Saint Tacky

FIFY

I'll take the new tennis instructor in Season 3, or settle for watching her and Adriana together

First, if I cite or quote something or somebody, it does NOT necessarily mean it was directed at or to that piece or person. So, you're wrong. Second, I apply the same standards to both or to any President for that matter, and you're too myopic to see that we agree. It is about the lies. It is about the cover-up being worse than the crime. Where we disagree, is that you won't apply those standards to Trump because of you're own political inclinations and leanings. Your accusation to the contrary I've never decried Clinton's innocence or a miscarriage of justice. The fact that you are befuddled does not surprise me in the least. Perhaps it's all the conspiracy clutter that just robs you of any chance for clairvoyance or credibility.

You are dubiously overreacting. It was a point, not directed at you specifically. Perhaps it was using campaign funds in violation of federal election laws and tax evasion. Perhaps it was lying about it. Perhaps, it is suborning perjury. Or, maybe it's merely just the hypocrisy of it all. It's most certainly not as insignificant as you want to pretend it is. Nope. Clinton Justice Department Memorandum dated October 16, 2000. "In 1973, the Department of Justice concluded that the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unduly interfere with the ability of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned duties, and would thus violate the constitutional separation of powers." "Balancing these competing concerns, we believe the better view is the one advanced by the Department in 1973: a sitting President is immune from indictment as well as from further criminal process." If you can cite regulations to the contrary, have at it. Don't know how paper ballots got into this subject; however, you clearly have your agenda and opinions used to prop them up. To pull this out of the ditch I will again recommend to anyone that's interested in the topic of impeachment to listen to the "Slow Burn" podcast. You'll enjoy it.

It's worse than that, and she suffered immensely then and in the years to follow. Basically she was used and left hanging in the breeze by everyone. Tripp, Clinton, Starr, everyone. To see nothing in the similarities between Clinton and Trump requires brazen denial. The Democrats also didn't have a say in what was or could be released in the Starr Report. Newt was driving the train that September, and ultimately lost his Speaker's job for it. As a matter of fact, Clinton's approval ratings actually went up and Democrats unexpectedly gained seats in the House in large part because Bubba had become a sympathetic figure and was now being seen as the victim of a politically motivated vendetta by a solid majority of America. The Republicans then fired Newt and replaced him with Dennis Hastert.

Slate has a podcast called "Slow Burn," and Season 2 is an outstanding, detailed series that followed the scandal and subsequent impeachment of President Bill Clinton. It earned widespread acclaim and won Podcast of the Year at iHeartRadio’s inaugural Podcast Awards. It followed Season 1 (2017), which was about Watergate, the Nixon Administration, and the Nixon impeachment. Both were riveting and I highly recommend them. Slate is supposed to produce a Season 3, but the driving force behind "Slow Burn," Leon Neyfahk bailed to start his own podcast, "Fiasco." His first two podcasts are supposed to be about the 2000 Presidential Election and Bush v. Gore, and the Iran-Contra Scandal.

She's counting on it

I don't believe you lose a pick for signing or re-signing your own talent. The origin of losing a pick was for competitive balance purposes, which is why teams that lose a big-time free agent gain a compensation pick and teams that sign a big-time free agent lose picks. No one in this instance would be losing DK. It's still screwy though because the signing team's pick just disappears and the other team doesn't get the actual pick, just a spot between rounds depending on the quality of the free agent. The compensation pick is always further down than the pick lost by the team that signed the free agent.

Saw him haul in a bomb against TCU in 1979. Everybody stood when the pass was let go, and sat down when it appeared overthrown. To this day I've never seen a receiver catch up to a football like JLJ did. An amazing burst that is my benchmark for the past 40-years.

I'd watch a show with just Lauren running and climbing around in those shorts. It's going to be interesting to see the reaction if and when Joe gets voted off, and whether he has an opportunity to come back from extinction and get back in the game. Lots of folks out there on the interweb believe the origin of this theme is a derivative of the producers' desire to keep Joe in it to win it as long as possible. To that end, SPOILER below.

