Sc0tt28

My wife (the foreigner - Canadian) has the same issue with the bread but our Tillamook Cheese (Tillamook, OR) is excellent.

I almost decided not to say anything because I'm aware that what I have to say, may not be very "popular".
To begin with - let me stress that it is in fact illegal for him to have done what he did and it is completely inexcusable.
That being said, it doesn't look like they are accusing you of anything, they are simply covering their bases if this jerk of an officer decides to take his termination to court.
If the supervisors never ask you for ALL the details to include whatever the offending officer might cook up, then the officer could just lie in court and say that you asked him to contact you. Of course this is rediculous but the burden of proof is "beyond reasonable doubt".
Look at the flip side of it, they ask you if you solicited the "attention", you say "no, of course not", now if he says something in court he just looks like a jerk and not some officer getting screwed by a pissed off passenger that didn't get her way at the border.
It may be embarrassing, but any attorney would ask you the same questions. They just need to know all the facts and they need to anticipate the curve balls that could get thrown when this officer gets the boot.

I almost decided not to say anything because I'm aware that what I have to say, may not be very "popular".
To begin with - let me stress that it is in fact illegal for him to have done what he did and it is completely inexcusable.
That being said, it doesn't look like they are accusing you of anything, they are simply covering their bases if this jerk of an officer decides to take his termination to court.
If the supervisors never ask you for ALL the details to include whatever the offending officer might cook up, then the officer could just lie in court and say that you asked him to contact you. Of course this is rediculous but the burden of proof is "beyond reasonable doubt".
Look at the flip side of it, they ask you if you solicited the "attention", you say "no, of course not", now if he says something in court he just looks like a jerk and not some officer getting screwed by a pissed off passenger that didn't get her way at the border.
It may be embarrassing, but any attorney would ask you the same questions. They just need to know all the facts and they need to anticipate the curve balls that could get thrown when this officer gets the boot.

Sorry but they are still accountable. Reid's inability to lead doesn't negate the fact that they had a majority.

The Democrats had the White House, and majorities in both chambers of Congress from January 20, 2009 until January 3, 2011. That is about 2 1/2 weeks shy of 2 full years to get their act together. So the "whole bunch of screw ups in congress" that you refer to must be the Democrats right?

Interesting that you think so. Naïveté could also be used to describe those that refuse to hold thier government accountable, even if the truth hurts.

Interesting that you think so. Naïveté could also be used to describe those that refuse to hold thier government accountable, even if the truth hurts.

Sorry but they are still accountable. Reid's inability to lead doesn't negate the fact that they had a majority.

Sorry but they are still accountable. Reid's inability to lead doesn't negate the fact that they had a majority.

Sorry but they are still accountable. Reid's inability to lead doesn't negate the fact that they had a majority.

Sorry but they are still accountable. Reid's inability to lead doesn't negate the fact that they had a majority.

The Democrats had the White House, and majorities in both chambers of Congress from January 20, 2009 until January 3, 2011. That is about 2 1/2 weeks shy of 2 full years to get their act together. So the "whole bunch of screw ups in congress" that you refer to must be the Democrats right?

The Democrats had the White House, and majorities in both chambers of Congress from January 20, 2009 until January 3, 2011. That is about 2 1/2 weeks shy of 2 full years to get their act together. So the "whole bunch of screw ups in congress" that you refer to must be the Democrats right?

The Democrats had the White House, and majorities in both chambers of Congress from January 20, 2009 until January 3, 2011. That is about 2 1/2 weeks shy of 2 full years to get their act together. So the "whole bunch of screw ups in congress" that you refer to must be the Democrats right?

I served in Iraq from April until October 2003 with the 49th Quartermaster Group from Fort Lee, Virginia and from December 2005 until December 2006 with the 4th Infantry Division from Fort Hood, Texas. (The 4th ID has since moved to Ft. Carson, CO)
Thanks for asking and your welcome.

By the way, nobody said anything about thumbing their nose at the US. It was a UN resolution, not a US resolution. The US happened to be the only ones willing to do something about it.

I served in Iraq from April until October 2003 with the 49th Quartermaster Group from Fort Lee, Virginia and from December 2005 until December 2006 with the 4th Infantry Division from Fort Hood, Texas. (The 4th ID has since moved to Ft. Carson, CO)
Thanks for asking and your welcome.

Like I said, just because the rest of the world is too cowardly to stop a tyrant, doesn't mean it shouldn't happen.

I served in Iraq from April until October 2003 with the 49th Quartermaster Group from Fort Lee, Virginia and from December 2005 until December 2006 with the 4th Infantry Division from Fort Hood, Texas. (The 4th ID has since moved to Ft. Carson, CO)
Thanks for asking and your welcome.

Like I said, just because the rest of the world is too cowardly to stop a tyrant, doesn't mean it shouldn't happen.

That's fine, then the budget should have been cut by $61-$100 billion minus the 330 million for PP. That still means $60.670-$99.670 billion should have been cut. Maybe the Democrats really aren't serious about becoming more fiscally responsible?

Ok, so from (give or take) February to April, the Republicans proposed between $61-$100 billion in cuts.
The actual budget deal cut $38.5 billion.
Planned Parenthood receives only $330 million.
If the Democrats are so willing to put everything on the table, then what happened to the other $22.5-$62.5 billion?
It seems that since the Democrats derailed the whole thing over $330 million (1.46%-0.528% of what was proposed), and ended up cutting half of what the Republicans proposed, then yes, they have been "slow in negotiating budget cuts" as Vi-Jay suggested.

That's fine, then the budget should have been cut by $61-$100 billion minus the 330 million for PP. That still means $60.670-$99.670 billion should have been cut. Maybe the Democrats really aren't serious about becoming more fiscally responsible?

Ok, so from (give or take) February to April, the Republicans proposed between $61-$100 billion in cuts.
The actual budget deal cut $38.5 billion.
Planned Parenthood receives only $330 million.
If the Democrats are so willing to put everything on the table, then what happened to the other $22.5-$62.5 billion?
It seems that since the Democrats derailed the whole thing over $330 million (1.46%-0.528% of what was proposed), and ended up cutting half of what the Republicans proposed, then yes, they have been "slow in negotiating budget cuts" as Vi-Jay suggested.

pushbrk, I'm sorry if I came across as being rude in any way. The statement "CR-1/IR-1 is the way to go...forget about the K-3, its obsolete" just really irritates me because obviously some people have no idea and yet they spout off #######. I'm not saying that you are one of the ones that has said this, you just got caught in the crossfire I guess.