Question:
So — who do y’all think it’ll be? And who do you think will be most upset after we know? I say a) it’s a male, b) it’s an indisputable conservative (no grumbling from the right), and c) they mount a filibuster campaign, but it fails, and the pick gets in. Who disagrees? Lars
Response:
>So — who do y’all think it’ll be? And who do you think will be most >upset after we know? >I say a) it’s a male, b) it’s an indisputable conservative (no >grumbling from the right), and c) they mount a filibuster campaign, but >it fails, and the pick gets in. Who disagrees? >Lars
Ann Coulter… The Senate abolishes the filibuster and she’s confirmed 85-14. 100,000 left whingers drop dead from apoplexy the day after confirmation Claude
Response:
I knew it. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Ann Coulter…I’m Ann Coulter. I’m out OK? FUCK YOU. > Claude Lucas
Response:
> The Senate abolishes the filibuster and she’s confirmed 85-14.
That would count as a failure of an attempted filibuster, if you ask me. 85-14 strikes me as optimistic, though. 57-41, I say… I like the other prediction, of course, but I personally think Coulter’s death count is a tad on the conservative (heh) side. Lars
Response:
>> The Senate abolishes the filibuster and she’s confirmed 85-14. >That would count as a failure of an attempted filibuster, if you ask >me. 85-14 strikes me as optimistic, though. 57-41, I say…
Figure that without a filibuster to hide behind most of the "D"s would vote to confirm… >I like the other prediction, of course, but I personally think >Coulter’s death count is a tad on the conservative (heh) side.
Who knows. If it is hot out the count could rise. Claude
Response:
GEE-ZUS MARI MOTHER OF GAWD!!!!!!! THE OL’ FILTHY SICKSUMBITCH MEANS *WEBELO* *BODY* COUNT!!!!!!! Oh, Ah’m gunna be Siccccccccccccccccckkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk hork. gack. APB: WHITE WINDOWLESS VAN CALIFORNIA LISC. PLATE: IBLOWEBLO – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Who knows? If it is hot out the count could rise… > WEBELOS BADGE REQUIREMENTS > 1. Complete the requirements for the Bobcat badge (if not already earned). > 2. Be active in the den 3 months. > 3. Know and explain the meaning of the Webelos badge. > 4. Point out and explain the three special parts of the Webelos uniform. Tell when to wear and not to wear the uniform. > 5. Earn Fitness and two other activity badges from two different activity groups. > 6. Plan and lead a flag ceremony in your den. > 7. Show that you know and understand the requirements to be a Boy Scout. > 8. Earn the religious emblem of your faith or do two of six requirements related to your religious beliefs. > COMPASS POINT EMBLEM > 1. Earn the Webelos badge > 2. Earn four more activity badges for a total of seven to receive the compass point emblem. > 3. Earn one compass point device for each additional four activity badges. > * Earn four more activity badges (total of 11)-First Point > * Earn four more activity badges (total of 15)-Second Point > * Earn four more activity badges (total of 19)-Third Point > ARROW OF LIGHT REQUIREMENTS > 1. Be active in your Webelos den for at least 6 months after completing 4th grade (or at least 6 months after becoming 10 years old) and earn the Webelos badge. > 2. Show your knowledge of the requirements to become a Boy Scout by doing all of these: > * Repeat from memory and explain the Scout Oath or Promise and Scout Law. Tell how you practiced them. > * Give and explain the Scout Motto, slogan, sign, salute and handshake. > * Understand the significance of the Scout badge. Describe its parts and tell what it stands for. > * Tell how a Boy Scout uniform is different from a Webelos Scout uniform. > 3. Earn five more activity badges for a total of eight. The total must include Citizen, Fitness, and Readyman and at least one from Outdoor group, one from Mental Skills group, and one from Technology group and earn two more of your choice. > 4. With your Webelos den, visit a troop meeting and a Boy Scout outdoor activity. > 5. Participate in a Webelos overnight campout or day hike. > 6. With your parent, visit a troop you might like to join and discuss joining with the Scoutmaster. Prepare an application to become a Boy Scout and show it to your Webelos den leader. > Claude Lucas > Close relative of Henry Lee Lucas > Ann Coulter Impersonator > Santa Cruz, CA
Response:
> Ann Coulter… > The Senate abolishes the filibuster and she’s confirmed 85-14. > 100,000 left whingers drop dead from apoplexy the day after confirmation
I was going to jokingly say John Ashcroft but yours trumps mine! Way too funny! See ya, John
Response:
> So — who do y’all think it’ll be? And who do you think will be most > upset after we know? > I say a) it’s a male, b) it’s an indisputable conservative (no > grumbling from the right), and c) they mount a filibuster campaign, but > it fails, and the pick gets in. Who disagrees? > Lars
Well, after the fact, even though he has expressed opinions against the Rowe v. Wade decision, this guy has friends on both sides, is obviously highly qualified, and will be confirmed easily, IMO. (A prediction).
