October 7, 2005
-
"Sloppy Ann, Just Sloppy..."
"COULTER'S LATEST, SAD AND WRONG: Nobody questions whether or not Ann Coulter is talented, funny, sharp, and exceedingly brilliant. She knows it herself. Ann's column has been steady reading for me since I first met her on a trip to New York in December of 2000. And there are few people I ever find my self in more agreement with on a regular basis than Ms. Coulter."
"But not on Harriet Miers..."
"The short of it goes something like this: Bush picked someone I don't like. The law school she went to stinks. Anybody that thinks is differently than my brilliant blonde self is stupid. And here's some more insults to Ms. Miers just for added tastelessness. You can read the entire thing here."
"I understand Ann's pain. She has written as extensively as anyone on the disaster that Bush's dad left us with in Souter and Kennedy. But the truth is this President Bush is not his father's son and Ann would save herself a hernia or two if she remembered that."
Morrison Report Archives July 31st 2005:
Comments (14)
Oh, I so whole-heartedly agree! She is beginning to sound like the wack-job that liberals are already convinced that she is. (But she's not, except on this issue... sheeeez) Don't you just want to say "SHUT-UP, ANN!"??????
Ann can be SPECTACULAR when she wants to be, apparently... "
First, Bush has no right to say "Trust me." He was elected to represent the American people, not to be dictator for eight years. Among the coalitions that elected Bush are people who have been laboring in the trenches for a quarter-century to change the legal order in America. While Bush was still boozing it up in the early '80s, Ed Meese, Antonin Scalia, Robert Bork and all the founders of the Federalist Society began creating a farm team of massive legal talent on the right.
To casually spurn the people who have been taking slings and arrows all these years and instead reward the former commissioner of the Texas Lottery with a Supreme Court appointment is like pinning a medal of honor on some flunky paper-pusher with a desk job at the Pentagon — or on John Kerry — while ignoring your infantrymen doing the fighting and dying."
Right on!
Ah the sounds of the Republican party about to engage in a neo-con vs paleo-conservative fight...looks like the GOP will be returning to conservatism after Bush. Once you trust a politician then that eternal eye of vigilance goes blind....which explains why America has been on the decline for so long
Exactly NeoLib, I loved that article too (her site is my homepage so I read all of them the day they come out). A few days ago I knew nothing of Miers, but I've learned enough in the past few days to make me seriously doubt this choice.
I'll let this slide since it's now October, a month filled with ghouls and goblins. Ann fits in quite nicely.
(To Wit)...click me
how old are you?
See why us Democrats don't like her?
"Nobody questions whether or not Ann Coulter is talented, funny, sharp, and exceedingly brilliant. She knows it herself. Ann's column has been steady reading for me since I first met her on a trip to New York in December of 2000. And there are few people I ever find my self in more agreement with on a regular basis than Ms. Coulter." - Morrison
The fact that you like Coulter so much other than her opinion on the Miers selection is not something to be proud of. You lose a lot of credibility when you say that you agree with Coulter on a lot of issues. She is a political hate-monger. She is a right wing version of Michael Moore, except maybe even more viscious and hateful than Moore. She makes outlandish, viscious, hateful, untrue statements because she gets paid a lot of money by doing so. She is a political version of Howard Stern, a political shock jock. Coulter and people like her offer nothing to the national discourse. They ruin it and create hate and distrust instead of discourse, clash, discussion, compromise...
Even more than that, if you take her views to their logical extremes, you are one step away from yearning for tyranny. If you truly believe that the other side is evil, and has nothing to offer society, then what good is democracy in your view? If you truly believe that your party is always right and the other party is evil and always wrong and deserves no place in society, then they serve no purpose and we would be better off without them.
If you truly believe that liberals are socialists, or communists, or terrorist-supporters, or guilty of "treason" as her book says, then what is to be done with liberals? Nothing of course. Liberals aren't communists. Liberals aren't islamofascist supporters. My leftist friends know all about these kinds of idiotic comparisons. You know, the protesters who love to march around with signs calling Bush a fascist, comparing him to Hitler, and saying that Republicans hate black people. These types of political radicalism on both sides is simply retarded. Unfortunately, millions of people buy into this line of thinking on both sides, and you do too apparantly. That is nothing to be proud of.
In a liberal democracy, each side has something to offer. No party gets it all right. Each party acts as a counter balance to the other, you know, a sort of yin and yang. If you ally yourself with the likes of Coulter, Moore, Savage, Limbaugh, Malkin, etc... you are one step away from yearning for tyranny.
"Nothing of course. Liberals aren't communists. Liberals aren't islamofascist supporters."
Not all of course, but more than enough to make people who actually want freedom and equality to dislike liberals.
"If you ally yourself with the likes of Coulter, Moore, Savage, Limbaugh, Malkin, etc... you are one step away from yearning for tyranny."
