Replies

I will let others decide if there is any validity in any of your broad and ugly insults to me.

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.

Right, play that insult card again. As if it makes your insults more valid or your own defense of others who enjoy doing the same somehow more appropriate. Try the 'I wasn't insulting you either' line, too, but it won't stick. You were doing it from the start, and all I have to do is go back to your first post to me to prove it. You can even try the "you're all wrong" approach, but anyone who reads my posts knows better. I'm defending the right to speak without being maligned, while you're defending the right to abuse the person and character of people who do. I suppose that does make me all wrong in your book.

Again, you have a great line:
"...it is not my goal on this forum to defend myself incessantly against spurious attack by those engaged in pre-supposition."

But that attack position is precisely your own role here. You spuriously attacked me from the start for daring to speak ill of those who attack the person of any deviator from the Bush line, presupposing I spoke about all Bush fans when I was only speaking about folks who attack the person instead of the argument. You continue to claim that I maligned all Bush fans and that anyone who attacked me was just in so doing, that my insults in return were somehow wrong. Pretend to be the reasonable party all you want. I don't mind if you want to delude yourself. But I'm not gonna let that fertilizer you're spreading stick to my shoes.

As to your special request to paw through your prior posts for insults to me or Noonan, I did. And I don't find being called bitter or juvenile or constantly being accused of "feeling sorry for myself" somehow complimentary. I don't see how characterizing my posts as "rants" or "venting" is anything less than insultingly dismissive. And I don't think that your comments that Noonan "raved about the speech immediately after it was given," and that she's "disingenuos" [sic] are intended to be flattering, when no one here has YET produced a single comment from her 'raving' about the speech, but there is so much said about her flip-flopping. The woman is not John Kerry, she's Reagan's former speechwriter, who said "Reagan brought a constellation of virtues to the office of the presidency—guts, compassion, humor, a lack of pretension, a willingness to face the world and tell the truth, a willingness to make decisions and stand by them—and his leadership changed the world, and for the better. As president, he was a giant." I'm perfectly willing to question her intent if there's some reason to, but none has been provided, and again, you miss the point I argued all along: a change in the motives or person of the arguer does NOT change the validity of her argument! Attacking the person doesn't attack the argument one whit!

No, despite your 'I-didn't-do-it-myself" claims, I can't see it as all coincidental you defend those who do, because you simply don't understand that in defending the person, we're defending her and our right to civil discourse, not necessarily defending her arguments. I happen to agree with her on some of those arguments, but that's beside the point. And you're just playing the 'reasonable' card now because you think no one will catch the fact that you're the advocate for the 'bot insult chorus.