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> So — who do y’all think it’ll be? And who do you think will be most > upset after we know? > I say a) it’s a male, b) it’s an indisputable conservative (no > grumbling from the right), and c) they mount a filibuster campaign, but > it fails, and the pick gets in. Who disagrees? > Lars >Well, after the fact, even though he has expressed opinions >against the Rowe v. Wade decision, this guy has friends on >both sides, is obviously highly qualified, and will be >confirmed easily, IMO. (A prediction).
The usual whiners ( Schumer, TeddyK, the AGA baboons ) will screech and throw their dung, but nobody of any consequence really cares about them at this point. Easy confirmation. More of a hard-ass for the next opening Claude
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>So — who do y’all think it’ll be? And who do you think will be most >>upset after we know? >>I say a) it’s a male, b) it’s an indisputable conservative (no >>grumbling from the right), and c) they mount a filibuster campaign, but >>it fails, and the pick gets in. Who disagrees? >>Lars >Well, after the fact, even though he has expressed opinions >against the Rowe v. Wade decision, this guy has friends on >both sides, is obviously highly qualified, and will be >confirmed easily, IMO. (A prediction). > The usual whiners ( Schumer, TeddyK, the AGA baboons ) will > screech and throw their dung, but nobody of any consequence > really cares about them at this point. > Easy confirmation. > More of a hard-ass for the next opening
Yep…but I think the leftists/Democrats here on AGA are going to be split at best against this nomination… I think with a guy like this, they are going to keep their powder dry for the next nominee, because fighting this guy’s nomination after his recent confirmation, will make them look ridiculous. Also, this guy isn’t ‘hard right’…but the next nominee could be, and they know that. I just started reading up on his history (hey, he wasn’t one of the small group I thought it would be)…Bush could be waiting until after 2006 elections to go hard right….or, then again, he could just go with a respected relatively conservative constructionist in 2007 or so, and really throw the leftists in a tizzy. In the chess game that is the President’s nomination of Supreme Court Justices…Bush: "Check".
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>>So — who do y’all think it’ll be? And who do you think will be most >>>upset after we know? >>>I say a) it’s a male, b) it’s an indisputable conservative (no >>>grumbling from the right), and c) they mount a filibuster campaign, but >>>it fails, and the pick gets in. Who disagrees? >>>Lars >>Well, after the fact, even though he has expressed opinions >>against the Rowe v. Wade decision, this guy has friends on >>both sides, is obviously highly qualified, and will be >>confirmed easily, IMO. (A prediction). > The usual whiners ( Schumer, TeddyK, the AGA baboons ) will > screech and throw their dung, but nobody of any consequence > really cares about them at this point. > Easy confirmation. > More of a hard-ass for the next opening >Yep…but I think the leftists/Democrats here on AGA are going >to be split at best against this nomination…
Not all the left-leaners in here or in the world are screeching dung throwers. I’d be interested to hear any reasonable objection to Judge Roberts nomination. >I think with a guy like this, they are going to keep their powder >dry for the next nominee, because fighting this guy’s nomination >after his recent confirmation, will make them look ridiculous.
Yeah. I think that you’re right about that, although that may be granting the Soros wing credit for more sense than they possess. >Also, this guy isn’t ‘hard right’…but the next nominee could be, >and they know that.
Yep. I think that GW is holding off till the next one for hard right. >I just started reading up on his history (hey, he wasn’t one of >the small group I thought it would be)…Bush could be waiting >until after 2006 elections to go hard right….or, then again, >he could just go with a respected relatively conservative >constructionist in 2007 or so, and really throw the leftists >in a tizzy.
