, should the parties wish to do so.

Companies responded that heterosexual couples are afforded no such convenient arrangement, so why should the same be offered to homosexuals?

Now, I am not saying that all homosexuals want some sort of "here today - gone tomorrow" relationship, but why all the backlash?

Should there be some sort of "special", easily-exited union? If so, should this special union be accessible to heterosexuals as well?

Should a homosexual union carry all of the potential financial liabilities of its heterosexual counterpart?

If everyone got a little philanthropic for a minute and chipped in $5 each, do you think we could collect enough money to move a particular denizen of the forum to Sweden?

What if he agreed to avoid the site for a year as repayment?

I ask this in response to an answer posted here.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=ArWpj...

Even with limitless cash and a willing public, would such a system really work in our country?

I'm not going to say whether or not Vitter should have resigned, but I'm curious as to how many people who are currently (and indignantly) going on about it were even aware of it back when the whole thing went down.

This is no defense of the man, so don't get your panties in a twist. I'm just wondering why everyone's crying for his head when, in all likelihood, most people going on about it didn't even know the guy's name a month ago.

Who rode through all 57 states, warning the British about naked tweets?

OK, even as a conservative, I am not buying Palin's and assorted pundits' verbal gymnastics in regards to explaining her way out of that quote

However, I am a bit curious.

While I know people love to skewer Palin's grasp of facts, isn't it possible that she meant to say something else and merely flubbed the line? In all seriousness, do you guys * really * think she was under the impression Revere's mission was to alert the British to their enemy's presence? And I don't mean in a " .. so you better leave before we whup you ..." context.

Were she to have simply responded, "Oh, of course. How silly of me. I meant to say 'warn the Americans' ", would that have settled any better with her hecklers?

I have no skin in the game in regards to Palin. I'm just curious as to how people would have reacted and would they have believed it.

Yeah, she's got whack-job Kennedy genetics, but still. Yow! Why do you cheat on that with the hired help?

and would, apparently rather protest about that, rather than get a little cross at the Taliban, who just slaughtered 80 innocents in retaliation for Pakistan not protecting a man who has killed countless Pakistanis.

They are marching in the street over the surgical removal of a man who is guilty of orchestrating countless deaths on their own soil. but , apparently have no issue with his same group showing its displeasure with America by turning 80 of their countrymen into chopped liver.

It seems surreal.

(1) Handling the pissed-off Muslims, regarding how OBL met his fate

(2) Reconciling claims of a partnership with Pakistan while attempting to skirt the obvious fact that they were in bed with OBL.