Only W CAN THINK HE KNOWS (ANN COULTER WAS RIGHT)

World Net Daily. com ^ | 07/22/2005 | Andrew Longman

[Accygirl]

Seems to be the other way around to me. I don't think that I've seen so many gaping liberal mouths in one week. It seems to me that with Roberts, Bush is going to get his cake and eat it too.

[Republican Wildcat]

You painted everyone in the forum with a broad brush - most of them were not attacking Ann personally, and I certainly did not. Your comments are uncalled for and an overreaction.

What's uppity is that you think using big words to make yourself look "bigger" and "smarter" is better than content. It doesn't impress me, so it isn't working.

[CWOJackson]

"If defending a woman from slanderous and unwarranted attacks from..."

Calm down Rhett, Scarlet can take care of herself.

[Republican Wildcat]

There was a handful of people who were acting over the top, then this fella who is a recent sign-on (nothing wrong with that in of itself, however...) decides to lecture the entire forum like he owns the place. I took no part in any personal attacks on Ann and now he's trying act as though I support them for questioning his newfound authority.

[Republican Wildcat]

I get savaged for stating facts

That must be quite a rare occurrence if that's true.

[MaxMax]

I read through 450 of the some 700+ posts relative to Ann Coulter’s article on the Robert’s nomination. Although, like any one else, Ann deserves to have her views scrutinized and criticized on this Board, it’s unconscionable that so many have denigrated her personally. It is an absolute disgrace that some posters have attacked her for her body shape; and, her marital status; and, her facial features; and, her purported drinking habits; and imputed uninformed pseudo- psychoanalysis in this vicious ad hominem attack. If ANYONE in the conservative movement didn’t deserve such hypocritical treatment from her own, it is Ann Coulter.

Ok, Now realize that Republicans and Conservitives alike are held to a higher standard then Democrats and Liberals. We must be critical or else we'll end up wishy-washy like the latter. Nuff said..

[cicero's_son]

She's aiming at the spinelessness of the Republican Party today.

She's aiming at more media attention. Nothing more, nothing less.

[sirthomasthemore]

we call it like it is here...

*****************
I know. And that's precisely what I'm doing.




TAGLINES

Pzifer: “Viagra won’t cause dementia or blindness". (Except if one wears a Black Robe)

Clean your muskets and sharpen your pitchforks and get ready to ride to the sound of the guns.(KELO) :o}-

Dems, hello??? We could get out of Vietnam; we can’t GET OUT of terrorism.

[lainde]

Thanks for your defense of Ann...She is always straightforward and courageous. And yes, I share her unease with this nomination. The stakes are just to high for uncertainty...But here we are (sigh).

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

God hope she has the good sense not to read the Board today- because I’m certain that with all she has endured on our behalf, this had to be the greatest betrayal of all.

To those assassins involved, Et Tu, Freepers?

[CWOJackson]

Didn't they open one of those up downtown?

[sirthomasthemore]

What's got into ya'll tonight? Most honorable right of center conservatives and Christian conservatives are pleased with the nomination. And you should be too.

*****************
Actually, Eleni, I'm not pleased with the nomination. And it's my intuition that ultimately, at some point, conservatives will realize how bad this is. 60% of people polled on this Board wanted Janice Brown, that's who I would have chosen.

However, I think you can see that my principal argument is that we shouldn't attack each other personality over our disagreements. That, at least supposedly, we all all kindred spirits. I may disagree with you on Roberts, but it doesn't make me want to lash out at you or call you names.
We simply exchange views, and in a few years, God willing we're both around, I can send you a PM and remind you of how wrong you were. :-)


TAGLINES

Pzifer: “Viagra won’t cause dementia or blindness". (Except if one wears a Black Robe)

Clean your muskets and sharpen your pitchforks and get ready to ride to the sound of the guns.(KELO) :o}-

Dems, hello??? We could get out of Vietnam; we can’t GET OUT of terrorism.

