ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
In The Absence Of Law And Order Society Will Surely Destroy Itself
DONATE TO PATSFANS.COM
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
Nah, she's a woman who made it further in life than anyone here could ever hope to make it - and that alone is enough to incite the type of mean-spirited jealousy that pervades middle class white males on football boards causing them to react in childish and telling ways.
That picture alone says more about WP and HarryBoy than any 4,732 posts they might write would ever say about themselves. In fact, it says nothing about Kagan and everything about WP.
So what's your excuse when it comes to ripping Sarah Palin? Funny how person X criticizing Kagan, results in a "woman who made it further" defense, from those who have repeatedly ripped another woman "who made it further" in Sarah Palin. Why is WP's criticism, while tasteless, principly any different than the bashing Ann Coulter, or Sarah Palin recieves from certain people in here? Is it their assumed political persuasion that makes one eeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil, and the other fair?
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him." Leo Tolstoy, 1897
So what's your excuse when it comes to ripping Sarah Palin? Funny how person X criticizing Kagan, results in a "woman who made it further" defense, from those who have repeatedly ripped another woman "who made it further" in Sarah Palin. Why is WP's criticism, while tasteless, principly any different than the bashing Ann Coulter, or Sarah Palin recieves from certain people in here? Is it their assumed political persuasion that makes one eeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil, and the other fair?
There are legitimate reasons to rip Palin -- for example, the facts that she appeared completely vacuous on policy matters, was flummoxed by the demanding question "what do you read" and basically had a platform that pitted "real Americans" versus liberals.
There are probably legitimate reasons to rip Kagan, too -- but her appearance isn't one of them.
(And there's something ironic -- or something -- about bringing up Palin as some sort of counterexample in a thread ripping a SC nominee's looks, when Palin never would have become the celebrity she has become were it not for her looks)
While I'll openly admit, that when I first saw a picture of Kagan, I thought it was a dude (sorry, but it's the truth people), her looks should have absolutely nothing to do with the process. Only her opinions, merrits, and qualifications should determine whether or not she's given a spot on the SCOTUS. Not knowing too much about her, I can't say whether or not she's qualified, or a good choice. I will say that I do not like the fact that she doesn't have any judicial experience. While there are justices who've served without any, prior to joining the SCOTUS, I personally prefer that not be the case. I don't like the idea of people learning on the job, when that job is the highest possible position in said field.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him." Leo Tolstoy, 1897
I'll bet she does....and I'll bet she wouldn't be able to find anything I've said here that compared her to a man, said she looked like she was in drag or anything else that was meant to be outright insulting based on her appearance. Saying you don't think someone is qualified based on experience or even personal feeling about that person's personality is not the same thing as calling them "Jug Ears," or laughing about how ugly they are or basing an opinion on their looks and their looks alone.
I truly think you'd have a major problem trying to link me to any of those behaviours. I think you'd have a major problem linking any one of your so-called "lefties" to them. The sheer fact that we all continue to refer to the right as simply "the right" while we are referred to as "Moonbats," is enough to tell you what line that name-calling stuff is drawn on.
I'll also save myself the trouble of a new post and simply say to WP that I am not surpised he is unwilling to back up his accusations - it's hard to pull things out of thin air.
I was laughing at your atatement about being jealous of someone who had accomplished what you never would. SO delicious coming from you.
__________________
"Some guys play in all-star games, some guys don't. I don't know who picks all those all-star teams. In all honesty, I don't know who picks the combine, for that matter," Belichick said. "How does (Miami-Ohio offensive lineman Brandon) Brooks not get invited to the combine? How did Vollmer not get invited to the combine? I don't know. We can't really worry about that. We just have to try to evaluate them the best we can."
Why is WP's criticism, while tasteless, principly any different than the bashing Ann Coulter, or Sarah Palin recieves from certain people in here? Is it their assumed political persuasion that makes one eeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil, and the other fair?
No, it's the tastelessness of it. Had WP said he disliked Kagan because he felt she was inexperienced, a quitter, unqualified, too young, too old or simply not intelligent enough and was able to back up his opinions with some solid examples of why he felt that way it would be perfectly legitimate opinion and it would have been possible to either agree with him or to offer conflicting opinion and examples of the same. However, choosing to ignore all of those available avenues (which are avenues we've pursued in the case of Sarah Palin) and instead focusing on her looks - and focusing on them in the most basest of manners - all he's done is to establish his own inability to form a coherent thought much less present a valid objection to her appointment.
If his sole reason to objecting to her appointment is because he thinks she's unattractive (and he's offered nothing to the contrary by way of explanation) it means that the only thing he feels capable of understanding is appearance and that he's perfectly comfortable with a person's appearance being the deciding factor in their ability to impress him.
Personally, I find that's a pretty unimpressive quality in a person.
I'll bet she does....and I'll bet she wouldn't be able to find anything I've said here that compared her to a man, said she looked like she was in drag or anything else that was meant to be outright insulting based on her appearance. Saying you don't think someone is qualified based on experience or even personal feeling about that person's personality is not the same thing as calling them "Jug Ears," or laughing about how ugly they are or basing an opinion on their looks and their looks alone.
Just out of curiousity, where did I (or anyone else) say that Mr. Kagan wasn't qualified? Fact is I never heard of him before Friday so I have not yet opined on his qualifications.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs.PatsFanInVa
I truly think you'd have a major problem trying to link me to any of those behaviours. I think you'd have a major problem linking any one of your so-called "lefties" to them. The sheer fact that we all continue to refer to the right as simply "the right" while we are referred to as "Moonbats," is enough to tell you what line that name-calling stuff is drawn on.
If you don't see the insults regularly thrown out by the left leaning members of this forum, then you really are blind.
Sarah palin made it because she got all the brain dead rubes to buy into her shlock and her body. I guess this would be an insult if it weren't for the fact that its true.
There are legitimate reasons to rip Palin -- for example, the facts that she appeared completely vacuous on policy matters, was flummoxed by the demanding question "what do you read" and basically had a platform that pitted "real Americans" versus liberals.
Translation: When we do it, it's OK. But when you do it, it's eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil.