Woman to Woman

By chuck

November 20, 2006 08:32 AM | Link to this

Good Morning Hopefully, the mid term elections will mean NOTHING. I mean that literally. The best thing about a split government like we will have is that very few bills will be passed. We really NEED a do-nothing congress again. What would really be nice would be 2 years with NO BILLS PASSING except maybe emergency spending bills so that the military will be paid. If they did NOTHING ELSE for 2 years I would be ecstatic.

By Brian Curtis

November 20, 2006 08:39 AM | Link to this

I’m not sure if Diane and Shaunti coordinated on this week’s discussion. Shaunti’s column addresses the appalling prospect of the Bush administration being held accountable for its crimes and screwups, while Diane focuses entirely on prospects for the 2008 election.

They’re talking about two entirely different things. Shaunti, as usual, is taking the talking-point perspective that “the Dems will reveal their true, liberal (i.e., demonic and anti-American) selves, screw up the country, and thereby hand Republicans victory in ‘08”—wishful thinking that I’m sure Ann Coulter is opening her morning prayers with every day. (Of course, that presumes that the Democratic agenda actually IS anti-American and repugnant to the vast majority of voters who were somehow tricked into voting for them a couple weeks ago.)

But Diane’s focus is squarely on 2008… she seems unconcerned with what happens between then and now, and only cares about how specific candidates’ prospects will be affected by this outcome. It’s reasonable to view politics as a media horse-race, given how easily we voters are manipulated, but I’d like to see at least SOME discussion of what’s actually on the agenda for the coming two year’s governance.

Personally? I believe that compromise with fanatical zealots is impossible, but compromise with sane, intelligent people is usually a good idea. Now we just need a “who’s who” guide to Washington players to help make that call….

By Mara

November 20, 2006 08:56 AM | Link to this

Excuse me Shaunti…you are (once again) wrong, wrong, wrong. Though Clinton was willing to work with a Republican congress to pass welfare reform, elevate consensus judges, and balance the Federal Budget, Bush did not reach out to the Democratic majority in the beginning of his term. And after 9/11, his party actively vilified liberals as ant-American, traitorous, and a danger to the country.

Once the Republicans gained the majority in Congress they made it perfectly clear that they had ZERO interest in working with the Democrats. It was House Majority leader and Texas Republican Dick Armey that coined the oft repeated conservative axiom (that has been attributed to conservative operative Grover Norquist) - “Bipartisanship is another name for date rape”.

Or how about good ol’ Tom Delay, who’s just been returned to a leadership positon by his Republican peers - “We have a small faction, and they are a minority, who believe they are there to govern. Then there is the majority of us who believe that indeed we are there to govern but more importantly we are there to be an opposition to the Democratic philosophy and the only way to do that is through confrontation.” — Houston Chronicle, April 14, 1991”

So now, Bush, in his desire to find a common middle, has re-nominated six judges that the Democrats have already told him they will not confirm, appoints an anti-contraception religious zealot to manage the family planning department in HHS, and insists that John Bolton be confirmed as U.N. Ambassador, something that didn’t happen with a Republican congress and won’t happen with a Democratic one. Certainly doesn’t sound like he’s looking for any kind of centrist compormise to me.

To the Republicans, “bipartisanship” isn’t an equitable meeting of the center. It’s the capitulation of the enemy. And in this case, the “enemy” is their fellow American…the dirty, liberal, Democrat.

By Desperanto

November 20, 2006 08:57 AM | Link to this

Hello, Dear Sir, This web.very useful for me
http://3-club-midnight-remix.retle.org http://boyz-eazy-mp3-remix.retle.org http://eminem-remix.retle.org http://mario-remix.retle.org http://pepsi-techno.afzet.org

By Renee

November 20, 2006 09:15 AM | Link to this

maybe I have ADD this week, but what a boring topic. Important, yes, pertinent, yes….but borrrrring

Morning everyone!!!

By Chilao

November 20, 2006 09:17 AM | Link to this

Bush’s “interest” in any bipartisanship cooperation the next two years has been demonstrated quite well with the re-submittion of John Bolton(thank you Mara). Enough said.

The most important thing about my post a few weeks ago of It’s a Good Day for America is we now have checks-and-balances. Clinton had it and Reagan had it. Bush did not.

By Chilao

November 20, 2006 09:30 AM | Link to this

submission? that’s the drag of keying quickly and Phonetically. LOL

By chuck

November 20, 2006 09:58 AM | Link to this

Has anybody noticed that John Bolton has actually DONE A GOOD JOB AT THE U.N.?

I think it is hilarious that ya’ll accepted the democrat demonization of Bolton as fact. Is Bolton hard-nosed? Yes, but isn’t that what you want from someone who is going to be representing America’s INTERESTS in the U.N.? Has he caused WWIII NO. Is he likely to? NO. Last time I looked, foreign policy was given as a power of the PRESIDENT, not the Congress. The fact that they have the right to “advise” does not mean they have the right to choose the nominee. The same is true of Federal judges and Supreme Court Justices. Unless the candidate is not legally qualified, the President should be given the right to appoint people who hold the same views as the President on issues facing the court. In large part, people elect Presidents FOR THAT PURPOSE.

Tell me something…who has made a bigger historical impact on America, Gerald Ford or John Paul Stevens? Appointments are an important part of the presidency and something that we all should pay attention to, but I think most of us believe that politicizing them in Congress is the wrong thing to do.

By chuck

November 20, 2006 10:03 AM | Link to this

And yes, that holds true for the Clinton nominees as well. Neither side should play politcs with nominations. Unless there is a valid reason (meaning the candidate is not qualified for the appointed office) to deny the nomination, they should pass. Period.

By chuck

November 20, 2006 10:06 AM | Link to this

BTW, Clinton’s 2 nominees to the court…both flaming liberals…passed with only a combined 12 votes against them. Bush’s 2 nominees passed with a total of 64 votes against them, 42 of those against Alito. So if you want to talk about Bipartisanship, it ain’t coming from the Democrats.

By Chilao

November 20, 2006 10:31 AM | Link to this

Thanks, Chuck, nice to be reminded there has been such a strong history of bipartisanship in the Congress since 1994. LOL

By Mara

November 20, 2006 10:56 AM | Link to this

chuck - ah, yes. For a guy who once said “The (U.N.)Secretariat building in New York has 38 stories. If it lost ten stories, it wouldn’t make a bit of difference.”, Bolton’s certainly done well by the U.S. despite the intransigence of those demonizing democrats, as is noted by the following quotes - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/26/AR2006072601892.html

“He sometimes makes it very difficult to build bridges…”, says South Africa’s U.N. ambassador, Dumisani Shadrack Kumalo,”Ambassador Bolton wants to prove nothing works at the United Nations.”

“There is currently a perception among many otherwise quite moderate countries that anything the U.S. supports must have a secret agenda aimed at either subordinating multilateral processes to Washington’s ends or weakening the institutions, and therefore, put crudely, should be opposed without any real discussion of whether they make sense or not,” - U.N. Deputy Secretary General Mark Malloch Brown said in June 6 speech.

Gunter Pleuger, who retired last month as Germany’s U.N. ambassador, said Bolton has repeatedly maneuvered the United States into isolated positions on key issues. “The first thing you learn in diplomatic school is never move yourself into a position of isolation, because even the biggest power will not sustain that position,”

yeah. sounds like he’s doing a bang-up job there chuck.

By Chilao

November 20, 2006 11:09 AM | Link to this

The real point about Bolton is he was rejected by Dems and some GOPers the first time around, hence the current recess appointment, yet here he is back again, as the first order of business from Bush. Kinda a duh kind of thing. Certainly no surprise.

Just read something somewhere, someone was wondering if now South Africa will refuse to do business with the U.S. and divest themselves from holding stocks of U.S. corporations, for being at a lesser social evolution then South Africa is. LOL

By Chilao

November 20, 2006 11:18 AM | Link to this

thAn? sounds like I need to stop, come back after the Holidays.LOL

By Mara

November 20, 2006 12:04 PM | Link to this

chuck - while the President does have the “right” to nominate anyone he wants to any post he likes, it is the congress’s duty to make sure that the nominee would be acceptable to their constituents. That’s why there’s a confimation process. You forgot to add the “consent” part of the “advise and consent” reference.

And despite the actions of the 106th thru the 109th Congress, the legislative branch is NOT supposed to be a rubber stamp for executive whim. Even so, Democrats have confirmed 97% of Bush’s nominees. I wouldn’t say that blocking 5 or 6 of the most ideologic ones is so terribly obstructionist. But then I’m one of those filthy libruls, too, so that’s probably not horribly surprising to you.

Hey Renee. Hi Chilao.

By chuck

November 20, 2006 12:04 PM | Link to this

Yes Mara, Here is a quote from that article:

Bolton’s defenders say he has rightfully upended the status quo at the United Nations, which has been plagued by financial and sexual misconduct scandals in Iraq and Congo. They say his aggressive pursuit of U.S. interests has irritated foreign delegations, including European allies who see the world body as a means of constraining U.S. power.

“Bolton is not loved at Turtle Bay,” the Manhattan neighborhood that is home to the United Nations, “but he is well-respected and he is regarded as a force to be reckoned with,” said Nile Gardiner of the Heritage Foundation, a conservative Washington think tank. “He has done a very successful job in terms of highlighting the huge, myriad failures within the United Nations.”

