stuckincincy

Stop dancing. And the warning system still is in use. You get an "F" for reading comprehension. And apparently not even comprehending your own posit... Lenin certainly had you in mind when he uttered the term, "useful idiots"....

Think he will come up with the "Way"? I suspect Shakespeare, several centuries ago, pegged him..."All sound and fury, signifying nothing".

Reincarnation is not so restricted...I think. I wouldn't like to be limited in this fantasy to Adam Sandler or PacMan Jones, to name two.

Me?

Don't be naive. It is part of the Bill of Rights, because the Founders knew well that government can and will hang citizens, figuratively and literally, to suit their particular political purposes. You must have been asleep or absent when things like the H.U.A.C. or the Alien and Sedition Act were discussed in history class.

Keep on topic. Tell me your alternative. Tell me how you would react if there were no attempt at some sort of alert system. If you can.

Since you like to excerpt to your particular bent, here's a full article. The boldface is mine. The 93 discharged - all the Federal prosecutors in '93 by AG, Reno, including the ones investigating Whitewater, don't seem to bother you. IIRC, the words at the time was that they all served at the pleasure of the President. I'm not aware of the then Dem Party controlled legislature raising a fuss. Gonzales aide refuses to testify before Senate LAURIE KELLMAN WASHINGTON - Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' liaison with the White House will refuse to answer questions at upcoming Senate hearings about the firings of eight U.S. attorneys, citing her Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination, her lawyer says. The Olympian - Click Here "I have decided to follow my lawyer's advice and respectfully invoke my constitutional right," Monica Goodling, Gonzales' counsel and White House liaison, said in a statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee. The revelation complicated the outlook for Gonzales, who is traveling out of town this week even as he fights to keep his job and his agency's investigatory power. The House was to vote late Monday on stripping him of his authority to appoint U.S. attorneys without Senate confirmation, similar to a measure the Senate passed this month. Bush has signaled he would not veto it. John Dowd, the lawyer for Gonzales counsel Monica Goodling, who plans to take the Fifth, suggested in a letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., that the Democrat-led panel has laid what amounts to a perjury trap for his client. Goodling, one of several aides involved in the firings of federal prosecutors, will refuse to answer senators' questions. "The potential for legal jeopardy for Ms. Goodling from even her most truthful and accurate testimony under these circumstances is very real," Dowd said. Goodling was key to the Justice Department's political response to the growing controversy. She took a leave of absence last week. "One need look no further than the recent circumstances and proceedings involving Lewis Libby," Dowd said, a reference to the recent conviction of Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff in the CIA leak case. Gonzales had promised to let his top aides testify under oath before the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. "The American people are left to wonder what conduct is at the base of Ms. Goodling's concern that she may incriminate herself in connection with criminal charges if she appears before the committee under oath," said Leahy. Dowd shot back in a second letter that Leahy's comments were a good illustration of why testifying was "perilous" for Goodling. "It is the politically charged environment created by the members of the committee ... that has created the ambiguous and perilous environment in which even innocent witnesses would be well advised not to testify," Dowd wrote. Democrats allege the firings were a purge of those deemed by the Justice Department not to be "loyal Bushies" - and a political warning to other prosecutors to fall in line with the administration. Gonzales has denied that. The news of Goodling's refusal to testify toughened an already daunting week for Gonzales, who retains President Bush's support, apparently on condition that he patch things up with Congress. There was little sign of that happening. Republicans over the weekend lobbed new criticism at Gonzales and more Democrats called for his resignation. Gonzales, meanwhile, was in Denver on Monday, leading a round-table discussion on curbing child sex abuse. He was expected to remain out of town most of the week. But Goodling's announcement appeared to be an unforeseen piece of bad news for Gonzales' agency, which had no immediate comment. Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who is leading the Senate's investigation into the firings, said Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty told him Goodling misled him before he testified to Schumer's panel on Feb. 6. A day earlier, Goodling was among aides who helped McNulty prepare his testimony. Schumer has said McNulty may have given Congress incomplete or otherwise misleading information about the circumstances of the firings. A little more than two weeks before that, she helped organize the response to senators asking whether the firings were politically motivated, the e-mails show. Specifically, she wanted to show that one of the fired prosecutors, Carol Lam of California, had been the subject of complaints by members of Congress. On Jan. 18, 2007, Goodling sent an e-mail to three Justice staffers titled: "I hear there is a letter from (Sen. Dianne) Feinstein on Carol Lam a year or two ago." "I need it ASAP," Goodling wrote. She was later sent two letters, from Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., dated Oct. 13, 2005, and 19 House members, on Oct. 20, 2005, which both complained that Lam was too lax in prosecuting criminal illegal immigrants. Additionally, Goodling was involved in an April 6, 2006, phone call between the Justice Department and Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., who had complained to the Bush administration and the president about David Iglesias, then the U.S. attorney in Albuquerque. Domenici had wanted Iglesias to push more aggressively on a corruption probe against Democrats before the 2006 elections. Iglesias told Congress earlier this month that he turned down what he believed to be pressure from Domenici to rush indictments that would have hurt Democrats in the November elections. Gonzales' truthfulness about the firings of seven prosecutors on Dec. 7 and another one months earlier also have been questioned. At a March 13 news conference, Gonzales denied that he participated in discussions or saw any documents about the firings, despite documents that show he attended a Nov. 27 meeting with senior aides on the topic, where he approved a detailed plan to carry out the dismissals. White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Monday that Gonzales "might be accused of being imprecise in what he was saying," but maintained that the attorney general was not closely involved in the firings. "I understand the concern. I understand that people might think that there are inconsistencies," Perino said. "But as I read it, I think that he has been consistent." Gonzales is not scheduled to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee until April 17 - three weeks away." http://www.theolympian.com/101/story/72799.html

