Posted on 10/19/2005 2:09:36 PM PDT by bigsky
Um, no you emphatically did not:
"Can the state make it a felony for me to perform jumping jack's naked in my bedroom with the blinds sufficiently closed that other than your long nose prying them open no one would see?"
Taken literally, your statement is asinine, unless you imagine that my "long prying nose" can pass through solid glass. On the assumption that you're talking pure stupidity, one can only read that as a rhetorical exaggeration: namely, that the blinds are "mostly" closed, but that "nosy" people can still see in.
Good to know where your priorities lie.
Ann is foul mouthed and does not help the conservative movement with her rhetoric. She can be funny occasionally, but at the risk of speaking without thinking and getting the facts wrong.
This was a witty hit piece.
Her argument, squeezed in between the slings and arrows, was that Harriet may have common sense, and she may be pro-life, but that is not what is needed on the Supreme Court.
Ann is articulate and unafraid to insult her enemy. When that enemy is liberals, I enjoy reading her very much. It won't be very deep, but it will be enjoyably insulting.
As usual, if you were looking for insults delivered with a stilleto wit, this was a fun read. If you were looking for cogent discussion of the Harriet Miers nomination however, forget it. (Except, I suppose, for those who agree with her that common sense on the Supreme Court would be a negative.)
"You claim your wanna be girlfriend never personally attacked Harriet Miers and I give you Ann's OWN words, and you can only act like a third grader."
Because I defend someone who is being smeared she is my wannabe girlfriend. Something you have tried to squeeze in how many times in your inane replies?
And you accuse me of being a third grader? How stupid, but typical.
BTW, I don't think you understand the concept of the term "personal attacks" if you think what you cited rises to same.
But it's clear from this exchange and others I have endured with you that you aren't too bright. Just nasty.
Please don't post to me anymore. A request I have made to you several times in the past. (As the mods know.)
MNJohnnie: You have misrepresented Ann and anyone who disagrees with your President on this board, to the point where you are regularly insulting to and often downright lying about your opponents and their motivations. You certainly have failed to raise ANY rational point disagreeing with those whose view is different, preferring instead to attack the persons of those with whom you so disagree. I think you deserve similar posts in response insulting your character in the same fashion. You have gotten far too few of them.
However, I probably should have asked your permission before posting the unflattering picture of you above. So I must apologize to you, sir, for posting such an uncharacteristically unrepresentative photo.
Next time I'll make sure I get one that reflects your output here, too--then it won't be unflattering because it'll accurately show the amount of horseshit you've dumped on this board.
Get a sense of humor get your nose out of other people's private affairs and then we can converse.
Where does the Constitution say that porn isn't speech? What if the porn is printed? Is it then protected by freedom of press? How about spoken porn, like the "seven dirty words?" Where does the Constitution except porn that is spoken or published in print form from the First Amendment protections? And even if porn isn't technically speech, isn't is protected as speech, what about freedom of expression?
LOL. She could do worse for titles. Truth isn't always stranger than fiction. As long as it sells---
That is part of the problem. We have. There is no there there.
While the Megyn Kendall you googled is certainly attractive, I was referring to this one:
http://www.cameroncole.com/cgi-bin/imageFolio.cgi?direct=News_Babes/Fox_News/Megyn_Kendall
That's what most of Ann's columns are like. And her personal appearances on television are even worse. She is not taken seriously, imo. Sort of the Seinfeld of the right.
No I meant exactly what I said and nothing else, but you have tried to stretch the privacy of matters between consenting adults to cover murder and treason. Your mind might be that pliable, and not capable of these subtle differences. Most of us have no such problems.
Unadulterated baloney.
Find where you've asked me not to post to you.
And for someone who was accusing Iowa Granny of an attack, it's really hilarious that you don't think Ann has attacked Miers.
Your defense of Ann on every thread that details her articles is rather, well, sad. Like a boy through the looking glass.
Then SCOTUS will find whatever else they please to be implicit, of common law origin, and a penumbra of the Constitution, and will rule over all of us completely untethered.
Andrew Jackson is likely spinning in his grave knowing you are holding such loosey-goosey views of the Constitution while using his name.
(Denny Crane: "Gun Control? For Communists. She's A Liberal. Can't Hunt".)
Everyone has a right to comment on anything. This is still a free country. I sincerely doubt a 'true' conservative would make such a poor choice.
My point is having made such a horrible bad choice, in public, she doesn't deserve to be taken seriously any more, because, obviously, she isn't taking herself seriously.
You can learn quite a bit by an individual by studying who their friends are. You can learn even more about them when you learn who they sleep with.
Annie is a CIRO Consevative in Reputation Only.
(Denny Crane: "Gun Control? For Communists. She's A Liberal. Can't Hunt".)
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.