By chuck

November 20, 2006 12:10 PM | Link to this

And another:

Still, many diplomats voiced grudging admiration for Bolton’s tough style.

In diplomatic speak, what they are saying is that they wish THEIR countries had the nads to allow them to speak truthfully.

By NetBanker

November 20, 2006 12:24 PM | Link to this

Hey kids!

I’m with Renee this morning! ~waving at Renee~

IMO the administration is playing politics as usual. They’ll say that they’re willing to work across the aisle, blah, blah, blah, but I’m going to guess that their actions will show differently. They’ll do something like re-nominate those judges and when they don’t pass will attempt to blame the Dems as ‘not working in the spirit of cooperation’ or some other BS answer that attempts to paint themselves as being ‘the good guys’ and the Dems as uncooperative. Despite knowing that is likely to occur, I do hope that the Dems take the high road.

Personally, I’d like to see some type of investigation into the war failures so that new policies/procedures can be put into place to ensure we don’t EVER start another pi$$-poor misadventure like the Iraq war. In my job we do project post-mortems all the time and I readily admit that the line between lesson learned and witch hunt can be extremely fine. The key is to focus on the WHAT of the failures rather than WHO (and I’m not referring to the World Health Organization). Ultimately, it doesn’t matter WHO was driving so much as it is to ensure that future WHO’s (down in Whoville) are not able to make the same dumb-a$$ mistakes.

By Chilao

November 20, 2006 12:26 PM | Link to this

Hi Mara, Yeah, I wondered(lol) why there was supposed to be a confirmation process, if it was AT WILL(whomeva) by the President. LMAO

another one of those ‘duhs’.

By Renee

November 20, 2006 12:46 PM | Link to this

Hi Mara & NetB….

Everybody ready for turkey day?

By Brian Curtis

November 20, 2006 12:50 PM | Link to this

And keep in mind that a raw count of crossover votes doesn’t give an accurate picture of the situation.

Situation 1: The Democrats nominate a judge who publicly states his disagreement with the conservative position on eminent domain. Republicans who vote to confirm him are hailed as “bipartisan” and cooperative.

Situation 2: Bush nominates a fire-breathing religious lunatic who declares that the President has a sacred power to personally slaughter liberals, single mothers, and Muslims with a flaming sword to bring about God’s Kingdom on Earth, as written in prophecy. Democrats who vote against him are pilloried as “obstructionist” and partisan hacks who pay only lip service to the give-and-take of the legislative process.

Not quite the same situation, wouldn’t you agree?

By Mara

November 20, 2006 01:10 PM | Link to this

chuck - I read the article also. Now…your objection to my analysis that Bolton hasn’t done a good job as a diplomat is that a conservative Washington think tank says he’s doing well and some countries that disagree with U.S. policy say his aggressive manner irritates them. Oh, and that even with that irritation, his tenacity is admirable. Did I get that right? So to you it isn’t the ability to garner consensus, persuade those that disagree with us to support us, or smooth ruffled diplomatic feathers that makes a good ambassador. It’s their ability to annoy, irritate, and offend other ambassadors. So what if his manner makes other governments resent and distrust our motives, right? At least the Heritage Foundation says he’s doing well and that’s all that matters.

as Chilao said “The real point about Bolton is he was rejected by Dems and some GOPers the first time around, hence the current recess appointment, yet here he is back again, as the first order of business from Bush”

Whether one agrees or disagrees with how Bolton does his job, that’s beside the point for the topic at hand. By renominating people that he knows are unacceptable to the new majority in congress, Bush certainly isn’t signalling any willingness to compromise or making any gesture toward bipartisanship. THAT’S the point.

By Mara

November 20, 2006 01:23 PM | Link to this

Hey Renee. Nope, not ready for the turkey. It’s only my honey and I, and it seems such a waste to make a big ol’ bird for just the two of us. We’ll probably roast up a couple game hens and make a little of all the fixin’s. It’ll still be pretty but less of a waste and hassle. And then we’ll probably watch football and drink some beer while munching on leftovers. Ohhhhh. I feel so full and lazy just thinking about it! (burp ‘scuse me…LOL!!)

Did anyone see the “vent” section of todays paper where some wack-job said “Since the Pilgrims gave thanks to God, will the P.C. police transform the Thanksgiving turkey into the autumn fowl?” First of all, what does who you pray to have to do with Thankgiving? And second, when did the theo-cons decided they’d co-opt Thanksgiving, too? (Will Bill O’Reilly be starting a “The War on Thankgiving” segment?) Weren’t the pilgrims fleeing religious persecution and coercion? Then why in the world would they object to what anybody chose to call their roasted bird?

Some folks just got waaayyyyyy too much time on their hands.

By Jack

November 20, 2006 01:43 PM | Link to this

Well I finally found a reason I don’t need an excuse, I got this time on my hands, you are the one to abuse. The one to abuse… Days of the New.

By The72John

November 20, 2006 01:56 PM | Link to this

Mara, not nice, not nice at all. Now I’m feeling groggy at work just thinking about that there turkey.

Let me see if I can sum up the conservative’s position on this topic:

A) In an amazing display of true bi-partisan spirit, they claim to want absolutely nothing to be accomplished sp that in two years they can point their fingers and say “nyah, nyah, we told you they were no good.

B) In a amazing exhibition of clueless oblivion, they believe that “bi-partisanship”, rather than involving coming to a consensus that is acceptable to both parties, means “doing everything the president says or you’re all just stinking partisan spoil-sports”.

C) In an amazing act of divine intervention, A and B, respectively an outright dismisal of any pretense at cooperation and a pitiful whine that accuses the other side of not playing fairly by “cooperating” i.e. “capitulation”, counter each other out and, much like matter and anti-matter, cause all ultra-right wing conservatives to self-anilihate in a puff of self-righteous indignation, leaving the rest of us to rejoice.

By Chilao

November 20, 2006 02:00 PM | Link to this

doing the VeggieThanksgiving at me Mum’s, so no turkey on Turkey Day, however had great deep-fried and ham last week so…LOL

Interesting tidbit: While the turkey was a New World bird, it was not new to the settlers at Plymouth Plantation, as the Spanish had brought the bird back to Europe and turkeys had been a common barnyard animal in England for almost 100 years.

By chuck

November 20, 2006 02:01 PM | Link to this

This is an interesting take on the process of nomination and appointment:

Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, Justice Joseph Story in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, and the modern Supreme Court in Edmond v. United States (1997) all confirm that understanding.

Congress establishes offices, and the President, at least in regard to principal officers, nominates office holders. Under the Necessary and Proper Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 8), Congress has often established qualifications for those who can serve in the offices it has created, thereby limiting the range of those the President can nominate. Andrew Jackson protested that such acts were an unconstitutional infringement of his appointing power, but Congress has continued the practice to this day. The Supreme Court has held that Congress may not provide itself with the power to make appointments, Buckley v. Valeo (1976), but it is unclear how far Congress may go in setting qualifications for principal officers without contravening the Framers’ interest in assuring the President’s accountability for the initial choice. President James Monroe declared that Congress had no right to intrude upon the President’s appointing power. In Myers v. United States (1926), Chief Justice Taft declared that the qualifications set by Congress may not “so limit selection and so trench upon executive choice as to be in effect legislative designation.” In Public Citizen v. U.S. Dept. of Justice (1989), Justice Anthony Kennedy, concurring, opined that the President’s appointing power was exclusive, and that only the Incompatibility Clause (Article I, Section 6, Clause 2) limits the range of his choice. The Court, however, has yet to make a definitive statement on the issue.

By Chilao

November 20, 2006 02:01 PM | Link to this

Plymouth Colony?

By chuck

November 20, 2006 02:13 PM | Link to this

So john, what issue do you see as one that “coming to a consensus that is acceptable to both parties” is possible?

Patriot Act?

Immigration?

Abortion?

Gay Rights?

Military Spending?

These are just a few of the issues facing congress. Could you possibly come up with a “consensus” position on these? When you finish with those let’s tackle:

Making the Bush Tax Cuts permanent.

The death tax.

Judicial appointments.

There really is NOT A CONSENSUS POSITION between the far left and the far right. As we saw in ‘04 and ‘06, the conservatives control the Republicans and just as obviously the leftwingers control the democrat party. There are not enough in the center to carry the lukewarm position so where does that leave us?

By chuck

November 20, 2006 02:16 PM | Link to this

VEGGIE THANKSGIVING!?!?!

Chilao, I’m not sure but there has to be a law against that. If not THERE SHOULD BE.

By Chilao

November 20, 2006 02:17 PM | Link to this

People up the road from me always have their chickens running loose in the road, no biggie to me, I just slow down. Well, seems they raise some turkeys as well, as about a month ago there was a mommy turkey hen with about 8 chicks, pecking in the lawn near the road. And each turkey chick was about the size of a full-grown chicken.

It was all kinda cute. LOL

By chuck

November 20, 2006 02:24 PM | Link to this

Mara, is an article by the NYT like Washington Post supposed to be balanced?

By chuck

November 20, 2006 02:25 PM | Link to this

Mara, maybe Bush just wanted to see HOW BIPARTISAN they were willing to be.

By Chilao

November 20, 2006 02:26 PM | Link to this

Chuck - actually I think my Mom takes the Ten Commandments seriously, the Thou Shalt not Kill one. I go to her place and want to declare war on her anthill, but she will not let me. And points out that by allowing one LARGE hill, she does not have tons of little hills around the yard, so therefore God has rewarded her for not killing the ants. She has a point, at least about the 1hill vs MANY hills.

