MLK Weekend! Bush INSTALLS Racist Judge

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

SO you'd say "Too bad" and take an upper class loser who happens to have been well coached over someone that's really motivated and smart? How does that benefit the country?

Until you find a better way to weight the score, yes. I'm sorry, but giving a kid preference because he's not a WASP is as much a load of crap as denying entrance for the same reason.

Quote

Someone with a 1300 SAT from a fancy private school is basically mediocre or unmotivated, and generally won't do well in college. An inner city kid from a ghetto school with a 1250SAT is extraordinarily motivated.

You've got to be kidding me! Someone who does well at a fancy private school is unmotivated, or mediocre? What kind of crap is that? But a black, or hispanic kid who doesn't do as well on the SAT is a genius? Really, Professor, that just doesn't add up.


-
Jim

1300 is not doing well, 1600 is doing well. 1300 is below average for admission at my school.

And I didn't mention race at all, just that one came from an inner city ghetto high school, just like the ones the Republicans are always telling us are so lousy compared to private schools.

I do not believe in race based AA, but I do believe in
disadvantage based AA. Purely practical, based on 30 years as a college teacher.

PS I am a WASP, my kids are WASPs, my GF is a WASP, and I like WASPs. I have nothing against WASPs.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

You'll make no point with that post to Vinnie. Nobody will read it.

Bingo! I read the first three paragraphs of personal attack directed towards Vinnie, and blew past the rest. Bet everyone else did too.

. . =(_8^(1)

[rehmwa 2]

"rubbish"

Whatever; you are advocating preferences for admission in violation of objective test scores in favor of a subjective criterion. It's just wrong and wrong way to correct a perceived error (two wrongs and all that).

I agree to give aid to the disadvantaged one - that's the financial aid. But to skew admissions? Why, another example of the same thing is legacy favoritism. Also wrong as a different example.

Still, calling this hypothetical kid a 'loser' as based on merely the school listed on the admissions form is even a lousy drive-by for you and still speaks to your orientation on how you define fairness. Again, I'll admit to a difference basis of viewpoint from you and agree to disagree.

what kind of beer do you like?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[TheAnvil 0]

My goodness how threads evolve when you don't pay attention for a while. John & rehmwa, I'd like to add to y'all's discussion before responding to the puerile and inane ravings of the other dz.com denizen with whom I'm engaged in this thread.

John, I don't have a problem with a subjective admission system that takes more than quantitative results from standardized tests into account. What I have a problem with is RACE being taken into account - be it for collegiate admission or employment. As I've stated on other threads - I neither judge anyone by their race for any reason nor support any programs that do likewise.

I feel this way on both moral and patriotic grounds. Morally, I find racial discrimination repulsive. On a patriotic level, I see the tactics used by race-base AA supporters and see how they divide the nation I love so deeply. A racially stratified nation is a weakened nation and I have neither use, love, nor mercy for those that seek to weaken the United States in any manner, be it inadvertent or deliberately malicious.

Their actions and tactics DISGUST me. When lefties run like cowards when confronted with the fact that it is racial discrimination that they support, my disgust is deepened further.

As far as specific mechanisms by which subjective quantities might be taken into account for collegiate admission, federal employment, civil employment, or whatever - I believe such things to be a different matter in which I'm really not interested as long as it's consistent and reasonable.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[TheAnvil 0]

And I thought you'd reached rock bottom and started to dig. Obviously I was incorrect in that assumption! You're still falling down the hole. Next time you go spelunking, bring a light of some sort. Be it intellectual or physical, you obviously need all the illumination you can get.

Imitation being the best sort of flattery, thanks for imitating my posting style.

Quote

you are only embarrassing yourself more and more, at my considerable amusement

Embarrassing myself? Me? I think not. If it amuses you to think so, by all means, be amused. I really don't care.

Quote

Old saying - when you are in a hole, first thing to do is stop digging.

I'm not in a hole - you are.

Quote

So many changes of subject, so much labeling, so much smugness, so much belligerence, so much bullying, so LITTLE of actually arguing reasonable points or countering mine (and even the few times you do, it's always laced with some or a lot of the above). Can't you do better?

Re-read your own posts and mine, with specific attention to the 'bask in your own hypocrisy' phrases I insert at appropriate places. Then bask in your own hypocrisy yet again.

