Posted on 01/27/2005 2:08:34 AM PST by bellevuesbest
"To claim that these discussions are motivated by envy and jealousy is ridiculous."
No more ridiculous than those who claim she is motivated by envy and jealousy. Next time I need to make an ironic point, I'll have to remember to be more obvious. Some here [cough] couldn't analyze their way out of a paper bag...
I think you are over-reacting. We are merely discussing whether we agree with Peggy's position, and what her possible reasons for the change of heart could be.
Certainly not a purge.
You seem to like to throw out terms like stupid and idiots, it is a low-life way to argue.
// disclaimer: idiots should be aware of sarcastic content below
We always manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory - probably b/c we have you and your kind to show us the way.
"Have you been following politics for very long?"
Since Goldwater.
"Who is we? If you are referring to the progressives as we- then yes, you are right."
No. Conservatives are known as the "stupid" party because we always manage to over-reach. Noonan made some bad calls - now some people here want to start a Purge. Great idea. Lets kick everyone out of the Party who doesn't genuflect properly when Lord Bush strolls by.... Idiots.
"You do know who holds both houses of Congress(for the first time since the 1950s) and who is the President right now... right?"
Exactly my point. We have a majority. We need to learn QUICKLY how to BE a majority party. Did you miss what happened to Gingrich? Pull your head out or get used to saying "President Hillary Clinton" for 8 years
"You seem to like to throw out terms like stupid and idiots, it is a low-life way to argue."
Kinda like making ignorant assumptions about other people's motivations? Like that?
I stand by my analysis of detractors in this thread: ignorant, stupid, idiots.
Add petty and assuming to the list.
Read her next reply tonight BUMP!
As I said before I think we should agree to disagree on this. Ok? ( no I don't need to read it again to change my mind..)
Second, I have not questioned her absolute right to criticize the President and his Inagural Address. I and others have questioned the logic and ratinonale of her critique. Some have shown that her analysis of the address is simply wrong.
Third, our President has made the decision that it is not enough to simply defend our borders and be vigilant about the people we let into this country. Our efforts to combat terror and promote freedom need not necessarily tick off the Muslim world. I am sure that the Afghans greatly appreciate the sacrifice of our nation and it's armed forces. And the President did not even suggest that our mission was to station troops in 145 countries.
You and PN are entitled to hold to an isolationist point of view. Many believe that such a view is wrong. Therefore, PN and you are not stating the obvious. But even that is not the point. PN said that the speech was God-drenched, heavenish and simply over the top, when in fact the speech referred to the deity less frequently that previous speeches and a natural evolution of previous statements of American foreigh policy. In short, PN is flat out inaccurate.
Not so fast - by your own standards, disagreement involves character assasination and ad hominem attacks. Can't you take what you dish out?
When my kid's were little and they were naughty, I got ticked at them but I never threw them out of the house. Pointing out PN's errors, mistatements and wrong-headed thinking is valid criticism. It is not in any way equivalent to a purge.
I have important people to post to.
Ummm... Does that answer your question?
I don't care for droll little posters who foam at the mouth.
Now go take on the night! :]
None of that matters until Bush gets his nominees to SCOTUS. We need to pick up congressional seats in 06, not squander our hard work by splintering the party amoung factions who disagree with one point or another.
I believe that it was terribly imprudent for PN to take her position so soon after the speech. I believe that it is imprudent of her to say that she would be even harsher in her criticism of GWB's speech today than she was on January 21st.
Part of being a majority party is not trashing a speech that portrays a vision until you see the policy that follows. PN did not do that. Shooting from the lip shows a lack of wisdom.
If PN wants to be part of a party or a movement, she should show at least some deference and respect for its leader before blasting his vision. Sure we should be accomodating of those in the tent with divergent views. But those with divergent views should not expect to be received with open arms when they trash those that put the party in its current majority position.
for later
"Pointing out PN's errors, mistatements and wrong-headed thinking is valid criticism."
Agreed. But thats not all thats happening.
"It is not in any way equivalent to a purge."
You must have missed this thread and the prior one. People aren't merely attacking her position, they are sliming her.
Saying that GWB suffers from mission inebriation is a form of sliming also. The tone in her first column and this one is oddly evocative of the transmutation of Arianna Huffington. I hope she does not head in that direction. But the tone and direction is more than vaguely familiar.
Please re-read the speech and you will see (or you should see, as it's plain as day) that President Bush does not naively put faith in people being allowed to vote as the end all and be all. It's a much more complex speech than that.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,144976,00.html
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.