Just clarify which accusations you were levelling at me (if any), and post only those and leave the rest out.
I never have time to try to digest an encyclopedia on FR, and that was way too much touchy feely stuff for me to figure out what you were really trying to say......intellectually, that is.
If you're not interested in condensing that into a more understandable form, I'll leave your rant for others to decipher.....
Thanks. (Oh......and it would help if you either left my comments out, or italicized them).
Axe and youda receebin':
"And I think you're missing the point if you receive it as such."
"You accuse me of slinging empty insults, but responding in kind to those who insult anyone who disagrees with or criticizes Bush (or Rush) is not slinging empty insults at all."
Nothing else. I apologize for the lack of clarity. I didn't feel like taking the time to do italics here, because my internet connection was goin' wonky and I didn't want to lose the whole post.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_012105/content/brilliant_think_piece_1.guest.html
"The complaints from the left include that Bush did not mention any specifics about his plans to promote freedom in the world, and that we had some complaints -- even one from the right -- that he mentioned God too much in the speech. "There was just too much God," and, you know, I think about other aspects. This is a philosophically ambitious speech. I find it fascinating. I really do here, folks, and in the plain old common-sense realm. I find it fascinating that standing for and desiring and promoting freedom can become so controversial. It literally stuns me. If you go back -- you know, one of the first things I would ask the left, who are raucously criticizing this speech, could we go back into histoire and could we ask ourselves, what was the purpose in the founding of the United Nations? "