Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Support Canadian snark!
Syndicate
Blog Archive
-
▼
2006
(2150)
-
▼
January
(201)
- Apparently, it runs in the family.
- Fun with domain names.
- "Going postal": Sometimes, it's not just a stupid...
- Oh, look. More wankery, neo-con lying.
- Richard Dawkins on Intelligent Design.
- This whole "patent" thing has gotten seriously out...
- American progressives still not getting the point.
- Apparently, miracles are in the eye of the beholder.
- Well, you didn't see THAT coming, did you?
- It all depends on whose version of the news you read.
- Intelligent Design: God is a weenie.
- Playtime at Open Bathrobe Media.
- Ho hum ... just another war crime.
- Putting the wankersphere under a microscope.
- The "crazy uncle in the basement" syndrome.
- Cute overload.
- The "welfare state," Palestinian style.
- Jason Kenney -- in his own hermetically-sealed uni...
- Oh, those fighting young College Republicans.
- Oh, this is going to be fun.
- Dear neo-cons: Still supporting those troops, I see.
- Project management for complete idiots.
- Tolerance, intolerance, SSM, reproductive rights a...
- A celibate homosexual and a transgender cross-dres...
- Open thread.
- Oprah and principles: still not comfortable with ...
- Congratulations, Kitchener-Conestoga. You've pick...
- Well, THAT was a short honeymoon.
- God, and the "perfect" example of an idiotic argum...
- "But ... but ... but ... Bill Clinton ..."
- "Intelligent Design" and kid gloves: I don't thin...
- Dave takes on the kids over at PowerTools and live...
- Death by poverty -- it's not just for third-world ...
- Dear Stephen: You want troops? Get them from Que...
- George Bush. Osama bin Laden. Flip. Flop.
- Progressives to Dems: Go fuck yourselves.
- Mine safety official to Senate subcommittee: Bite...
- The night of the long knives.
- The annoying hypocrisy of "progressive" American D...
- Line of the day.
- Irony as a blunt instrument.
- Oh, those onerous workplace decisions.
- The Juno excitement is just palpable.
- "I've got mine," Canadian style.
- "Oh ... THAT detailed early warning."
- The U.S. Supreme Court, Samuel Alito and Intellige...
- The stultifying hypocrisy of blissful ignorance.
- The Chronicles of Ralphia: New minority conservat...
- Dear Americans:
- Go, Dook!
- Dear progressives: What will you do if the Libera...
- Well, I'd say that worked out rather well.
- Physical beatings: It's all a matter of context.
- A multi-talented young man, that Mike.
- "Moral absolutes?" I don't think so.
- WaPo ombudsman Deborah Howell: Redefining "dense."
- Making fun of Wal-Mart.
- If you don't vote, bad things will happen.
- Then there are the counter-examples ...
- Intelligent Design and its groupies.
- Halliburton to troops: Eat shit.
- Dear Paul:
- Deborah Howell, journalistic whore: Document the ...
- "My doctor said Panexa."
- CNN's Lou Dobbs involved in racially-motivated gan...
- Dear Canadian wankers: How will we know if Stephe...
- Some people take themselves WAY too seriously.
- Harper's obsession with missile defense is getting...
- Little Stevie wanders off the reservation. Bad th...
- Can we just throw these CPC candidates in jail and...
- Democracy on the march in the Middle East?
- WaPo to readers: Fuck off, you big meanies.
- And an extra $50 if you bring back the ears and th...
- The joy of slapping around anonymous commenters.
- The schizophrenia of Stephen Harper.
- Dumbfuckitude, Canadian style.
- Yes, you're an atheist. (Part 2)
- That's the way things work here in Bizarro World.
- "Maher Arar? Never heard of him."
- "Look! Another Terri!"
- Oh, yes, that American medical system is a real ro...
- An open letter to PZ Myers.
- "Daddy, what did you do during the war?"
- What the hell?
- And she seemed like such a nice girl ...
- Yes, you're an atheist. (Part 1)
- Why are letters editors such assholes?
- "Pentagon forbids troops to buy better body armor."
- Dear Iraqis: Welcome to "democracy."
- Dear religious person: No, I DON'T respect your r...
- A good Canadian read.
- The recent "no-fly" list incident takes a weird turn.
- Ralph Reed: "Putting money before God."
- Dear Manitoban: Why do you soil your pages with t...
- Apparently, a slow news day at the CBC.
- There's "accurate." There's "precise." Then ther...
- With "allies" like this, who needs terrorists?
- Being a tramp for God.
- And after a long hiatus, a math puzzle.
- "Some women are misogynists, too."
-
▼
January
(201)
6 comments:
Please learn what "perjury" is before you spout off about it again.
Go ahead. Explain it to me. I'm waiting.
By the way, anonymous, I'm curious -- when Bill Clinton, under oath, said he did not have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, do you consider that to have been perjury?
But see, he only committed perjury to cover up an earlier perjury. So that's alright, then.
By the way, imagine my surprise to learn that mine builders/owners can actually provides locations in which miners endangered by explosions, gas, etc., can remain safe, with air, water, etc., until they can be rescued. What a quaint idea! Seriously, it was great to read, after my heart plunged at seeing the headline of so many Canadian miners in trouble, that they were safe, because someone had thought their safety was part of the big game.
I'm still waiting for "anonymous" to give me a lesson in basic law, but let's dispense with a couple possible objections, shall we?
First, Gonzales was most definitely under oath during his confirmation hearings, so it's not like he can weasel out of it that way.
Another objection is that "perjury" requires more than simply lying under oath. It requires lying about something material -- that is, something relevant to the case, but it's hard to imagine something more material than what Gonzales lied about.
So I have no idea what excuse anonymous is going to hand us, but it should be entertaining when it arrives.
Hello? anonymous? Still waiting. While you're mulling it over, you might want to read this.
In any event, don't keep us in suspense too much longer. The anticipation is just killing me.
Tell you what, I'll make it easier for you. Let's first debate whether Gonzales simply lied, how about that? Then we can argue about whether that lying constituted actual perjury.
How's that for a start?
Post a Comment