Posted on 02/01/2012 10:02:25 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
“She’s 51 years old, that’s early?”
It can be. I’ve known women who’ve hit “the change” later than that.......bless their hearts.
I didn’t realize she was 51!!!
Dang ovaries are killing her for not having babies and she going hot and cold!
No wonder.
bfl
Levin wiped the floor with her lastnight on this. It was a masterpiece.
I might get flamed for this (and surely would have before Ann’s fall from conservative grace), but I’ve never been all that big fan of Coulter’s.
Now, I think Ann Coulter is a very smart woman, and she can make an excellent argument when she puts her mind to it. IMHO though, she too often prefers to get the other guy’s goat than make a good point. It’s a good way to stir up controversy and garner attention, but I don’t think it helps advance conservatism.
Just my zwei pfennigs, of course.
I don’t like either of them.
That said:
Romney’s entire statement was that he isn’t worried about the very poor BECAUSE they have a safety net. He further stated that if that net had holes, he would work to repair them.
Just what is wrong with that statement, other than the first clause, which gives his opponents a soundbite to use against him?
Romney further added that the very rich will do just fine and (the core of his statement) it is the middle class that is hurting badly and those are the people with whom he is concerned. This is accurate and, from a conservative POV, it is the middle class that is the engine of our economy.
This is NOT an endorsement of Romney.
As for Coulter, she has always been a chancer, IMO. She has an acid tongue/pen/keyboard and a way with words, and she was an attractive blonde. She has never really been a champion of anything except her own success. Again: IMO.
This whole thing reminds me of dealing with teenagers. The reason a story they tell makes no sense is simple: They are lying. There is some “back” story they want to hide.
Same here. Famous “conservatives” are PUBLICLY taking a ridiculous position with lousy explanations for why. This tells me they are doing it for reasons that are not readily apparent.
There is a “back” story - A “real” reason they are doing it. I wonder what it is. Seriously.
—which is why it is absurd to argue for “states rights”—
Actually, no. The context of the phrase “states rights” is the same as the context of “citizen’s rights”. The context is “states ‘rights’ vs the federal government’s power over the states “right” to exercise their own power.
—Levin wiped the floor with her lastnight on this. It was a masterpiece.—
Ann Coulter is really good. I think what makes her good is her passion behind the positions she takes. When she is lousy, I believe it is because she is championing a position that she herself does not agree with. Something is really fishy about this whole “Coulter/Romney” thing.
We may find out, eventually.
Heh, or MITTopause.
Amen.
The video of Ann on B’OR is enough.
Can anyone post that again?
cuban leaf: "Actually, no. The context of the phrase “states rights” is the same as the context of “citizen’s rights”. The context is “states ‘rights’ vs the federal government’s power over the states “right” to exercise their own power."
Actually yes.
Better read it again....THIS TIME more carefully. By "more carefully", I mean that you will have to pay close attention to the two phrases you completely overlooked in your out of context excerpt. To wit:
"....'in order to'..." ---and--- "....as a pretext to'..."
bttt
My point is that the phrase “states rights”, for me at least, is a relative term, just as “human rights” is. It is “rights” vs what they do not have the right to do.
An example would be that, generally speaking, a state can put anything it wants into its constitution and enforce it as long as it doesn’t violate the constitution of the US. Those are considered, to me, “states rights”.
This is such a cogent reply. Thank you for your service to the country, and thank you for this well written explanation.
Our "perceptions" don't necessarily mean "in reality". :)
—Our “perceptions” don’t necessarily mean “in reality”. —
I’m talking about the meaning of words. As in, what does “states rights” mean. I find it means different things to different people. In all seriousness, I believe there are as many realities as there are people, in the vein of “perception is reality”. This only goes so far though. If your “reality” is that you can fly, the “real” reality may impact you directly, via asphalt or concrete, if you attempt to fly off the roof of a skyscraper. ;-)
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.