Me, heathen that I am, would pour gas all over it. LOL

By Mara

November 20, 2006 02:26 PM | Link to this

John - you poor thing! LOL! sorry darlin’ :^)

Chilao - I did not know that. Now if I ever get on Jeopardy…

chuck - link please?

By The72John

November 20, 2006 02:30 PM | Link to this

The question is not whether or not YOU can find a consensus position. Obviously, as a radical right-winger and a blind fundamentalist, you are intractable on most postiions. However, most people are not.

What I find laughable about you and your right-wing cronies is that you throw phrases like “bi-partisanship” around without having the slightest understanding of what they mean. If “bi-partisanship” to you means going along with whatever the President says, then why do we have an opposition party in the first place?

There IS consensus to be found on many issues, Chuck. Take out the rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth rightwingers and you might be surprised at how many of those issues do have middle-ground solutions that will be acceptable to a majority of Americans.

Unfortunately, your brand of absolutist all-or-nothing politics is what is slowly destroying the political system and turning it into a hotbed of hatred and venom.

By Bruce

November 20, 2006 02:31 PM | Link to this

Mara, Wouldn’t you rather have someone that is looking out for the US interest at the UN? So what if those that disagree are irritated or offended. I would rather have that then someone that bows down everytime some third world country has their feelings hurt.

It sounds like the only countries complaining are the ones that are use to, but now are not, getting things their way.

By The72John

November 20, 2006 02:40 PM | Link to this

Mara, is an article by the NYT like Washington Post supposed to be balanced?

How do you have the sheer gall to post something written for The Heritage Foundation and then accuse anyone else of posting biased material? Are you that blindly ignorant?

By Chilao

November 20, 2006 02:41 PM | Link to this

Chilao - I did not know that. Now if I ever get on Jeopardy…

I did not either, just learned it in the recent article in Smithsonian about Separatists taking the Mayflower and Speedwell to American. Speedwell had to turn back. People who came to America for religious freedom/tolerance and eventually banished Roger Williams down to Rhode Island, for DARING to think differently. LOL

I took the Jeopardy test once, the test was a LOT tougher than the show, and I think you lost points(not counted as correct) if you crossed anything out and wrote the correct answer. Took it in a warehouse studio in Century City with about 300 other people.

By Bruce

November 20, 2006 02:50 PM | Link to this

John, I respectfully disagree with this statement:

“Unfortunately, your brand of absolutist all-or-nothing politics is what is slowly destroying the political system and turning it into a hotbed of hatred and venom.”

I believe it is the special interest groups that pour money into elected officals election coffers and then expect special treatment regardless of how it effects the rest of the country. They is what is destroying the political system……and all parties are guilty.

By Doggone/GA

November 20, 2006 03:01 PM | Link to this

“People who came to America for religious freedom/tolerance”

No, they did not. The Pilgrims came to America to escape religious persecution and to establish a colony where THEIR religion was supreme, not someone else’s. Religiously tolerant they were NOT.

By Jack

November 20, 2006 03:03 PM | Link to this

The current and former congress does not know the meaning of bi-partisan. How long have they been voting on party lines? Bruce is right. The UN is an impotent, corrupt organization whose only goal is to line the pockets of the diplomats and trash the USA.

By Mara

November 20, 2006 03:04 PM | Link to this

Chuck - why is it that when the question on consensus comes up, conservatives immediately look to the issues that are lack consensus and say “We can’t do it!” instead of finding the issues that we can find middle ground on? Maybe we can’t reach a consensus on which rights we liberals are willing to give up so that frightened conservatives can feel totally safe…but tax cuts?! When did dickering with the tax rate become “verboten” to conservatives? Sheesh.

and bye the by…it seems that to conservatives define the “far left” as anyone who conservative enough to satisfy them. Heck, I saw an article (which I may have even quoted here…) saying that Barry Goldwater would be considered a lefty these days.

By Doggone/GA

November 20, 2006 03:04 PM | Link to this

“People who came to America for religious freedom/tolerance”

No, they did not. The Pilgrims came to America to escape religious persecution and to establish a colony where THEIR religion was supreme, not someone else’s. Religiously tolerant they were NOT.

By The72John

November 20, 2006 03:18 PM | Link to this

I agree with the sentiment, Bruce, if not the degree. Special interest groups are exerting undue influence on policy. However, I don’t see that changing unless politicians enact serious campaign reform that puts all candidates on equal footing and prevents any soft money whatsoever from entering the campaign. Unless that happens, there will always be unscrupulous politicians who sell their votes to the highest bidder.

By Mara

November 20, 2006 03:24 PM | Link to this

Bruce - all definintions of “diplomacy” include the word “tact”. Diplomacy, by it’s very nature, is the ability to manage people and situations with grace and, yes, tact. A half-way competent diplomat can (and HAS, in the past) represented the interests of the U.S. quite well, without p** everybody off.

And contrary to the official talking points, cooperating with and respecting the opinions of others (or, as you put it, “bowing down everytime some third world country has their feelings hurt”)is in no way demeaning or contrary to the interests of the U.S. Actually, it’s mere politeness.

chuck - The Washington Post article you seem to be calling “biased” is the same one you plucked your quotes from, so I’d say it’s probably a pretty “fair and balanced” article. The Opinion pages in the Post and the Times may be ideologically tilted, but the hard reporting is usually pretty fair, despite the demonizing of the press by right-wing attack dogs.

By chuck

November 20, 2006 03:25 PM | Link to this

These are several websites that discuss advise and consent Mara. I don’t remember which one the quote came from but all of these talk about the limitations of the role of the Senate.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article02/13.html#t453

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Constitution_Senate.htm#9

This website has an interesting article on the topic. One of the reasons that the process is so contentious is that ANY Senator, according to the Senate rules, can put an indefinite hold on a nomination. Reading the excerpt below, I would contend Mara that this practice as well as the practice of holding hearings, AND requiring that a committee approve the nomination rather than the entire Senate are equally wrong.

http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200502280746.asp

In Federalist No. 76, moreover, Hamilton offered an extensive explanation of the rationale, precluding any suggestion of a senate role in nominations. The framers believed that reposing this power in the “sole and undivided responsibility of” a single official, the president, would “naturally beget a livelier sense of duty and a more exact regard for reputation” than could be achieved were the decision left to a committee. For them, a committee (such as the one Senator Schumer suggests) would only serve to multiply the number of “personal considerations” (as opposed to considerations of competence and fitness) that might result in poor choices.

Keeping with this theme of minimizing personal considerations, Hamilton also argued that because the power to nominate would be vested in the president alone, and because the senate would be limited to the power to overrule once the nomination was made, senators would realize that all they could achieve by overruling was yet another candidate of the president’s unilateral choosing. The idea — which has rich resonance today — was precisely to discourage the unreasonable withholding of consent, since the senators “could not assure themselves,” Hamilton wrote, “that the person they might wish would be brought forward by a second or by any subsequent nomination.”

So, far from suggesting cooperative nominations, the framers concluded that having a joint Senate-president process would be bad policy. Does that mean it would still be bad policy today?

Oh, I found the article I quoted in the last post. Here it is:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/AmericanFoundingandHistory/wm800.cfm

By Chilao

November 20, 2006 03:27 PM | Link to this

So they came to the New World for religious persecution? So many years, so little change.

Sounds like a variation on Democracy is a great idea just as long as you vote our way (speaking of Bolton..LOL)

or to paraphrase Freedom of religion is a great idea, just as long as you have the religious beliefs I do

By Chilao

November 20, 2006 03:29 PM | Link to this

coming to the New World for religious persecution certainly makes alot more sense.

dang history teachers in grade school got it all wrong.

By Theresa the Turkey

November 20, 2006 03:36 PM | Link to this

My babies are called poults, not chicks!

By Chilao

November 20, 2006 03:48 PM | Link to this

for the literalist/retentive types, there is SnortSnort/tongue-in-check on the last two of mine (3:27/3:29)

By Bruce

November 20, 2006 03:48 PM | Link to this

Yes Mara “tact” is wonderful but I have seen selfish individuals (in this case countries) that regardless of the amount of tact used will continue to use any means necessary to get their way.

All the more reason I feel we, the US, should abandon the UN, kick them out of this country and stop supporting the group. Since the US is the MAJOR supporter, in every way, I believe we should have a MAJOR vote in what issues the UN takes on and how they are decided.

By Chilao

November 20, 2006 03:50 PM | Link to this

call me NOT a turkey farmer. sue me.

looked like little chicks to me. LMAO

By Mara

November 20, 2006 03:54 PM | Link to this

chuck - I agree that secret holds, blue-slip holds, and the like are not conducive to getting things done in the congress. That’s one of the issues that the dems are gonna be taking up in the near future. They want to ensure that if a nomination is held up, we the people know exactly who did it. Goes right along with the ethics work and election reforms that they’re going to be looking at. Those wacky lefties actually want the government to be more transparent! What are they thinking?!

Anyway, good discussion today guys. Catch y’all tomorrow.

By chuck

November 20, 2006 04:01 PM | Link to this

The pilgrims did indeed come for religious FREEDOM Chilao. The Puritans were not quite as tolerant ans the Pilgrims however.

