Posted on 01/20/2005 9:33:31 PM PST by RWR8189
Was the president's speech a case of "mission inebriation"?
It was an interesting Inauguration Day. Washington had warmed up, the swift storm of the previous day had passed, the sky was overcast but the air wasn't painful in a wind-chill way, and the capital was full of men in cowboy hats and women in long furs. In fact, the night of the inaugural balls became known this year as The Night of the Long Furs.
Laura Bush's beauty has grown more obvious; she was chic in shades of white, and smiled warmly. The Bush daughters looked exactly as they are, beautiful and young. A well-behaved city was on its best behavior, everyone from cops to doormen to journalists eager to help visitors in any way.
For me there was some unexpected merriness. In my hotel the night before the inauguration, all the guests were evacuated at 1:45 in the morning. There were fire alarms and flashing lights on each floor, and a public address system instructed us to take the stairs, not the elevators. Hundreds of people wound up outside in the slush, eventually gathering inside the lobby, waiting to find out what next.
The staff--kindly, clucking--tried to figure out if the fire existed and, if so, where it was. Hundreds of inaugural revelers wound up observing each other. Over there on the couch was Warren Buffet in bright blue pajamas and a white hotel robe. James Baker was in trench coat and throat scarf. I remembered my keys and eyeglasses but walked out without my shoes. After a while the "all clear" came,
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
You are subtle. Am I suppose to believe that this is all you came away with after studying these particular scriptures regarding the Tower of Babel? Just some punishment for some vague sin? These passages are a little more deep and insightful than you may have noticed.
It's not my personal view of globalism, it's God's stated view of how He wants things to work on this planet concerning governments and nations. I'm sorry you have a problem with either understanding or accepting it.
The globalist believes that the nation state is dead, and wants to move on to trade zones. This has been Bush's stated desire from day one. He hasn't hidden a thing from anyone, no one really listens. "I would like to see a Free Trade Zone from the north of Canada to the tip of Cape Horn", direct quote from GW Bush.
I still maintain it is your conclusions that are in error.
There is nothing in Scripture that says that Free Trade is opposed to God's plan. You (or your pastor or mentor) have drawn that conclusion based on a particular interpretation, but the Scripture itself, aside from someone's worldview or politics imposed on it, does not lead to that definitive conclusion.
I will leave it at that. Perhaps another thread would lend itself to a more thorough discussion of the subject.
My pastor and mentor is the Holy Spirit, none else. I agree that this is not bible study, but anyone reading is certainly invited to check out the passages for themselves and draw their own conclusions as to what is revealed there.
We will have to agree to continue to disagree. See ya later, I'm sure.
You are obviously convinced that your interpretation of the Bible is right, and I am likewise convinced that mine is (though, when it comes to the specifics of prophesy, I believe that being absolute as to what it means is risky, since the only thing we know for sure is that we don't know when things will occur).
In having strong convictions, one can say, "I believe I am right, and you are wrong." OR one can say, "I believe I am right, and you are sinning because you don't agree with me."
I believe I have done the former, and you have done the latter. You have told me I am being disobedient to God, and in this last post, have implied that I am not asking the Holy Spirit to guide me as you are.
I would just ask (as I have before) that in future conversations, you would voice your views without the spiritual condemnation of other (strong, studied) Christians, who do not agree with your conclusions.
Thanks.
Excellent post.
I've determined (using their own standards) that those launching personal attacks on Noonan do so out of ignorance, spite, and jealousy. As such, their opinions are easily discounted ;)
//emphasis added for those too busy crafting strawmen to bother with reading comprehension
BUMP
I do think that you are seeing such a reaction on this and other threads is because her comments were so imprudent and uncharacteristically harsh. In addition, her comments have been and will be used by liberals to slam the President. Hence, some of us are having a darned hard time trying to explain why she wrote such a bitter critique. I, for one, cannot imagine that it's because she just "got it wrong." I think that folks are looking for an explanation.