Hardly. I just read V for Vendetta yesterday. Great book, but one huge flaw. They claim that it's conservatives who want to run everyones lives, when if you look at the past 30 or so years, it's the exact opposite (true conservatives don't want to, people like Bush are not conservatives at all). I realize that you'll adamantly deny it without bothering to consider what's been right in front of you all our lives. I know nothing I say will ever make you even think for a second about what you believe in, so I really don't know why I'm bothering to post this. *shrug* England Prevails, Mr. Finch.
"They claim that it's conservatives who want to run everyones lives, when if you look at the past 30 or so years, it's the exact opposite." - BimmerPhile
I repeat what I said before:
"In a liberal democracy, each side has something to offer. No party gets it all right. Each party acts as a counter balance to the other, you know, a sort of yin and yang."
This is American Politics 101. You know, the basic 4-zone chart of political affiliations (here is an example: http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz-score/quiz.php). Liberals favor government control of economic issues but want to limit government intervention in social/personal issues; Conservatives want to limit government control of economic issues but favor heavy government control of social/personal issues. Statists favor heavy government control of both. Libertarians favor limiting government control of both.
From your statements, you say you favor limiting government control over people's lives in general (so both social/personal and economic). That is the mantra of a libertarian, not a conservative. True conservatives, from Barry Goldwater to Reagan to George the Second, favor heavy handed government control of social/personal areas (abortion, gay marriage, free speech, etc.).
Hi "Big Bear"
You have done your usual good job of defining terms. My opinion is that those very clean definitions have to be modified somewhat by current thinking and the way the parties have evolved.
Dems being liberal will espouse the issues important to their voter blocs. (yes, as you state, abortion, gay marriage, free speech). By doing this they hope to remain in power by "delivering" what each group wants. "Not that there's anything wrong with that"
The Reps, on the other hand, being conservatives, see an erosion of what they have held dear until these recent years of constitutional activism. What has been "added" or "found" by judges made those issues threatening to the Reps. So now they are trying to "conserve".
They fight to keep God in sight, they see abortion as killing human beings and they are offended by the fights over free speech. Those fights are almost always about the right to be as vile, profane and perverted as people can be. Reps long for a kinder, gentler nation.
Their voters expect them to deliver also. They will allow the Reps to remain in power by hoping that they will put everything back "in order", as it has been for 229 years. And, of course, "there's nothing wrong with that", either.
God bless America.
""They claim that it's conservatives who want to run everyones lives, when if you look at the past 30 or so years, it's the exact opposite." - BimmerPhile
I repeat what I said before:
"In a liberal democracy, each side has something to offer. No party gets it all right. Each party acts as a counter balance to the other, you know, a sort of yin and yang.""
Not entirely true. In a democracy, each side has something to offer -- well for the most part. In a liberal democracy, everyone but the government gets screwed. Just ask the people of China or the former Soviet Union.
"Liberals favor government control of economic issues but want to limit government intervention in social/personal issues; Conservatives want to limit government control of economic issues but favor heavy government control of social/personal issues. Statists favor heavy government control of both. Libertarians favor limiting government control of both. "
Not entirely true either. True Conservatives want to conserve the constitution and have this country be the way it was for nearly 200 years before the liberals took control and started using "judicial activism" to re-invent the constitution as they saw fit. People like Bush and the modern Republican party are not conseravatives except on a few issues. As for gay marriage and abortion, those are a matter or religion (which the government has no control over) and the right to exist.
...neither China nor USSR were "liberal democracies."
"True Conservatives want to conserve the constitution and have this country be the way it was for nearly 200 years before the liberals took control and started using "judicial activism" to re-invent the constitution as they saw fit."
-Would you be so kind as to provide your definition of "judicial activism" on the newer post on this site? Thanks!
"Not entirely true. In a democracy, each side has something to offer -- well for the most part. In a liberal democracy, everyone but the government gets screwed. Just ask the people of China or the former Soviet Union." - bimmerfile
I think it was pretty clear I was referring to the term "liberal democracy" in the true classical sense of the term - rule by the people, separation of powers, divided government (not rule a democracy ruled by liberals as you seem to have taken it). If you couldn't discern that basic concept, then you have no business discussing politics. Apparantly you are still espousing the whole liberals-are-communists Ann Coulter line of thinking. Yeah, that's why liberals favor free trade, open markets, capitalism, competition, globalization, etc. Clinton was the one who balanced the budget and pushed through NAFTA (to the anger of every green party leftist hippie tree hugger in this country). I think I have already thoroughly disposed of your radical and inane Coulterish ideas. You are just as bad as all the leftist protesters who call Bush a NAZI and think Republicans are all fascists. It really is representative of the political mind of a 10-year-old.