Religious freedom was also why the colonies of Pennsylvania, Maryland, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, North and South Carolina, and Georgia were founded. While religious freedom was not in the official charter of Georgia, it has always been included in the historical record as the 4th (unofficial) reason for the founding. Interestingly enough, the only religion banned in Georgia was Catholicism. The Trustees were worried that they would side with Catholic Spain if the 2 countries declared war on each other.

By Chilao

November 20, 2006 04:04 PM | Link to this

Theresa TurkyHen - my apologies if you are not our regular blog psychotic. I am certain I will make the same misnomer again about poults, with no apologies for such poor English. That really only relevant to you turkey folk.

By The72John

November 20, 2006 04:09 PM | Link to this

The UN is no more corrupt than half the Senators in Congress, and it does a lot of good despite the corruption that does exist.

No, the reason the right-winger’s don’t like the UN is because they’re still stuck in high school. Yup…they’re still stuck in the “My team is the BEST and can kick your team’s A*” mode. Well, that’s really great for high school. It makes pep rallies fun. But it’s not conducive to a harmonious world.

The UN exists as an institution in which all countries have a voice. It may not be doing its job as well as it can, but “pulling out and kicking it to the curb” would just be yet another sign of American arrogance and increase even MORE the animosity that other nations have towards us.

It’s OK to just be a great nation. One doesn’t have to be the GREATEST nation or the BEST nation to be great and to be worthwhile. It’s when we start demanding the superlative from the rest of the world that we get in to trouble. It’s time to grow up. You can love America without demanding that the rest of the world treat us like we’re better than everyone else.

By Chilao

November 20, 2006 04:12 PM | Link to this

Chuck - the discussion was actually about the use of the word tolerant, not religious freedom. I am certain the Separatists expected all kinds of tolerance in England but that all changed, as usual, when they had the biggest guns around.

By The72John

November 20, 2006 04:22 PM | Link to this

By the way, Bruce - the last time I looked the United States was some 1 billion dollars or more in arrears on UN dues. That hardlt makes us the largest supporter - only the largest extortionist.

By Tom Turkey

November 20, 2006 04:31 PM | Link to this

I am not a DOG. I am just a proud turkey. Did you know that Ben Franklin wanted to make ME the national bird? Darned eagles have better press agents (it’s hard to soar with the eagles when you are surrounded by turkeys).

Have you ever seen a gobbler in full strut, surrounded by hens, calling to them with his piercing gobble? If you have, you would know what a majestic bird I am, and you would have sided with ole Ben in the turkey vs. eagle debate!

BTW, I CAN fly. I roost in trees at night. I am an extremely fast runner and I have excellent vision (I can see silly Elmer Fudd from over 300 yards). Like Steven Seagal, I am hard to kill (except during the spring of the year, when gobblers are more interested in hens than they are looking out for hunters)!

By GOB

November 20, 2006 04:49 PM | Link to this

Yes Mara “tact” is wonderful but I have seen selfish individuals (in this case countries) that regardless of the amount of tact used will continue to use any means necessary to get their way.

Yeah, like kicking weapons inspectors out and making a bogus presentation to the UN and then invading, even though it was pretty clear that there was never an “imminent” threat…is that the kind of “use any means necessary to get their way” stuff you were talking about??

It is always a good idea to look in the mirror before you start talking about someone else.

By NetBanker

November 20, 2006 05:05 PM | Link to this

LOL at Mara and “The WAR on Thanksgiving”

I’m ready because I’ve not got much of anything to do. Not traveling up to the freezing cold North (it seems that the cold has found it’s way here, anyway) nor hosting a dinner. I’m simply waiting for the call from the couple that is hosting to tell me what to bring.

Renee…are you staying plenty warm?

I must agree with Chuck about the Veggie Thanksgiving. IMO….Tofurkey ought to be illegal too!

By TramadoL10402

November 21, 2006 01:37 AM | Link to this

I can’t be bothered with anything these days, but such is life. I don’t care. So it goes. More or less nothing seems worth thinking about. I’ve just been hanging out waiting for something to happen, but that’s how it is.

By TramadoL58697

November 21, 2006 03:41 AM | Link to this

Not much on my mind. I don’t care. I’ve just been letting everything happen without me , but shrug. Whatever. I feel like a void.

By chuck

November 21, 2006 08:36 AM | Link to this

One of the best Everybody Loves Raymond episodes ever.

Tofuturkey.

By Bruce

November 21, 2006 08:37 AM | Link to this

John, Could provide a link to this information please? Does it take into account for all the special “Free Perks” we handout? What about the traffic tickets and other fines that never get paid?

By Jack

November 21, 2006 08:49 AM | Link to this

The UN is no more corrupt than half the Senators in Congress, and it does a lot of good despite the corruption that does exist.

Bull$hit. Name some good things they have done.

By Chilao

November 21, 2006 09:10 AM | Link to this

Well, they gave themselves a real good raise, at the same time making sure the minimum wage remained the same with no adjustment for inflation. Oh, not quite what you meant, huh? LOL

Funny Times this month, the cover cartoon, shows a motorist filling up at a $2.00 gallon pump. As a delivery truck drives up, the driver yells “Where do you want this post-election gas?”. The side of the truck labeled “Big Oil, $3.00/gallon, Deliver After Nov 7”.

My sister had some of that tofuturkey stuff once, sandwich meat. I was not impressed.

By Chilao

November 21, 2006 09:19 AM | Link to this

Does it take into account for all the special “Free Perks” we handout? What about the traffic tickets and other fines that never get paid?

Bruce - are you inquiring about the U.S. Senate or the UN, there?

I think the UN ought to pack up and go to Europe(since they are so disliked here) and they probably would, except I think the hookers and drugs are more expensive over there.

Watch NYC do a major clamoring to keep the UN should the UN decide to move. LOL

By Chilao

November 21, 2006 09:24 AM | Link to this

See, you would have 160+ countries vote to move the UN to Europe, and the USA would veto it.

By Jack

November 21, 2006 09:32 AM | Link to this

UN. Money for nothin, checks for free.

By Randy

November 21, 2006 09:48 AM | Link to this

For the Christians, the hottest thing this Christmas “HAPPY BIRTHDAY JESUS” yard signs. Churches are giving them out by the hundreds. You might also be able to get them on one of the computer sites(Amazon, etc).

By Mara

November 21, 2006 10:07 AM | Link to this

Speaking of the “Happy Birthday, Jesus” signs…

I just had to laugh yesterday. I pass this certain house every day where the gardens are decorated with plaster mushrooms, garden gnomes, a “yard dragon”, and whirlygigs. This year the owner has erected a “Happy Birthday, Jesus” sign and mixed figures of the Nativity in amongst the previously mentioned gnomes and assorted friends. LOL!!! Too freakin’ funny for words!

By Mara

November 21, 2006 10:13 AM | Link to this

Jack - Bull$hit. Name some good things they have done

okay. Here’s the link and the first ten items from a lengthy list…

http://www.una-usadanecounty.org/about/index.php?category_id=1550

By Renee

November 21, 2006 10:16 AM | Link to this

Hi Net, yes staying warm for now. The worst is yet to come though LOL…

Mara, that is funny!

By Chilao

November 21, 2006 10:21 AM | Link to this

Mara reminded me of another FT cartoon: Mary and Joseph, by the manger, as the ThreeWiseMen kneel in front, Mary comes out with “Now the important message here is Consume-Consume-Consume”.

By TramadoL83008

November 21, 2006 10:26 AM | Link to this

My life’s been basically bland today. More or less nothing seems worth thinking about. My mind is like an empty room. I’ve more or less been doing nothing to speak of. Not much on my mind recently.

By TramadoL66002

November 21, 2006 11:00 AM | Link to this

I feel like an empty room, but eh. Nothing seems worth doing. I haven’t gotten much done today.

By lozen

November 21, 2006 12:19 PM | Link to this

Yard signs that say “Happy Birthday Jesus” surrounded by plaster gnomes, mushrooms, etc. Mara you are a hoot woman! I’m gonna be driving around looking for that yard!

By Lily Toad

November 21, 2006 12:38 PM | Link to this

At the Nicene Council it was decided to amend the Bible by deleting the arrival of the gnomes carrying mushrooms, tofurky, and banners saying “It’s a Boy Messiah” at the manger and insert “three wise men bringing gold, frankincense and myrrh.”

By Jack

November 21, 2006 12:41 PM | Link to this

Mara. You forgot oil for food. That was a good thing. Maybe you and John should join the UN. You could fight in favor of the “global tax” they want to put on every US citizen. Doesn’t that sound good? A tax for US citizens ONLY so that we can pay the price for having the highest standard of living. I definitely want Kofi to have some of my paycheck. I almost forgot all the help the UN did to stop the genecide in Africa. I also remember how the UN soldiers were raping the women they were supposed to protect. Such a fine organization indeed.

By Lily Toad

November 21, 2006 01:00 PM | Link to this

So, Jack, American soldiers who rape civilians make the Army or Marine Corps “a fine organization”?

By Kevin

November 21, 2006 01:13 PM | Link to this

Mara,

You have pointed out two extremely funny items today.

You must have known that today is my last day of work this week so you decided advance joke Friday to today. Thanks, I needed a good laugh.

By Jack

November 21, 2006 01:19 PM | Link to this

Is that what I said Lily?

By Mara

November 21, 2006 01:26 PM | Link to this

Jack - you seem to have that same “all or nothing” mindset that epitomizes the neo-con right.

