Posted on 07/20/2005 7:33:31 AM PDT by Babu
Well said! Same line of thinking I have...... giving the Dems talking points is foolish.
lol...
I opposed certain aspects of Coulter's article. I never called her chicken-legged or drunkard. Many other posters also opposed aspects of her article and never resorted to these personal attacks.
Yet you quantify Coulter's opposition as posters who "almost never stops going after the woman as a chicken-legged drunkard".
The initial posters on this thread who mention Culter's looks were supporters of her article. They are the ones who brought up the subject of Coulter's physical appearence. If it's fair game to say that her article is correct, that she looks great and that here is a picture of her, then why isn't also fair game by people who don't think her article is correct and who think that she's too skinny to say so? Why don't you criticize the posters who thought "skinny-good-looks" was germain to this debate and who thought posting pictures of Coulters "slender-beauty" was germaine to this debate.
BTW, I just looked at the first 50 posts on this thread. One poster said she was too skinny and no posters said that she was a drunkard. Yet in those same 50 posts we had about a handful of pro-article people who initiated the physical attribute debate by posting pictures of her. Yet you say the following;
You are what you complain about.
Your post is silly and childish. Look at those first 50 posts again.
Ann makes a good argument for nominating a no questions asked solid conservative, and on that I agree, but Ann does not make a compelling case against Roberts, and she admits that the case can not be made. So we will just have to wait and see. But those bashing one of the brightest and bravest conservative living, Ann Coulter, should be ashamed very ashamed. Love ya Ann, you are the best.
Your response is 'we're not ALL calling her a chicken-legged drunkard' and 'some folks who like her article call her pretty so since we don't like her article we can call her ugly.' Reasoned debate to you means that not ALL of you insult her that way, so it's perfectly okay to do so, and then, of course, that it's appropriate to insult her person because others complimented it?
Are you trying to make me laugh or being serious?
Funniest of all, you try to indignantly claim I'm doing it, too. Gosh, let me rush to apologize like you did for your insult-spewing compatriots...
...but before I do, let me think, where have I heard the everyone-is-scum-so-our-acting-scummy-is-okay strategy before...hmmmmm...
I don't think her intent was to argue AGAINST Roberts. Anyone who takes that from this article is buying the line that questioning Bush's nomination of Roberts is attacking Roberts. I got from this article that she wanted to understand why Roberts was the nominee instead of a clearcut conservative.
I think that's a legit question. Especially since the GOP has nominated so many Kennedy-Souter-O'Connor-Warren types before.
Obviously, plenty of people here disagree and think it's inappropriate to question the White House when it comes to SCOTUS. I wonder if those folks were also with the White House regarding the SCOTUS' Kelo and Grutter decisions.
**
"Hard to imagine a lawyer being hired who doesn't believe in the Constitution who makes strict Constitutional arguments before the SC."
There's where you're wrong. There are plenty of lawyers who do just that. How many on the left argued for states' rights, then federalism, when it came to gay marriage, and on abortion can turn on a dime and argue that Roe is right and incorporation's the greatest?
Something tells me Ann had this article all ready to go regardless of who the nominee was and just had to insert the correct name.
___________________________________________________________
Yep that is another point, I left off my post above. This article with cosmetic changes could have been written about Edith "Joy" Clement. That is the same tactic that many on the right have accused NARAL etal of doing, ie raising the same canned objections no matter who it was. Of course if this was Ann Coulter's assignment from Karl Rove, then naturally she had this type of column ready regardless of who was nominated.
bttt
So you're saying she's FOR a "Souter" (see title)?
Laura Ingraham went bonkers a bit ago, about Gonzales and there was just NO way, that the president was going to put him up for this opening.
That is my take too, she did not arguemnet against Roberts, so much as she argued for a tried and true conservative. And she is correct in her argument, Robert may turn out to be a good conservative, her argument was why take the chance, why not nominate a no questions asked good conservative. It is a very good argumnet.
Ann is a stalwart conservative. Some folks have never been in that class, nor ever will be...
I never said that. I never excused the insults.
Me: I opposed certain aspects of Coulter's article. I never called her chicken-legged or drunkard. Many other posters also opposed aspects of her article and never resorted to these personal attacks.
You said that Coulter's opposition almost never stops going after the woman personally. Meanwhile out of the first 50 or so posts, I only counted one who criticized her weight and none who called her a drunkard.
That's reasoned debate to you. That's what you consider a reasoned response. The smear of all in opposition because one in the opposition commented on her weight.
As I said before you do what you complain about. You should really correct the record.
As far as Coulter's weight goes, if some posters think that it's germain to the argument to comment on Coulter's weight and how she looks good, then it's not surprising that others would comment that they think she's too skinny. How shocking!
