Only W CAN THINK HE KNOWS (ANN COULTER WAS RIGHT)

World Net Daily. com ^ | 07/22/2005 | Andrew Longman

[sirthomasthemore]

A small town in Indiana and a brief filed saying that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided are entirely positive signs on first inspection, but the second reveals only a leaning and not a falling off on one side or the other. This is, of course, by White House design for the public understanding of Judge Roberts. Bush has exhibited his recurrent traits and examining G.W. Bush right now is the only way to know what really is in the heart of Judge Roberts.

Roberts is deliberately without much record. He is deliberately congenial and with friends all around. He is deliberately professionally competent, hard to make controversial – fine. I say "deliberately" on Bush's part – it is unknown if Judge Roberts has achieved his stealth status by his own design or by chance. Seemingly driven, popular success would encourage an individual to remain somewhat vanilla, but great strategists also sometimes hold their tongue and bide their time. We don't know, and that's the point.

[Czar]

"Free Republic is the premier online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web. We're working to roll back decades of governmental largesse, to root out political fraud and corruption, and to champion causes which further conservatism in America."

"As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-capitalism, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and-pro America. We oppose all forms of liberalism, socialism, fascism, pacifism, totalitarianism, anarchism, government enforced atheism, abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, racism, wacko environmentalism, judicial activism, etc. We also oppose the United Nations or any other world government body that may attempt to impose its will or rule over our sovereign nation and sovereign people. We believe in defending our borders, our constitution and our national sovereignty."

"We aggressively defend our God-given and first amendment guaranteed rights to free speech, free press, free religion, and freedom of association, as well as our constitutional right to control the use and content of our own personal private property. Despite the wailing of the liberal trolls and other doom & gloom naysayers, we feel no compelling need to allow them a platform to promote their repugnant and obnoxious propaganda from our forum. Free Republic is not a liberal debating society. We are conservative activists dedicated to defending our rights, defending our constitution, defending our republic and defending our traditional American way of life."

You said "...maybe you've been here to long and are just taking some important things for granted."

I am taking nothing for granted. Perhaps you haven't been here long enough and are seeing FR as you would like it to be rather than what it really is. What you see quoted above has all been taken from the FR mission statements as articulated by Jim Robinson. That this is a conservative site for conservatives could not be any clearer. The point of my earlier posts was that FR should remain a conservative site for conservatives and not be slowly dragged toward the center which is exactly where the GOP Big Tent RINOs/Liberals/Moderates would like to take it.

I have also pinged a couple of others to this post and hope this will shed some further light on my comments and perhaps respond to some of their questions as posted to me earlier. Other Freepers who often share the same views have been pinged so they may be aware of what I have said here and have an opportunity to agree or not as they see fit.

[Howlin]

It's a troll.

[Sam Hill]

Correction: "She said he did {NOT] have much of a track record to go on."

[dirtboy]

Both of these things seem to be pretty undeniably true. Where's the bombast?

I disagree in that Roberts has a long track record as an attorney - and his wife is quite active in pro-life causes.

He's nowhere near the cipher that Souter represented. And for all the talk of Souter, Bush the Elder also nominated another judge with a minimal history. A certain gent named Clarence Thomas who has turned out quite nicely.

[Howlin]

The whole point being, to make the board such a nasty place, real conservatives just give up and leave.

Are you implying that the people who still post on this site are not "real" conservatives?

And, btw, you're still here, aren't you? Are you a "real" conservative?

[Sam Hill]

So you're saying there was no bombast. Okay.

[winodog]

I agree as well.

[dirtboy]

So you're saying there was no bombast

I'm not quite sure what you're saying.

[Sam Hill]

You said Coulter's column was bombastic.

I asked for some examples.

You said you disagreed with her claim that Roberts did not have much of a track record to go on, vis., his conservatism.

You didn't cite any bombast on her part.

[dirtboy]

So all we know about him for sure is that he can't dance and he probably doesn't know who Jay-Z is. Other than that, he is a blank slate. Tabula rasa. Big zippo. Nada. Oh, yeah...we also know he's argued cases before the supreme court. big deal; so has Larry fFynt's attorney.

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.

Nah, no bombast here.

[Sam Hill]

So we agree.

By the way, you are wrong about Thomas not having a record. If you will recall, when he was nominated to the DC Court of Appeals his nomination was stalled. It only went through after Joe Biden's "document request" got printed in the WSJ. If I recall correctly, it was in very small type and it took up almost a whole page of the WSJ. Because of the outrage over that, Thomas got through.

[rcocean]

"Are you implying that the people who still post on this site are not "real" conservatives? And, btw, you're still here, aren't you? Are you a "real" conservative"

Yes. I not implying, I'm stating in clear language that there are left-wing disputers on this board, who post insults and abuse others, with the goal of disrupting this board and sowing dissension.

