All Hank, all the time.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Adder
1. PPNYC claims to be hot on the FB by repeatedly mentioning allt he guys checking her out.

2. Board is skeptical that PPNYC is not a Penske Sock.

3. TM offers to meet her to solve the mystery, and pledges to report on her hotness (or lack thereof).

4. Said meeting takes place, PPNYC posts to say that TM is attractive in nice.

5. TM provides one of his patented blunt appraisals, saying PPNYC is overweight and not attractive.

6. PPNYC totally loses it, descending in a spiral of grade A batshit nutso.

How come PPNYC gets an avatar that moves?

[Adder]

Originally posted by Spanky
How come PPNYC gets an avatar that moves?

To make her even more annoying?

I think she just picked it.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Adder
To make her even more annoying?

I think she just picked it.

I have decided to be annoying (or I guess more annoying).

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Adder

5. TM provides one of his patented blunt appraisals, saying PPNYC is overweight and not attractive.

That was unnecessarily cruel. Doesn't he know that when a women asks how she looks, always, always lie? It will take years of therapy to erase the damage.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
That was unnecessarily cruel. Doesn't he know that when a women asks how she looks, always, always lie? It will take years of therapy to erase the damage.

I don't think he cares. I think that rule only applies to women you have to deal with regularly, like relatives and girlfriends and spouses. And possibly coworkers. He said he'd be bluntly honest and was.

It's actually a pretty interesting exchange over there. Kinda fun.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Spanky
Did the administration ever say that the occupation and the transition to democracy in Iraq would be quick and painless? I don't think they ever said that. In fact I am pretty sure they said just the opposite.

It must have been buried in the disclaimer. You know, after the section about the flowers and being greeted as liberators.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Spanky
That was unnecessarily cruel. Doesn't he know that when a women asks how she looks, always, always lie? It will take years of therapy to erase the damage.

2. And you gotta make 'em believe you believe it - none of this phoning it in.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
I have decided to be annoying (or I guess more annoying).

Well played, playa!

[Hank Chinaski]

http://www.judicialwatch.org/printer_5862.shtml
opps. Ty's hero has problems. What is most rich is how the Dems keep saying that it's Bush who has thrown out "the way we do things."

• U.S. District Judge Who Presided Over Government Wiretapping Case May Have Had Conflict of Interest
  
  (Washington, DC) Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption and judicial abuse, announced today that Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, who last week ruled the government’s warrantless wiretapping program unconstitutional, serves as a Secretary and Trustee for a foundation that donated funds to the ACLU of Michigan, a plaintiff in the case (ACLU et. al v. National Security Agency). Judicial Watch discovered the potential conflict of interest after reviewing Judge Diggs Taylor’s financial disclosure statements.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Spanky
I have decided to be annoying (or I guess more annoying).

That avatar is weirdly appropriate for you. Good choice.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
http://www.judicialwatch.org/printer_5862.shtml
opps. Ty's hero has problems. What is most rich is how the Dems keep saying that it's Bush who has thrown out "the way we do things."

• U.S. District Judge Who Presided Over Government Wiretapping Case May Have Had Conflict of Interest
  
  (Washington, DC) Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption and judicial abuse, announced today that Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, who last week ruled the government’s warrantless wiretapping program unconstitutional, serves as a Secretary and Trustee for a foundation that donated funds to the ACLU of Michigan, a plaintiff in the case (ACLU et. al v. National Security Agency). Judicial Watch discovered the potential conflict of interest after reviewing Judge Diggs Taylor’s financial disclosure statements.

Talk about tenuous. There is no conflict of interest under the facts described.

There may be a grounds for recusal, but even that is thin. What if a judge had made a charitable donation directly to the ACLU. Should she recuse herself in that instance? I think not. Here it's even more tenuous--she has a leadership role in a foundation that decided to give money.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Talk about tenuous. There is no conflict of interest under the facts described.

There may be a grounds for recusal, but even that is thin. What if a judge had made a charitable donation directly to the ACLU. Should she recuse herself in that instance? I think not. Here it's even more tenuous--she has a leadership role in a foundation that decided to give money.

a case of that high profile, you don't think she should have recused herself?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Talk about tenuous. There is no conflict of interest under the facts described.

There may be a grounds for recusal, but even that is thin. What if a judge had made a charitable donation directly to the ACLU. Should she recuse herself in that instance? I think not. Here it's even more tenuous--she has a leadership role in a foundation that decided to give money.

2. This is similar to Allito ruling on the case involving the mutual fund.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
a case of that high profile, you don't think she should have recused herself?

Why should it matter whether the case is high profile?

I'm not sure recusal is appropriate even if she personally gave some money to the ACLU. If it's not, then it certainly isn't if an organization of which she's on the board happened to give some money to the ACLU.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sgtclub
2. This is similar to Allito ruling on the case involving the mutual fund.

she sits on a board of an organization that gives major money, other people's money, to the ACLU= she supports what the ACLU does= she has no business hearing its cases. she is more than donating her money, she is effectively a fund raiser.