[LibertarianInExile]

You know, it would be fun to think that this was a forum where other people were allowed to have opinions. Instead, you sheep form your opinions and any comment that doesn't meet with your vision of blind allegiance to the President is suppressed, with comments about Noonan being some sort of crappy conservative or lousy jealous speechwriter rampant on this thread.

I don't care if you think Peggy was wrong or not. But as usual, you blind follower types can't actually say what makes his speech great. You have to sling attacks at Noonan and others who disagree because you think any criticism of the President is tantamount to treason.

Churchill was a great speaker, for the passion he engendered in his words and imbued in his audience. JFK had some great speeches but was not a great speaker. Reagan was a great speaker--period.

George Bush is not. And no matter who made that speech, it would not have been a great one. It is full of political hedging instead of passion, dripping with focus-grouped phraseology instead of personal beliefs.

I like the man. He's a fair President, though not my ideal. I voted for him. I advocated his election on this board to people who agree with me that he's not the perfect President and who were leaning toward the LP or CP, simply because this is a man I trust and respect to be honest and do what is right for the country. I've spoken up for him in countries where being a Bush fan can get you physically attacked. I've been an advocate for the man's election where not a single American expat would agree with me for fear of retribution. I'd do it again, too.

But having said that, and done that, if you think I'm going to just agree that speech was the Sermon on the Mount, and George Bush is the Second Coming on the podium, you can go straight to hell.

[cyncooper]

What a joke.

You are "allowed" your opinion. You are the one who posted the offensive image you chose yet you cry like a baby when spoken back to.

It appears you are the one who wishes to speak uncontradicted, not I.

[cyncooper]

And btw, you missed by ten miles any correct perception of what I've had to say on this subject, yet you proceed to expound incorrectly in that vein for paragraphs on end.

What a fool.

[ohioWfan]

Question....... Why are those who disagree with Peggy "sheep," "blind-followers", etc. and you, who apparently agree with her, an independent thinker?

Methinks your perception is a bit self-centered. Perhaps it is you who are blindly following some ideology.

Your name-calling flows freely, as you whine that you do not have the freedom to voice your opinion.

A bit of consistency and objectivity might do you some good.

[exhaustedmomma]

The picture said it all. Blind allegiance is scary. I, too, have been criticized for disagreeing with the President. What is amazing is that the point that Noonan worked on his recent campaign and has been/is a central conservative mouthpiece is moot. She, too, has committed the cardinal sin.

I'd wager money even Laura has disagreements with W!

[paulat]

You have to sling attacks at Noonan and others who disagree because you think any criticism of the President is tantamount to treason.

...uhhh...NO. I am criticising Noonan because she is as vain and self-absorbed as Maureen Dowd, and she writes sappy prose. I criticize the President all the time. Your sweeping generalizations are silly.

[Palladin]

Lib, it's nice to get a little backup here. At one time in my life, I taught Speech and Rhetoric, and that was not a great speech.

It was nice and inoffensive and full of Rah-Rah patriotism, but I've heard a thousand and one like it, at American Legion High School speech competitions.

I like the President, I'm 100% behind him in the War on Terror, I love his swaggering Texas-style persona. I only wish there had been more of him in the speech, and less of Rove and the other advisors.