Northcountryman

As per your second point of contention however, how many times have we diagreed about something , yet were actually in agreement? I could be wrong, but I dont remember that happening. The only disagreement I can recall between us is the China coronavirus thing back awhile ago

Yes, I just re-read and stand corrected--you did not say that he would be found guilty. My apologies

Yes, a link would be great, if possible.

I agree with your analysis, but disagree that he will be found guilty. My call is votes to convict remain trhe same as the intital vote on constitutionality of the entire process: 56-44 with the same 6 Republican "Traitors" voting to convict w/ the Dems. Without the requisite 2/3, he will , thus, be acquitted. It is ABUNDANTLY CLEAR that he is NOT GUILTY of incitement of a riot, pure and simple. Read the speech--case over .

Yeah, I heard this was being proposed; has it been passed, then? Hope so!!

Yeah, I'd go with bait this time of year; water's so cold right now, theyre not gonna be interested in much else IMHO. Are you fishing from shore?

Oh yeah? Have you been out for Walleye lately? Whatre yu using right now for them? Minnows on a jig? I wouldnt imagine theyd be too aggressive right now w/ water temps bein so cold.

Dan, its going to be very hard for you to go up to Oswego and fish without waders--trust me, especially for Steelhead. I would wait a little bit if I were you--too cold right now. From what I've been told by locals, early Aprils prime for Oswego AND the Salmon.

I fear that the double impeachment trials orchestrated by the Left sets a precedent that essentially weaponizes it in order to control and manipulate future Presidents, especially Republicans. Historically, impeachment has been an exceedingly rare perogative invoked by the House; in fact, prior to Trumps presidency, its been used only 2 other times , although Nixon would have clearly been impeached had he not resigned prior. And now, Congress has inoked impeachement twice in 2 years!! A little out of control , dont you think? And you know, this brings up another issue: IF the Democrats are right and they're impeachment of Trump this time is constitutional and valid, then should the congress have impeached Nixon back in 1974, even after he had resigned?? I mean, if you follow their logic, then why the hell not?

Yeah, thats what I thought too.

Yeah, its tennis elbow, no doubt. Ive had that in both arms off and on over the years--both from lifting and flyfishing. What you can do is do exercises to stretch the tendons using the opposite motion to relieve the pain. Stand with your back to a table and place your afflicted arm, behind you on the table. Then, turn your palm right-side up so your knucles are touching the table-top. Push down with your fingers so that youre attempting to push your habd up away from the table in a reverse-like motion--this will relieve the pressure.

Yes, of course, but not a comparable analogy Mike. The issue here is whether the Senate has jurisdiction to impeach a government official--in this case the Prez-- after they have left office when one of the consequences of a conviction clearly spelled out in the constitution is removal from office. Since that point is moot and, based on the precedent established in th blount case, I say they cannot as they no longer have jurisdiction for adjudication of the matter.

Yes, awesome birds. they have a very nice disposition and bring cheer to everything and everyone around them

I've been watching the trial-- here and there--when I can, and I can't help but feel alot of anger towards our elected officials for actually pursuing this charade. Specifically, I'm of the opinion that the impeachment trial is a total waste of time in that it will accomplish nothing besides further dividing a country that is already deeply divided. Several times during the impeachment proceedings to date, prosecutors have cited the impeachment trial of William Blount (1798-99)as evidence which establishes historical precedent and thus, validates their endeavor on jurisdictional grounds; but an analysis of the Blount case suggests otherwise. Here's the background: William Blount served in the North Carolina Legislature and signed the Declaration of Independence; he also served in the Revolutionary army, the Continental Congress, and the Constitutional Convention. He was appointed in 1790 by George Washington to be the governor of the territory south of Ohio, and secured statehood for Tennessee, becoming one of that state's first two U.S. senators in 1796. On July 3, 1797, however, he was named as a conspirator in a complex scheme offering to assist Great Britain with gaining possession of the Spanish-controlled possessions of Florida and Louisiana. Blount had apparently devised the scheme to prevent the Spanish from ceding the territories to France, which would have depressed the value of his extensive southwestern landholdings. Priot to the impeachment proceedings , Blount was expelled by the Senate for his conduct and so, no longer held public office; moreover, Blount refused to appear for the proceedings, instead going back to his home state of Tennesee. In the impeachment trial of Blount, the senate considered two resolutions, the first --which essentially addressed the overruling of Blounts plea for dismissal of the charges-- failed, and the second-- considering the defendants plea that the court did not hold jurisdiction in the matter --which passed. So, in summary, the Senate found that they COUND NOT proceed with the impeachment DUE TO THEIR LACK OF JURISDICTION IN THE MATTER (i.e., because he no longer held public office) and would NOT OVERRULE HIS MOTION TO HAVE THE CHARGES DISMISSED. Based on the Senate rulings from this case, I would say that the precedent established for the Trump imeachment trial --- in stark contrast to what the Prosecution contends--is that the Senate no longer holds jurisdiction over Trump and that the charges should be summarily dismissed as requested. Now, I have alot of other points that i could mention , but just considering the historical precedent established by the Blount case, I dont need to--right??

I agree with your first point but not the 2nd because, for many of us who view ourselves politically oriented to the right, the "other" side (to us )clearly engages in it far more than the other.

I think his point is (barring a few exceptions here and there )that the majority comes from the left.

I couldn't agree more : 1)One day later, First lady Melania Trump was forced to call the Secret Service after another B-actor, Peter Fonda targeted her 11-year-old son, Barron Trump, saying “We should rip Barron Trump from his mother’s arms and put him in a cage with pedophiles and see if mother will stand up against the giant asshole she is married to…” 2)A Nebraska Democratic Party official found himself in hot water only days after Republican Congressman Steve Scalise was shot. An audio recording was posted on YouTube Thursday with Phil Montag, a technology chairman, voicing how glad he was that House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, R-La., got shot last week at a GOP baseball practice. Nebraska Democratic Party Chairwoman Jane Kleeb confirmed to FOX 42 News Thursday it was really his voice:

Losers and Sell-outs to the last; I held my nose in 2012 and voted for Romney...literally.

Barry is short for "Barack"; I believe his wife and, other close and personal friends call him Barry.

Really, that sounds really cool. I'm gonna try to Google it ; is it an old book or comtemporary?? Sounds like a great resource

Yeah, I think I'm gonna try it this year, that is, IF I can find a prime spot for one. In my mind, hillsides, upper part of ridge lines, etc. would be ideal, but might be hard to dig w/ root systems/ rocks and all.

Really , so where’d you read this ? I’d like to check it Out . I’ve found going toe first is more difficult to maintain your balance , although you can detect branches more effectively as you stated before

But I think you have more control when you go heel first ; Im sure I've read that somewhere. Guess i'll have to try both

Toe first? Ive read heel first when still hunting; which is it then?

Yes, but maybe on high ground?