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.
If clanging illiteracies such as the one directly above are in any way the result of that "Line By Line" codswallop you were shilling, earlier in this thread: I think I'll stick with Strunk and White, thanks. (Hope you kept the receipt; you got fleeced, kiddo.)
I'll lay it out for you in 'baby talk', epecially [sic] for you yaddaa yadda yadda, HEE-haw, HEE-haw. *yaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwnnnnn*
One last time, Winky: deal with the substance of the article (to the extent that you actually can, I mean), rather than ineptly attempting to spinmeister your way out of it by making us the subject, instead. Clop your hoof three times, if you managed to understand all of that.
No one's even remotely fooled by the fact that you're waving your arms about and making a good deal of noise, without ever actually getting around to rebutting the article itself, I assure you. As sorry online dodges go: it's a particularly transparent one. Now: wipe your chin and begin again, please.
I could give a damn about 'poor' writing
Not quite the shattering revelation you doubtless intended it to be, I assure you.
Clarence Thomas, who by the way is known for the quality of his writing -- he seldom speaks during oral arguments -- had quite a track record. There is absolutely no indication that this woman is a Clarence Thomas. There are troubling indications that she is very liberal on economic issues and moderately liberal on social issues, but these indications are very thin, because her life has been lived in a circumspect way and her jobs have mostly been out of the public eye (neither good nor bad, this; it's just the set of facts we have).
The supporters of the Miers nomination seem to have two basic arguments, and two only:
There are also occasional attempts to inflate her resume which adds up to: a better than average lawyer of no known political or philosophical leanings.
Sounds to me like a good candidate for a US District Court, maybe in a stretch Court of Appeals.
I was inclined to trust the President on his nominees -- we owe him, after all, some deference in that. He blew that with me forever with the Julie Myers nomination to head ICE -- a crony's twentysomething niece who has never supervised more than three people. She is the most unqualified person nominated for any senior Federal position since Andrew Young. This tells me that the President's judgment about people is insufficient to support a "trust me" standard.
And Harriet Miers seems to be the most unqualified person nominated since Carswell, if not Fortas. I realise some people are so anti-intellectual that they would welcome a Carswell. (Fortas, in fact, looked more qualified than Miers on paper, but he was a well-known crook). Neither of the gentlemen I name here was confirmed.
You may just be more trusting than I. But you can't expect sell Miers on "trust W" or "she's my religion" grounds. I don't trust W, and she ain't my religion. And for the people making the "mediocre people deserve representation too" argument -- I submit they already have plenty.
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F
Just because Reid said so, it doesn't mean it's true.
You are the one that doesn't get it. Dingy Harry doesn't like Justice Thomas's writing because he disagrees with the content.
Based on what has been published so far, Attorney Miers has the writing style of a thirteen-year-old, lacking only "Do you like me?" with "yes" and "no" check boxes.
"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."
Big difference.
Thomas's writing is not poor. Miers is.
Reid is supportive of the Miers nomination. That puts him on your side, or you on his. Live with it.