Posted on 04/09/2012 1:11:54 PM PDT by reaganaut1
Edited on 04/09/2012 6:18:18 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
I didn
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
So do I. Here’s an excellent article regarding this absurdity (no affiliation to the blog)
What did Derbyshire say? I can’t find the essay about which NR had such a “hissy fit” Any help would be appreciated!
They didn’t fire Taki, who PUBLISHED the offending screed in his webzine!??
Talk about double standards.
Steyn is usually right on. I do agree. We don’t all share the exact same feelings on every topic, but to react like NR did b/c a few people got their panties in a twist is just that reactionary, and certainly not liberal in thought or action. (I don’t mean liberal/leftist, but liberal as in seeing more than one side and appreciating a dissenting view). Both sides are getting less liberal int hat sense. Since the Clinton admin, things have gotten exponentially more bitter, partisan, corrupt, and deceitful. This cannot go on. The fuse is way too short, as our president surely knows and is trying to trigger an assault, a reactionary action from our side so he has reason to declare martial law. It is being ramped up daily.
Agreed, I’d like to read the article and form my own opinion.
Styne good again.
Go to takimag.com to find the article.
On the NR masthead, Derb is listed as a Contributing Editor whilst the poor little Greek boy Taki is listed as a contributor.
You don’t understand!
Anyone who says anything effective on the conservative side MUST be eliminated!
I no longer call myself “pro-life” because even pro-lifers have proven themselves to be anything but pro-life.
It's this sort of appeasing-the-unappeasable that led them to cut ties with Ann Coulter after she referred to the widows of certain 9/11 victims as "harpies" after they appeared on the cover of some magazine and voiced truther-style opinions in the accompanying article.
Which in turn led to Ann referring to National Review as a bunch of girlie-men.
If it wasn't for Rob Long, Mark Steyn and a couple of others, I would probably cancel my subscription to NR.
I actually don’t care for Derbyshire, and didn’t care for the article in question. I do like Steyn, and the only reason I ever click to National Review is to read Steyn when he’s there.
Steyn is right about one thing. If National Review eliminates everyone who has anything interesting to say, like Derb, like Coulter, at some point there is no particular reason to read them at all. I actually stopped reading them years ago after they pulled the plug on Coulter. I obviously don’t agree with everything she has to say, but she is, like Steyn, always worth the price of admission. Almost no one else at NR these days aside from Steyn catches my attention at all.
Thank you. I have read the article. It is presented lightly and contains a number of truths that need to be stated.
Thank you. I have read the article. It is presented lightly and contains a number of truths that need to be stated.
THank you for the time and trouble involved in providing a link.
“If it wasn’t for Rob Long, Mark Steyn and a couple of others...”
Rob doesn’t write for NR. He writes for Ricochet.
At one time they were conservative but today they are left of George Will, not quite socialist, but not too far removed.
Rarely ever read their articles.
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.