In the spirit of Elephants, Jackasses, and Beavers, the CRTC just upheld the Net Neutrality stuff up here in Canada. https://openmedia.org/en/press/huge-win-canadians-crtc-rejects-bells-website-blocking-proposal First time in a long time that the CRTC did the right thing.
I had no idea there was an issue going on about it here. Real shocker that Bell is behind it. I’m sure they only have the people’$ intere$t on their mind$.
That might be the most insane thing I have ever read. We'll see about Ramirez, but just to keep this in perspective; Switnick accused him of orchestrating multiple gang rapes, and has since said she never actually saw him do any of that, and has completely failed to produce all these witnesses. At the same time she's still slandering him. She says she still thinks he did even though she didn't see any of it. Probably because she's a fucking nutjob. Is that character assassination? Was it a smear on him when she lied, or I'm sorry, misremembered that she didn't actually see him raping and drugging all those girls? But just look at what they're claiming. The implication is that if he so much as defends himself he's unfit to sit the bench. I'm almost at a loss for words. Is it an ethical violation to accuse someone of an ethical violation in committing perjury before any sort of proper fact gathering process? How the fuck do they know none of the accusers were lying or smearing him? Turns out they're wrong on at least one so far. Garland may well be bitter, but I'm going to guess this one gets shot down. Looks like that was filed by The Democratic Coalition, straight up demanding his guilt in these crimes be recognized before any sort of due process(this is one they filed almost a week ago), while at the same time propagating a narrative that no matter what Kavanaugh does he's guilty. I get that you guys don't like Kavanaugh, but don't you think the way they're going about this is a little fucked up? Partisan impartiality indeed. The people who filed that were literally doing many of the things they were accusing him of while they were accusing him. In line 19 they claim that just by doing a fox news interview Kavanaugh had committed an ethical violation. I don't even know what to compare that scathing nonsense to other than a 15th century sacrilege trial.
Republicans are very convinced that high school boys brag about a puking club because of one student's gluten sensitivity.
He’d be confirmed tomorrow if he was only able to admit to be a normal wealthy privileged teenager in the 80’s. The problem he has now at this point is that admitting to any kind of excess drinking and blacking out shoots holes in his credibility in his absolute denials of sexual assault.
You should file that in a democratic coalition ethics complaint where it belongs. He already admitted to that. But he didn't admit to being a black out drinker. If he had admitted to being a black out drinker, at a minimum, the least bad thing he would have done is committed sexual harassment while blacked out. Am I wrong there? I'm going to stick with the sacrilege trial comparison.
I mean, Kavanaugh apparently blacked out for the entire time the Bush administration was torturing detainees.
Note that he signs the letter "Bart," which if I remember correctly was the name his friend used in what Kavanaugh claimed was a "fictionalized" book and that the name Bart was not intended to represent him.