Posted on 07/22/2004 4:35:45 PM PDT by vanderleun
You don't want poisoned Kool-Aid. You don't want any of that. I believe the National Review simply said that the GOP seemed remarkably silent in the face of constant criticism over these last months, nothing but misinformation, and so on. Yes, much has been countered by the various reports, themselves. But the press won't clear much of it up, themselves. Why not . . the GOP? What's wrong with asking for that? I don't see a problem.
Well, again, pardon me, 'nopardons', but that again sounds like a personal attack. Why can't you just make your point, and leave it at that?
You claimed that the protesters were "extensively" covered,in 1968
I said no such thing.
Is calling YOU and those like you here,armchair warriors who dispense silly political advice,posted to a web site,a personal attack? REALLY? Not on this site it isn't.
You aren't going to last long here,if that's what you imagine is a personal attack. LOL
I hate to drag out "lipstick on a pig" again, but I will. The sewer Rats, in all their mangy putrid "glory", are one big, ugly, smelly sow. The media can and will try to clean it and pretty it up as much as they can, but there isn't enough lipstick in the world to even start making this porker presentable.
When I was 11,I had a set bedtime,which did NOT change just because school was out.
And what precisely would that 'silly advice' be? Was it when I suggested we consider the heart-felt optimism of Reagan, when the media wants to tear people apart and having them hate, and perhaps only hate the Dem a little less?
grow up! . . . aren't going to last long . . . you imagine is a personal attack.
It seems like it is. I don't think you're supposed to do that. Are you?
I really just don't find that interesting. I'm sorry.
You seem to be taking a very great deal of umbrage concerning my questions and posts to John Thornton and now answering for him/her.You're also claiming that you said "no such thing",in response to something John Thornton and I were discussing.
Could you please clarify why that is?
I think you missed the point.
Agree - Incumbents that win don't surge late - This is a whole new strategy for an incumbent to win reelection.... if this is what the WH is up to.
What I just don't get is why we act like we have to "hold our powder" - wait till the end - but the DEM's they can go full blast - beginning, middle and end (yes, they aren't going to quit as Nov nears...they are only going to run more ads and me more pro-active) -
And this is what I don't get - The idea that we should allow false premise after false premise to be set (by not responding early) - I just don't understand -
Why don't we set the record straight all through the election cycle (it is as if we are just trying to "fool them" at the end (the American public).....to pull of the victory) -
If I was going to personally attack you,YOU WOULD KNOW IT!
You're NOT supposed to "bait" people,but that's what you're doing.
The silly advice is the rest of that post,which preceded the Reagan optimism shibboleth.
My point exactly.
It just seemed like a personal attack, actually, in a couple of messages now, in this thread.
Remember, Karen Hughes is coming onboard in August! She's good!
Then why are you? If you want to discuss some thread, just do so. Why make everything so personal with others here, who just might disagree with you? Just allow for that. We disagree. Fine.
Butt out! MYOB! So's yuour old man..and any other schoolyard jibes you might finally understand.
Yes,she is.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.