Quite frankly, her prose, with its routine references to her dinner parties and the like, can be a bit self-indulgent and tiresome -- particularly when the actual column filed is supposed to be on a substantive event or issue. Most of us could care less about whether she had a run-in with Baroness Thatcher at Reagan's funeral. And based on some of her columns describing her relationships with other speech writers twenty years ago, I could see how observers could come to some of the conclusions metioned on this thread.
I know you might not like this (after all, your home page does contain two pictures of PN), but none of this necessarily betrays ignorance, spite or jealousy. If anything, I think some of us, my self included, have just become tired of her and fail to see her relevance as a pundit. Because she lacks any influence in the party or the movement, her only continued relevance is that she now wears the label of a conservative commentator who is in sharp disagreement with the President, ensuring her a welcome place in the studios of the MSM.
Your first post to me called me bitter and asked me what was wrong with me--after I replied to a post that told me I was regularly wrong and and told me to shove it. I received at least three emails complaining about you in particular doing just what I posted about. There is no question that, your protestations notwithstanding, that you are appropriately 'lumped in.'
Notwithstanding your patronizing, faux-reasonable last comment, mad as I was about being insulted for at least the fifth time on this thread, I thought well on my usage of the word Pharisee. You could always look it up if you don't understand how it applies. I'm pretty sure you have a Bible you 'use.'
Go join a nunnery. They could use your devotion.
This is your post to which I responded which begged the question, "What is wrong with you?"
As I read it again, it is a valid question, and it doesn't take more than elementary observation skills to see that you are bitter about this.
I stand by my first post.
You interestingly (or not), neglected to remember that I called you reasonable, and tried to have a rational conversation with you.
It wasn't until you got childish and vulgar and went way over the line that I called you on it. That doesn't make me a Pharisee, regardless of how you wish it to be so.
Now might I suggest that you stop feeling sorry for yourself, express your views, and take the disagreement of others like a man?
It seems that you and a few others around here think that free speech means being able to say whatever you want, regardless of how unreasonable it is, and have no one disagree with you.
That's not the way it works, Lib. Freedom carries with it responsibility. What you say has consequences, and you need to be able to deal with that.
For nearly 600 posts, that was my point. It is becoming rediculous how often people are being called "liberals" or "not conservative", etc., because they disagree with group think. Specifically, any disagreement with the President.
Please explain.
You were free to call me a "jerk" without provocation. You have been free to express your views as much as anyone else here.
Perhaps there was something in your post to me that was removed (I didn't read it), that you felt your "free speech" should allow you to say??
I wasn't on FR in the "good old days," but was there ever a time when vulgarity and name calling were accepted fare (as a substitute for legitimate discussions?) Is that what I missed in the early years........the "free speech" that is now "squelched?"
I am curious as to this great change on FR that has taken place that has curtailed anyone's freedom to express his or her views.
(The "NO profanity, NO personal attacks, NO racism or violence" has been here since I joined 4 years ago. Were profanity and personal attacks accepted before I joined?)
This is a legitimate question, iconoclast, and I would appreciate reading your opinion as to what has changed, without a personal attack accompanying it.
Miss Marple, I pinged you because you replied to this same post, and you have been around for much longer than I.
Why is it "groupthink" to agree with the President along with others, and NOT "groupthink" to disagree along with others?
It seems that all of you who disagree with the President are participating in "groupthink" with each other.
Is it not possible that the two "groups" just have different opinions from each other?
Clue--- to your question --- research the dynamics of group think.
You expect me to look at you as reasonable, when you call me bitter for not somehow examining an insult and coming up with a bouquet? Blow it out your piety hole.
You interestingly (or not), neglected to remember that I called you reasonable, and tried to have a rational conversation with you.
Yeah, and in the same breath you insulted libertarians on this board both by calling them irrational and calling the words "blind followers" a 'libertarian talking point.' Then in the next post you stick your talking points, calling my posts rants and venting. Whatever you decide is reasonable is reasonable to you, I guess. /sarcasm
It wasn't until you got childish and vulgar and went way over the line that I called you on it. That doesn't make me a Pharisee, regardless of how you wish it to be so. Now might I suggest that you stop feeling sorry for yourself, express your views, and take the disagreement of others like a man?
