![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
amulhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4304684.stm
That's right, he's picked another aid for a high-level position they're totally unqualified for. She's never been a judge, fer crying out loud.
My personal favorite line from the article: "But some of Mr Bush's supporters have expressed concern at her lack of conservative credentials....[much further down]...'The president's nomination of Miers is a betrayal of the conservative, pro-family voters,' said the conservative advocacy group Public Advocate." That's right, folks. They're worried about her conservative credentials. Never mind that she has NO credentials, but see, if she's never judged anything, than how can we know if she's interested in shoving the Moral Majority's agenda into everyone's bedrooms?
Oh, I'm sorry. She's a middle-ground choice because she's a woman, so hopefully Democrats will overlook her complete lack of experience as a Constitutional scholar. Because we'd much rather see an incompetent female lawyer than an actual MODERATE WITHOUT A RELIGIOUS AGENDA, which is what we were asking for in the first place.
Hell in a hand basket, I say!
Exactly how many crap choices is he going to offer before we all just throw up our hands and say, "Next!"
That's right, he's picked another aid for a high-level position they're totally unqualified for. She's never been a judge, fer crying out loud.
My personal favorite line from the article: "But some of Mr Bush's supporters have expressed concern at her lack of conservative credentials....[much further down]...'The president's nomination of Miers is a betrayal of the conservative, pro-family voters,' said the conservative advocacy group Public Advocate." That's right, folks. They're worried about her conservative credentials. Never mind that she has NO credentials, but see, if she's never judged anything, than how can we know if she's interested in shoving the Moral Majority's agenda into everyone's bedrooms?
Oh, I'm sorry. She's a middle-ground choice because she's a woman, so hopefully Democrats will overlook her complete lack of experience as a Constitutional scholar. Because we'd much rather see an incompetent female lawyer than an actual MODERATE WITHOUT A RELIGIOUS AGENDA, which is what we were asking for in the first place.
Hell in a hand basket, I say!
Exactly how many crap choices is he going to offer before we all just throw up our hands and say, "Next!"
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 3 Oct 2005 19:00 (UTC)no subject
Date: 3 Oct 2005 19:04 (UTC)no subject
Date: 3 Oct 2005 19:05 (UTC)I can take all the "liberals are tree-hugging birkenstock-wearing lame ducks" jokes one can fling. That particular icon, however, seems put in for purely incendiary purposes.
Sad thing is, I've seen that bumper sticker on cars before, and I can say with some degree of certainty that the people who've put them on aren't doing so with humour in mind. Since I don't know you, how do I know you are?
no subject
Date: 3 Oct 2005 19:40 (UTC)As a general technicality, not really. When was the last time you laughed at a joke that wasn't insulting to the subject of the joke?
Sad thing is, I've seen that bumper sticker on cars before, and I can say with some degree of certainty that the people who've put them on aren't doing so with humour in mind.
I suppose that depends on your point of view. It's pretty unussual for me to agree on a Liberal's stance on any given subject. This is because I have objections to the entire Methodology/Ideology of Liberalism, completely outside of any individual issue. Still, I chose the icon because it made me laugh, not because I felt it was stating a Fundamental Truth.
Since I don't know you, how do I know you are?
Since you don't know me, how do you know I am?
no subject
Date: 3 Oct 2005 20:40 (UTC)The difference between wanton insults and humour is finesse. Sure, I could say "You are a fat goatfucker" and someone might find it humourous, but that's hardly a measure of whether or not it's actually funny. Some particularly twisted people find pictures on rotten.com humourous. Blanket statements (i.e. "All cats are grey," "Muffins are tasty," "Liberals are wrong," "White men can't jump") are usually intended as hyperbolic generalizations or as hurtful jabs at an entire group.
And, I don't know. An icon like that makes me think immediately "this person is like all the other people I have seen with this bumper sticker." It's rational to draw assumptions about people based on real-life experiences, which is something that becomes even more rational (if not necessary) on the internet.
no subject
Date: 3 Oct 2005 20:53 (UTC)And yet his attack on my icon, rather then responding to my relatively polite comment on picking SCOTUS nominees, doesn't? Interesting.
Hence the long-winded replies.
Which is fine. It was an argument, rather then an off the cuff dismissal.