Posted on 10/05/2005 5:46:32 AM PDT by VRWCmember
In order that we might all raise the level of discourse and expand our language abilities, here is the daily post of "Word for the Day".
nemesis \NEM-uh-siss\ noun
1a. one that inflicts retribution or vengeance
1b. a formidable and usually victorious rival or opponent *
2a. an act or effect of retribution
2b. a source of harm or ruin; curse
*Indicates the sense illustrated in the example sentence.
Example sentence:
The team will be facing their longtime nemesis in the very first round of the playoffs.
Did you know?
Nemesis was the Greek goddess of vengeance, a deity who doled out rewards for noble acts and punishment for evil ones. The Greeks believed that Nemesis didn't always punish an offender immediately but might wait generations to avenge a crime. In English, "nemesis" originally referred to someone who brought a just retribution, but nowadays people are more likely to see animosity than justice in the actions of a nemesis.
Rules: Everyone must leave a post using the Word for the Day in a sentence.
The sentence must, in some way, relate to the news of the day.
The Review threads are linked for your edification. ;-)
Practice makes perfect.....post on....
Review Threads:
Review Thread One: Word For The Day, Thursday 11/14/02: Raffish (Be SURE to check out posts #92 and #111 on this thread!)
Review Thread Two: Word For The Day, Tuesday 1/14/03: Roister
Review Thread Three: Word For The Day, Tuesday 1/28/03: Obdurate
Review Thread Four: Word For the Day, Friday 7/25/03: Potation
Review Thread Five: Word For the Day, Monday 8/19/03: Stolid
Review Thread Six: Word for the Day, Tuesday 11/09/2004: Peripatetic (Post #125 may be my best anagram post ever)
Sorry, I'm a nemesis today. Getting ready to go on another vacation. Sheesh, I feel like SeaDragon!
OMG they were as effective as whatever that sleep aid they are advertising on TV these days. i went directly into a coma!
Busy today_ More later. That 5-letter word (bills) is the cause of my nearmiss of the classroom today.
AS they used to say on Cheers. Thanks Cliffy.
rest assured, marteen, that i am hellbent on cracking your code and hacking your comp, if it's the last thing i do...
She can't be pregnant because, according to my kids, you have to be married first.
I hope you are right-I also hope he sues the living s*** out of Earle and his gang of idiots-
I'm sure the 'rats are nervous
And under a lot of stress
With so many supposed conspiracies
Which ones should they first address?
Will the FBI roll Nagin
And to keep from doing hard time
Will he become Landrieu's nemesis
By being first to drop the dime?
Or will it be governor Blanco
Who lets the air out of their tires?
Or will they drink some stronger koolaid
And switch their paranoia to Harriet Miers?
mine believed that too, xsbrownie still does. isn't it sad the kids who never have the luxury of that belief, because it is so prevalent in their families and in their communities?
"pull this off???"
I thought he was sterile and that is why he and Nicole Kidman adopted their kids-must be artificial insemination and a sperm donor...
My brother and I thought you had to be married when we were little kids, too, until we overheard my mom talking with a neighbor about another neighbor's daughter being "knocked up"-needless to say, mom had some 'splainin' to do. When my daughter was old enough to have figured out that unmarried people had babies, she was, thankfully also old enough to understand that it was not the right thing to do.
Presumptive opposition? Wisdom? Presumptive opposition is antithetical to the advise and consent role specified in the constitution. Madison very plainly stated that if anything there was a presumptive confirmation, and that rejection of the President's appointment would be rare indeed. I think George needs to check his meds. They may be a bit off today.
I'd say Mr. Will has gone over to the dark side in his view of the "advise and consent" clause. While I am not thrilled with the pick, as I read the Constitution and the intent of the advise and consent clause, it is the president's discretion to nominate those whom he believes will serve as justices, and the senate's job to confirm them absent some glaring flaw of character or ability. If Darth Vader-Ginsberg's radical views and historical allegience to the ACLU was insufficient to disqualify her, then all the braying about Roberts, Brown, Estrada, Owens, Pickering, and the other appointees who have seen their nominations stalled or blocked by the dems is completely unjustifiable. And there is certainly nothing to indicate that Miers should be rejected. Will's assertion that "the burden is on Miers to demonstrate such talents, and on senators to compel such a demonstration or reject the nomination" is a concept completely foreign to the Constitution AND to the history of the Senate's role in confirming presidential appointees. (at least up to the point when democrats decided they would only accept judges who will advance their agenda through the courts)
The democrats were obstinate, hateful, and partisan when they began this practice while holding the senate majority in the Reagan and GHW Bush administrations. The fact that a radical leftist loon like Vader-Ginsberg sits on the bench today is proof that the Republicans did not reciprocate when they held the senate majority during clinton's miserable terms. But the extent to which the democrat minority attempts to usurp the President's Constitutional Role and Power to make judicial appointments is a disgraceful and shameful thing to behold. And Will is carrying water for them when he argues that Bush's appointees have the burden of proof to prove they are worthy. NO. The burden of proof that they are unworthy is on the senate, and if the democrats' only beef with a jurist is "we don't know for sure that this judge will implement our agenda that we can't win at the ballot box for us," then sit down, shut up, and take an up or down vote.
OK, you must get an A+ since your homework inspired such a rant.
The wailing! The gnashing! The rending of garments! If the conservative reaction to Harriet Miers is any indication, George W. Bush has no chance of winning a third term. p> The decision to appoint a relative unknown -- or, given her proximity to the Bush inner circle, an unknown relative -- has caused many on the right to open a vein and let the despair flow out into the warm bath of misery, disappointment and overextended metaphors. Why didn't Bush clone Antonin Scalia in a dish and appoint him? Here, use some stem cells if you have to. Anyone but another David Souter!p> That's the great fear on the right: Souterism. A mild-mannered cipher appointed by a Bush who dons the black robe and promptly starts to eat babies. Souter! How many times have you opened the door at Halloween and seen his face on a child's mask? How many times have you waited in the doctor's office, clammy with dread, waiting for him to slap the X-rays up on the wall and point to a grayish Souter-shaped mass?
LMAO! That has me howling, too-the descriptive imagery is just too funny. I'm bookmarking it for hubby to look at when he gets home.
I hope Cherry gives everyone hell, but being very conservative, he has to be a little careful, since the powers that be at the CBC tend to be a bunch of smug, whiny libs. If his partner, Ron McLean, brings up what one English player said recently about how the French players with visors act really tough because they've got visors, Don'll give us a "No comment!" with lots of eye-wiggling indicating he agreed with the English player 100%. :^)
argh do not miss the link i just posted to james lileks piece on miers. it is a pant-peeing prizewinner IMO>
He probably had someone else boink her.
7:30 - Wings/Blues on Fox Sports Detroit (which most US coverage should learn from when covering games)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.