That is how an article I read today about New York Democrat Governor Elliot Spitzer started. Yes I pointed out that Elliot is a donkey. A liberal. A Democrat. Most news sources don't want to point that out but that is a fight for a different time.
I just love how the article started. Despite a penchant for hookers. Classic! You know that they won't be talking about any charity work or how he may have helped an old lady across the street. They get to the meat and potatoes about what an asshat he was.
I am glad this assclown is being disgraced. I had my own run in with his team years ago. His supporters will claim he fought for the little guy. Bullshit. He destroyed the careers of a lot of the little people that work in the mutual fund industry, making their life miserable as they wondered if they would have a job in a couple of months. His lust to take down the rich and powerful had a big impact on all the workers who loved their company and their jobs. No one thinks of them.
This sanctimonious jackass got what he deserved.
And in other news....
I don't by this story. Woman on boyfriend's toilet for 2 years. I call bullshit! No way does some crazy chick sit on a toilet for two years. I don't care how pathetic this boyfriend is. He isn't going to put up with this for that long.
Bush says he will veto Democrats' version of terrorist-surveillance bill As he should. The Dems are pandering to the lawyers by not granting the telecoms immunity. The lawyers are just looking to make a quick and easy buck. The Democrats know this and just want to get their fair share in kickbacks disguised as contributions.
Ok, which one of these is stupider. Boulder likes breast cancer or a town in England banning fire extinguishers from apartment buildings? I am going with Boulder because they have a law that states "No person shall dye or color live fowl, rabbits or any other animals." Good thing that one is on the books. I do wonder if they have replaced the fire extinguishers with marshallows though.
Just saw the homepage of the local rag. My friend Annette works there. I hope she doesn't log in and freak out. She hates clowns.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
This statement:
Bush says he will veto Democrats' version of terrorist-surveillance bill As he should. The Dems are pandering to the lawyers by not granting the telecoms immunity. The lawyers are just looking to make a quick and easy buck. The Democrats know this and just want to get their fair share in kickbacks disguised as contributions.
is incorrect.
The latest version of the bill they're trying to get passed strips the "State Secrets" declaration from one set of documents to allow the courts to decide on the legality of telecom actions. That set of documents is the authorization from the Attorney General to the telecoms, which does not contain methodologies or targets (i.e., it's a permission slip that does not say "to target Abdul Abbas in his cave talking on his cell phone." It is a document of blanket authorization covering a program.).
Current US law already protects the telecoms for operating under these authorizations. Stated more clearly, if these authorizations exist, the telecoms cannot be sued by "trial lawyers" or the ACLU. The legislative branch is asking the judicial branch to oversee the executive branch to ensure the telecoms were given this authorization.
I'm pretty sure oversight is an appropriate request here, and the minimal disclosure of information the House bill requires (again, they are not requiring information regarding targets or specific methodologies to be disclosed) will allow the telecoms to be off the hook for these lawsuits - assuming the administration didn't put them in a position where they willingly broke the law.
(By the way, it's idiotic to assume that these telecoms didn't get this authorization from the AG. If you've ever tried to negotiate with a corporate entity in a B2B fashion, lawyers always get involved, they always thoroughly understand their client's exposure, and they always start negotiating with the intent of delivering maximum liability protection. The administration, to this point, has not allowed the telecoms to produce this document due to the "State Secrets" privilege. This is all the courts need to dispel the lawsuits. Period.)
Post a Comment