What I find interesting about the process is how the two Clinton appointees fared in the process. Neither one had more than 3 or 4 nay votes when their nominations went to the full Senate, and Justice Ginsburg refused to answer an bunch of the same types of questions that the esteemed Senator Schumer seems to be insisting that Judge Roberts answer. She was easily confirmed in spite of being perceived as a hard-left jurist. The point of view that the sitting President had the right to appoint somebody who reflected his personal philosophy hadn’t as yet been trampled underfoot. >In the chess game that is the President’s nomination of Supreme >Court Justices…Bush: "Check".
The President always seems to be a few moves ahead. Claude
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>>>So — who do y’all think it’ll be? And who do you think will be most >>>>upset after we know? >>>>I say a) it’s a male, b) it’s an indisputable conservative (no >>>>grumbling from the right), and c) they mount a filibuster campaign, but >>>>it fails, and the pick gets in. Who disagrees? >>>>Lars >>>Well, after the fact, even though he has expressed opinions >>>against the Rowe v. Wade decision, this guy has friends on >>>both sides, is obviously highly qualified, and will be >>>confirmed easily, IMO. (A prediction). >>The usual whiners ( Schumer, TeddyK, the AGA baboons ) will >>screech and throw their dung, but nobody of any consequence >>really cares about them at this point. >>Easy confirmation. >>More of a hard-ass for the next opening >Yep…but I think the leftists/Democrats here on AGA are going >to be split at best against this nomination… > Not all the left-leaners in here or in the world are screeching > dung throwers. I’d be interested to hear any reasonable objection > to Judge Roberts nomination.
I think we know who the 3 or 4 screechers are…they are standing by their fax machines awaitin orders from the talking points documents that are mechanically fed to them, God bless ‘em. >I think with a guy like this, they are going to keep their powder >dry for the next nominee, because fighting this guy’s nomination >after his recent confirmation, will make them look ridiculous. > Yeah. I think that you’re right about that, although that > may be granting the Soros wing credit for more sense than > they possess.
Well, all politicians are above all, pragmatic, and I think that putting forth a Bork-like fight at this time, against this nominee, would be suicidal, if not completely improbable. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Also, this guy isn’t ‘hard right’…but the next nominee could be, >and they know that. > Yep. I think that GW is holding off till the next one for hard right. >I just started reading up on his history (hey, he wasn’t one of >the small group I thought it would be)…Bush could be waiting >until after 2006 elections to go hard right….or, then again, >he could just go with a respected relatively conservative >constructionist in 2007 or so, and really throw the leftists >in a tizzy. > What I find interesting about the process is how the two > Clinton appointees fared in the process. Neither one had more > than 3 or 4 nay votes when their nominations went to the full > Senate, and Justice Ginsburg refused to answer an bunch of the > same types of questions that the esteemed Senator Schumer seems > to be insisting that Judge Roberts answer. She was easily confirmed > in spite of being perceived as a hard-left jurist. The point > of view that the sitting President had the right to appoint > somebody who reflected his personal philosophy hadn’t as yet > been trampled underfoot.
Well, of course, hand-in-hand with the abdication of duty that the Congress has adopted over the past…oh…50 years or more… the nomination of Supreme Court (and other Federal) Justices has become the battle ground…where the "Liberals" et al can fight appointments (whose nominations are proscribed to be appointed by the the President, and confirmed based on his or her qualifications.) They do this on the basis of the same hot button issues with which they have hacked the System whereby the Judicial branch has become IMO too powerful….I think this is a Congressional term limits issue, ultimately, but that’s IMO. >In the chess game that is the President’s nomination of Supreme >Court Justices…Bush: "Check". > The President always seems to be a few moves ahead.
Here, I think he is…he has the advantage of being able to research, and act first. Politically, he has a big advantage in the nomination of judges, which is as the Founding Fathers designed…and no political subtlety was lost on those guys, IMO.
