Skip to comments.Word for the Day - Lugubrious
Posted on 06/29/2012 5:44:33 AM PDT by tioga
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.
[From Latin lgubris, from lgre, to mourn.]
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 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
blah, blah.....days till we throw the bum out...blah...
Yea, make me laugh today, I need one.
Lugubrious faces surround me since yesterday’s ObamaCare dicision.
You know, I was thinking about that new Velveeta Queso Blanco.
This has to be the first time in history that someone has made something more ethnic by making it whiter.
I was going to call you an early bird, but then I remembered I overslept. It is a bright and sunny morning today. Starting to distract me from my misery.
So a baloney sandwich walks into a bar. The bartender immediately yells at him, while jerking a thumb over his back towards a sign on the wall: “Hey - can’t you read??? We don’t serve food here!”
“Bright and sunny” is one way to put it. It was 80 degrees by 8 o’clock. Yesterday was 95. Today won’t be as hot, but it will be more humid, so it’s going to be a good day to work inside.
I’m sorry, I will try to lighten up. A+++
Velveeta? What’s that? Haven’t bought that in years.
His befuddled mind fell prey to the liberals? That’s a theory. I say the man is a pompous traitor to rule like that. A+++
When the lugubrious meets the loquacious, the mournful joins the mouthy, you can be sure Lugy Beer is the house favorite! You just can't keep a good beer down.
I think he’s blackmailed but I wanted to give him the health out instead of speculating that he might be living on the down low.
Thankfully it can be eaten right from the jar.
You are Adorbs.
The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States does not ALLOW himself to be blackmailed. Epic fail on his part if that is the case. I would spit on him, if so. If his mind is so impaired from medication, he needs to retire. I still spit on him for that.
Ok, I smiled a little.
It’s not just you — it’s everybody. But, I offer this AM’s parody video from the Heartland (from Fox & Friends)to lighten your mood: http://news.discovery.com/human/discovery-news-gotta-see-videos-120628.htmld
If these young farmers are anything like the ones around here, they’ll be voting Republican in November.
The 3 brothers are from Kansas and this film was shot by their 11 year old sister. I predict that they will be inundated with notes and Tweets from girls all ver the country.
In shirts and ties, they were handsome, humble, and charming on this morning’s show.
My daughter takes anti-seizure medication. That decision has nothing to do with those meds and it’s beyond low if anyone is trying to make it out to be so. Seizures and those taking meds for them are relatively common.
Handing Obama the largest tax ever, was a BFD
Taking SCOTUS off the table as an election issue, was a BFD.
Handing Romney a Rallying cry was a BFD.
And, telling the mushy middle that, IF you vote for liberals YOU WILL GET TAXED, was a Huge F*ng Deal.
I think Krauthammer got it right.
And for all his preening and hectoring, you cant tell me Roberts did not do this with a smile on his face.
It's near impossible to not see this as a giant middle finger to the Won.
I would rather have seen his other middle finger from killing the law outright.
If you think you are lugubrious today, just wait until your doctor tells you that there's nothing he can do to save your life and by "can" he means "permitted by the medical care equalization board".
Healthcare premium subsidies. People are eligible up to 4 times the poverty line. Putting the middle class on welfare to guarantee a permanent leftist government that is a BFD.
That Progressive family from Connecticut screwed us again with Souter 2.0
I need whatever drugs you are on.
Killing the law outright, would have had devastating consequences for the election cycle....
We’ve taken years to but Bush/Gore behind us.
We don’t need that headache...
Your link was bad.
It is not the Court’s job to manage the election cycles.
The Court’s job is to uphold the Constitution.
He violated his oath.
And not like the four leftist hacks he did it with willingly and knowingly.
I do not buy into that theory. SCOTUS cannot rewrite law, they must rule on the constitutionality of what was already put in place. It failed the commerce test, yet they snuck it in the backdoor. Not passing the smell test for me. If you think in your wildest dreams that the country will go Rep and it will be overturned then, you are mistaken. Won’t happen. In another 10-20 years we will be full blown socialist medicine and our wonderful health care system of innovation will be stagnant. The government has ruined everything else they touch, what makes anyone think this will be any different?