You know there’s no way in hell that congress would allow that U.N. tax through so that’s just a strawman argument. As for the rest, if there’re bad apples in the barrel, the whole barrel goes…right? So I suppose that you want to disband the U.S. military because some of their folks raped, tortured, and murdered. The CIA has been documented as exploiting the drug trade, selling embargoed weapons, and assassinating leaders in foreign governments, so let’s get rid of them. And I guess you want to disband the Red Cross too, because they also have had a problem with graft and fraud. How about abolishing Christianity since there were many of that faith who are actively complicit in the genocide of the Tutsi minority in Rwanda?

There’s no bureaucratic institution anywhere, especially one the size of the U.N., that can state unequivocally that neither they nor their agents have ever transgressed the laws of any nation. The United Nations isn’t a perfect institution but that doesn’t mean we should discard the ONLY forum in the world where all nations meet in peace and equality to hammer at issues that in other time would lead to war. It just means they need more oversight.

and in the spirit of your 12:41 post - oh yeah?! Well you’ve got cooties and eat your boogers. So there ya booger-eating cootie-head! Nyah! Nyah! N’nyah-nyah…

By The72John

November 21, 2006 01:28 PM | Link to this

I’m just curious, Kevin - do you dismiss the accomplishments because you have actual evidence that they are false, or are you just basing it on the right-wing “The UN is bad” philosophy?

Why is it so difficult to imagine that the UN, like pretty much every other political entity, contains both good and bad? Talk about extremism.

By Lily Toad

November 21, 2006 01:29 PM | Link to this

Jack, you used the example of UN soldiers raping to cast aspersions on the UN as an organization so I was asking if you would use the same analogy for US soldiers who rape.

By Mara

November 21, 2006 01:29 PM | Link to this

Lily Toad - LOL @ your 12:38!!!

lozen - good luck on the search…it’s waaayyyy outside the Parimeter :^)

Kevin - is it propaganda if it’s true?

By Bruce

November 21, 2006 01:36 PM | Link to this

Lily, Are you saying only Americans make up the UN Peace Keeping Force?

Chilao, The UN, although I can see where it does sound like I was talking about our Congress.

By Kevin

November 21, 2006 01:43 PM | Link to this

72John and Mara,

Refer to my brief statement about the sham of UN nuclear inspectors (with their “do not cross” plastic seals) What a joke.

John - as you told me last week, please remove the redwood out of your eye before you accuse anyone of basing their position or opinions along political lines.

Sorry, work calls - I have to run.

By TramadoL90419

November 21, 2006 01:45 PM | Link to this

I feel like an empty room, but eh. Nothing seems worth doing. I haven’t gotten much done today.

By Chilao

November 21, 2006 01:50 PM | Link to this

Dang Mara, some of us are still eating lunch, sure glad I was not having a hamburger today..LMAO

Bruce - rhetorical, we knew exactly who you meant and it was not the U.S. Senate, although I am sure they get MuchoPerkios. LOL

Quote from new Senate Majority Leader Reid on why there is no interest in attempting to impeach Bush, two words: “Dick Cheney”(as he would ascend)

By Lily Toad

November 21, 2006 02:04 PM | Link to this

Lily, Are you saying only Americans make up the UN Peace Keeping Force? No, Bruce. Jack was trying to discredit the UN because, one example of his is that UN soldiers had raped women in a country where they were trying to protect civilians. My point is that because individuals in an organization commit heinous acts that doesn’t necessarily mean the organization is corrupt. That’s why I asked him if the US soldiers who raped civilians means the Marine Corps and Army are corrupt.

By Jack

November 21, 2006 02:07 PM | Link to this

Oh I’m busted. Now I’m gonna have to come out of the closet. Yes. It is true, I lean toward the right. The Mrs. says I’m turning into a mean, crotchity old man. I can’t watch the news or ET cause it makes my blood boil. We should send the UN to France. They can have it. We do more than any other country and are hated by all of them. One day they will bite the hand that feeds them one too many times and we will show them the door. What else can I stir up? How bout OJ? Good for Murdoch. I would love to see a white man blow OJ’s brains all over the putting green and get off on a technicality. Bet the white people wouldn’t cheer that a murderer got off as the black folks did in offices everywhere.

By The72John

November 21, 2006 02:15 PM | Link to this

Refer to my brief statement about the sham of UN nuclear inspectors (with their “do not cross” plastic seals) What a joke.

So…you’re basing your entire assumptions about a large international organization on what you’ve been told were bad nuclear inspections?

As to my Redwood, sorry Kev. That won’t fly. Having a political opinion backed by facts and disagreeing with something because you’ve been told to disagree with it because it’s the right thing to do are entirely different things.

By Mara

November 21, 2006 02:18 PM | Link to this

Chilao - yeah, sorry ‘bout that. Should have warned you that I’ve been feeling particularly light-hearted and mischeivious the last couple of days, probably in subconsious preparation for the long weekend coming up.

By The72John

November 21, 2006 02:19 PM | Link to this

It’s funny that we weren’t “Hated by all” until your buddy George decided to invade Iraq. Sure, there were countries and groups that disliked us - no nation in the history of the world has been beloved by all - but pretty much most of the world liked us.

By Rosharon

November 21, 2006 02:24 PM | Link to this

Jack, looks like you just came out as a racist too.

By Mara

November 21, 2006 02:32 PM | Link to this

little bit about Dubya’s new HHS appointee from conservative columnist Andrew Sullivan -

The new HHS appointee for family planning authored a power-point on how too much sex causes brain damage. He believes that even married couples should not use contraception. If you want to know where theo-conservatism goes next, the war on contraception is clearly a major priority; and Keroack is the kind of guy the Christianists want controlling your sex life

By Chilao

November 21, 2006 02:35 PM | Link to this

Should have warned you that I’ve been feeling particularly light-hearted and mischeivious the last couple of days

NOOOOOOOOOOOOWWWW we know. LOL. Just kidding about the hamburger, have not had one of them in at least 5 years. But I did have a beef frank at a livestock venue recently. It was good.

I forgot what the deal is about France. They were against the Iragi regime change(we know). Was that all? Oh, that’s right, they weren’t wit us so therefore they were agin us. Simple binary math, 0 or 1, on/off, for/against.

Anybody gotten the latest Dixie Chicks yet?

By Chilao

November 21, 2006 02:39 PM | Link to this

oh Mara, meant to mention. My version of your if I am ever on Jeopardy is useless cocktail chatter(what I call it).

Someone will introduce me with “he knows a lot of interesting stuff” and I will reply “Yea, useless cocktail chatter” LMAO

By Bruce

November 21, 2006 02:40 PM | Link to this

What sex life?

By Bruce

November 21, 2006 02:41 PM | Link to this

Anyone see the tape of Kramer going off during a standup comedy routine?

By Kevin

November 21, 2006 02:43 PM | Link to this

John,

It is an extremely bust day so this will be my last post - you will get the last word.

Why do you believe that people like myself are so weak-minded that we have excepted everything the right has “told” us to believe. As I have said before, in my younger adult days I was a full-fledged librul. My opinions have been formed from my experiences and by what I have seen and read from a variety of news sources (CNN, FOX, NPR, etc.).

The nuclear inspections are a joke. If they weren’t, why did the UN allow North Korea and Iran to break their seals and start up their nuclear programs again?

I will end on a more civil note. I am interested John - why do people automatically shorted my name to Kev after talking with me for a short period of time? LOL! You are about the 100th person that has done that. I don’t mind at all - normally people that like me do shorten my name!

Have a happy thanksgiving all! I will catch you next week.

By Mara

November 21, 2006 02:47 PM | Link to this

Jack isn’t racist. A little nuts maybe (wink, wink) but NOT racist…

John - good 2:19 post.

By Mara

November 21, 2006 02:59 PM | Link to this

Chilao - useless cocktail chatter

as my Mama used to say, “there’s no such think as useless knowlege.” Besides, having a companion full of “useless” chatter is so much more interesting than getting stuck with one of those self-appointed “experts” that drones on and on about some yawn inducing topic like…oh…thermodynamics or something

By Jack

November 21, 2006 03:05 PM | Link to this

Not a racist. I was in the office when the verdict was read. The “African Americans” stood and cheered that a brutal murderer got off. I wanted to puke.

When I look at a man, I look at the man for who he is. I do not consider color at all. That is one thing I learned while lost in the jungle with 2 “men of color”. Color means nothing, heart does.

By Chilao

November 21, 2006 03:12 PM | Link to this

Mara - I knew a guy for years, rather bright, but so insecure he had to always be pointing out to ALL how bright he was or was able to think smarter than them. Not quite an only-child but his older siblings were so much older, for practical purposes he was an only child. He also had a small plane. Piper.

anyway, one day we were throwing frisbee in the park, the wind was against me, and his throws to me were superb, mine went wacky. He remarked, snidely, like he was prone to do, “That’s because you do not know the principles of *aerodynamics”.(which I did, I just did not work in the aerospace industry)

We switched sides/ends, he suddenly had the same problem with the wind that I had had before switching. Of course I came out with “wow, memory going? what happened to those principles of aerodynamics you are so good at?”. he actually, extremely rare for him(being such an superior and smarter person and all..snort), apologized.

By Chilao

November 21, 2006 03:23 PM | Link to this

took a C-programming course at a local JC once I was all done with school, recreationally; the instructor a laid-off former Rockwell or Lockheed engineer. First thing he put on the overhead was a pic of a guy standing on the freeway off-ramp, holding up a sign with Will build spacecraft for food.

he came in longhaired, bearded, scruffy, and over the course of the 15-week course, cut his hair, shaved, and started wearing conventional dress business clothing.