I could see it now. Some posters would comment on Hillary's lovely leg's and you would be so shocked to see other posters saying that they are not.
Your erroneous comment still remains, yet to be corrected;
Is there any advantage to being Chief Justice, or is that just an honorary title?
I believe it is just an honorary title. Maybe it gets you a free sandwich at the commissary on Fridays?
_______________________________________________________
When in the majority the Chief Justice assigns which Justice writes the opinion of the court, I believe.
She said that there's a Souter in Robert's cloths.
Souter -- not good.
The so-called "women’s movement" had its roots in the late 18th century and picked up speed in the 1840s, particularly in New England.
By the 1910s, it had become organized and more or less unified around a few key issues, bringing together women of diverse backgrounds and beliefs. These groups fought mainly for prohibition and the 19th-amendment (women’s suffrage), although fringe elements (like those headed by Margaret Sanger) advocated "free love," forced sterilization of the poor and "unfit" and the elimination of marriage and the traditional family.
Later these more extremist groups would come to dominate feminism in the 1960s during the sexual revolution. Today’s "Third-Wave" feminists (equity feminists rather than gender feminists) have worked hard to distance themselves from the radical bra-burners of that time and have disavowed much of their foremothers’ philosophy. But there is still a shared foundation between the radical feminists and their "kinder, gentler" sisters of the 21st century.
Today we have essentially three different strands of feministic thought.
First there are the "equity feminists" who do believe there are inherent differences between the sexes but seek to promote specific reforms to address what they perceive as unequal treatment in society ("equal pay for equal work," etc.). Equity feminists relate most closely to the "first-wave" feminists of the 1840s-1920s who fought for woman’s suffrage, prohibition, and the end of the "living wage" law for men (in order to get more women into the workforce for more pay). Feminists in this camp prefer to distance themselves from the sexual revolutionaries of the 1960s and tend to be more conservative in their application of feminism to society.
Next there are the "gender feminists" who wish to remove any lines of distinction between men and women in all areas of life. As Thomas Gramstad writes, "There are no virtues or psychological characteristics belonging exclusively to males, or to females." [2] Many of the adherents of gender feminism believe that any psychological or social differences between men and women are rooted in the oppression of a patriarchal structure that seeks to make women lesser persons than men. They seek to end patriarchy and maintain complete egalitarianism between the sexes. One such feminist goes so far as to say, "True equality of the sexes will come when God is universally perceived as androgynous. Then, and only then, will there be true equality of the sexes." [3] She admits this view is "dangerously blasphemous" and places her beyond the pale of many mainstream feminists, but she proposes a new definition of "feminist" all the same, to wit: "A person who supports the theory that God the Mother is equal to God the Father." [4] While most gender feminists do not go to this theological extreme, you do find many within this camp who promote the idea of the "goddess within," advocate gender-neutral translations of the Bible, etc. Gender feminists tend to align themselves with the so-called "second-wave" feminists of the 1960s who are perceived as more "radical" and activist in their pursuits.
Finally, you have the "third-wave" feminists of today (mainly Generation Xers and younger). They have toned down the more radical tenets of the 1960s women’s movement, but they are generally not as conservative as the equity feminists and tend to advocate liberal causes such as abortion on demand. One third-wave feminist is Amy Richards of feminist.com, who writes, There are many definitions of what a feminist is--the simplest and probably the best is what is listed in most dictionaries--"a person who believes in the full equality of women and men." This means anyone--male or female--who supports this idea can be a feminist. As for [the] goal of feminism, [it] is equality--and that means both that women do what men have done (be fire fighters and corporate executives) and that men do what women have done (be stay-at-home fathers and secretaries). [5]
There are, of course, feminists of all stripes among these philosophical camps. To further complicate matters, feminists within each camp often differ drastically over the application and practice of their philosophy. The "fringe" elements on both sides have alienated many women, who seek to distance themselves from the more radical elements of feminism. Steve Roby writes about the frustrating difficulty of trying to find a united feminist "voice":
Maybe it's time for some organization to claim feminism as its own intellectual property. Patent it, trademark it, license it, but most importantly, clearly define what feminism actually is today. Then we could just look for a feminist seal of approval on any new book about feminism. Unfortunately, there's no licensing body, no Institute of Professional Feminists. There's no one true definition of feminism. Does it focus on individual or collective rights? Does it seek a common ground or does it foster division? Does it oppose pornography or does it oppose censorship? Depends who you ask. Put Andrea Dworkin, Nadine Strossen, Susan Faludi, and Christina Hoff Sommers in one room, and wait for a feminist consensus to develop. You may have to wait until two or three of them have died of old age before reaching that consensus. [6] http://www.ladiesagainstfeminism.com/artman/publish/article_6.shtml
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.