There is a strange to hippies counter army fighting back though.  This state is deeply impoverished and being a school teacher is one of the few jobs here that comes with health benefits and a pension.  It is a status symbol here to have a "school" job.  Most other states people feel sorry for you though :). But not here.  Anyhow Pipkin decided to try to run against Moore and attempt to fight the destruction of the Alabama public school system here.

At first I saw all these Moore signs go up though. Really big signs too, expensive signs all over mounted on 2 4x4s (my business brain at work)...he had lots of money behind him.  I saw a few Pipkin signs eventually trickle in when it was official he was primarying Moore.  They were small cheap yard signs, looked sad next to Moore, but then the school teachers and workers took up the cause and are paying for a decent Pipkin ad campaign now thank God.  These are all really Conservatives in this fight though.....to save or destroy the Alabama public school system (quiet chuckle to self).

Soooooo, after reading the indictments the best speculation I can make is that Moore initially attempted to bribe Pipkin to not run against him in a primary?  Because it's war here man, the war is on :)

I'm just an observer though, like a UN observer :)

I can watch GF 2, but only really am drawn to some of the scenes.
The recreation of 1950s Cuba is absolutely amazing.

GF 1 is my favorite.
So many memorable moments.

Water's, Polyester used the smell cards that you scratched and sniffed when the signal came on the film.  

the smells were:

Roses, Flatulence, Model Building Glue, Pizza, Gasoline, Skunk, Natural Gas, New Car Smell, Smelly Shoes,Air Freshener

Regarding your pathetic and ham-fisted attempt to label Donald Sterling a Democrat, why you even believe that to be necessary I haven't the slightest idea nor do I even care, because his past political support and affiliations are completely irrelevant in the context of what he actually said. I once voted for Ronald Reagan 30 years ago. Does that make me a Republican today?

I would note only that most prominent Southern California Democrats very quickly condemned Sterling's recorded remarks once the story broke yesterday, while as of this writing their GOP counterparts have remained ominously silent on the subject.

That's perfectly understandable, given that the Republican base today is comprised mainly of angry white males who are aging in place and have little or no problem with Sterling's personal views about African Americans and other minority groups. That party's margin of success is now so drawn so narrowly that Republican candidates and office holders can't really afford to bite any one of the hands that feed them, even on a matter of principle such as this.

I do expect public opinion on this matter to be such that they'll eventually have to cut him loose much as they did the wretched Mr. Bundy, no doubt displaying all the courage and fortitude necessary fore one to be able to shoot the wounded.

Don't hurt yourself stretching too much ...

BTW - So I guess we can call you a Democrat, because you voted for Democrats 30+ years ago?

how many agencies of the Federal do we need to be armed and ready to attack people for what is a violation of a civil law? 10? 11? 12? 13?

And why is the Dept of Education doing "criminal" investigations?

1.  That's not "the issue".  Conservative wish it was the issue - and are trying to make it the issue - because they want to distract attention and justify their support for their favorite welfare mooch and lawbreaker.

2.  Why does it matter if the Inspector General's office executes its own warrants or if the FBI executes the warrant for all federal agencies?  The wingnuts would still complain and call them "jack-booted thugs" etc., regardless of the name on their windbreakers.  Just another silly, failed attempt to divert attention.

3.  The federal law enforcement officers enforcing these court orders absolutely should be armed, especially when you have Bundy and his armed supporters showing up, making threats, pointing a rifle at federal agents, etc., while being prepared to hide behind their wives if violence results.

The Vatican instructed Catholic bishops around the world to cover up cases of sexual abuse or risk being thrown out of the Church.
The Observer has obtained a 40-year-old confidential document from the secret Vatican archive which lawyers are calling a 'blueprint for deception and concealment'. One British lawyer acting for Church child abuse victims has described it as 'explosive'.

The 69-page Latin document bearing the seal of Pope John XXIII was sent to every bishop in the world. The instructions outline a policy of 'strictest' secrecy in dealing with allegations of sexual abuse and threatens those who speak out with excommunication.

Eg: Your oft stated assertion that one cannot criticize democrats if one is not active in party politics.

Eg: Your assertion that one cannot criticize screenplays if one is not engaged in writing one.

