where does he keep finding them....?
he's finding them under Ashcroft's rock
oh littlek, you don't want to know.
no, I prolly don't. I'll just keep Lola's image of Ashcroft's rock as my answer....
If anyone's interested.... a group called NARAL sends out emails about women's reproductive rights. They're really on top of the Bush admin.
http://www.naral.org/index.html
Take him or leave him, the Rev. Jesse Jackson does have one solid piece of advice: "Don't go to Bushes."
williamhenry3 wrote:Take him or leave him, the Rev. Jesse Jackson does have one solid piece of advice: "Don't go to Bushes."
Actually what he says is, "stay out of the Bushes", a quip now used often by the Reverend Al.
Dictionary
I do feel sort of stupid. I used the Simon & Schuster Encyclopedia CD which I have on my computer. (I think the dictionary is American College)
Of course I should have just used google and found the Merriam-Webster dictionary on line. There, I found the definitions you supplied.
However, my original question was: What is a right-wing idealogue?
On the web, I found a link where it said "A conservative idealogue parades himself as a logical, clear thinker. See "troglodyte".
A liberal idealogue "trumpets his higher level of mental, spiritual and social awareness". See Weenie.
Wow!! There sure are a lot of weenies in this discussion! I wonder if there is a word to describe a weenie who wants to obstruct the will of the people?
donslav<
Obviously you are a "troglodyte" of the obnoxious variety.
Many times when "troglodytes" feel stupid, it means they
are.
obnoxious??
williamhenry3:
Your remark about my stupidity was humerous -- even for a weenie. I'd give it about a 3.
However, your use of the term, "obnoxious" , is a bit personal. I re-read my posts and I failed to see any personal references of that kind.
But I think I've figured out why you would be "frightened" by a Bush judge appointee. Maybe for you "obnoxious" = someone opposed to your views.
That is always frightening and is a hallmark of a true weenie.
Hey guys, there's probably a little troglodyte and weenie in all of us.
Can't we all just get along?
Aw, snood, don't go soft on us!....
donlasv - And what is the will of the people? Very unclear. Are you referring to the will of the republicans? They're only part of the people. So with the democrats. Perhaps with the wide and varied hispanics? Haven't noticed any groups of people coming out with the will.
Everybody is doing a job. The executive, no matter how high and mighty it thinks it is, nominates. The legislative advises and consents (or disagrees). And that is what's happening. And if part of the legislative disagrees, then it is their right and duty to do so. If the ideologues on the right think this is wrong, then they do not know or care about the constitution they love to quote.
Get off it. Watch the process at play.
constitution
mamajuana:
I re-read the Constitution and there is no mention of a provision requiring 60 senators to "advise and consent" to judge appointees. Did you miss that point in my post to you?
The will of the people was expressed when they elected a majority of Repub. senators. If "part of the legislature" is opposed, they can express their displeasure by voting "No". (and trying to convince others of their views).
Not even permitting a vote is obstructionism.
In the movie, "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington", Mr. Smith had to keep talking all night to keep the filibuster going. Today, our senators of both parties don't want to miss their beauty sleep.
donlasv<
Before I take to my bed for some much-deserved beauty rest, my use of the term "obnoxious" in reference to you was indeed "personal." It had nothing to do with the "frightening" views about which I correctly wrote.
Now, where is my nightgown . . . . .z z z z z z
Re: constitution
donlasv wrote:mamajuana:
I re-read the Constitution and there is no mention of a provision requiring 60 senators to "advise and consent" to judge appointees. Did you miss that point in my post to you?
there is also no mention in the Constitution about a majority vote. The Senate is quite free to make their own rules and they have done so from the very beginning.
Bush is hungry for even bigger fish and is doing all he can to see that some Supreme Court justices retire while he is still in office in order to stack the Court with his appointees.
http://www.democrats.org/scotus/
donslav: The will of the people has a far broader meaning than a slim majority of republicans who vote in a bloc. That's when it turns into something else. Thank you, dyslexia. The point about the Senate (and its committees) making its own rules is written. Before quoting the Constitution to me, perhaps you shoud read more of it. It is quite easliy brought up on google. And you wiggle over the point about advise and consent, and each according to his principles. The Senate can confirm or deny a nomination, but its role is to advise and consent, not just to rubber stamp.
Take the numbers. How many senators, what are they. The republicans can't muster a vote of sixty to break the filibuster. What percentage is that of a hundred senators? That's a majority by anyone's count. So, when you - and they - talk about a majority, that's not what you mean at all, is it?
And please note all the squirrely references now being made by song-and-dance Hatch to the ABA. When Bush came in, they couldn't jump fast enough to decry the ABA, and take them out as a recommending body. Now, it seems, their opinion matters.
And a majority vote would have given the presidency to Gore. That's why Bush needs the court. They're the reason he's sitting where he is. Not voted in by a majority, was he?
