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.

[beyond the sea]

Calm down Rhett, Scarlet can take care of herself.

LOL!

[Czar]

"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.

Words to live by. For us, and for FR.

[wardaddy]

Thank You.

my error...

[Republican Wildcat]

LOL. Another troll. How many people who came to his defense lost credibility here?

Oh, none. Those people had no credibility to begin with.

[Republican Wildcat]

I suppose thats true, although I haven't seen any examples.

This thread is an excellent example. It was a troll of the stripe I was describing, as confirmed by JimRob himself.

[Republican Wildcat]

JimRob gotcha. I was right about you, wasn't I?

"BYE BYE!"

[brad76]

Good catch!

[BigSkyFreeper]

If he does, the R's lose the Senate in 2006

Given the behavior of Democrats for the past two years and many of them up for re-election in red states in 2006, the Democrats have one hell of a hill to climb in regaining the Senate. At best, they'll probably lose more seats.

[Tired of Taxes]

Thanks for the ping and reply. I agree with most of the "bedrock issues" in FR's description of conservativism.

IMO, you are correct about the forum changing. In just the three-plus years I've been here, I've noticed a change, too, to a more "moderate" membership. (As a matter of fact, I remember more right-leaning Freepers flaming me in the past - as in, "What do you mean you don't want religion in schools?! Are you a troll?" - whereas now the flames come from a more left-leaning crowd here - as in, "What do you mean you don't think there should be public schools?! Are you crazy?!"). ;-) Another example: there were many more homeschoolers here when I first signed up, and now that's just not the case anymore.

But I can see why the FR tent has widened. First, there are those of us whose views are right-leaning in a more "libertarian" sense (like Boortz and Elder). We tend to take the idea of limited gov't to an extreme, but I think we belong here.

Nowadays, there are newer Freepers who just seem to have "pet conservative issues," while taking a moderate stance in a few other areas. But, I can see why they'd belong here, too. It'd be worse if they strayed to the other side; the more votes cast for conservatives, the better. Anyway, the President himself takes a moderate position is quite a few areas (to the dismay of some of us).

[Czar]

We probably agree on much more than we would disagree regarding the bedrock issues.

I appreciate your comments. Thanks.

[Kevin OMalley]

I'm glad I clicked on your account, I see that you've been zotted. I THOUGHT you were a troll, which was why I added "Zot" to the keyword section. At least you responded to the posts aimed at you, and for the most part they were relatively coherent, which is unusual for a troll and it explains why you lasted so long on this forum. But I do not feel the need to answer your post now that I know you were a troll all along. And, of course, I'm kinda lazy and I have trouble figuring out what you're getting at.

The best line I saw from you was, "I am engaging in civil discourse, as to a significant issue to conservatives..." I would advise you to stay that course the next time you sign up and try to troll through FR. Also, try growing a sense of humor. Buh bye.

[Kevin OMalley]

"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. "

***Well said. Sometimes it does seem like FR is being co-opted, but it still remains healthy for the most part. I wonder if that is kinda inevitable, being dragged into more moderate territory. It's probably just a byproduct of becoming the most popular news site on the web. We need guys like you to stick to the original standard. Keep up the good work.

[Czar]

I think most of us want to see FR remain the hard right rudder conservative site which its mission statements say it is. To me, nothing would be worse than to see FR hijacked by the country club/silk sock division of the GOP.

Thanks for your kind words.

[Busywhiskers]

Your point is well taken.

I don't particularly agree with Ann Coulter's pessimistic opinion on the the nominee, but, after Souter and Kennedy, I would not be in the least suprised if she proves to be entirely correct.

As for the ad hominim attacks--they are inappropriate and irrelevant to the debate. It is sad that conservatives, who ought to know better, would resort to using this sort of thing against Ann Coulter, who has served the conservative cause by giving the left an intellectual a** kicking for years. They are probably the type of people who would gladly bayonet their own wounded.

[Republican Wildcat]

You took the troll's bait, I see.

[Republican Wildcat]

You also fell for the troll's bait. Good grief.

Think, people, think.

[tame]

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.)

You are correct, AnnaZ, and I join in your defense of Ann Coulter regarding the same.

[Dont_Tread_On_Me_888]

You also fell for the troll's bait. Good grief.

You don't realize how silly you look for calling that member a troll. Yo might as well call Ann Coulter a troll. And no, I NEVER "fall for bait". I am too perceptive, too intelligent and too well researched in my issues to "fall for bait".

That name calling of yours is childish beyond words. Had Bill Clinton appointed Roberts, there would have been massive teeth gnashing since "we" would have wanted a Luttig, Brown or Rogers appointed.

Like always, Ann Coutler is correct, and your childish name calling makes you look foolish.

[rcocean]

Ditto.

[Busywhiskers]

"You took the troll's bait, I see."

And I see you drank the Republican party cool aid.