Ann the Man calls for CHIMPEACHMENT!

[FORD]

Hear the rabid shemale rant here!!

[Pink Spider]

30 minutes of listening to Ann Coulter.....

Hmmm...let me think.

I'll take your word for it.

[jhale667]

Originally posted by Pink Spider
30 minutes of listening to Ann Coulter.....

Hmmm...let me think.

I'll take your word for it.

No shit~~

Ann Coulter's a MAN, baby!!!!!

(but seriously, if even SHE/HE's turning on chimpy, that speaks volumes.....)

[Nickdfresh]

Well if ANNE didn't have a real thinker like George WILL to rip-off, whatever would 'she' think of BUSH's new pick?

[ODShowtime]

That's the thing about rabid dogs. They'll turn around and bite your ass in a heartbeat.

[4moreyears]

Re: Ann the Man calls for CHIMPEACHMENT!

Originally posted by FORD
Hear the rabid shemale rant here!!

Would love to see you debate her. She would eat your lunch.

[ODShowtime]

Re: Re: Ann the Man calls for CHIMPEACHMENT!

Originally posted by 4moreyears
Would love to see you debate her. She would eat your lunch.

and all the other lunches people would be throwing at her!

what a cunt!

[Nickdfresh]

Re: Re: Ann the Man calls for CHIMPEACHMENT!

Originally posted by 4moreyears
Would love to see you debate her. She would eat your lunch.

Yeah right. She's a dolt whose fanclub consists of "conservative" sycophant wankers that can't get laid.

Here's where ANNE got her ammo from:

Can This Nomination Be Justified?

By George F. Will

Wednesday, October 5, 2005; Page A23

Senators beginning what ought to be a protracted and exacting scrutiny of Harriet Miers should be guided by three rules. First, it is not important that she be confirmed. Second, it might be very important that she not be. Third, the presumption -- perhaps rebuttable but certainly in need of rebutting -- should be that her nomination is not a defensible exercise of presidential discretion to which senatorial deference is due.

It is not important that she be confirmed because there is no evidence that she is among the leading lights of American jurisprudence, or that she possesses talents commensurate with the Supreme Court's tasks. The president's "argument" for her amounts to: Trust me. There is no reason to, for several reasons.

He has neither the inclination nor the ability to make sophisticated judgments about competing approaches to construing the Constitution. Few presidents acquire such abilities in the course of their pre-presidential careers, and this president particularly is not disposed to such reflections.

Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that Miers's nomination resulted from the president's careful consultation with people capable of such judgments. If 100 such people had been asked to list 100 individuals who have given evidence of the reflectiveness and excellence requisite in a justice, Miers's name probably would not have appeared in any of the 10,000 places on those lists.

In addition, the president has forfeited his right to be trusted as a custodian of the Constitution. The forfeiture occurred March 27, 2002, when, in a private act betokening an uneasy conscience, he signed the McCain-Feingold law expanding government regulation of the timing, quantity and content of political speech. The day before the 2000 Iowa caucuses he was asked -- to ensure a considered response from him, he had been told in advance that he would be asked -- whether McCain-Feingold's core purposes are unconstitutional. He unhesitatingly said, "I agree." Asked if he thought presidents have a duty, pursuant to their oath to defend the Constitution, to make an independent judgment about the constitutionality of bills and to veto those he thinks unconstitutional, he briskly said, "I do."

It is important that Miers not be confirmed unless, in her 61st year, she suddenly and unexpectedly is found to have hitherto undisclosed interests and talents pertinent to the court's role. Otherwise the sound principle of substantial deference to a president's choice of judicial nominees will dissolve into a rationalization for senatorial abdication of the duty to hold presidents to some standards of seriousness that will prevent them from reducing the Supreme Court to a private plaything useful for fulfilling whims on behalf of friends.

The wisdom of presumptive opposition to Miers's confirmation flows from the fact that constitutional reasoning is a talent -- a skill acquired, as intellectual skills are, by years of practice sustained by intense interest. It is not usually acquired in the normal course of even a fine lawyer's career. The burden is on Miers to demonstrate such talents, and on senators to compel such a demonstration or reject the nomination.

Under the rubric of "diversity" -- nowadays, the first refuge of intellectually disreputable impulses -- the president announced, surely without fathoming the implications, his belief in identity politics and its tawdry corollary, the idea of categorical representation. Identity politics holds that one's essential attributes are genetic, biological, ethnic or chromosomal -- that one's nature and understanding are decisively shaped by race, ethnicity or gender. Categorical representation holds that the interests of a group can be understood, empathized with and represented only by a member of that group.

The crowning absurdity of the president's wallowing in such nonsense is the obvious assumption that the Supreme Court is, like a legislature, an institution of representation. This from a president who, introducing Miers, deplored judges who "legislate from the bench."

Minutes after the president announced the nomination of his friend from Texas, another Texas friend, Robert Jordan, former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, was on Fox News proclaiming what he and, no doubt, the White House that probably enlisted him for advocacy, considered glad and relevant tidings: Miers, Jordan said, has been a victim. She has been, he said contentedly, "discriminated against" because of her gender.

Her victimization was not so severe that it prevented her from becoming the first female president of a Texas law firm as large as hers, president of the State Bar of Texas and a senior White House official. Still, playing the victim card clarified, as much as anything has so far done, her credentials, which are her chromosomes and their supposedly painful consequences. For this we need a conservative president?

georgewill@washpost.com

Print This Article
E-Mail This Article
RSS Feed
© 2005 The Washington Post Company

[ODShowtime]

I definitely agree with the part about gw not being able to appoint competent people. And about not really understanding the powers his office bestows.

[FORD]

Re: Re: Ann the Man calls for CHIMPEACHMENT!

Originally posted by 4moreyears
Would love to see you debate her. She would eat your lunch.

Ann doesn't look like s/he's eaten lunch for quite some time now. Breakfast or dinner either. There are probably Ethiopians with more body mass than the Frank N. Furter of the neocons.

[BITEYOASS]

Originally posted by FORD
Hear the rabid shemale rant here!!

Big time dyke lesbian maybe, but the shemale thing doesn't cut it.

[BITEYOASS]

Originally posted by FORD
Ann doesn't look like s/he's eaten lunch for quite some time now. Breakfast or dinner either. There are probably Ethiopians with more body mass than the Frank N. Furter of the neocons.

Something tells me she desperately wants to come out of the closet, but to do that would risk losing money off of her neo-conservative rant racket.

[FORD]

Originally posted by BITEYOASS
Big time dyke lesbian maybe, but the shemale thing doesn't cut it.

Lesbians don't have Adam's Apples, huge hands, or cocks.

[BITEYOASS]

Originally posted by FORD
Lesbians don't have Adam's Apples, huge hands, or cocks.

and if she was really true to her neo-conservative roots, then she'd be a house wife and would have popped out 10 kids already. LOL