I'm sorry, but the only possible response to something that garbled and incomprehensible is: "... whaaaaaaa -- ?!?"
"When you can't honestly or intelligently attack the substance of your opponent's point" (the online credo of the flailing and the desperate goes), "attack your opponent, instead." Rather than offer up even a failed attempt at rebutting the article's stated contentions -- and, given the spastic nature of Miers' prose and maladroit logic revealed therein, I can certainly sympathize, somewhat -- you attempt (ineptly) to make us the subject, instead...?
Pfui. If that's truly the sharpest arrow in your quiver... then: you're unarmed, plain and simple. And my conscience simply won't allow me to shoot at those plainly incapable of shooting back.
I'm sorry, but the only possible response to something that garbled and incomprehensible is: "... whaaaaaaa -- ?!?"
And my conscience simply won't allow me to shoot at those plainly incapable of shooting back.
Just because my simple point went right over your head completely mystifies me why you would think that is a sign of your superior intelligence. I'll lay it out for you in 'baby talk', epecially for you. Reid made the statement that Clarence Thomas was a embarrassment on the court because he wrote poorly. Is that understandable to you, genius? When you and others attack Miers in the same manner, you are a graduate of the 'Harry Reid School of Attack'. Why is that such a complex 'thought' for you to understand or comprehend. Don't be so quick to pat yourself on the back for being a genius.
I could give a damn about 'poor' writing, if that is the price to pay to have a Clarence Thomas sitting on the court.