I will avoid commercial television if I can, so my top-5 will be HBO/Showtime heavy. I DVR everything so I can push thru commercial TV with very little interruption. AT&T Audience Network runs "Mad Men" and "NYPD Blue" commercial free, or with all the commercials between the end of the episode and the beginning of the next episode. It's great. Non-Commercial Deadwood Downton Abbey Game of Thrones The Larry Sanders Show Shameless Commercial Mad Men The Mary Tyler Moore Show The Shield Survivor The Walking Dead

1) Rome has a "Deadwood" problem, there's just not a big enough body of work to compete; but, what's there is fucking amazing television.

Brother is a body builder.

Mercenaries. Paid with the gold taken from Highgarden.

The first "one" that popped in my head was Norman Watkins, but I don't think he stayed at LB very long

La Marque dominated Galveston Ball during the Weddell era. I will say that Tony Heath leaving as La Marque OC to take over as Pearland HC and bringing Weddell's system had as much to do with Pearland's success as anything else. Speaking of Weddell, I see where he took over as Brazosport AD in January, just a few months after one of his longtime assistants, Dean Deatley, resigned as head-coach. Deatley came to LaMarque from Victoria with Weddell. That would have been an awkward first move as the new AD.

Amen!

Can you say "ironical," I bet you can?

"Assassination." What a shitty thing to have to explain to a kid.

On their way home to Van, Texas after eloping to Louisiana my grandparents stopped to pick up a hitchhiker, which wasn't unusual in those days. My grandmother always claimed that the next day the Van Zandt County Sheriff arrived to interview them because he claimed they had unwittingly given a ride to a member of the Barrow Gang, which had split up in different directions after a bank robbery. I've tried to reconcile the wedding date with a history of Bonnie & Clyde, but never could.

Just putting a chip on the longest odds

It's a scale, and there are different categories that have been historically established by federal case law, and the SCOTUS. The government, by way of example the Justice Department, would examine the alleged transgression and conduct of the employer, the statute or code alleged to have been violated, and it would then boil down to the government deciding whether it had a compelling interest to act against the employer on behalf of the employee and the likelihood of success. It's been several years since constitutional law was a day-to-day business concern of mine, so I can't say affirmatively where this would fall on that scale, or whether compelling would still be the standard or terminology. I can say with absolutely certainty that this particular Justice Department would not prosecute the NFL to enforce CK's right to free speech.

Because the focus became what he was doing and whether he had the right to do it, instead of why he was doing it. He didn't create that misdirection. Had people just asked the deeper question "why is he kneeling," or just said "fine, kneel," this may have been lead to a much needed and meaningful discussion on race relations in this country. It is not that cut and dry. It very well could be a first amendment issue if a private sector employer violates federal laws, as well as various state or local laws designed to protect and/or promote free speech, anti-discrimination, whistle-blowing, and labor conditions (for example). Additionally, there is the question as to whether those owners and their teams lose that private sector protection when they accept money to build those stadiums from federal, state and local governments, and receive government tax-breaks. To what extent do they become government actors and stand in those shoes? It is a sliding scale and clearly the NFL felt at risk or they would have hidden behind it through summary judgment.

Scattershooting. Maybe something happens or has happened to that daughter, which is linked to the investigation. I can't fathom what or how, but she may be dead or missing. They've laid the ground work that Mom is overly paranoid and overprotective about her children. Have they said how Hayes' wife died? [Edit: Cancer? If so, forget this about Mom's departure] Maybe she takes her own life when the daughter dies or goes missing. Maybe Hayes doesn't remember any of this, and his son and daughter-in-law are just telling Hayes his daughter's in California and doesn't like to come home just to keep him from remembering how/why she's gone and to keep him on an even keel.

Well, you can call him Ray.