Quote

You clearly have gotten your inspiration from Bill O'Reilly - I just loved the Terri Gross interview and especially the time he wasn't in the safety of his own show and couldn't defend himself against Al Franken's arguments. So he ends up screaming at Franken, "SHUT UP! SHUT UP!"

I haven't quoted Bill O'Reilly nor used any of his arguments - to my knowledge - in this thread. Haven't watched him in a couple of weeks so it would be pretty hard to do. Try again. This time, try basing your argument on something credible.

Quote

Oh, Vincent, is that next for you?

Yelling shut up at an idiot? No, I usually just ignore them. Sometimes I make excptions, as I'm sure you know...

Quote

>And it is YOU who ignore the fact at hand: both Lee and Pickering were recess appointments

(Actually, this doesn't even count, since it has nothing to do with the merit or lack of merit of Pickering - it is just more of the same tired tactic of comparing to some other wrong, real or perceived. . . 'But your guy did it FIRST! And WORSE!'

Nope. Don't you read what you write? You stated - in your title - that Judge Pickering was installed with the obvious connotation that such was a bad/evil thing. I point out to you that your hero Bubba (and many other Presidents since George Washington) have used the same mechanism to appoint government officials and somehow you fail to grasp the relevance. Your failure to grasp this is your own problem - deal with it. If you want the Constitution changed, WRITE YOUR CONGRESSMAN.

Quote

I'll say AGAIN - Lee was appointed to an assistant attorney general position, NOT A LIFETIME JUDGESHIP ON A CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. Maybe in your book, it's just a conveniently insignificant detail, but I think it is an important point. Apples and oranges, just like comparing with Roger Gregory (qualified, non-controversial, almost complete bipartisan support. . . )

Don't recall Roger Gregory, but since you attempt to change the subject after maligning me for supposedly doing so, bask in your own hypocrisy once again - you should be good at that by now.

You might want to educate yourself on recess appointments, as you obviously don't know jack shyte. Those of us that actually READ the Constitution and get our news from sources that don't come with crayons know that Judge Pickering's recent appointment isn't lifetime until confirmed by the Senate.

Quote

And let me ask again, what does Bill Lann Lee have to do with installing a judge with a "...record that is replete with examples of bad judging, littered with cases that demonstrate a misunderstanding of the law in many crucial and sensitive areas, a record that shows a judge inserting his personal views into his judicial opinions, and putting his personal preferences above the law."? (Leahy) Bursting a vein still about Lee? Start another thread!

When Leahy can back that statement up with evidence, I'll give it credence. Since you obviously can't grasp it, I'll explain it a bit slower in the hope that you have the ability to do so, which I seriously doubt.

You are ticked that Bush installed a judge via recess appointment - a judge whom you smear with vague accusations of racist tendencies. Lee admittedly supports racial discrimination and was appointed by the same mechanism (Art 2, Sec 2 of that Constitution - have someone read it to you). See a difference? Note that Pickering has the floor votes for confirmation and Lee never did, FYI.

Quote

>Brown and Pickering have WHAT in common? Did they hear the same # of cases? Same type of cases? Did they sit together en banc somewhere? Go to law school together perhaps? What, exactly, makes your presented comparison statistically relevant? NOTHING. Nada. Zilch. Zero. Live with it. Apples and oranges would be extremely appropriate here.

Yeah - great point - I have to admit I made an incredible leap of logic there. You know, what a bonehead assumption that just because they were appointed by the SAME man, to the SAME (almost) position for about the SAME amount of time, that it was in any way fair to compare their records of receiving unpublished reversals ("ignoring or violating well established principles of law" ), fifteen vs. zero. Yup, musta been drunk. . .

If your 'musta been drunk' is meant in sarcasm, go back to whatever school let you out and demand readmission regardless of age. Better still, sue them for dereliction of duty. It's gotta HURT being that......ahhh screw it...you won't get it anyway

15 vs. 0, eh? Since Reagan left office, Ted Kennedy voted against a black nominee for the Supreme Court. Rick Santorum hasn't. Ted Kennedy is obviously a racist and Rick Santorum isn't, according to your logic. Pathetic. Go back to school.