I didn't go over any line, but called out someone just as deserving as you in a clear statement of exactly what you both think: if Bush pooped in your bathroom, you'd tell us his shit don't stink. And I called you a Pharisee because you start with insults and then you act holier than thou about others who do the same. I don't feel sorry for anyone but you, because you continue to miss the point that you aren't reasonably disagreeing and haven't been from the start, and all I have been advocating here is that people can reasonably disagree. Instead you continue to play the Pharisee, as if you are somehow better than others on this board, when hounding from people like you is the reason that many people think of Rush and Bush fans as blind loyalists. Hell, you have a 'bot seal of approval on your profile. You wear it as a badge of honor. What more proof is there needed that you miss the point of those who respectfully disagree with certain of Bush's statements or policies?
Here comes my favorite part of your post:
It seems that you and a few others around here think that free speech means being able to say whatever you want, regardless of how unreasonable it is, and have no one disagree with you. That's not the way it works, Lib. Freedom carries with it responsibility. What you say has consequences, and you need to be able to deal with that.
You miss the point entirely, again. As I just got through saying, I don't care that people disagree with me. I don't care that people disagree with Noonan. I care that they, and you, attack Noonan or me personally, which is not disagreement but abuse. You still think that abuse is warranted, and you defend it as if it were somehow responsible free speech. I understand that 'what I say has consequences,' but you think you and your buddies should get a pass on insults every time--as long as it is a pro-Bush insult--and that proves you don't understand responsible free speech at all. You act like some great defender of free speech, when all you're arguing is that people who disagree with your opinion should shut up, and that people who disagree with your opinion should be shouted down and insulted.
Please promise me you won't actually try to convert people to Christ or voting for the Republican Party with that attitude. With that approach, I'm sure up to now you've done a fine job of scaring away many who would be the cause's best advocates, were it not for your demonstration of the openness of Christ's love and the Party's big tent. It's people like you who make it less likely we'll get to a veto- or filibuster-proof majority, simply because any statement of opposition is verboten to you. There are plenty of RINOs, but they aren't under every bedsheet.
God: Way Too Much Peggy Noonan
What is the difference between your thinking in a group in opposition to the President from our thinking in a group in agreement with him?
Please don't turn it into the accusation that I am not serious, as you did in your last post (please see my discussions with hundreds of others on this forum if you doubt my ability to discuss serious issues with serious people).
Do you have an answer as to what makes the difference in your view? Is it the perception that we are 'in power' that makes our agreement with each other more dangerous than yours?
What is it? I see 'groupthink' on your part as much as any on ours.
You are free to have as wrong an opinion of me as you wish, and you are free to say that you think I'm an idiot, a hypocrite, a fool, or any other vulgar thing you are thinking but know will be deleted if you say it online.
You are free to say all the wrong things you want, make up an whatever image of me you'd like to serve your own goal of believing that I am the things you want me to be.
But in all these cases, in all your thoughts, you would be completely on the wrong side of the truth about me.
But it is not my goal on this forum to defend myself incessantly against spurious attack by those engaged in pre-supposition. There is no point.
Perhaps on some other thread, you will return to reasonable, and in that case, we can discuss things without rancor.
But let me ask you to do one thing. Go back and look at what I said about Peggy Noonan (the supposed subject of this thread), and see that I didn't insult her, and once you calm down and stop feeling sorry for yourself, you'll see that I wasn't insulting you either.
Was the president's speech a case of "mission inebriation"?
"Inebriation" ???
That word sets the tone for the ensuing hit piece. No doubt it was chosen with great forethought.
Per Dictionary.com...
in·e·bri·a·tion (noun) -- "The condition of being intoxicated, as with alcohol."
Hehe............I figure YOU'd know, Laz. :o)
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.