The Goat Pen

sardis wrote:Does tick forget which President signed NAFTA?

Umm, I think you did.

NAFTA was signed by President George H. W. Bush, Mexican President Salinas, and Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney in 1992. It was ratified by the legislatures of the three countries in 1993. Democrats in the House of Representatives voted against NAFTA by a margin of 156 to 102, while Republicans supported NAFTA by a margin of 132 to 43 on November 17th, 1993. The U.S. Senate approved it by a 60 to 38 count on November 20, three days later. President Bill Clinton signed Bush's bill into law on December 8, 1993 and the terms of the bill took effect January 1, 1994.

Obviously this fascist game and fish guy is on the payroll of Big Fish.


Pls feel free to post all links/articles where the fascist Brock regime has sent the justice dept after the wind turbine biz.




::::realizing I'm asking Tick for facts.....


Never mind.

Cats kill more birds than oil companies or wind turbines combined.

Call your president and demand that he eliminate cats. I think that's something most of us could get behind.

Again, pls feel free to post links/articles where the justice dept has gone after cats....also, it's not birds, it's endangered predatory birds like eagles/hawks/condors/mallards.....but keep trying to change it around. I still enjoy watching you dance on the head of a pin.

Toemeesleather wrote:also, it's not birds, it's endangered predatory birds like eagles/hawks/condors/mallards.....but keep trying to change it around

lol

The resident birds of prey expert.

From the article....Brigham was charged with unlawfully killing two mallards, Newfield with killing two mallards, one northern pintail and one red-necked duck.


The resident...got no facts/divert/obfuscate/useful idiot....


C'mon tick, give us something to show the non gnob-gobbler side you have.

Non-gobbler? Are you now considering turkeys to be birds of prey?

Toemeesleather wrote:From the article....Brigham was charged with unlawfully killing two mallards, Newfield with killing two mallards, one northern pintail and one red-necked duck.


The resident...got no facts/divert/obfuscate/useful idiot....

Migratory Bird Treaty Act....not predatory. It's your article, dude..c'mon.

Toemeesleather wrote:...also, it's not birds, it's endangered predatory birds like eagles/hawks/condors/mallards.....but keep trying to change it around

Destined to be a classic.

Still no retort/defending of your fascist regime, that's classic. It's ok, the can't defend the indefensible.

Toe = bird brain

Mr. Morell announced at the start of the hearing that he was there to refute claims that he had "inappropriately altered CIA's classified analysis and its unclassified talking points . . . for the political benefit of President Obama and then-Secretary of State Clinton." Critics of the government's performance on Benghazi have charged that Mr. Morell's revisions principally although not exclusively involved changing the description of the violence and its perpetrators, and removing the suggestion that they might have had ties to a terrorist organization. These changes, it is argued, enabled Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations at the time, to promote the discredited and since abandoned narrative that the violence was a reaction to an anti-Muslim YouTube video produced by a probationer in Los Angeles.

Mr. Morell said he did the revising because it would have looked unseemly for the CIA to appear to be pounding its chest and blaming the State Department.

Of course, neither Mr. Morell nor the directorate of intelligence is responsible for where the administration took the narrative, which included both Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Obama invoking the YouTube video over the caskets of the four slain Americans when they arrived in this country. Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton told the grieving families that the producer of the video would feel the weight of the law. It was one promise they kept: Nakoula Basseley Nakoula was arrested in the middle of the night in the glare of TV lights for a probation violation—the only arrest thus far growing out of the Benghazi attack, even though the identity and whereabouts of the principal suspects, one of whom is an alumnus of Guantanamo Bay, have long been known.

Gentlemen. We need to come to some sort of agreement. We both like when cats kill birds yet we also like when cats get hit by cars, buses or attacked by falcons. How can we agree on thinning both herds? Let's meet in Jamaica next month to further discuss it.

Christie aide Michael Drewniak gives testimony to grand jury in Bridgegate probe

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politic ... z2yEW5ViD7

Christie needs to ditch his current lawyer and get an attorney who specializes in defending drug dealers. Those guys know it's a race to the courthouse and the first one in gets the deal. If he fesses up now, Christie can probably get off with resignation from office and a short suspension of his law license. Otherwise, (as Christie knows), federal judges LOVE to give Governors nice, long prison stretches.

To be fair, Christie is in a delicate trick bag. He will most assuredly get indicted, which in public perception is tantamount to a conviction, even if he gets the indictment quashed (a long shot). The US Attorney will have an unlimited budget to prosecute him, and even if Christie wins an acquittal, he will run up millions in legal fees His career as a public servant will end in disgrace, either way.

What does an arrogant, obese bully do for work when he cannot hold down normal employment?

Look out, Rush! Chris is coming for your job!

What's done is done. The bridge was partially blocked. We don't know if Christie ordered it, or whether his aides went rogue.

AT THIS POINT WHAT DOES IT MATTER???!!!"

This is a phony scandal.

Hillary's Benghazi death toll: 4
Christie's alleged Bridgegate death toll: 0

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/pos ... or-injury/

Yet you believe Christie deserves to go to prison while Hillary deserves to be President.

Professor Tiger wrote:What's done is done. The bridge was partially blocked. We don't know if Christie ordered it, or whether his aides went rogue.

AT THIS POINT WHAT DOES IT MATTER???!!!"

This is a phony scandal.

The feds are involved because the bridge is interstate channel of commerce. If it were a bridge solely within New Jersey and a state highway, they wouldn't be involved with this. A govt. official intentionally blocking a channel of interstate commerce as part of a pattern of punishing enemies or opponents would be a violation of federal statute. Unless one of the underlings turns though, then I don't think Christie will be indicted. Somebody though is going down for this.

If they find that there is a pattern of punishing people by govt officials involving federal interests, then it may violate RICO statutes.

Was any real work done when they closed the lane?

They testified that they did a study, but have been unable to produce any paperwork or any corroboration that anything was done.

Regardless of who did it, it's just so petty; childish.