Response:
Well, you’re 2 for 3 so far… pretty good; the smart money was calling for a woman, and a relatively moderate one at that. We’ll see about the filibuster attempt and confirmation. Freep
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> So — who do y’all think it’ll be? And who do you think will be most > upset after we know? > I say a) it’s a male, b) it’s an indisputable conservative (no > grumbling from the right), and c) they mount a filibuster campaign, but > it fails, and the pick gets in. Who disagrees? > Lars
Response:
> > Well, after the fact, even though he has expressed opinions > against the Rowe v. Wade decision, this guy has friends on > both sides, is obviously highly qualified, and will be > confirmed easily, IMO. (A prediction). > As a social moderate/fiscal conservative (i.e. a former moderate Republican), I say that the Roe v. Wade issue is a red herring. This issue will never be resolved because, in doing so, the GOP will lose one of its most effective methods of keeping the Religious Right (RR) marching in lock step. The result would be that non-dedicated social conservatives, having accomplished their goal, would stay home on Election Day. On the other hand social moderates and liberals, having lost a fundamental right, would flock to the polls. With the above, said, even if the Roe v. Wade decision is overturned, abortion will not be illegal. It will merely return to being a state’s rights issue; hence, its legality will be determined at the state level. A constitutional amendment would be required to make abortion illegal at the federal level. As any amendment needs to be ratified by seventy-five percent of the states to become law, there is a greater chance of pigs learning to fly than abortion being made illegal at the federal level. One last thing that should be mentioned is that not all Republicans are pro-life. In fact, the silent majority of Republicans are pro-choice (see http://www.gopchoice.org). It’s just that the RR has hijacked the leadership positions. Anyone who thinks that all Republicans are cut from the RR cloth is seriously mistaken. Most long-time Republicans see the RR for what they really are; namely, social conservative Democrats who hijacked their party. The RR cares nothing about the traditional Republican values of small government, limited government intrusion, and fiscal conservancy.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>>>>So — who do y’all think it’ll be? And who do you think will be most >>>>>upset after we know? >>>>>I say a) it’s a male, b) it’s an indisputable conservative (no >>>>>grumbling from the right), and c) they mount a filibuster campaign, but >>>>>it fails, and the pick gets in. Who disagrees? >>>>>Lars >>>>Well, after the fact, even though he has expressed opinions >>>>against the Rowe v. Wade decision, this guy has friends on >>>>both sides, is obviously highly qualified, and will be >>>>confirmed easily, IMO. (A prediction). >>>The usual whiners ( Schumer, TeddyK, the AGA baboons ) will >>>screech and throw their dung, but nobody of any consequence >>>really cares about them at this point. >>>Easy confirmation. >>>More of a hard-ass for the next opening >>Yep…but I think the leftists/Democrats here on AGA are going >>to be split at best against this nomination… > Not all the left-leaners in here or in the world are screeching > dung throwers. I’d be interested to hear any reasonable objection > to Judge Roberts nomination. >I think we know who the 3 or 4 screechers are…they are standing >by their fax machines awaitin orders from the talking points >documents that are mechanically fed to them, God bless ‘em. >>I think with a guy like this, they are going to keep their powder >>dry for the next nominee, because fighting this guy’s nomination >>after his recent confirmation, will make them look ridiculous. > Yeah. I think that you’re right about that, although that > may be granting the Soros wing credit for more sense than > they possess. >Well, all politicians are above all, pragmatic, and I think that >putting forth a Bork-like fight at this time, against this nominee, >would be suicidal, if not completely improbable.
You may be giving the hard-left more credit than they deserve. The howling has already started from some in the Senate. Maybe they *are* stupid enough to shoot their wad over a relative moderate. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>Also, this guy isn’t ‘hard right’…but the next nominee could be, >>and they know that. > Yep. I think that GW is holding off till the next one for hard right. >>I just started reading up on his history (hey, he wasn’t one of >>the small group I thought it would be)…Bush could be waiting >>until after 2006 elections to go hard right….or, then again, >>he could just go with a respected relatively conservative >>constructionist in 2007 or so, and really throw the leftists >>in a tizzy. > What I find interesting about the process is how the two > Clinton appointees fared in the process. Neither one had more > than 3 or 4 nay votes when their nominations went to the full > Senate, and Justice Ginsburg refused to answer an bunch of the > same types of questions that the esteemed Senator Schumer seems > to be insisting that Judge Roberts answer. She was easily confirmed > in spite of being perceived as a hard-left jurist. The point > of view that the sitting President had the right to appoint > somebody who reflected his personal philosophy hadn’t as yet > been trampled underfoot. >Well, of course, hand-in-hand with the abdication of duty that >the Congress has adopted over the past…oh…50 years or more… >the nomination of Supreme Court (and other Federal) Justices has >become the battle ground…where the "Liberals" et al can fight >appointments (whose nominations are proscribed to be appointed >by the the President, and confirmed based on his or her >qualifications.) >They do this on the basis of the same hot button issues with which >they have hacked the System whereby the Judicial branch has become >IMO too powerful….I think this is a Congressional term limits issue, >ultimately, but that’s IMO.
