Rocky

Who calls you 'Nick'?

I'm glad you've been in touch with her....

My sentiments exactly. I miss her already!

Well... you ARE -- ONLY 50! Young lady! :D Obviously, most of us in the 9th were older, but not more than a couple years. Then there was Frank M... I think he was in his 30s (then) already. btw, George H**dley counts like you... I just tell folks I'm not yet to the half way point!

I imagine this game is being watched in Toledo....

I thought USC played two days ago in Pasadena??????????

It's hard to imagine anyone could be more full of baloney than what you've presented here... but it's obvious you have no idea what the difference is between the words 'legal' and 'political'. You use the word IF several times. THAT particular conditional word, applied to THIS situation, actually proves my point. For your use of the word IF becomes a segue into a DIFFERENT investigation by a DIFFERENT agency in a DIFFERENT branch of government. As the situation currently exists, the investigation is in, of, and by CONGRESS. Congress can do NO prosecuting. The IRS, on the other hand, yes, is NOT a judicial branch agency. Executive branch agencies ENFORCE LAWS (which are made in CONGRESS, which laws are the result of a POLITICAL process). Therefore, IF the IRS gets involved, it THEN and then only WOULD become a legal question. But as no judicial action has been taken by any executive branch agency, nor has any enforcement action been taken by any executive branch agency, there is, as yet, NO legal question nor dimension to this matter. Your situation, by which you constructed your insane argument that this is a legal investigation, until someone (agency) gets involved OTHER THAN Congress, is completely IMAGINARY. Another word for the product of one's imagination is FANTASY. Therefore, your claim that this matter is a legal one is strictly your fantasy. Until then, it remains very much a REAL political issue, matter, question. btw, "DUDE", Grassley is NOT an agent or member of any entity related to either the executive or judicial branches of ANY government. But he IS a Member of Congress (properly capitalized, btw). As such, his investigation can and is PROPERLY characterized as CONGRESSIONAL... albeit, informal. That it IS informal only further underscores the POLITICAL nature of his investigation... while further removing it from the realm of being a legal matter. And btw... your accusations regarding my "argument" are absurd. I made NO argument in the post addressing you previous to your most recent response. I posed questions to you. You did a grand job of failing to answer those questions, however.

Well... I wasn't sexually abused. BUT there was, here in AZ, such a quirky situation not too unlike what you described... A certain "leader" lived as if he had TWO wives. Only one was officially his wife, the other lived in the house, spent lots of time with him and was his "personal assistant." Most people that left twi in the 86-87 "exodus" recognized this situation for what it genuinely appears to be... which, of course, LOOKS awfully fishy... and from what I've heard, continues to this day, even though that particular leader is also no longer affiliated with twi.

Goey... I don't care what you believe (honestly, it matters not to me whether you choose to believe the sun is black and the sky is below us, what you believe is your personal choice). But you really shouldn't be allowed to mislead people without correction. Therefore, answer THIS: WHAT will CONGRESS do with the results of ITS investigation? Will CONGRESS prosecute anyone? Can Congress prosecute anyone? (HINT: those being investigated here are NOT holding either the office of President or Vice-President of the United States) You cite the word ULTIMATELY. What do you mean by this use of the word ULTIMATELY? Do you mean that somewhere, sometime in the not yet defined future, someone will be prosecuted? If so, WHO will be prosecuted, BY WHOM, in WHAT FORUM (i.e. WHERE). Then answer, HOW will this be accomplished and WHY will it be done. ALL we have thus far is that IF there is to be ANY prosecution, it will be subsequent to some uncertain future legislation becoming law. Are YOU able to accurately limit the variables in such a POTENTIAL scenario such that you can tell us NOW that there will, with certainty, be a successful push in Congress to write and pass a law, and that this president or the next one will, with certainty, either sign it or allow it to become law without the presidential signature? (Let's also not forget the US Constitutional ban on ex poste facto laws). If -- and ONLY IF -- you can accurately answer ALL of those questions affirmatively, can you even come close to rightfully classifying the current investigative question as a legal in nature. If you cannot so answer, then the question(s), by default, fall back to being strictly POLITICAL. And as a political situation, whether or not anyone is ULTIMATELY prosecuted for fiscal immorality related to an alleged "Gospel of Prosperity" is NOT and WILL NOT be a question decided upon in ANY American court of law. If you can provide a cogent rebuttal, I'd be pleased to have you prove me wrong.

Actually, it is NOT a legal issue, but is emphatically ONLY a political issue. IF it was a legal issue, the investigation would NOT be conducted in Congress, but in the courts and by prosecutors. Until an enforcement action is commenced in a (federal) court by a (USDOJ) prosecutor, any and all discussion (well, NOT our discussion...) is strictly political. Another point to consider -- what is the intent of the congressman? To what end is he investigating? If he FINDS (issues or publishes a FINDING) there has been abuse of a religious organization's tax-free status, what will (CAN) he do? Congress has no power to administer legal consequences of any kind, especially against a private corporation (yes, corporation, a nonprofit corporation). The most severe -- direct -- action he could take is to introduce legislation to alter the rules under which such religious groups operate. And THAT is a political act.

And -- Prosperos Anos e Felicidade! Speaking of ruby slippers... she might not be (well, she ISN'T...) in Kansas anymore, but they get plenty of tornados in Oklahoma! So, maybe she'll need them slippers anyway!

They certainly came closer to that declaration tonight. The game was all it was promoted to be... NO playoff implications for either team, but first stringers played the whole game. With a 38-35 final score, and anOTHER come from behind win, it's getting harder to deny them the recognition as THE greatest. However, what will it be, 3 playoff games they'll need to win to make it final and official?

And this is a follow up to the 60 Minutes story last Sunday about the guy with the "church" in Houston. This is REALLY a political issue, NOT a religious issue. There may have been a time when this could have been an issue of concern for twi, but more than likely not these days.

Did you see the Brady interview on 60 Minutes on Sunday?

Where'd ya get THAT scoop?

Saturday's Pats game, originally scheduled to be broadcast ONLY on the NFL network, will be simulcast on NBC and CBS.

Oh... I suppose. You might be right. If that's the topic of this thread, my comment would be that many times just a letter from an attorney to bully the target "name user" can get the job done.

Do you not know of the Allens, founders of the now shut down website "Waydale"? They won a big one.

You're correct on that one, though I'd be richer if I had been! Those tix better not be for next October! :blink:

I hope that means you'll stick around! Happy happy Dude!

Let's not forget pheasant season and bear season! Or quail or rabbit! On Dasher, on Dancer, on Comet...

I've known people for whom lying is easier than breathing. That's how this cynical sports fan sees it! p.s. I was even married to one of them.

In what context, that? I think that is LIMITED to legal proceedings, particularly in criminal prosecutions. Last I looked, THIS is not a criminal prosecution of Roger Clemens. In the forum in which Clemens is currently engaged -- the court of public opinion -- there is NO such caveat, in America or elsewhere. In two other forums, that of MLB rules compliance and of the HoF selection committee, he'll have a vocal advocate in Donald Fehr and co. How exactly this will play out in HoF consideration, I won't hazard a guess. But I don't foresee Clemens being prosecuted for criminal conduct based on anything disclosed in the Mitchell Report.

I am not a crook! -- Richard Nixon

Plenty of female HUMANS shout during sex also. I don't have any studies to cite, but can report anecdotal evidence of same. :)