Posted on 07/27/2006 1:39:40 PM PDT by Recovering_Democrat
Ann Coulter just on Cavuto being interviewed.
She wanted to "remind the viewers" that the normal election cycle is for the party in the White House to lose seats. She expects this election to be one where Republicans lose seats. She added "a lot of seats" before Neil moved on to another question.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
current ones are.
but people under 40, by the time they are 65, will not.
Cool! I feel better now. Thanks Right_in_Virginia.
What? Did I miss something? MV, don't you even want to know why RIV says that?
OR is it enough that he/she did?
Which Democrats do you expect to be defeated this year, and why do you think they'll lose now in 2006 after winnning reelection in 2002 and 2004?
Don't worry RFC, you've just run into Ann's bodyguard. Doesn't matter what you've ever said or done before, if you have something critical to say about her, you're a bashing troll. No need to worry though, he's not really taken seriously.
If you really want to have some fun, ask him whether newspapers censor Ann when they don't print her columns. Then ask him whether radio stations censor the Dixie Chicks. Watch his head explode. It's a hoot!
What's your point? Both Medicare and Medicaid are big-government, socialist programs. I think George's point was that, historically, when Dems are in power we get more socialism.
Science, as the Journal Science puts it.
"Science in the broadest sense refers to any knowledge or trained skill, especially (but not exclusively) when this is attained by verifiable means. The word science also describes any systematic field of study or the knowledge gained from such study. In a more restricted sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on empiricism, experimentation, and methodological naturalism, as well as to the organized body of knowledge humans have gained by such research. This article focuses on science in the latter sense.
Scientists maintain that scientific investigation must adhere to the scientific method, a process for evaluating empirical knowledge which explains observable events in nature as a result of natural causes, rejecting supernatural notions."
Because the President played no role in passage of the amendment limiting his terms--it was Congress and the states--while Congress would have to choose to limit its own terms.
Hence, no action, and none in the future.
Sorry again for pointing out to you that you don't understand the difference between the English word "censor" and the First Amendment.
Obvious it traumatized you and you still have gotten over it.
Maybe you should seek therapy.
If I knew that I would make a fortune at those British sites that let people bet on anything.
;)
Has anyone else posted the latest (yesterday) Annie column yet?
If not, I love the last sentence:
America's war with Islamic fanaticism didn't start on 9/11, but it's going to end with 9/11 — as long as Americans aren't foolish enough ever to put a Democrat in the White House.
If Republicans lose the Senate, then we lose the best chance in decades to put lasting control of the Supreme Court in the hands of constitutionalists.
It's that simple.
Anyone who stays home or votes anything other than for a republican senator is a traitor to long-term conservative interests.
Save your ire about budgets, borders, and battles for some other time when the court is finally in constitutionalist hands. At that time, what is done with budgets and borders won't get overturned by legislator/judges.
First the horse. Then the cart.
Thanks, but I'm not particularly surprised... when you look at the districts and congressmen as they are running, and noting how the past few elections have played out, you can't reach the conclusion you did. "Republicans pick up seats in the House" is a comment that can't be made out of knowledge.
There is almost no chance of us losing the Senate. That would require a Republican to lose in Arizona, Tennessee, or Virginia, and that is not in the cards. We may lose the House, but the Senate is secure for the rest of W's term. You can take that to the bank.
I couldn't agree more. The congressional conservatives' fidelity to conservative ideals has been tested and come up lacking. That will be the cause of their loss. They left the rank and file conservative out here where the world is and who make it work. They left us. Given that, I will never, ever, ever vote for a Democrat. Not ever. If not outright liberal, they enable the flagrant liberal to do their bidding and we are all the worse for that. The Republicans fell prey to a michievous mainstreet media and a vocal socialist leftist minority who goaded them into stampeding and leaving the safty of conservativism, American traditional morality, and fiscal responsibility. I only hope the lesson can be learned without loosing control of the house and senate. That will be bad for the troops, the country, the economy, and the future.
And that's an excellent way to view it. ;^)
She spends practically all her time writing books and making the political celebrity rounds.
I don't think she has her finger on the pulse of the heartland; her predictions will be seen as inaccurate IMO.
"Obvious it traumatized you and you still have gotten over it."
I'm not sure I know what you're saying. Looks like your writing skills are slipping. Are you losing it, Mr. English know-it-all?
You still never answered the question. Did radio stations censor the Dixie Chicks when they stopped playing their records after the Chicks' criticism of President Bush?
Yes or no?
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.