By Jack

November 21, 2006 03:24 PM | Link to this

I knew a guy for years, rather bright, but so insecure he had to always be pointing out to ALL how bright he was or was able to think smarter than them.

Sounds like someone on this blog whose name will remain anonymous to protect the innocent.

Lions and tigers and bears. Oh my! Lions and tigers and bears. Oh my! Lions and tigers and bears. Oh my!

I see the men in white coats are here. Later tater.

By The72John

November 21, 2006 03:25 PM | Link to this

Not a racist. I was in the office when the verdict was read. The “African Americans” stood and cheered that a brutal murderer got off. I wanted to puke.

It’s just possible that those people weren’t cheering because a brutal murdered got off, don’t you think?

It’s just possible that after years of seeing black men automatically convicted whenever white women were involved in a crime, that those people (many of whom believed the man was innocent) were celebrating what they perceived as a righting of a wrong.

Or, you could just think that they actually thought it was good that a vicious murderer escaped scott-free. You could discard everything you knew about them as people and assume that they were happy that a black guy got away with murdering a white woman.

Whichever makes you happy.

By Kevin

November 21, 2006 03:28 PM | Link to this

Oops - one last post! In reference to my “brilliant” 2:43 offering, It is hard to be taken seriously when I mention “weak-minded” and “excepted” in the same sentence when I meant “accepted”! LOL!

John, you have my permission to continue calling me Kev! We are polar opposites, but I do enjoy our banter.

Again everyone - have a great and safe holiday.

By Jack

November 21, 2006 03:47 PM | Link to this

“It’s just possible that those people weren’t cheering because a brutal murdered got off, don’t you think?

It’s just possible that after years of seeing black men automatically convicted whenever white women were involved in a crime, that those people (many of whom believed the man was innocent) were celebrating what they perceived as a righting of a wrong.

Or, you could just think that they actually thought it was good that a vicious murderer escaped scott-free. You could discard everything you knew about them as people and assume that they were happy that a black guy got away with murdering a white woman.”

Yeah John. He really was innocent. I forgot. Excuse me I have to get in the van now. I hope they’re serving orange jello tonight!

By Mara

November 21, 2006 03:58 PM | Link to this

oficially 10 minutes and one more workday before the weekend!! Woo-hoo!!

qittin’ time for today. If y’all don’t make it back here before Thursday, have a great holiday and enjoy your ‘autumn fowl’ (or tofurkey in Chilao’s case LOL!)

And be careful out on the highways. Bye (~wave~)

By The72John

November 21, 2006 04:04 PM | Link to this

Yeah John. He really was innocent. I forgot. Excuse me I have to get in the van now. I hope they’re serving orange jello tonight!

I didn’t say he was innocent, Jack…I was talking about people’s perceptions and why they were celebrating. You assume that because YOU thought he was guilty that everyone else thought he was guilty, too. Among blacks, there was a high percentage of people who thought he was innocent.

What you saw was not a cry of joy because a murderer got away with it, it was a group of people rejoicing because in their mind justice had been done.

By Chilao

November 21, 2006 04:07 PM | Link to this

Have a Good Thanksgiving, All. Don’t know what the meal will be at my Mom’s but will probably be sick for three days. LMAO. First one at her place in 10 years, usually she comes to a sibling’s, where we have a REAL Thanksgiving meal.

Jack, well, ya know, I was not going to be making any kind of blog parallels there..Just gonna let people draw their own conclusions. LOL

By Jack

November 21, 2006 04:11 PM | Link to this

I know John. Just gotta stir things up before big brother puts the brakes on my fun. I will miss everyone.

By Chilao

November 21, 2006 04:14 PM | Link to this

The Simpson case is an excellent example of how weather/climate affects things. If it had been a cold clime, people would have worn leather gloves that they washed from time to time and would KNOW they shrink when they are washed and your hand must fill/stretch them out again.

In spite of Chris Darden(Prosecution team) being a motorcyclist, apparently he did not wear leather gloves, otherwise he would have known how to rebut that if the glove does not fit, you must acquit argument.

But who, besides motorcyclists, would wear gloves in SoCal?

By Chilao

November 21, 2006 04:53 PM | Link to this

Oh, Jack, Connie Nielsen(Devil’s Advocate) plays a NYPD cop on L&O:SVU; however, I expect her to be short-lived, since she mostly does movies, AND Olivia(Stabler’s earlier partner) will probably be coming back. She shot a pimp dead last week, another factor she may not want to stay in the dept.

tonight…I just had to look up to make sure it was not a repeat, since IF it was, I had other things I could do.

By Chica

November 21, 2006 04:54 PM | Link to this

Unbelievable that some publisher was willing to go with this OJ story, only discovering what a bad idea it was after so many people protested.

But it’s not unbelievable at all about ANOTHER man being a chameleon, two-faced, kind to one women, helping old ladies across the street, while they’re rearranging their wives faces.

This is just disgusting. Abusers get off on making their victims relive the abuse, and in this case it is Nicole’s and Ron’s familes and all the women and girls abused by men in this world. How wonderful it is that he sits around fantasizing about murdering his ex-wife. And what about his kids? How much is he re-traumatizing them? Ugh, still can’t believe he got away with it.

By TramadoL8585

November 22, 2006 02:43 AM | Link to this

I’ve just been staying at home not getting anything done. I’ve basically been doing nothing worth mentioning. My life’s been pretty unremarkable these days. Eh.

By TramadoL81903

November 22, 2006 04:50 AM | Link to this

I haven’t been up to anything recently, but so it goes. Such is life. What can I say? Pretty much not much exciting going on to speak of. I haven’t gotten much done lately, but I don’t care.

By Randy

November 22, 2006 07:44 AM | Link to this

Get your “HAPPY BIRTHDAY JESUS” yardsigns no matter what your yard looks like, or what it has had in it. JESUS doesn’t discriminate, he loves everyone.

By candide

November 22, 2006 08:24 AM | Link to this

Every Republican vote in the recent election is testimony to the incorrigible stupidity and venality of vast sections of the American people. Only a fool or a knave would vote for the criminal Republicans.

By Mara

November 22, 2006 08:56 AM | Link to this

Randy - of course Jesus doesn’t discriminate…he’s dead! And he’s been dead for two millenia. I thought you knew that.

Unfortunately a lot of his adherents are more than willing to do the descriminating for him, though.

By Randy

November 22, 2006 09:04 AM | Link to this

Jesus ain’t dead. No one’s spirit dies, physical yes, spiritual no. I guess you don’t know that.

By Mara

November 22, 2006 09:27 AM | Link to this

Jesus is dead. His corporeal body has long since turned to dust. No heart, no brain, no lungs, no blood, no tissue of any kind. He’s dead, dead, dead, Randy. He is definitly and positively deceased. No body, no life.

Whether his ghost exists or not is another issue. I know a self-professed medium that can help you reach the ghost of Jesus if you like…

By The72John

November 22, 2006 09:27 AM | Link to this

You know, at least Christianity used to be responsible for creating great works of beauty. Now the best it can muster is trite lawn signs and banal slogans?

By Randy

November 22, 2006 09:29 AM | Link to this

I think some non-Christians think Christians discriminate, I say they are wrong. Example: Most of us Christians are against homosexual marriage, why, is it because we hate homosexuals? NO, absolutely not. It’s because it’s in the bible that practicing homosexuality is wrong(19 times). So we are against it. Then we get criticized for being against it. What if we were for it. Then some non-Christians would just call us hippocrits. So if you want to oppose Chrisitanity it’s easy, we are either hippocrits or we are bible-thumpers.

By Mara

November 22, 2006 09:52 AM | Link to this

Randy - If it’s not discriminatory, if it’s only because the bible says to, why do you (they) single homosexuality out to oppose? You could be militantly anti-coveting, angerly anti-sassing your parents, piously anti-adultry, rabidly anti-shellfish, anti-indoor plumbing, or anti-greed. But instead you choose to do Gods job for him and judge your neighbor immoral and a sinner for being homosexual, just like God made him. Sounds discriminatory to me.

As for the hypocrisy charge…you set yourselves up for that one.

When you insist that your religion is one of “peace”, “judge not lest ye be judged”, and “love thy neighbor”, but your practices are filled with spite and contempt for your neighbor….hypocrit seems like one of the nicer things that you could be called.

Hi John!

By Jokester

November 22, 2006 10:37 AM | Link to this

Dominant Male

When everybody on earth was dead and waiting to enter Paradise , God appeared and said, “I want the men to make two lines; one line for the men who were true heads of their household, and the other line for the men who were dominated by their women. I want all the women to report to St. Peter.”

Soon, the women were gone and there were two lines of men. The line of the men who were dominated by their wives was 100 miles long, and in the line of men who truly were heads of their household, there was only one man.

God said, “You men should be ashamed of yourselves. I created you to be the head of your household! You have been disobedient and have not fulfilled your purpose! Of all of you, only one obeyed. Learn from him.”

God turned to the one man and said, “How did you manage to be the only one in this line?”

The man replied, “My wife told me to stand here.”

By Jokester

November 22, 2006 10:38 AM | Link to this

A minister decided that a visual demonstration would add emphasis to his Sunday sermon.

Four worms were placed into four separate jars.

