Posted on 10/05/2005 4:03:47 PM PDT by perfect stranger
I sure they'll never be able to live that one done now that Ann has brought it light.
"I know conservatives have been trained to hate people who went to elite universities, and generally that's a good rule of thumb. But not when it comes to the Supreme Court."
Ann has absolutely no idea what she is talking about with this point. Law school rankings are a total sham, and mean next to nothing.
Maybe Ann is confusing that with the football program today.
She's really out to lunch on this, and she keeps digging her hole deeper.
Pretty soon, she'll be on WND exclusively, a disreputable source of conservative thought and news.
Dear Ann: It's better sometimes to be silent-and to be thought a fool-than to bray, and reveal yourself as a jackass. ( A jenny, in your case, of course !)
I don't get the logic here. The Constitution is not an obscure document. Yet we're supposed to believe that high-end legal training is required to understand it and "interpret" it.
It isn't. And in case Ms. Coulter is unfamiliar with Platonic thought, the philosopher-kings had to be compelled to rule the just city. That city was established "in speech," not in deed. And the Republic, taken as a whole, not only shows the limits of rhetoric, it is the most searing indictment of political idealism ever made.
"I get it. Ann writes something, you disagree with, and instead of shredding her logic, you flop the Midol card."
Ann wrote a shrill screed notable for the absence of any real factual or logical content. There's nothing to agree or disagree with. Generally, fact-free and logic-free shrill screeds from women are a symptom of, ahem, "female problems."
"I hafta admit, I was with her until THAT. The power of your argument has won me over! She's just a crazy chick, right?"
If she isn't a crazy chick, she's doing a fine impersonation of one.
That was lame.
Ann is a good pundit and always interesting. However, her background and experience is not in the same peer group as Harriet Myers. One can assume from her comments that ahe would be disappointed with anyone other than her personal pick. Part of our problem is we have too many lawyers and too many from Harvard.
I don't think the President cares, or should care, if the nominee is "unknown" to you. All that matters is if the nominee can do the job, and being "unknown" to you has no relevance in this regard since by your own admission you know nothing and it is not your decision.
People need to get a grip and listen to themselves. Conservatives throwing temper tantrums and having hissy fits in the complete absence of wrong on the part of the President.
Cheap shot.
While Bush was still boozing it up in the early '80s,
Another cheap shot.
Bush may as well appoint his chauffeur head of NASA as put Miers on the Supreme Court.
Real stupid comparison.
So if your parents were not rich enough to send you to an Ivy League school you can forget the SCOTUS. Ann your New York elitism is showing.
" Coulter's support of McCarthy was dead-on."
The only positive things I have to say about McCarthy are
1. I believe he was sincere
2. Barry Goldwater voted against the censure and said nice things about him so he must have had redeeming characteristics.
McCarthy's actions against the army, apparently in response to what he perceived as an insult were correctly censured in my opinion.
They're just trying to make a living, LOL. Selling books is what it's all about. Fire people up, be controversial, and you'll sell more books.
Same with the radio and tv guys. Bloviate louder and meaner than others and you might get a higher ratings share.
Coulter and Malkin lost me when they opposed Roberts. He was a brilliant choice and proved it before the Senate committee. He had the libs tied in knots.
Well, why not? She has personally attacked Bush and Miers in this piece.
Not advocating it, but hey, what goes around, comes around.
Ann is wrong on this one. It happens.
Her, you and every anti-Bush anti Miers conservative have been practicing the same complaint she asserts in her article about us "Bush-bots". Non discussion tactics of insult and accusations, cry and pointing of fingers. Its quite sickening and quite old. I am still out on MNiers but have found myself in the uncomfortable position of defending her and the President. I would prefer the facts to come out and her true colours to be shown before having to do that, but you guys are so stuck on this stupid notion that it needed to be a fight that I am incredulous over it.
Click.
Sorry, Ann. If I want to read Molly Ivins, I know where to find her.
Are you volunteeering? You beat me to posting by five minutes!
Bush freely admits he was a party boy back in the '80s, before he turned his life around. Sometimes the truth hurts, but that's no reason to suppress it.
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.