This is another one.
Someone who you suspect is not a Catholic, has no business questioning the canonization of a person who, it is alleged, was responsible for covering up, or allowing the covering up, of reprehensible conduct on the part of the clergy.

Are you Roman Catholic? Because if you're not, then why does it concern you and Maureen Dowd?

Irish Catholic I believe.

The Church is hopelessly sexist; the Church is hopelessly sex-obsessed; the Church is cruel to women and gays; the Church is hypocritical. And, of course and most recently, the Church is a global criminal conspiracy of child rapists and their abettors, which "fact" validates the other charges in the standing indictment just cited.

From the National Review about the scourge of anti-Catholics

You and christine have taken great offense at those who have asked what miracles these men were responsible for, and encouraged people to check out the process for canonization, but neither one of you has had anything to say about this:

The Vatican had a hard time drumming up the requisite two miracles when Pope Benedict XVI, known as John Paul's Rasputin and enforcer of the orthodoxy, waived the traditional five-year waiting period and rushed to canonize his mentor.

[snip]

Perhaps trying to balance the choice of John Paul, who made conservatives jump for joy because he ran a Vatican that tolerated no dissent, the newly christened Pope Francis tried to placate progressives by cutting the miracle requirement from two to one to rush John XXIII's canonization.

So...there's a process, but it can be tinkered with?  Is it that hard to find candidates for sainthood?

Also, both of you accused lentinel of having an agenda, framing her questions and comments as if she were the one injecting politics into the conversation.  But neither of you had anything to say about this:

"This is a political balancing act," said Kenneth Briggs, the noted religion writer. "Unfortunately, the comparisons are invidious. John opened up the church to the world and J.P. II began to close it down again, make it into a more restricted community, putting boundaries up."

Do you think this might be why lentinel raised the issue?

The "sanctuary" comment?  Here's where that came in:

One of John Paul's great shames was giving Vatican sanctuary to Cardinal Bernard Francis Law, a horrendous enabler of child abuse who resigned in disgrace in 2002 as archbishop of Boston. Another unforgivable breach was the pope's stubborn defense of the dastardly Mexican priest Marcial Maciel Degollado, a pedophile, womanizer, embezzler and drug addict.

As Jason Berry wrote last year in Newsweek, Father Maciel "was the greatest fund-raiser for the postwar Catholic Church and equally its greatest criminal."

As an aside, Jason Berry is Catholic, and he's done a boatload of investigative work on the sexual abuse scandals, so what new metric are you going to create to render his comments not credible?

I really do not understand the bristling, defensive, turn-the-tables reaction to people questioning the canonization of these two popes.  Nor do I understand the eyes-wide-shut stance you and christine have taken, to the point that neither one of you bothered - perhaps even avoided - reading Dowd's column.  I kind of expect that from christine, as she just makes pronouncements and declarations, never cites or links to any sources and believes her own life experience is all anyone needs to be armed with in order to form opinions (in that last regard, you and christine have something in common) - but the high standards you set for others require your own to be at the same level - and at that you failed.

And you've now also set a standard that's going to lock you out of more than a few discussions, I think.  If one has to be a Roman Catholic to comment in any way on anything happening in the church, then you are going to need to be female to comment on issues affecting women, you're going to need to be African-American or Latino or Jewish or Muslim or gay to weigh in on matters affecting any one or all of that group.  

And no, the fact that you were once married to a woman who happened to be gay, or that your are currently married to someone from the Latino community, doesn't get you in the door you just designed.  Sorry.  Guess you;ll have to be just one more person settin' on Howdy's front porch chewin' the fat over the week's TV offerings instead of participating in discussions about more substantive issues.  Ooh, that should be fun, eh?

At the least, it seems it would be hard to hold any of his players to the standards of conduct their contracts prob have :P

The rules of removing an owner involve financial issues, meaning if he was broke and couldn't run the team, and pay the bills.

So if he rides out a suspension and there isn't anything the NBA could do.  

Long term however is players could refuse to come over in free agency and players would leave the team as soon as they could when their contracts ran out.  Even that I'm afraid wouldn't force his hand because for years he didn't put a competitive team on the floor.   Recent success is just that, recent.