Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: baseball_fan
When someone can confuse Bill Buckley, that's saying something.

I had to guffaw upon reading this. Yesterday, I criticized the speech here at FR and the bruises from the knee-jerk piling on response are still showing.

The minutiae of the apparent "boilerplate" sources and platitudes, as a substitute for thought, were too subtle for me to identify immediately, but Peggy Noonan and William Buckley have done a masterful job of it.

Mindless adulation for one of my favorite presidents seems to be a mindless requirement of the very young and the very rigid, here at FR.

15 posted on 01/21/2005 12:40:03 PM PST by Publius6961 (The most abundant things in the universe are hydrogen, ignorance and stupidity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Publius6961
So you're brilliant and we're mindless.

Hey, kiss my grits. I understood the man perfectly but then you know, I'm, you know, one of those red neck dummies out here in the middle of nowhere. You know what I'm saying!

29 posted on 01/21/2005 12:48:09 PM PST by OldFriend (Isaiah 40:31)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

To: Publius6961
The minutiae of the apparent "boilerplate" sources and platitudes, as a substitute for thought,

Example of "boilerplate" or "platitudes" in the speech, please.

48 posted on 01/21/2005 12:57:40 PM PST by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

To: Publius6961

And btw, it is really petty and juvenile for you to characterize those who were inspired by the speech as "knee jerk".

I, for example, can expound on the greatness of the speech citing examples while you hurl out baseless charges of "boilerplate" without buttressing your charge at all.

Pity.


54 posted on 01/21/2005 1:00:51 PM PST by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

To: Publius6961
I take issue not on substance, but with structure.

I get what he was saying, but I was not impressed with how it was said.

They took a simple and easy to communicate concept and pushed it into a trying so hard to be Shakespearian dud.
69 posted on 01/21/2005 1:09:09 PM PST by CyberCowboy777 (You may remember me from such threads as "Christmas in Cambodia" & "Crying Game: The Gore Story")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

To: Publius6961
Mindless adulation for one of my favorite presidents seems to be a mindless requirement of the very young and the very rigid, here at FR.

Mindless adulation??????

IMHO the world is full of critics, that's way too easy. I had a great day yesterday.

If an inaugural speech is not to be oriented towards our loftiest goals then what's the point?

Lincoln's second inaugural speech was heavily criticized at the time he gave it too. I wasn't in on yesterday's critiques but you're certainly entitled to you own opinion, that's what FRee Republic is all about right?

73 posted on 01/21/2005 1:10:44 PM PST by Mister Baredog (PLEASE be sure you have a flag up on your FReeper homepage.!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

To: Publius6961
Mindless adulation for one of my favorite presidents seems to be a mindless requirement of the very young and the very rigid, here at FR.

Have you considered that some of us just really liked the speech, and are not just mindless adulators of Bush?

91 posted on 01/21/2005 1:22:06 PM PST by The Ghost of FReepers Past (Legislatures are so outdated. If you want real political victory, take your issue to court.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

To: Publius6961
Mindless adulation for one of my favorite presidents seems to be a mindless requirement of the very young and the very rigid, here at FR.

You can say that again.

99 posted on 01/21/2005 1:27:39 PM PST by NJ Neocon (Democracy is tyranny of the masses. It is three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

To: Publius6961

No, it's because your criticisms were groundless. It's really simple. Re-read Reagan's "Reagan Doctrine" speeches. Same exact thing.


112 posted on 01/21/2005 1:34:01 PM PST by LS (CNN is the Amtrak of news (there is no c in Amtrak and no truth in MSM news))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

To: Publius6961

The Iranians thought it was great so what are you complaining for?


120 posted on 01/21/2005 1:40:29 PM PST by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

To: Publius6961

While we have the leisure time in our free country to quibble about semantics and artful wording, in the part of the world where there you might actually get shot, hung, beheaded, etc., if you disagree with an oppressive government, it looks as if they understood President Bush...

*****
Reports from across Iran are stating about the massive welcoming of President George W. Bush's inaugural speech and his promise of helping to bring down the last outposts of tyranny.

Millions of Iranians have been reported as having stayed home, on Thursday night which is their usual W.end and outgoing night, in order to see or hear the Presidential speech and the comments made by the Los Angeles based Iranian satellite TV and radio networks, such as, NITV or KRSI.

The speech and its package of hope have been, since late yesterday night and this morning, the main topics of most Iranians' conversations during their familial and friendly gatherings, in the collective taxis and buses, as well as, among groups of young Iranians who gather outside the cities on the Fridays.

