Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Aero...Posters like DC and others who are literalist, and who pick at a writer reaching back a gneration for context, just show that critical thinking skills are at a premium these days. I am a critical thinker and I approve ( to the political ads) of the use of the Roe v Wade arguments to support a point. EF
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC
You obviously missed the point. WAY missed the point.
1) Coulter was not inserting Obama into the Roe v Wade argument. She was prefacing the argument with another Supreme Court decision that in fact DID overturn 50 state laws. Which goes to prove (as if proof was needed) that there's nothing "unprecedented" about the Supreme Court overturning legislation. That's what Obama stated. Barack Obama is as wrong as it gets. There are multitudes of examples. It's almost unbelieveable that he even went down that path. But he did. Coulter is rightfully calling him out.
2) Coulter is not implying that Obama is out to "destroy the Constitution." She's simply providing a solid case as to how and why Barack Obama got it all wrong in his anti-Supreme Court rant.
3) Coulter is also pointing out that it's highly curious (and even laughable) that the very President that Left have vociferously put on a pedestal for being a "Constitutional Scholar" and "Harvard Law Professor" has all of a sudden found himself facing an unconstitutional ruling towards his most significant accomplishment. It does not get any more ironic (or embarrassing) than that.
You wildly missed the point DC. I'm not 100% sure you even read the article.
Aero...Posters like DC and others who are literalist, and who pick at a writer reaching back a gneration for context, just show that critical thinking skills are at a premium these days. I am a critical thinker and I approve ( to the political ads) of the use of the Roe v Wade arguments to support a point. EF
Earthlyfather, I'm not a literalist, and I'm not picking at a writer reaching back a generation for context. I am all about context. And the context here has nothing to do with argument, it's about emotions. If you were a critical thinker, you would recognize when there is no logic to an argument, but instead the argument is all about emotional appeal. Critical thinkers take issue to arguments where emotion rather than logic is the appeal. Perhaps you should rethink how you characterize yourself before you start trying to characterize others.
Actually, the phrase 53 million lifetimes ago has a factual basis. It is up to the individual as to whether it is emotional, or just about an individual's feelings about, "But, its my body.", and arbitrary approach about what is right and wrong. Talk about social justice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
The "53 million lifetimes ago" would be the pressing of an emotional button, rather than the assertion of a real argument. It hasn't been 53 years, never mind 53 lifetimes or 53 million lifetimes. But the 53 million lifetimes has emotional resonance. That's Coulter, it's who she is as a pundit. She doesn't appeal to reason, she appeals to emotions. Which is perfectly fine, and apparently very profitable. But her arguments won't withstand rational challenge. They aren't designed to.
Actually, the phrase 53 million lifetimes ago has a factual basis. It is up to the individual as to whether it is emotional, or just about an individual's feelings about, "But, its my body.", and arbitrary approach about what is right and wrong. Talk about social justice.
NO, the phrase '53 million lifetimes ago" doesn't have a factual basis. It has an emotional basis. A lifetime isn't measured in lives not lived. No definition of a lifetime comes up with zero days lived. "Up to the individual whether it is emotional or just about an individual's feelings"????---feelings equal emotion. Logic takes feelings out of the equation. And your assertion that "it's my body" is arbitrary is arbitrary in itself. If it isn't "my body" whose body is it? You are not employing critical thinking skills in your arguments.
If it's a homerun it's in the ballpark of a rat. A very small and nasty ballpark to be sure. This woman is nothing more than a bundle of hate wrapped around a core of ignorance. She possibly could be correct about something one out of a hundred times but why would anyone listen to anything this skank says when she's wrong the other 99 times.
The entire body politic of the USA is so far from the constitution that the document had become very moote to say the least. IT'S NOT USED TO ESTABLISH ANYTING IN LAW BUT TO SETTLE PARTISAN DISPUTES.
If the USA was ran according to the constitution we would not even recognize the country at all because it would be entirely different. Since this is so obviously the case the document is no longer useful and should be replaced completely. As time goes forward, from now on I fear this fact will become more and more obvious as the Government of the USA becomes more and more disfunctional. Rights and freedoms have been just stripped from all Americans and hardly a peep is heard. States have abrogated their powers to the Feds willingly. Money rules the country and not the people and what is the basic premis of the constitution in the first place? Government for, of and by the who? Corporate interests!!!!!!! Partisan constitutional wrangles are a bad joke in a country where you can be secretly arrested, detained without trial and held indefinitely. Why are these unconstitutional things at the forefront of debate? It's because the system is broken. The constituton means nothing at all except what 9 old political hacks decide what is right for the American people and damn the constitution. They rule on what they think not what the law says. I just thank God that in Canada we can override the silly old buggers when they rule agains the people's interests.
If it's a homerun it's in the ballpark of a rat. A very small and nasty ballpark to be sure. This woman is nothing more than a bundle of hate wrapped around a core of ignorance. She possibly could be correct about something one out of a hundred times but why would anyone listen to anything this skank says when she's wrong the other 99 times.
Well, that didn't take to long.
"If you don't agree with ME you are a rat, etc, etc, etc.
Because the issue wasn't addressed but just hate filled name calling, we are supposed to take posters like this serious.
"Pot meet kettle." seems to be a perfect quote for this occasion.
Amazing! the media ordained, 'great orator' requires a herd of spinmasters to tell us what he really said. Even his legal background does him no good when it comes to communication.
"If you don't agree with ME you are a rat, etc, etc, etc.
Because the issue wasn't addressed but just hate filled name calling, we are supposed to take posters like this serious.
"Pot meet kettle." seems to be a perfect quote for this occasion.
Goggle, Ann Coulter quotes and if you can say anything good, smart, interesting, Correct, uplifting, inspiring or decent you are going to have a long and difficult search.
It's not a matter of agreement with someone or not. I can disagree with people 100% and still respect them and their position. What I don't respect are liers, haters, small minded bigots, misrepresenters and just total jerkoffs like this person.
This is stupid. I'm sorry, but the column is simply stupid. Roe v Wade is a lifetime ago, literally. The argument before the court was long before Obama became politically active. Coulter's ridiculing of the argument displays her habit of ignoring facts for cute one-liners. Her depiction of the argument has no intellectual merit at all. And that doesn't mean I don't think Coulter is smart. She's a sharp cookie. And she knows that making logical arguments takes work, and it's needless work, since all she has to do is make her cute one-liners and the shallow audience she panders to all applaud and fall over themselves to spread the cutesy humor.
Obama has no intention of destroying the Constitution. No matter how much you repeat it, no matter how fervently you cherish the idea, the simple truth is that Obama and liberals support the Constitution every bit as much as conservatives do. That there are different interpretations of the Constitution has been the norm from day one. That's why we have the Supreme Court, to render a definitive interpretation that our laws can reference and judges can be guided by.
The Constitution does not to be "interpreted". It was written in plain language so the people could understand it. It was not written by lawyers for lawyers.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