Quote

I will say that I am aware of Hatch's assertions that Pickering's record isn't really so bad (a reasonable retort - gee, why couldn't you bring that up instead of ranting about my education or whether or not I'm drunk or how vague my facts from a "hate site" are - though you still haven't refuted any. . .), but I'll go with Leahy again on that: "Whatever these numbers purport to represent about the quantity of Judge Pickering's reversals -- and I cannot vouch for them one way or another, not knowing their source or meaning -- they do not in any way excuse the poor quality of his underlying opinions."

On his record of unpublished reversals, let me say (again), ". . . I don't think it PROVES anything. I think it is another piece of evidence in a glaringly long list that seriously questions the man's commitment to racial equality and his fitness to serve." Let me add that for me, that list comes from far more places than just PFAW (see below).

LMFAO. You admit knowing nothing about Judge Pickering's reversed decisions, the # of decisions he made, the content of those decisions, yet claim to know these decisions are indicative of his worth as a judge? Hilarious. Go back to school.

Quote

>Glaringly long list of vague accusations from a conservative hate sight? And you WONDER why I question it? LMFAO. Try again dude.

More tired, angry labeling. Yeah, I did it too - one whole sentence - big deal - I got it out of my system and moved on to the actual argument.

Angry labelling? This after you call conservatives hate-filled and narrow minded (among other things?) Bask in your....er...you know the rest. ROFLMFAO. PFAW isn't a conservative hate sight? Really? I've heard Baldwin speak - it's a hate group. Did you actually think I'm not familiar with those bozos?

Quote

Vincent - if PFAW's information regarding Pickering is JUST "vague accusations from a conservative hate sight", if they are SUCH a "non-credible source", then shouldn't it be a piece of cake for a heavy thinker like you to shred their info to bits??? C'mon - you can do it! Piece of cake!

I already did so with their inane 'overturned 15 times' comment - you fail to grasp that simple bit of logic. Let's try another one. Once you grasp either of them, we'll wade further through the morass. You are right - their vague 'fact set' is fairly easy to see through - for anyone with a three digit IQ.

How about the one claiming Pickering frequently had harsh words for plaintiffs in civil rights cases? Oooooh what a bad man.

If one is actually stupid enough to assume that the plaintiff in ALL such cases is right, regardless of facts pertaining to the specific case, then this 'fact' presented by PFAW is a damning bit of evidence that Pickering is a flaming racist. If one isn't that addled - it doesn't. For those former Gore suppporters and current Deanie Babies out there, I'll elaborate.

PFAW doesn't mention any case. They don't mention if the plaintiff was the victor or loser of the case. They just say that Judge Pickering made harsh comments. NEWSFLASH: If some jackass who didn't show up for work 4 days in a row because he was drinking vodka in front of the home office subsequently files a wrongful termination lawsuit claiming racial discrimination was the reason he was fired, HE DESERVES HARSH COMMENTS FROM THE JUDGE - as does his attorney! Dunno if my example was the actual case, but since PFAW doesn't present any examples, we'll never know.

VAGUE. Uncredible. Idiotic. Other adjectives apply, but I'll stop there.

When you can show me WHY pfaw's accusation against Judge Pickering in this manner damns him as a racist - OR show the statistical relevance of his 15 overturned cases, we'll continue.

Until then, study hard. You need itl.

Quote

>...it's not even worthwhile to go through the morass.

Shit, forgot that it just isn't worthwhile for you. Too easy, too pathetic, huh? More important things to do? I understand.

No you don't understand. That's the problem. Until you do, I'm not wasting my time going further throught the morass of pfaw's vague and inconsequential accusations.

You have a choice here Gary. You can take my challenge and prove the aforementioned 'facts' damn Pickering as a racist OR you can do the typical leftist thing and imitate Brave, Brave Sir Robin. Do which ever one you like.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[gary350 0]

Vincent, if you're not embarrassed, you should be. I've called bullshit on your tactics over and over, I've ridiculed you and taunted you and dared you to actually have the balls to debate fairly and address the facts I used to support my statements, refute them, or even argue your own (what a concept!)

And still it hasn't happened (OK - a little, a VERY little). Again you say that it isn't worth your time. You refuse to play, so how can you lose? You just keep hammering away at the bad, bad bush-hater and his "vague, ridiculous sources" - insult, ridicule, huff and puff enough and he'll go away - you hope.

I wrote a post about Charles Pickering, supported by a vast amount of evidence from MANY sources. In all your hundreds and hundreds of words of "response". . .