I wouldn’t mind seeing a Constitutional Amendment requiring Federal Judges to be confirmed by the electorate and reconfirmed periodically instead of the lifetime pass. That may have been relevant in the past but at the present there seems to be few checks and balances regarding the power of the judiciary. >>In the chess game that is the President’s nomination of Supreme >>Court Justices…Bush: "Check". > The President always seems to be a few moves ahead. >Here, I think he is…he has the advantage of being able >to research, and act first. Politically, he has a big >advantage in the nomination of judges, which is as the >Founding Fathers designed…and no political subtlety >was lost on those guys, IMO.
Yep. I hope he doesn’t blow it with the SC. Frankly, I’m not overly impressed with much of what the current admin is doing but if the trend of leftward judicial activism is reversed then the overall impact of the Bush II admin would be a net plus. Claude
Response:
I’ll settle for anything as long as Jesus isn’t involved.
Response:
It all really matters on a day-to-day personal level in one’s late middle and late and elderly life…HOW?
Response:
Whatever webelo felcher- but It all really matters on a day-to-day personal level in one’s late middle and late and elderly life…HOW? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>So — who do y’all think it’ll be? And who do you think will be most >>upset after we know? >>I say a) it’s a male, b) it’s an indisputable conservative (no >>grumbling from the right), and c) they mount a filibuster campaign, but >>it fails, and the pick gets in. Who disagrees? >>Lars >Well, after the fact, even though he has expressed opinions >against the Rowe v. Wade decision, this guy has friends on >both sides, is obviously highly qualified, and will be >confirmed easily, IMO. (A prediction). > The usual whiners ( Schumer, TeddyK, the AGA baboons ) will > screech and throw their dung, but nobody of any consequence > really cares about them at this point. > Easy confirmation. > More of a hard-ass for the next opening > Claude
Response:
HOW? It all really matters on a day-to-day personal level in one’s late middle and late and elderly life…HOW? So fact is, do you have more history in your wake or future that matters….as much as your past didn’t? REAL 
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > I just started reading up on his history
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Hold that lil bitch down claude….whack whack wack wackwack wack oink….dribble
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Yep. I blow net …oink Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh > Claude
Response:
In a rare moment of lucidity, the net.asshole posting as >I really matter on a day-to-day personal level in one’s late >middle and late and elderly life…HOW?
Not at all, Marc. Not at all. Not even a little bit. Your Pal Claude
Response:
No you say? Then what’s your itchy constant post motivation back to my socks there ‘ol dusty can’t do a cum-dumpster? Oink back ya ‘ol Truckin Rubber Ducky! the alt.guitar.amps pauls’s of this ol’ worl’ care 
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->It really matters only on a day-to-day personal level in one’s late middle and late and elderly life…HOW? > Not at all, Marc. Not at all. Not even a little bit. > Your Pal > Claude
Response:
Jesus Christ was an idiot. Welcome to the Human Race. ISBN 0-15-683580-0 <—paperback – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > I’ll settle for anything as long as Jesus isn’t involved.
Response:
claudel vomited when he realized that he refused to read: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Editorial Reviews…Socrates, Buddha, Confucious, Jesus by karl jaspers > Amazon.com > The four most influential individuals in human history, Socrates, the Buddha, Confucius and Jesus have cast shadows on history that are nearly > inescapable even today. Who were they, what were their doctrines, and what was their influence? These are some of the questions that the 20th-century > philosopher Karl Jaspers explores in this short excerpt from his larger volume, Great Philosophers.
Response: