Because she disagreed with "Don't Ask Don't Tell" she kept the military off campus.

Another pin headed intellectual.

Does the POTUS have something against experience?

Yoda

Originally Posted by waynet

Because she disagreed with "Don't Ask Don't Tell" she kept the military off campus.

Disagreeing on one military policy should not prevent the military from recruiting the best and brightest from any campus. It is a free country even though Harvard is located in the People's Republic of Cambridge.
Are you saying that Harvard does not enjoy their freedom? We keep our freedoms because of the soldiers who are willing to die for them.

and some of those soldiers are gay!!!!!!! and should be afforded the rights of all Americans. The policy is discrimination plain and simple. Discrimination by anyone including our military is against the law.

but lets get back to the fat pill-popping nazi...Rush...he should know an intellectual lightweight when he looks in the mirror. She was a supreme court clerk,a law prof. at Univ. of Chicago,a dean of Harvard Law,...and holds degrees from Princeton,Oxford and Harvard. Oh by the way she graduated from Princeton summa cum laude not that Rush has any idea what that means. I understand Rush and many of his listeners have a deep distrust for people smarter than them but to call her a lightweight is stupid. The man is a fool,he just says things most of the time with no factual basis.

It wasn't all about Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Of course liberals try to turn it around to say that is the issue.

The issue was the Solomon Amendment which involved federal funding and allowing ROTC and recruiters on properties of higher education when the institution accepts federal funding.

It was unconstitutional at the time of the incident at Harvard Law School. Kagan was following the letter of the law at the time. There was a Supreme Court decision after the incident. It is now the law if you accept federal dollars, you accept ROTC and recruiters on campus. Of course, Barney Frank and other liberals opposed it and tried to push through their own agendas with federal monies without allowing ROTC and recruiters on campuses.

"The 1996 Solomon Amendment is the popular name of 10 U.S.C. § 983, a United States federal law that allows the Secretary of Defense to deny federal grants (including research grants) to institutions of higher education if they prohibit or prevent ROTC or military recruitment on campus."



Listen to this.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4186664/o...eme-court-pick


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon_Amendment

Originally Posted by Donna2

I agree with Rush on this one. The media saying she could sway the court to the right is BS. If they thought she had any conservative values they would not nominate her.
They know exactly what she is. An elite out of touch socialist.

As a dean at Harvard, she was responsible for kicking the military off campus.

OMG...In this one we all know who the intellectual lightweight is. And now another socialist....we are back to McCarthy with you all seeing them every where.

This women is NOT a lefty....the progressives are ****ed off about this appointment is it not to be believed.

When you all do this you lose credibility....

cologal, I started this thread by saying the Progressives aren't too happy with Obama's pick of Kagan and included an article from the Progressive Democrats of America website. After looking further at her views and such; which you know, there aren't many out there, it looks like she is pretty liberal and Progressive leaning. I wonder why the Progressives are split on supporting her. Because she isn't liberal and Progressive enough?

Originally Posted by cologal

OMG...In this one we all know who the intellectual lightweight is. And now another socialist....we are back to McCarthy with you all seeing them every where.

This women is NOT a lefty....the progressives are ****ed off about this appointment is it not to be believed.

When you all do this you lose credibility....

Is this a personal attack? Should I post all the quotes from your liberal hero's about Bush's candidates? Your party is a bunch of hypocrites. This women is pro death, anti-military and anti-everything that is right and conservative. Thank goodness it is one moonbat replacing another moonbat!!!!

They stick up for Socialist ideals knowing they destroy societies only because conservatives are against these ideals.

This is pure lack of honesty.

Obama did not choose the very best person to fill the position. He chose someone he knows.
Choosing the very best people to fill the position is a mark of leadership. Some shy away from it as they are intimidated by having a better than themselves talent on the scene.
Since she would not work directly for Obama, this one of course is the same old politics.....has nothing to do with ones capability to do the job.

If she were measured against the top ten most capable candidates in the entire USA, she would not make the first cut! No matter how talented she may be, she is not the best candidate for the job, hence....a degree of mediocrity is introduced. By the person filling the job if she is annointed and most assuredly by Obama.

As we all know he is a politician and as we all know he is certainly not an executive (chief or any otherwise).

btk

Originally Posted by billethkid

Obama did not choose the very best person to fill the position. He chose someone he knows.
Choosing the very best people to fill the position is a mark of leadership. Some shy away from it as they are intimidated by having a better than themselves talent on the scene.
Since she would not work directly for Obama, this one of course is the same old politics.....has nothing to do with ones capability to do the job.

If she were measured against the top ten most capable candidates in the entire USA, she would not make the first cut! No matter how talented she may be, she is not the best candidate for the job, hence....a degree of mediocrity is introduced. By the person filling the job if she is annointed and most assuredly by Obama.

As we all know he is a politician and as we all know he is certainly not an executive (chief or any otherwise).

btk

Yes, a mark of leadership is selecting the most capable to fill important positions. Do you realize how illogical it is conclude that Kagan is a poor choice because the President knows her? Perhaps he should chose someone who he doesn't know anything about? How about some factual stuff to back up your incredible bias. I'll make it easy; since you know of at least ten candidates far more qualified, name just three and state the qualifications which place them head and shoulders above the nominee.

There are probably dozens who haven't even finished law school who are better qualified. This candidate is a Harriet Miers lightweight.

suit your need. If you will kindly re-read my post you will find I did not say Kagan was a "poor choice"...YOU DID!!!!!

I also did not say I knew 10 candidates better than her....YOU DID!!!

Talk about bias....I do believe you have a thing for your perception of what I say VS what you like to say I said....to suit your cause....what ever that may be.

You are off base on your statements regarding my intent....AGAIN!!!

btk

I'm willing to wait until those that are supposed to research Ms. Kagan's background and qualifications do their job. That'll happen soon enough.

In the meantime, I've watched the back and forth on this thread. Quite amusing, actually. I was particularly struck by Donna quoting Rush Limbaugh, who said that Kagan is an intellectual lightweight.

Now there's an example of the kettle calling the pot black, if I ever heard one. I actually laughed out loud.