VINCENT BY THE NUMBERS:

Facts or arguments that Pickering is actually a good judge: ZERO

Proving false ANY of the evidence presented: ZERO

Comparisons to other, vaguely (at best) related subjects: MANY

Labelings, insults, condescension, "you're just as bad", LMAOs, Smileys: COUNTLESS

Me getting to put a bully who can't fight fair in his place: PRICELESS!

I will give that you did take 2 (out of MANY) facts and at least argue that they were irrelevant, NOT FALSE. I disagree, but at least it was an actual argument! Good job Vincent!

And regarding your amazing new tactic of challenging ME to prove that the evidence damns him as a racist ("or I'm not gonna play anymore! Wah!!!!"), I will repeat again, again, again:

>On his record of unpublished reversals, let me say (again), ". . . I don't think it PROVES anything. I think it is another piece of evidence in a glaringly long list that seriously questions the man's commitment to racial equality and his fitness to serve." Let me add that for me, that list comes from far more places than just PFAW (see below).

The point of a reasonable debate is not necessarily to PROVE something. It is to present opposing viewpoints and supporting evidence and to support your arguments while hopefully being open to others. At least that's what I thought.

And regarding what the evidence means, I have read many dozens of editorial opinions and commentary from legal experts and historians and mainstream papers around the country (links in previous posts) that interpret the evidence the same way I do.

Lastly - "Brave Sir Robin" and all the personal insults - it obviously amuses you immensely and makes you feel smart and powerful and in control. Good for you, Vincent - I don't know if you have a tiny dick or what, but you obviously have a great, great need to assert your supposed dominance since you attempt it so often. But in reality it is just more wasted time that could have been used researching and arguing the point at hand. Grow up, Vincent.

Love and Kisses, Gary

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

Vincent, if you're not embarrassed, you should be. I've called bullshit on your tactics over and over, I've ridiculed you and taunted you and dared you to actually have the balls to debate fairly and address the facts I used to support my statements, refute them, or even argue your own (what a concept!)

Who should be embarrassed?

I understand that it is irritating for liberals when the Dems are not in power. The best advice I can offer is find a way to get used to it, or learn about conservative principles without using liberal sources for the education.

How do you suppose Judge Pickering obtained the highest rating (well qualified) from the American Bar Assoc, the historically liberal organization that is deemed by Democrats to be irreplaceable in screening candidates for the bench? When President Bush endeavored to end the ABA's half-century of de facto control over the nomination process in early 2001, Democrats squealed mightily to preserve it.

How do you suppose he was unanimously confirmed to a district court position in 1990, when that congress was Democrat-controlled?

The Dem party is so desperate that it has resorted to wielding its blunt demagogic weapons with increasing frequency and wantonness.

This is a good time to remember these words: "Every Senator can vote against any nominee. Every Senator has that right... They can vote against them [in] this committee and on the floor. But it is the responsibility of the U.S. Senate to at least bring them to a vote." -- Senator Patrick Leahy, 1997.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

You clearly have gotten your inspiration from Bill O'Reilly - I just loved the Terri Gross interview and especially the time he wasn't in the safety of his own show

That's right, the Terri Gross interview that prompted an apology by the NPR ombudsman, Jeffrey Dvorkin.

Of course you loved it, she was not asking questions/interviewing, she was attacking/accusing. If you don't like a guy or his politics, then it seems righteous.

I could be wrong, but I don't think Terri Gross apologized.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[gary350 0]

>How do you suppose Judge Pickering obtained the highest rating (well qualified) from the American Bar Assoc, the historically liberal organization that is deemed by Democrats to be irreplaceable in screening candidates for the bench?

A good argument, a valid retort, something for the other side of the debate to consider (which I have).

(LOOK VINCENT - this is how it is done! It really isn't that hard!)

>How do you suppose he was unanimously confirmed to a district court position in 1990, when that congress was Democrat-controlled?

Another valid point. Obviously the guy is not an idiot and he hasn't been caught using the N word or something absolutely conclusive like that. Hell - maybe he has changed and really is committed to equality and civil rights - or at least believes so in his own heart.

But for me and many others, there is just too much evidence to the contrary. . .

>The Dem party is so desperate that it has resorted to wielding its blunt demagogic weapons with increasing frequency and wantonness.