And I want someone in the House today to sponsor a law that if you don’t own a gun you get taxed heavily.
So these three pieces of string walk into a bar. The first one orders a beer. The barkeep says, “sorry, we don’t serve string in here.”. String 1 leaves. Second piece of string orders a glass of wine, and again the barkeep says, “I told your friend, we don’t serve string here!”
The third piece of string strolls past the bar, goes into the bathroom and starts tearing himself apart, and ties himself up.
He goes up to the bar and orders a shot. The bartender looks at him and says, “are you another one of those crazy strings?”
He replies, “no, I’m a frayed knot.”
That’s an oldie but a goodie.
Obama could care less if this law is under commerce, or another tax. After all, a liberal never met a tax they didn’t like. Obama is patting himself on the back over his “BFD” of a win. He and MO were dancing in the White House yesterday. He thinks his reelection is now a shoe-in. He is riding high. I don’t see where he is delusional in that belief, either.
There are several issues here..that you’re overlooking...
The first is the House will vote to repeal, further tightening the screws on the Senate, which is already in danger of falling from Dem. control.
The Repeal of this bill is not that far removed from reality.
Secondarily...this was 5/4 on the libs side.
However, I’m sure I do not need to remind you that the Administration has stupidly forced this back into the courts on a Religious Conscience basis.
There is still the severability issue to be addressed, and 5/4 the other way on First Amendment grounds is far better for the Court.
Little Red Riding Hood has not beat the Big Bad Wolf to Grandma’s house just yet.
Obama’s victory as pyrrhic at best....
Dr. K is wrong here. Closing the door on further “expansion” of the Commerce clause is weak beer when you consider that it needs rolled back, not just have its expansion stopped.
And it’s completely moot now, since the power to tax is apparently unlimited and provides a complete end-around for anything the gov’t wants to do.
I am not feeling lugubrious in the face of yesterday’s decision. I risked being banned as a freeper and donated 25 bucks to Mittens. I am feeling 2010 all over again. What the blabbering mouths don’t realize is that the Tea Party isn’t dead, because it is less an organization and more of a State of Mind.
RIGHT: After looking at my paycheck, the lugubrious look on my face told volumes.
WRONG: I hocked a lugubrious and spit on the sidewalk.
It was 81 by 7 am today and 88 when I finished my run. Brutal workout. It’s supposed to get to 106 here so I tried to get done early.
And Roberts is going to reverse himself, why?
I think you are still in denail. You got to get through the grief stages faster :)
I love that one.
Even if everything you say is true and comes to pass, this decision is still carte blanche for the gov’t to mandate anything and simply include a “penalty” for non compliance.
But unfortunately, other than that that, we don't know much about John Roberts. Stealth nominees have never turned out to be a pleasant surprise for conservatives. Never. Not ever.
Since the announcement, court-watchers have been like the old Kremlinologists from Soviet days looking for clues as to what kind of justice Roberts will be.
Will he let us vote?
Does he live in a small, rough-hewn cabin in the woods of New Hampshire and avoid "womenfolk"?
That’s my idea, and I’ve applied for a patent. ;-)
Oh is Ann ok to use as back up now? Bc last I heard she was discredited based on romneylove.
Ideas are great but we need a bill sponsor.
Who would be ballsy enough to do it? How about Trey Gowdy of SC or Joe Walsh of IL?
It's OK by me.....now.
First of all, all law is a matter of interpretation, and tactic.
This law, like it or not, is still in the courts, and under far better circumstances...for a favorable decision.
Striking it down on Commerce Clause grounds alone, served no good purpose, except to empower the President.
And the view of Defending the Constitution, while leaving the Voters that empowered this free from their own idiocy, seems ill conceived...
As Krauthammer pointed out, the Job of the C.J. is also the stewardship of the court, and damaging the validity of the institution, a coequal branch of Government, does not defend the Constitution, when it’s just as beneficial to return a political question to the body politic, while keeping a much larger club in the bag.
In all the hysteria, it’s overlooked that the coming questions on this act are far more blatantly unconstitutional
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.