whiny, nasally, monotone voice,She has no charisma, though she is good at whipping up emotions in angry people.
She's sort of a modern day Emma Goldman
Posted on 01/26/2006 6:51:27 AM PST by katieanna
Debate continues in the Senate today on the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. At present no time has been announced for a final vote. Stop by and discuss.
LOL. I'll run over and check and report back.
I've had all my shots, although I think I need
a tetanus booster.
I feel certain at the appropriate time long lost board minutes will suddenly surface that indicate Hillary attempted to be a "change agent" while on the board; at which time Buckhead's many talents will be severly put to the test. (and you know what I'm tauking bout)
My husband said EXACTLY the same thing last night, albeit with more "colorful" language.
There will be more DEMs, I think. Landrieu and Lieberman, for different reasons, I think are very likley to turncoat on the DEM obtructionism. If they do, plus one more, the vote count will be 60, and the DEM leadership avoids having to explain "why no filibuster."
whiny, nasally, monotone voice,She has no charisma, though she is good at whipping up emotions in angry people.
She's sort of a modern day Emma Goldman
INOUYE up.
Is he a Yes or a No?
Will wonders never cease...Inouye is healthy enough to attend a Senate session.
I'm ashamed to say, I hadn't thought of that possibility. Good thinking.
Perhaps Sis would enjoy reading this:
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4841
Big Labor, Wal-Mart and Hillary
September 22nd, 2005
Yes, we just saw something on the news about it. I'm sure it's the primary reason Johnson is voting for Alito. We saw pro-lifers marching with signs for the change in their law. Good for them!
You're correct.
DU report #1:
From a column over there:
"To maintain their hold on the power that allows them to do these things, they have also pandered shamelessly to the ideological fantasies of a narrow but influential segment of extreme social conservatives, engaged in brazen and repulsive propaganda initiatives, and used those same powers to block legitimate enquiries into the activities of Executive Branch staff and appointees."
It seems to be. And not the first time around, either.
SD Legislature To Consider Abortion Ban
01/22/2006In the next six weeks, South Dakota lawmakers will decide whether to make abortion a crime.
A bill that would ban abortion in the state will be introduced within the next two days. The bill will be called the Woman's Health and Life Protection Act. It will ban abortion, but won't prosecute a doctor who performs one to save a woman's life.
And the lawmaker who's introducing the bill says he thinks now is the right time to try and over-turn Roe vs Wade.
Rep. Roger Hunt says, "Abortion should be banned."
Those four words will likely lead to many others in the South Dakota House and Senate as lawmakers will decide whether to criminalize abortion in the state. The bill's supporters are using findings from a controversial abortion task force report recently given to the legislature.
Hunt says, "DNA testing now can establish the unborn child has a separate and distinct personality from the mother. We know a lot more about post-abortion harm to the mother." The legislature debated a similar bill two years ago, but Governor Mike Rounds vetoed it because of concerns over some technicalities.
In his Autobiography, Jefferson recalled: "Sitting near me on some occasion of a trifling but wordy debate, he asked how I could sit in silence hearing so much false reasoning which a word should refute? I observed to him that to refute indeed was easy, but to silence impossible. That in measures brought forward by myself, I took the laboring oar, as was incumbent on me; but that in general I was willing to listen. If every sound argument or objection was used by some one or other of the numerous debaters, it was enough: if not, I thought it sufficient to suggest the omission, without going into a repetition of what had been already said by others. That this was a waste and abuse of the time and patience of the house which could not be justified. And I believe that if the members of deliberative bodies were to observe this course generally, they would do in a day what takes them a week, and it is really more questionable, than may at first be thought, whether Bonaparte's dumb legislature which said nothing and did much, may not be preferable to one which talks much and does nothing.
"I served with General Washington in the legislature of Virginia before the revolution, and, during it, with Dr. Franklin in Congress. I never heard either of them speak ten minutes at a time, nor to any but the main point which was to decide the question. They laid their shoulders to the great points, knowing that the little ones would follow of themselves. If the present Congress errs in too much talking, how can it be otherwise in a body to which the people send 150 lawyers, whose trade it is to question everything, yield nothing, & talk by the hour? That 150 lawyers should do business together ought not to be expected."
(End of quotation)
That would be a great big NO. He's following the party line, and putting out the same ad hominem comments-
Alito's for the big guy and hates the little guy, yada, yada, yada, same old, same old.
Maybe they are just going to "MoveOn". LOL.
I love the column on Hillary/Wal-Mart. Many thanks.
From your fingers to God's ear! :-)
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.