Many were seen showing the " V " sign or their raised fists. Talks were focused on steps that need to be taken in order to use the first time ever favorable International condition.

Many Iranians, who were looking for the World's super power firm moral support and financial aid to credible secularist opposition groups, are now becoming sure that Mr. Bush's agenda is indeed to help them to gain Freedom, Secularity and Democracy.
*****

Shall we leave them to rot? Especially since helping them win their freedom could help protect our own country's liberty and security? The mullahs and their associates wish to rain down ruin on our people. Every day the Iranian mullahs scheme to do so, by science and terror. Should we not help light the torch of freedom there?

"By our efforts, we have lit a fire...in the minds of men. It warms those who feel its power, it burns those who fight its progress. And one day this untamed fire of freedom will reach the darkest corners of our world."

Something somebody didn't understand about that? Despite the language barrier, it looks as if they understood it in the dark corners of Tehran.

-George


149 posted on 01/21/2005 1:51:09 PM PST by Calif Conservative ( RWR & GWB fan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

To: Publius6961

People were taking whacks at you because you applied a couple of negative adjectives to it, and stopped there.

If you have a beef with the speech, lay out your arguments.

So far, I think the message is pretty clear: Democracy is the antidote to foreign threats. It has the fringe benefit of providing open markets too. What people do in their countries are now our business, because we can no longer wait to be struck before striking back.

I do think Peggy Noonan and Bill Buckley are a bit jealous here.

If you look at our track record of supporting dictators, and the return on that investment to this point, it's been pretty low. We have enough modern history to support the observation that the only effective way of dealing with a tyrant is to motivate the people to freedom, and to assist any way we can.

It's a good clear policy with all kinds of fringe benefits. Not the least of which is that it occupies the very highest moral ground.

People are getting beat up because they are missing these points for the small semantic ones like "Can people simmer in resentment and tyranny at the same time?"

Gorbachev, after all, can't really tear down the wall all by himself, can he? Doesn't he farm that out?


179 posted on 01/21/2005 2:04:10 PM PST by RinaseaofDs (The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

To: Publius6961

I think you make some good points but I would put Buckley's
commentary into two categories. First, few conservative writers
know more about the proper use of language than Buckley
and Safire. Thus, perhaps in context, "guard" would be a
better word than "protect." One cannot literally "simmer
in tyranny". And "habit of control" obviously means a
tradition of keeping tight control over people. And "matchless value" refers to the sanctity of the individual given in Judeo-Christian tradition. But these
points all have to do with semantics and synonyms. Second,
the gravamen of Buckley's argument seems to have been lost
in disputes over phraseology. The really important question Buckley
raised was about the inconsistency of proclaiming "liberty"
in Wilsonian terms for all the world while we are aligned
with oppressive despotisms (and supporters of terrorism)
like Saudi Arabia. Noonan's commentary was critical but
in a totally way than Buckley's. She seemed to be more
bothered by its religious overtones. I've heard the pundits
criticize the address because it said too little about this
or too much about that. What can one expect in a 17 minute
speech? A catalogue and recipe for all the problems of
the world?


189 posted on 01/21/2005 2:15:35 PM PST by T.L.Sink (stopew)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

To: Publius6961
The sentiments of President Bush are fine, and his sincerity was transparent. But in speaking about bringing liberty to the rest of the world, he could have gone at it more platonically: but this would have required him to corral his enthusiasm for liberty everywhere with appropriately moderate rhetoric.

How is it that Buckley's and Noonan's 'masterful' editorials both say that the President's speech was not moderate enough, and too spiritual........precisely the opposite of your criticism that it was too formulaic........and yet you agree with them? There is a major inconsistency in your comments yesterday, and your agreement with Buckley OR Noonan (who, btw, did a 180 in her editorial from her initial comments about the speech yesterday).

And I'm sitting here rather amused that you're whining about the criticism you took for your 'boilerplate' analysis yesterday.

It would be nice if you were able to take criticism for your comments without in turn labelling those who disagree with you as 'mindless,' 'young' and 'rigid.'

One might come to the conclusion that you are a tad on the defensive side. :o)

233 posted on 01/21/2005 3:13:54 PM PST by ohioWfan (Have you PRAYED for your President today?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

To: Publius6961

I thought Peggy and Bill did just fine, too. Glad we agree re mindless adulation. Sorry about your bruises.


241 posted on 01/21/2005 3:30:24 PM PST by meema
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson