Ann Coulter: How about Ted Kennedy's privacy

Townhall.com ^ | 9/1/05 | Ann Coulter

[Smartass]

THANKS FOR THE PING

[bitt]

that's terrible!

[Victoria Delsoul]

LOL, too funny. Good job as usual.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[devolve]

But dead accurate

Teddy will try to kill John Roberts soon



Time to dig up all of the bodies now

[rcocean]

Put Al Franken next to Sharpton in the picture and its the "Good, the Bad, and the Ugly"

[rcocean]

You nailed that one.

The problem is there a lot of House Republicans (in the Media and even on FR) who get all upset when a conservative get too "uppity" and doesn't lift her pinky when she drinks tea. Oh, "She's so tough" or "she'll never persuade any liberal with that approach".

The House Republicans dream Conservative is Tucker "bowtie" Carlson. In the late 80' and early 90s, it was David "melon-head" Gergen, before he went work for Clinton.

The left can use biting satire and very frank humor in attacking every conservative in sight. But if Coulter uses humor and THE FACTS - then its "bomb-throwing", "hate speech", "mean spirited", "nasty".

[patton]

I read it.

[ChadGore]

I really think Teddy Kenedy can help out a lot down in New Orleans. His swimming ability is legendary. His size gives him the ability to swim out with 6 at a time on his back.

[4CJ]

After all, a great many of them are only voting for him because he keeps the gravy train running to Mass.

And if Bills were limited to the subject expressed in the title (no pork amendments!) - then politicians couldn't vote for pork - so there would be no incentive for the people of Massachusetts to re-elect the fat drunken "Swimmer" Kennedy et al.

[roaddog727]

Add another to the list of readers bump.

[inquest]

It would take a major house cleaning to accomplish something like that. While it's possible, and would be desirable, for there to be a national movement that can do that in one election, it's more likely that somebody will have to be the first. There'd have to be some district somewhere that's willing to forego the pork for the sake of voting out some slimeball, and the people of that district (or state in the case of a Senator) must then make the reason for their choice known to the rest of the country. They have to say, "We did our part, now you do yours!"

[4CJ]

It could be something as simple as this - 'Every law, or resolution having the force of law, shall relate to but one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title'. It's part of the permanent Confederate Constitution, the reason for it being there pretty clear. They also eliminated payments for cost overruns, another source of waste.

I'd vote for a politician that ran on a platform or reducing pork. Let moonbats like Kennedy pay for the 'Big (17 BILLION wasted dollars) Dig' with his money, and that of his state alone.

[inquest]

It could be something as simple as this - 'Every law, or resolution having the force of law, shall relate to but one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title'. It's part of the permanent Confederate Constitution, the reason for it being there pretty clear.

I can only imagine the can of worms that would open up, as litigation on top of litigation involves the courts inexorably in determining what is and is not related to the subject of the bill, because almost anything can be considered "related" somehow. Just look at the commerce clause, and what Congress gets away with regulating because it's somehow "related" to interstate commerce.

If you really want to make a constitutional change that would help with this situation, probably the best thing would be to limit Congress's ability to raise money in the first place. Raising taxes should require a supermajority, and they should automatically decrease over time unless bumped back up periodically by said supermajority.

[4CJ]

If you really want to make a constitutional change that would help with this situation, probably the best thing would be to limit Congress's ability to raise money in the first place. Raising taxes should require a supermajority, and they should automatically decrease over time unless bumped back up periodically by said supermajority.

The Confederate Constitution required that ALL appropriations bills pass by two-thirds majority, limited spending to 'provide for the common defense, and carry on the Government', and provided that 'no bounties shall be granted from the Treasury' - i.e no Big Dig. Instead of taxes, usage fees would allow the people, and the laws of supply and demand to regulate the economy and federal government/spending.

[Dont_Tread_On_Me_888]

Yes, you are wrong, HostileTerritory

I read every word of Ann Coulter's column.

After watcing the thugs in New Orleans and hearing the Black Caucus imply whites are not people and the President does not care about blacks, it is quite refreshig to read a column by an American Patriot intead of comments from insane scum.

Thanks as always, Ann Coulter. Accurate, witty and thought provoking, as is your norm.

[inquest]

I could go along with those provisions. But the one about limiting bills to a specific subject I think needlessly opens things up too far to judicial mischief.