Posted on 10/04/2005 3:20:22 PM PDT by Richard Poe
I think you can search his book by key-word at Amazon.com.
I'm sorry, but this is not much to go on. As the original article pointed out she lumped a bunch of rights into a paragraph as an example (and it may have refered to the rights in Texas to bear arms)of a larger point.
Moreover, does this sound conservative?
She then explained the true solution to crime:
"We will be successful in solving our massive crime problems only when we attack the root causes....
We all can be active in some way to address the social issues that foster criminal behavior, such as: lack of self-esteem or hope in some segments of our society, poverty, lack of health care (particularly mental health care), lack of education, and family dysfunction. "
Self esteem causes crime? Hope? Lack of health care?
NOW I am more worried.
Well done!!
Read my lips.......Harriet Miers will turn out to be another Antonin Scalia.
I can't wait to say "I told you so" !!
Oh ye of little faith....................
AKA fair weather friends
And I personally watched Bork make comments about the 2nd to the effect that it's staunch supporters were in fact rabid wackos that made themselve look bad with their fanaticism.
A tidbit of info for the record.......
I'm becomming more and more convinced that some FReepers are narrow minded, and suffer from tunnel vision. They'd also turn against their own Mothers in a New York minute. They are self centered examples of the "me" generation.
Harriet Miers was an even MORE brilliant choice than John Roberts. Too bad some FReepers are too stupid to notice!!
I admire Rush Limbaugh, but why have a fight, when we can win the war without firing a shot?? Isn't that what Ronald Reagan did??? And it turned out to be the right thing to do, didn't it???
I had not heard that. Got a source?
And IMO, the 2nd does not require incorporation as the First did, because it is not prefaced with "Congress shall pass no law."
It says "shall not be infringed." That is absolute. And Bork walks away from that absolutism.
While I am certain you know that I agree with that sentiment, the Second also deems a State militia "well regulated." From what I have been able to discern, that means not only are the militia ready and trained to fight, but that a State has the power to manage that armed capability.
This is getting off topic. My point is that I think the Second as written is somewhat at variance with an optimal statement in support of the pre-existing unalienable right to self-defense and that placing enforcement powers in the Federal government has its perils.
BTTT about Bork comments
Why is it only the pubbies that eat their own?
You needed to hear the complete statement by Rush on this issue otherwise, just reading my post, it does seem he just wanted a rumble with the libs....but it was more eloquent than that.
Still, Rush has a wait and see attitude. He was not a panicky whiner like so many, especially Joeseph Farah.
That's not what all conservatives are saying. Most conservatives are saying that there were better qualified candidates available to Bush. And conservatives aren't saying we need a conservative jurist in the mold of Robert Bork, but rather we need a conservative jurist in the mold of Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas.
Bite this Ann Coulter!
Great article. Keep them coming.
Yeah, well at least Bork is writing books, one of Borks many achievements not shared by Harriet Miers.
/sarcasm> (Inserted because I am afraid there are too many here who would take me seriously.)
I enjoyed your use of Reagan and Sun Tzu against Rush. I admire Rush and many other conservative radio hosts who seem to be squeamish about Miers, but their skepticism verges on cynicism, which is very un-Reagan.
In addition to their wanting an all-out bloody battle over Sandra's replacement, Rush and the other naysayers are violating another Sun Tzu-ism: When strong, appear weak. Rush thinks we're being weak by going into stealth mode, when in fact, we may just be giving the appearance of being weak.
Bork also argued that there is no Constitutional protection for parents who homeschool their children, even if they do it for religious reasons.
LOL... that Coulter gal....... I haven't paid much attention to her rants for a long time. She appears to have been disappointed in life to me and has become nothing more that a constant complainer in the mold of ol' Pattie Buchanan and the other members of the Donner party.....
I have long thought Bork is somewhat overrated- but better than most of what we have on the Supreme Court.
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.