One man's demagogic weapon is another man's constitutional right, even duty (just as it was and will be for conservatives) to keep too many of their "extremists" out of the courts, especially the higher ones. I don't know - the record of confirmations seems pretty high. Only 3 or 4 nominees have been blocked out of what, almost 200?

Respectfully Yours, Gary

[Gravitymaster 0]

Seems simple to me. Why not just give Pickering a vote? Up or down. Why do you suppose thats such a problem?

[gary350 0]

Quote

That's right, the Terri Gross interview that prompted an apology by the NPR ombudsman, Jeffrey Dvorkin.

Of course you loved it, she was not asking questions/interviewing, she was attacking/accusing. If you don't like a guy or his politics, then it seems righteous.

I could be wrong, but I don't think Terri Gross apologized.

I don't know either. As much as I loved it, I will admit that it was a tad over-the-top. I think Terri probably did what I've been doing with Vincent - lowering myself somewhat to the same tactics of a bully. Doesn't make it right. . . but it is fun to turn the tables on someone, for all the good it does. . .

[TheAnvil 0]

My, my my what a deep chasm you're falling into Brave Brave Sir Robin. Now you continue your personal attacks against me whilst bravely turning your tail and fleeing.

Saying that I haven't addressed any of your 'facts' presented against Judge Pickering is an outright lie on your part.

For example, I believe the following 'fact' was one of the first I addressed:

Quote

has been reversed 15 times by the 5th Circuit for ignoring or violating “well-settled principles of law” – 11 of those 15 in cases involving constitutional, civil rights, criminal procedure, or labor issues; in contrast, another Bush nominee who was confirmed to the 5th Circuit, Edith Brown Clement, was reversed only once during a slightly shorter tenure as a district court judge.

I've repeatedly challenged you to show how the comparison to Judge Brown AND the # 15 are relevant, and your oh so brave response has been laughable. As this shows:

Quote

>On his record of unpublished reversals, let me say (again), ". . . I don't think it PROVES anything. I think it is another piece of evidence in a glaringly long list that seriously questions the man's commitment to racial equality and his fitness to serve."

You admit that your 'fact' doesn't prove anything and then state that I haven't shown any 'fact' you presented vague. My conclusion: you lie.

In my last post, I showed you how the following 'fact' from your list was vague and challenged you to prove otherwise:

Quote

repeatedly inserted into his rulings, in cases involving claims of employment discrimination, severe criticisms of civil rights plaintiffs and the use of civil rights laws to address alleged discrimination.

Your response was to bravely turn your tail and flee vice attempting to prove me incorrect. You claim I haven't proven any of your 'facts' vague and non-damning? I conclude: you lie.

Not that I expect an answer, but since you seem to want to go futher into the morass of your pathetic argument, I'll address yet another one of your 'facts':

Quote

suggested that large deviations from equality in drawing legislative district lines, which the Supreme Court has held presumptively unconstitutional, were “relatively minor” and “de minimis.”

Having written a paper years ago on gerrymandering, this is the dumbest 'fact' you've yet presented. 'Presumptively unconstitutional'? What case? WHat districts? What reasons? Who was defining 'equal'? Why were the districts being redrawn in the first place? Such questions and the answers to them are needed in order to determine the cause of Pickering's statement here. They are not presented. If they WERE presented, perhaps they might prove you right. They aren't.

There is nothing in this statement damning Pickering as a racist. Nothing specific. Vague, as I earlier asserted - and still do. I say again: nothing specific. Nothing damning. Tell me, Gary, why should I believe otherwise? I don't expect an answer other than further attacks from you, but that's your modus operandi, as we all know. Lie again and say I don't address any of your 'facts' if you like, but don't expect me to believe you.

Perhaps if you choose to continue embarrassing yourself I'll just add another 'fact' from your list into each of my posts in sequence. That way you'd have a chance to flee from each one.

For humorous purposes:

Quote

I've ridiculed you and taunted you and dared you to actually have the balls to debate fairly and address the facts I used to support my statements, refute them, or even argue your own (what a concept!)

And still it hasn't happened (OK - a little, a VERY little).

Lie, as I stated and proved above.

Quote

Again you say that it isn't worth your time. You refuse to play, so how can you lose?

I am playing. You are losing.

Quote

You just keep hammering away at the bad, bad bush-hater and his "vague, ridiculous sources" - insult, ridicule, huff and puff enough and he'll go away - you hope.

I could care less if you go away. I hope you stay - you're a great reason for education reform in and of yourself.