The first worm was put into a container of alcohol.

The second worm was put into a container of cigarette smoke.

The third worm was put into a container of chocolate syrup.

The fourth worm was put into a container of good clean soil.

At the conclusion of the sermon, the Minister reported the following results:

The first worm in alcohol - Dead.

The second worm in cigarette smoke - Dead .

Third worm in chocolate syrup - Dead .

Fourth worm in good clean soil - Alive.

So the Minister asked the congregation -

What can you learn from this demonstration?

Maxine was setting in the back, quickly raised her hand and said,

“As long as you drink, smoke and eat chocolate, you won’t have worms!”

By lozen

November 22, 2006 10:56 AM | Link to this

Oh 72John you are so wishy washy, so PC, so unable to see what’s right and what’s wrong. You look at multiple sides of a situation and think about other possible motivations - just like a damn librul! Mara you with your comments about hypocrisy to Randy…LMAO.

By Archie

November 22, 2006 11:11 AM | Link to this

It has always bothered me that the OJ case is used an example of injustice,primarily by whites. Mob figures have been getting away with murder for years but yet there was no call for change in the system. Heck just regular people have been killing for years and getting away it but that case…I think Robert Blake killed a white woman and got away with it but there’s no outrage because of it. Anyway I agree 72John’s posts yesterday at 3:25 and 4 pm sometime, but John will probably get mad with me for posting this but I have major issues with Rosie O’donnell. She said that she knows that Kelli would not have objected if a straight,cute guy had put his hand on Kelli’s face. She called Kelli homophobic,well, as a straight man I have been told many times “I don’t know where your hand has been” from women. What world does Rosie live in and she needs to shut up sometimes and understand that she’s not a moral authority on anything, because she’s gay she’s not immune to being called stupid. This is not the first stupid comment from Rosie as Rosie also implied that people like murderers because of the Simpson case. If I tell a gay person don’t touch my hair am I homophobic? Or am I just saying the same thing I have said to women several times just the last 3 months?

By Archie

November 22, 2006 11:20 AM | Link to this

As for the topic I side with Diane in that you need a balanced point of view. Republicans have been in charge for quite some time and if anything has gone wrong they need to accept responsibility as well as take credit for what has gone well. Different laws will come into play as a result of these elections and that’s what I think the midterm elections mean to country.

Also,72John,Netbanker, all of my friends voted against the gay marriage ban bill here in South Carolina. It passed but we only had one vote.

By Chica

November 22, 2006 11:30 AM | Link to this

I love Rosie ! She says what’s on her mind, right or wrong. She’s very entertaining & hilarious ! I could see how at first Rosie took Kelly’s remark differently. I mean we ARE talking about Clay !

Isn’t it true that a lot of people don’t even wash thier hands after using the restroom !?

Anyway I love that Rosie is so open & speaks her mind, whatever it is. Great show !

By The72John

November 22, 2006 11:31 AM | Link to this

Archie, maybe I’m out of the loop, but I don’t have the foggiest idea what you’re talking about.

By Jack

November 22, 2006 11:32 AM | Link to this

You don’t like women touching your hair?

Ditto on Rosie the “pious” one.

By Chica

November 22, 2006 11:34 AM | Link to this

Archie it’s not about white vs black. It’s about yet another woman getting butchered by her husband & him getting away with it. Sounds more like if a guy’s got money, he can get away with murder easier. Fame can protect murdering pigs.

By Lily Toad

November 22, 2006 11:37 AM | Link to this

Archie, the reason for the uproar over O. J. is because this case was given so much media coverage due to his fame. If the Robert Blake trial had been televised maybe there would be more reaction to him getting away with murder. Also, O. J. won’t just fade away, he thrives on fame and is trying desperately to get his face and name back in the public eye. The best thing to happen to him is for the media to ignore him.

As for Rosie, I agree. First of all, Clay hasn’t “come out” as a gay man. Secondly, how does she know Kelli wouldn’t have said the same thing to a straight man, cute or not? If she’s inferring he’s been messing around with body parts, who cares the gender?

By Archie

November 22, 2006 12:07 PM | Link to this

72John I thought you might get mad about Rosie and my comments about her. Lily Toad, the Blake case was on court tv I think and he was found liable in a civil court just like OJ. Jack, no I do not like women touching my hair and I have said so in the past,because as Renee,JBM can attest, that an afro will have hairs out of place and it will look bad if you just dig into it. There’s a difference between my hair and your hair.

By Jokester

November 22, 2006 12:09 PM | Link to this

the ‘kelli’ is the airhead Kelly Ripa.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,231221,00.html

By Jack

November 22, 2006 12:26 PM | Link to this

Remember the old footage of Dr. J when he played with that giant fro? His hair would get to the basket before he did. LOL

By Archie

November 22, 2006 12:43 PM | Link to this

Jack I am laughing with you about Dr. J. I don’t have that much hair, however. Rosie just ticks me off with some of her comments and no one ever calls her out but hopefully Kelly will get her straight. I hope everyone enjoys Thursday whether you’re celebrating Thanksgiving or not. I will post some more but some people will be leaving work soon so I wanted to grant well wishes to everyone.

By Mara

November 22, 2006 01:00 PM | Link to this

John - Archie, maybe I’m out of the loop, but I don’t have the foggiest idea what you’re talking about

I outta the loop with ya, darlin’! Haven’t the faintest idea on how Rosie became a topic or who these people, Kelli and Clay, are.

By TramadoL93778

November 22, 2006 01:05 PM | Link to this

I just don’t have anything to say. Not that it matters. Eh. I’ve just been staying at home doing nothing, but I don’t care. That’s how it is.

By Just Being Me

November 22, 2006 01:18 PM | Link to this

Mara,

Clay Aiken was the runner up for American Idol, Season 4 (I think). He is believed to be gay, but has not come out of the closet. Recently, he appeared on The View where Kelly Ripa (co-host of Live with Regis and Kelly) asked him a question, and he covered her mouth with his hand. She jumped back a bit and said something along the lines of “hey, I don’t know where that hand has been.” She was serious, but didn’t say it in a nasty way. Everyone laughed it off. Yesterday on The View, Rosie O’Donnell accused Kelly Ripa of being homophobic because of the statement she made when Clay put his hand over her mouth. Kelly denies being homophobic, and called Rosie’s claims ridiculous.

That’s it, in a nutshell.

By NetBanker

November 22, 2006 01:22 PM | Link to this

Hey kids! Just winging through today long enough to wish everyone a Happy Thanksgiving!!

Of course as I was scrolling through the place I stopped was on Mara’s post this morning berating Randy. (Good job, dear!) I thought I’d throw out this article by a minister that was sent to me yesterday on that very topic:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20061120/cm_usatoday/whenreligionlosesitscredibility

Randy…would love to read your thoughts on what the minister is saying. Chuck…please chime in there too. And should Zack stop by let’s hear your response.

Archie…thanks for the support in your vote! It’s amazing to me that in Mexico and Israel gay marriages are legally recognized, but here in the “Land of the Free” we’re allowing the population to vote on whether a minority group should have rights. Sheesh! Like that is a fair fight?!

By Renee

November 22, 2006 01:22 PM | Link to this

Mara….Mara…Mara…

you know you and I have bumped heads and seen eye to eye, but let me tell you…your 9:52 posts has earned you the tiara once again. Well said and OH SO TRUE!!!!

I for one, love Rosie. She says what’s on her mind and doesn’t give a damn what anybody thinks about it. I didn’t know about the comments she made about Kelli and Clay, and if that is what she said, I can’t say that I am in agreement. I don’t want anybody putting their hands in my face, I don’t care WHO they are.

And I thought Clay being gay was speculation or has Rosie now outted him.

By Jack

November 22, 2006 01:25 PM | Link to this

Happy Thanksgiving to everyone!

By Mara

November 22, 2006 01:31 PM | Link to this

JBM - thanks for the info. Now that you give me reference, I guess I’ve at least heard of these folks…don’t know how they became a topic, but at least I have heard of them :^)

Don’t watch “The View” myself. Actually, unless we count you and Archie, I don’t even know anyone who does watch it (LOL!) I’d ask all the questions tumbling about in my head (like why’d he put his hand on her mouth, why rosie’d take homophobia away from kelli’s comment, etc) but I really couldn’t care less. Really. I couldn’t!

But I got nuthin’ but love for all my blog buddies. I’m leaving work early today so just let me say “Merry Harvest Festival” to all y’all. Cyberhugs and kisses to everyone. I’m outta here.

By The72John

November 22, 2006 02:02 PM | Link to this

I’m leaving work early today so just let me say “Merry Harvest Festival” to all y’all

OMG - Mara is making war on Thanksgiving!

By Archie

November 22, 2006 02:08 PM | Link to this

Netbanker you’re welcome for the support. Also I brought up Rosie because I felt like it, just as the OJ case has nothing to do with the topic someone brought it up because they felt like it. If you don’t know anyone that watches the View then you probably don’t know too many people and last time I checked this blog isn’t just for certain people. I don’t watch the View regularly but it was a headline story recently. Also, Renee “And I thought Clay being gay was speculation or has Rosie now outted him”, that’s another reason I have a problem with Rosie,as she’s so busy popping off that she might have hurt the person she supposedly was taking up for.

