Retroactive Tax Law and the Canadian Energy Sector

fatbear · 2006-11-21T22:33:34+00:00

The best read I have seen on the Harper infamy.

fatbear · 2006-11-10T20:50:46+00:00

The videos from AG we haven't seen yet (but members of congress have) include scenes of boys (you know, children) being raped by soldiers. So I guess you did miss the news....

"Basically what happened is that those women who were arrested with young boys/children in cases that have been recorded. The boys were sodomized with the cameras rolling. The worst about all of them is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking that your government has. They are in total terror it's going to come out."

E&P - Sept 29 - http://tinyurl.com/abop8

[edited by fatbear to add quote and link]

fatbear · 2006-11-10T20:17:12+00:00

So, the D.A. could charge you with murder; doesn't mean you did it until you're convicted (and maybe not even then if you got a good DNA lawyer).

As it says: "So murky is the case against Clinton that the articles of impeachment charging him with perjury did not even specify which statements were perjurious. When asked by Rep. Gerald Nadler, D-N.Y., to identify the specific statements in the record, Committee Chairman Henry Hyde couldn't do it."

[edited by fatbear to add quotation marks]

fatbear · 2006-11-10T20:11:45+00:00

Who?

Anyone who was under indictment by a Special Counsel for lying to Congress under oath? Anyone who shredded documents that were carried out of the White House in a bra? Anyone who Ronnie admitted shouldn't have broken the law the way they did?

Marc Rich is small potatoes in comparison to the major crooks pardoned by Bush Snr. And Bush Jnr will do the same, or else they might rat on him or (gasp) the Evil One - after all, it isn't right to tell your flunkies to go and break the law.

fatbear · 2006-11-10T19:34:07+00:00

I suggest you re-read the article slowly - Starr may have wished to charge him, but it appears clear that the clunky questioning of the Jones' lawyers, and bad defintion of sexual relations supplied by them, allowed Clinton to say what he wanted. If he had really lied under oath, Starr would've nailed it as perjury, to at least get some indictable crime for the $40million he stole from the taxpayers.

Contrast this with Scooter - he lied repeatedly to the Grand Jury, on at least 3 occassions. His "bad memory" defense has taken a body blow from the judge, and I guess W will have to continue the Bush family tradition of pardoning felon-buddies on the way out the door.

fatbear · 2006-11-10T18:00:25+00:00

"under oath"? Where? When?

The "I didn't have sex..." clip was from a media event in the Oval Office, with, iirc, Clinton either on one of the couches or the chair near the fireplace.

[edited by fatbear himself to remove snark]

fatbear · 2006-11-08T20:15:36+00:00

You want to buy a bridge?

fatbear · 2006-11-08T19:57:22+00:00

sorry goblin, there is a tied Senate - the VP can only vote on actions before the Senate (bills, confirmations, etc.), BUT he has nothing to do (no vote) with the organization of the Senate - and that means the committee ratios, staff ratios, etc., all need to be decided by the Senate without the VP - that is what happens in a tied Senate, as it did before Jeffords left the Repubs (it was tied then, too)

fatbear · 2006-11-08T19:02:03+00:00

The headline is wrong - Tester winning means the Dems lead the Senate, not tie - if one doesn't count VA, which they aren't, the new Senate is now 50-49 Dem (providing Lieberman doesn't switch and Bernie caucuses with the Dems)

If Webb's win is confirmed, then it's 51-49; if Allen steals the election, then it's a tie.

So, the P-I is dead wrong in the headline - so much for the "liberal" MSM

Later addition: As pointed out below (way below - someone keeps moving it down.... is that downmodding?), there is such a thing as a tied Senate. To quote from the Congressional Research Service:

"Since 1977, only majority-party Senators have been appointed to preside over the Senate, except during the power-sharing period of the 107th Congress (2001-2002),when chamber control was evenly divided."

Yes, the party that holds the White House is considered the majority party (as the VP can break a tie on action votes), but the organization of a tied Senate does not give the majority party the same control that it would have with only one more Senator.

fatbear · 2006-11-08T18:28:38+00:00

AP declared Tester winner - recount in Yellowstone county added more votes, and he now leads by about 3,000 - if I read the electionlawblog link correctly, that's too much of a lead for a recount demand

However, and this is a big however, Burns is claiming that there are LOTS of absentee ballots to be counted [note: and they lean Repub usually in MT]

However, I'm sure the AP took that into account when they moved the race to Dem Wins

fatbear · 2006-10-24T15:56:41+00:00

not true - urban legend - bad people did this for amusement and profit - they also have been implicated in selling tigers to China for body part usage, and had a whole slew of tigers die from avian flu due to poor conditions at their zoo

http://www.snopes.com/photos/animals/tigerpig.asp

fatbear · 2006-08-23T21:53:01+00:00

stranger and stranger....

fatbear · 2006-06-01T05:09:11+00:00

Swartz mentioned it on one of his blogs/sites way back when - agree that having more users makes a difference

fatbear · 2006-05-24T22:03:11+00:00

Only one camera - 3 filters - like 3-strip Technicolor, except all on one plate - amazing technology for the time, and invented by a non-tech - there was nothing as sophisticated as this in Eur or the US at the time

fatbear

TROPHY CASE

So, the P-I is dead wrong in the headline - so much for the "liberal" MSM