If you are really conservative, you would direct your anger onto the liberals, i.e the enemy, instead of constantly shooting at your troops.

[AnnaZ]

It is an absolute disgrace that some posters have attacked her for her body shape; and, her marital status; and, her facial features; and, her purported drinking habits; and imputed uninformed pseudo- psychoanalysis in this vicious ad hominem attack. If ANYONE in the conservative movement didn’t deserve such hypocritical treatment from her own, it is Ann Coulter.

I have felt obligated to come to the defense of Miss Coulter in this area as well. It should be beneath "our side", is grossly mirepresentational, lacks pertinence, and has no place in disagreement over opinion.

(And the requests for pictures that accompany every thread mention belie the attacks anyway.)

[Congressman Billybob]

Thank you very much. But I don't draw such a sharp distinction between writing like mine, and Ann Coulter's. She is a very smart lady. Usually, I can easily see and entirely agree with the logical point she is making in each column.

Sure, she punches up her language in her classic way. She gives the lib-Dems apoplectic fits. That's her way. That's not my way. Still, I usually agree with her underlying logic. And occasionally, I say day-um, I wish I could write lack that. LOL.

John / Billybob

[Dont_Tread_On_Me_888]

Simple explanation:

There is a very high percentage of Republican loyalists here. Republican does NOT mean automatic conservative, contrary to their thinking.

There is a very high percentage of Republican loyalists here who think they are conservative but are not.

There is a very high percentage of Republican loyalists who think they are conservative here and they also think President Bush is a conservative. President Bush proved long ago, early into his administration, that he is not a conservative (although he does fight the war on terror, he is a liberal in domestic agenda).

Since you read a good part of the Coulter/Roberts thread, you can also see that there are some very perceptive members here in the minority that have the ability to be very perceptive and rational. That makes FR a valuable forum and important for the conservative movement. This explains why Ann Coulter is praised (like others) normally, but the second they make astute and accurate comments that run contrary to the RNC loyalists, these same members turn on Ann (and the others--including FR members--in many similar instances).

Most of what is said on FR is unimportant because it comes form blind party loyalists. However, it is what is said by the minority here that makes FR a great forum. The minority here bring forth great source material and make the best posts that cause many in the Bush administration and in conservative media outlets take notice.

Ignore the majority--read what the minority have to say.

[hispanarepublicana]

One thing I've noticed recently on FR is that there's much less activism (FReeps) or discussion regarding ideas for FReeps. Now, part of the reason for that is that during the days when the Democrats were the majority and during the Clinton AdministrationAberration, we had a "common" enemy in influential positions (a target rich environment, you might say). Of course, the MOST famous FReep was the "Get Out of Cheney's House" FReep (that's what brought me here), and there have been some other doozies. But today, there's much more discussion/debate over things WITHIN the Republican party and conservative circles. There are lots of "new" conservatives, and lots of "new" Freepers that don't seem to want to "assimilate" with Free Republic's ways (for instance, I'm amazed at the number of FReepers that just refuse to use html tags--I can always tell a newer or unassimilated FReeper because they don't italicize when quoting from another post.) But, like I said, that's all superficial. You're right, Czar, about Jim Robinson's mission and the references to conservatism. This isn't the RNC website, it's Free Republic. The difference, to me, is illustrated most recently for me in the posts leading up to the SCOTUS nomination. My opinion is that Alberto Gonzalez is no conservative (abortion rulings, La Raza affiliation), but there were FReepers whose only comments about him were "Don't worry. Bush won't appoint him." Well, he's Attorney General, and that's bad enough given his jurisdiction over immigration and his La Raza affiliation. Another example are those who are Apologists for the Administration's soft stance on border security. They argue economics and present their views absent of a central conservative theme--American Sovereignty. But, I digress. Yes. FR has changed. No. It's not and shouldn't be an RNC site. Even if Zell Miller had never given his Republican Convention speech, his conservativism would've fit in with FR better than some Republicans in Washington.

[beyond the sea]

Great post! ................. and give Annie a few cheeseburgers if you ever see her.

;-)

[beyond the sea]

Who is a better to judge. Mark Levin or Ann?

LOL....... F. Lee of course!

[beyond the sea]

Someone who believes that Christians and conservatives don't call a lady of Ann's reputation a "hooker"

I am sure that poster did not call Annie a hooker, that poster said that in a certain set of (3)pictures she looked (was dressed) like a hooker. And that poster was right.

Ann's a very sardonic and witty writer, but she could use a little help with her clothing................. would you like to help?

[beyond the sea]

That is a fact.