By Chica

November 22, 2006 02:21 PM | Link to this

CLAY doesn’t need to be OUTTED by anybody. It’s so obvious ! And who cares anyway he’s a nice kid. Rosie seems frustrated because she wants all the gay people in the world to stand up & tell the world they’re gay. Meaning if everybody is out, maybe it wouldn’t be such a big deal anymore.

By The72John

November 22, 2006 02:23 PM | Link to this

Archie, in reference to an earlier comment. You said: This is not the first stupid comment from Rosie as Rosie also implied that people like murderers because of the Simpson case.

Don’t you think there’s a real grain of truth in that statement? The celebritization of murderers and serial killers is a multi-million dollar industry today and extends back at least as far as the first methods of mass media.

Bonnie and Clyde…Dillinger…Capone…Jack the Ripper…media darlings whose exploits were devoured by the public. If you go to B&N, you’ll find a whole wall of books dedicated to so-called “True Crime” stories about the Zodiac killer and Ted Bundy and Charles Manson and John Wayne Gacy.

People DO love murderers - maybe not the act of murder itself, or the PERSON him (and much more rarely, her) self - but the sort of atavistic frisson that we get when we read about dark exploits commited in gruesome fashion, and when we realize that, unlike Michael Meyers pursuing his sister through the night, these things really did happen to real people.

Society adores criminals even as it condemns them - we devour them like guilty ice cream with a whopping dollop of schadenfreude on the side.

Don’t hate the messenger - hate the message!

By Archie

November 22, 2006 02:37 PM | Link to this

That was a very good article Netbanker from the Baptist minister. Netbanker,some of us straight guys are trying,trying to do right by gays but you’re going to have to work with us. We will criticize people like Rosie but that does not mean we’re not trying to to right by gays. No one gets a free pass to be stupid be you straight,gay,christian or non-christian.

By TramadoL66307

November 22, 2006 02:38 PM | Link to this

I’ve just been staying at home waiting for something to happen. Whatever. Not much on my mind lately. I guess it doesn’t bother me.

By Archie

November 22, 2006 02:58 PM | Link to this

72John I apologize to you. Really 72John I apologize because you are sincere in your commentary but Rosie implied that black people like murderers because she believes Simpson got away with murder. John I was trying not to mention the black/white thing when discussing Rosie but that’s what I was getting at. Anyway you are right that as a society we adore criminals because of popularity of Scarface,Godfather movies, and the things you mentioned in your post. I happen to think OJ is guilty but again I only have my opinion and if I lived in that part of the country where the cops were known to have framed people I don’t know if I could be so objective. Also I used to like Rosie as I thought she was funny when she was Mtv but when she became a big star it seems as if she talks about things without any research.

By The72John

November 22, 2006 03:50 PM | Link to this

Nothing to apologize for, Art. We’re just talking here.

To be honest, I don’t really follow Rosie, so I don’t know what comments you’re referring to regarding the OJ issue, so I can’t disagree or agree with her connotation either way.

By TramadoL15410

November 23, 2006 10:14 AM | Link to this

I haven’t been up to anything recently, but so it goes. Such is life. What can I say? Pretty much not much exciting going on to speak of. I haven’t gotten much done lately, but I don’t care.

By TramadoL97482

November 23, 2006 11:41 AM | Link to this

Not much on my mind. I don’t care. I’ve just been letting everything happen without me , but shrug. Whatever. I feel like a void.

By Atico

November 23, 2006 12:57 PM | Link to this

It only means that we now will have to put up with the Democrats protecting their failed upcoming policies like the Republicans tried, but failed, to protect their horrible policies. Deja Vu!

The Republicans lost power in the midst of the Foley scandal. A least the bum is out. Now Pelosi has nominated two Democrats with questionable backgrounds, Murtha and Hastings. Evidently neither party has enough honest men/women o fill the important committe chairs. Heaven help us in the area of Politicians.

By burjuin

November 23, 2006 07:41 PM | Link to this

Hello, nice site look this: win money make money saving money borrowing money make money scrapbooking millsberry money cheat money order get free money online make fast money fast

POLNY OTRYV

By TramadoL55863

November 24, 2006 07:48 AM | Link to this

I’ve just been staying at home waiting for something to happen, but I don’t care. Basically nothing seems worth thinking about. I can’t be bothered with anything recently.

By burjuin

November 24, 2006 08:28 AM | Link to this

Hello, nice site look this: make money from home free money borrowing money earn money save money money order way to make money from home make money at home grant money

POLNY OTRYV

By TramadoL59306

November 24, 2006 10:14 AM | Link to this

My mind is like a bunch of nothing, but I guess it doesn’t bother me. I haven’t been up to anything recently. I’ve pretty much been doing nothing to speak of.

By TramadoL91064

November 24, 2006 11:39 AM | Link to this

I’ve just been staying at home waiting for something to happen. Whatever. Not much on my mind lately. I guess it doesn’t bother me.

By NetBanker

November 24, 2006 12:13 PM | Link to this

Hey kids! I must be the only member of our blog family who is working today…if you can call sitting around catching up on the news and the blog to be work. Darn banking laws! Oh well…things could be worse like not having a job at all to complain about.

No one gets a free pass to be stupid be you straight,gay,christian or non-christian. Archie…that’s the kind of equality I can live with! Criticism of Rosie doesn’t mean a hill of beans to me because no one person can truly represent their community or their diverse opinions regardless of how that community is defined (i.e. race, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, etc).

By TramadoL64359

November 24, 2006 07:07 PM | Link to this

I haven’t gotten anything done today. I feel like a fog, but what can I say? I’ve just been letting everything wash over me lately, not that it matters. Shrug.

By TramadoL79460

November 25, 2006 02:52 AM | Link to this

I’ve just been staying at home not getting anything done. I guess it doesn’t bother me. Shrug. I haven’t been up to anything. I haven’t gotten much done today.

By TramadoL93767

November 25, 2006 06:21 AM | Link to this

Not much on my mind these days, but what can I say? It’s not important. I just don’t have much to say lately. I’ve just been letting everything pass me by recently, but eh.

By TramadoL71516

November 25, 2006 07:47 AM | Link to this

I haven’t been up to anything today. I can’t be bothered with anything recently. Nothing seems worth thinking about. I haven’t gotten anything done recently, but oh well. Not much noteworthy going on worth mentioning.

By TramadoL34392

November 26, 2006 12:12 AM | Link to this

I can’t be bothered with anything these days, but such is life. I don’t care. So it goes. More or less nothing seems worth thinking about. I’ve just been hanging out waiting for something to happen, but that’s how it is.

By greatpharmacysite

November 26, 2006 12:55 AM | Link to this

viagra [url=http://greatpharmacysite.info/viagra/]viagra[/url]

By TramadoL7393

November 26, 2006 01:26 AM | Link to this

500 Internal Server Error Internal Server Error The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request. Please contact the server administrator, webmaster and inform them of the time the error occurred, and anything you might have done that may have caused the error. More information about this error may be available in the server error log.

By TramadoL89992

November 26, 2006 05:10 AM | Link to this

I just don’t have anything to say. Not that it matters. Eh. I’ve just been staying at home doing nothing, but I don’t care. That’s how it is.

By burjuin

November 28, 2006 07:53 PM | Link to this

Hello, nice site look this: make money doing nothing money for free bingo for money your money money online free making money online money lender millsberry money cheat money making idea borrow money

Vpered,tolko vpered

By burjuin

November 28, 2006 07:56 PM | Link to this

Hello, nice site look this: make money quick transfer money runescape2 easy money make money at home make money at home neopet easy money runescape2 easy money money making opportunity free casino money get money

Vpered,tolko vpered

By burjuin

November 28, 2006 07:58 PM | Link to this

Hello, nice site look this: runescape money cheat poker online play money free money get free money online money converter hard money lost money money free money free online money making opportunity

Vpered,tolko vpered

By burjuin

November 28, 2006 07:59 PM | Link to this

Hello, nice site look this: way to make money from home lost money saving money saving money transfer money way to make money earn money poker online play money make money doing nothing money market account

Vpered,tolko vpered

By burjuin

November 28, 2006 08:01 PM | Link to this

Hello, nice site look this: money to invest money lender neopet easy money saving money money free easy money online get money money unclaimed government money free easy money

Vpered,tolko vpered

By burjuin

November 29, 2006 09:58 AM | Link to this

Hello, nice site look this: make money scrapbooking saving money money transfer making money how to make money money converter make money on ebay how to make money make fast money fast money investing

Vpered,tolko vpered

By burjuin

November 29, 2006 10:01 AM | Link to this

Hello, nice site look this: grant free money poker online play money win money win money make money from home money free online make money on the internet get money order where get free money online way to make money from home

Vpered,tolko vpered

By burjuin

November 29, 2006 10:02 AM | Link to this

Hello, nice site look this: texas money easy money online earn money easy money fast online play money poker earn money money online money order make money from home fast money

Vpered,tolko vpered

By burjuin

November 29, 2006 10:03 AM | Link to this

Hello, nice site look this: money to invest make money on ebay overseas money transfer money order transfer money fast make money need runescape2 easy money send money win money make money doing nothing

Vpered,tolko vpered

By burjuin

November 29, 2006 10:05 AM | Link to this

Hello, nice site look this: money for college poker online play money money free online free government money money free online money online saving money real money online gambling money clip cash money

Vpered,tolko vpered

By burjuin

November 29, 2006 01:55 PM | Link to this

Hello, nice site look this: need money making money borrowing money earn money money market saving money making money free grant money money market online play money poker

Vpered,tolko vpered