[Jim Robinson]

sirthomasthemore aka St.VincentPaul, phonnixashes, Kings18-37, Matthew316, Paul2005, mikey-pro-se, VincenttheWhite, VintheWhite, sunnshine2, imperator2, imperator4, imperator5, et al, zotted again.

[biff0101]

Sir "Whatever", or whatever your maiden name is. You dont even know what your talking about. If you want cream puff chat or drama go to Yahoo pal..

[rcocean]

This is where I respectfully disagree. Yes, nominating a Scalia today would NOT be a cake walk. It would be a fight. But it makes no sense give up before you even start.

Bush should have nominated a Real in-your-face conservative and fought. And if he lost - and 6 Republicans and all the Red state Democrats voted against - fine, at least we would know who to retaliate against.

In fact, even if someone like Edith Jones or Janice Brown had been voted down, Bush could have just nominated someone just as conservative, and kept on fighting.

55 Republicans were good enough to get Scalia confirmed. It should be good enough today. We hold all the cards. The presidency and 55 senators. If not now, when?

[rcocean]

I suppose thats true, although I haven't seen any examples.

What disruptors all have in common is the use of insults, name calling, and abuse.

The whole point being, to make the board such a nasty place, real conservatives just give up and leave.

[k2blader]

Contrary the the way the left views us, FR is actually fairly moderate

I think FR reflects the general state of the GOP. The Republicans have held power for a while now and have allowed that to become their unifying objective; thus, the slouch away from conservatism.

[Badray]

Your point is exactly right.

They don't debate or discuss, they attack and insult. And they disrupt and derail the debate that does go on.

You've seen a lot of them on this thread. They run in packs.

[Badray]

( o )

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

nominating a Scalia today would NOT be a cake walk. It would be a fight. But it makes no sense give up before you even start.

Bush should have nominated a Real in-your-face conservative and fought.

Let's review a bit. In 2001 Republicans "controlled" the Senate with a 50¹2 - 50 margin. Tie vote, with VP Cheney casting the tiebreaker. In 2002 Democrats controlled the Senate with Republicans holding only 49 votes, having lost Jumpin' Jim Jeffords. In '03 the Republicans had the majority back, and in '05 they have a 55-44 position.

Nominaly that's quite strong, but it includes the "Maverick John Seven" and that doesn't even include Arlen Spector. The reason the Republicans have the numbers they do is that President Bush has gone to bat for those candidates, in his own way - including supporting Snarlin' Arlen.

President Bush has a war to fight in Iraq, and he needs the Senate to act on some things for that. Bush has gone to school on what happened to GHW Bush, and (undoubtedly ruefully) on what Jeffords did to him. Bush has put forward very good judicial candidates; his heart is in the right place and he knows that SCOTUS nominations don't grow on trees - tho in his case they actually just might; he will probably have to defend the Rehnquist seat and he could have the opportunity to replace Ginsberg and one other (Stevens?). Statistically you might think that SCOTUS justices wouldn't sit for more than 24 years, so a two-term president should be expected to have three nominations, give or take. In Bush's case it might - with 3 years to go - be "give."

Bush is an aggressive former fighter pilot who fights for what he thinks he can get, but he isn't rash. And we only have one POTUS at a time. Reagan was the best president of the twentieth century and he had only one Scalia get to the bench in three tries.

Let's get serious. Do you actually suppose that you - that Ann Coulter for that matter - are actually more radical in your constitutional theory than I am? I think - in fact I am quite certain - that the FCC is unconstitutional and that we shouldn't have broadcasting because it censors the many to give clear channels to the few. And that McCain-Feingold is nowhere near constitutional and should have never been adopted by Congress, never signed by President Bush, and never approved by a single justice of SCOTUS. I not only want nine Scalias, I want nine Clarence Thomases on the court who would understand me when I say that the flattery and derision of journalism should not be permitted to influence judges.

Because that is exactly what has been going on.