Quote

I wrote a post about Charles Pickering, supported by a vast amount of evidence from MANY sources.

Which I claimed were vague, and subsequently proved so repeatedly, with no response from you being either relevant or logical.

Quote

Me getting to put a bully who can't fight fair in his place: PRICELESS!

I don't feel put in my place. Odd, Sir Robin. Perhaps you should try again.

Quote

I will give that you did take 2 (out of MANY) facts and at least argue that they were irrelevant, NOT FALSE. I disagree, but at least it was an actual argument! Good job Vincent!

So you admit I proved your 'evidence' vague and irrelevant. Ahhh...so nice to have one's opponent admit he's correct.

Quote

And regarding your amazing new tactic of challenging ME to prove that the evidence damns him as a racist ("or I'm not gonna play anymore! Wah!!!!"), I will repeat again, again, again:

>On his record of unpublished reversals, let me say (again), ". . . I don't think it PROVES anything. I think it is another piece of evidence in a glaringly long list that seriously questions the man's commitment to racial equality and his fitness to serve." Let me add that for me, that list comes from far more places than just PFAW (see below).

So you can't prove he's a racist, yet your thread is titled 'MLK Weekend! Bush INSTALLS racist judge'?

Are you admitting you're guilty of libel/slander?

Quote

Lastly - "Brave Sir Robin" and all the personal insults - it obviously amuses you immensely and makes you feel smart and powerful and in control.

My logical arguments and genius level IQ make me feel smart and in control. Brave Brave Sir Robin is a character from a great movie with whom I feel you have a common quality. Call it an insult if you like. I wouldn't disagree with you if you make that conclusion, but 'tis yours to make, not mine.

Quote

Good for you, Vincent - I don't know if you have a tiny dick or what, but you obviously have a great, great need to assert your supposed dominance since you attempt it so often. But in reality it is just more wasted time that could have been used researching and arguing the point at hand. Grow up, Vincent.

Grow up yourself. I have researched the subject at hand and argued it far better than you. As for my tiny dick, you'll be pleased to know that I often claim to be hung like a bull field mouse. But thank you for the personal insult. Bask in your own hypocrisy once again. Perhaps you could become a professional bask-er of sorts.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[SkydiverRick 0]

Brave Brave Sir Robin is a character from a great movie with whom I feel you have a common quality.

[gary350 0]

Quote

Seems simple to me. Why not just give Pickering a vote? Up or down. Why do you suppose thats such a problem?

One answer is checks and balances. It's the rules that we have, just like the rule that says the president can blow off the fillibuster with a recess appointment. Maybe they need to be changed, but they are what they are right now.

I think the rules are there to prevent one party that temporarily has a slight edge from steamrolling an extreme agenda through, as if they had a mandate. If they have more than a slight edge, a super-majority, then they have much more power to do what they want - though they have to face the consequences in future elections.

Why not give him a vote? Rules say they don't have to without a super majority of 60 votes. OK fuck the rules - why not, really? Well, enough Senators don't think he's qualified, is too extreme, racially insensitive or even bigoted, or they are just playing politics or some combination of all those things.

If enough people believe that the Senators are mostly playing politics or are just clueless, then THEY will be held accountable in future elections. Checks and balances.

It works the exact same way when the Democrats are in power. The only difference is that then the liberals become the ones who get pissed at the fillibusters and cheer on the recess appointments! Except those of impeccable principles. . . (like me - not!)

[Amazon 7]

Quote

As for my tiny dick, you'll be pleased to know that I often claim to be hung like a bull field mouse

OMG say it ain't so

[TheAnvil 0]

Yes, Jeanne, I'm sad to say it is. However, given my stature, I can also claim to be the human tripod and be taken seriously!

Dunno if I told you this, but your halibut recipe has gotten be several compliments. Never would have thought of 'shock-boiling' it in chunks like that then dousing it with butter. Amazing. You're a culinary genius.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[Amazon 7]

Hey its hard cooking stuff when you are spending a couple weeks on the boat... or sailing across to Hawaii....simplicity and some good fresh fish and some butter is a very good solution to cooking at sea. I have become adept at making the crew good tasty eats while being heeled over under sail for days on end.

[TheAnvil 0]

Do you have that South American fish recipe where they cook it in lime juice? I tried to make it once and it just didn't taste right....

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!