Got an alternative? Got a better plan? If they weren't there, you would be wetting your diapers along with screaming for blood about how they didn't warn us when something happened.

It looks to be a good deal for the Bills. And welcome!

Crabs?

Simple curiosity. Why bother changing it?

Count me in!

Well, to be honest - as you say - would you care to tell us that different name?

Perhaps their unfair trade policies? An auto company I worked for had to establish some component manufacturing in Canada before our US-made product could be sold there. We could not ship vehicles to Canada with Michelin tires, because same were manufactured in Canada and they viewed it as re-importation. I would visit our Canadian manufacturing operations from time to time. When asked my occupation, I was most times pulled aside for a chat - the assumption being that I was there to steal some technology. US drug companies are strong-armed...if they don't give the health care system deeply discounted script items, they can't sell their OTC drugs, cosmetics, etc. So US consumers pay the R&D costs. Canadians are free to work in the US, and take their earnings back, but it is very difficult for an American to gain permission to work in Canada. As a youngster going to Sherkston, Crystal Beach, etc., I was often asked if I had at least 20 bucks. The "official" reason was to discourage vagrants. The real reason was to make sure I had money to spend in Canada. I don't know if it's still the case, but there were signs in Niagara Falls, Ont, that purported to give directions for a return to the US. What they did, was re-direct one back to the NF business district. One man's tale...

Smith is from Cleveland. He was up there after the bowl loss, doing a bit of politicking with the Browns. I wouldn't be surprised if they selected him, but certainly not in rnd 1.

No...I wouldn't opt to be Roy if copulation was my object.

Roy Rogers.

Interesting observation, Lv. Don't mean to pile on your thread, but for others to read, the link to the Cincy enquirer article is: http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art.../703270332/1066

He covered a lot of ground. And that allowed other players to do better.

Yes, the Vikes. Two years in a row, IIRC.

Happy Birthday!

Thanks...I appreciate the local take on things.

I hope not. I'm not sure Willis is worth a #1, if they insist on this cover 2 stuff.

He...most...built nothing...few do. There is a tax assessed on every sale in this county - house or a taco or a cup of coffee, also a large outstanding bond debenture and an agreed-to legality that gives Brown a guarantee for upgrades to his free palace if any other palace gets some goodies. Bills getting a new display? Mikey gets a new one and the multi-million cost gets added onto the backs of the residents. I didn't live in this County when the stadium funding vote was on the ballot and so couldn't vote when they gave Brown this sweet thing. I would have voted against it and wished them well. If Brown and B'gals left...bye-bye.