Posted on 01/22/2005 9:18:55 AM PST by churchillbuff
I think I'm right on the money and my post was fair. I also observe I am not the one who keeps harping on it.
I'll continue to post my opinion when and where I wish.
I'm not making a tempest in a teapot. I had my say about the particular comment and was not the one who kept chewing on that bone. If others wish to continue to mischaracterize what was said, to whom and why I'll continue correcting the record.
I don't agree with Peggy .. and I suspect it's sour grapes because she didn't have a hand in writing it.
When she was hired to work on the campaign, you didn't hear a peep out of her about Bush overdoing the God-thing. Suddenly, now that she's no longer writing his speeches - they're bad.
It's just tooooooo transparent. Peggy needs to get over herself.
I read the short or excerpted portion yesterday and wasn't interested enough at the time to track the whole thing down. I have more time now to read it so will if it shows up again. Thanks. I loved the music, a gift to the nation. It was so beautiful and meaningful, and I particularly appreciated the nontheatrical presentation by both ladies. Imagine, Newdow tried to prohibit Pres Bush from using GOD in the oath of office, and the whole thing starts off with this beautiful prayer sung to the whole world. George doesn't take to bullying thats for sure!!
I have not said you shouldn't make your position clear when and where you wish. Why do you think that? I have said I think it's rather trivial.
And since the post was directed at me and freepmails have been exchanged which you do not have access to, I believe I am correct.
Also, the poster responding to my post #25 vs. another poster's #40 makes the position quite clear.
And why you have commented twice now that I am either pursuing it or harping on it sounds to me like you don't think I should make my position clear. Since it was a post directed at me, I think it is fair to let you know what and who I think the post that you do no like was directed toward. And I think I'm correct.
I have yet to see anyone mischaracterize your posts.
No kidding, who would have guessed.
I don't know why you decided to jump all over me for making my comments but it is a shame.
Could anyone tell me where I can get the text of President Bush's Speech?
I'm gonna speak my 2c worth (coming from fly-over country). Peggy has won my respect for her LOFTY rhetoric and speechwriting.
In regard to her recent critcism, in my humble opinion, there is more to Peggy's critic than meets the eye. Her comment strike me as very uncharacteristic.
I don't think anyone reading my posts to you would possibly come to the conclusion that I have jumped all over you.
I tried to point out to you since the very first post to you on this thread that since the poster was responding to my #25 (and hence the person who I was responding to in #25), that I thought you were offended on behalf of an innocent freeper who made a decent comment/post.
I have no wish to argue with you but have responded to your posts and nicely. No one has mischaracterized your posts or tried to jump down your throat.
Actually you were wrong - post #40 was not the post where I first noted the misspelling of Dr. Charles Krauthammer's name. It was in fact in post #42 where the #40 quote showed up and the misspelling was repeated in Churchillbuff's response.
When one is bashing an author's opinion, the least we should expect is that author's name be spelled correctly and if a misspelling lends a bias in its repeated use - a comment is warranted.
You have spent an inordinate amount of time and effort on faulting my comment, which pales in comparison to much that I have previously read in this forum. Perhaps you should have reported the abuse to Admin.
Kind regards for future stress free Freeping.
Yeah, so I gather. I never picked up on that before. Learn something every day.
I should have guessed the Whitehouse.Gov site. Thank You.
Somebody misspelled the guy's name - - a name which, face it, is easy to misspell - - - and then another freeper tries to smear the person who misspelled it, with a catty implication that the person is antisemitic. That's a gutter-level hit, and whoever first made it deserves to be called on it, so cyncooper, you were indeed "right on the money." Interesting that this smear (suggesting that another freeper is a bigot and a racist) was done by somebody who's falling over himself trying to defend Krauthammer for uttering REAL bigotry: calling Mel Gibson a "blood libeler."
I think I'm right on the money and my post was fair. I also observe I am not the one who keeps harping on it. """
Somebody misspelled the guy's name - - a name which, face it, is easy to misspell - - - and then another freeper tries to smear the person who misspelled it, with a catty implication that the person is antisemitic. That's a gutter-level hit, and whoever first made it deserves to be called on it, so cyncooper, you were indeed "right on the money." Interesting that this smear (suggesting that another freeper is a bigot and a racist) was done by somebody who's falling over himself trying to defend Krauthammer for uttering REAL bigotry: calling Mel Gibson a "blood libeler."
Get off it. Charles K has a name that's not common, and is easy to misspell ( I've heard it pronounced different ways too). Stop trying to smear peole for making harmless spelling mistakes. The basic point of my post stands: Krauthammer called Mel Gibson's movie a "blood libel" -- that's not a mere misspelling of someone's name, it's a vicious attack on Gibson's character (and on the Christian Gospels which Gibson put on the screen). And yet you defend Krauthammer, while inventing reasons to smear others who've done nothing other than call Krauthammer on his unwarranted hostility. you've picked up from Jesse JAckson the art of smearing people you don't agree with, as racists.
That rule amounts to courtesy and common sense - - but it only applies for someone who has enough moral courage and character to abide by it. But somebody who would level this particular smear - - equating a misspelling of a hard-to-spell name with racism (the kind of cheap shot that Jesse Jackson might use) -- has already shown a lack of character, so I'm not surprised that he didn't have enough courage to ping the person he was smearing.
Amen.
Gratuitously so. Way beyond even the Gospel accounts and I did not care for his quirky additions of the devil lurking about, worms and all, nor even the idiotic little scene of Joseph making a modern kitchen table, and quipping about how it will be the thing one day...The gospel story is impelling and compelling enough without such quirky additions.
After seeing the film, I came home and got out my DVD of Zeffirelli's "Jesus of Nazareth" - to me, the best all time "Jesus" film ever made.It's a shame it was never in the theaters - it's about 6 hours and was originally on TV in 3 segments.
If you've never seen it, it's a must. The casting is superb, the scenery and photography like old master paintings and the story very faithful to the Gospels.
The DVD is very affordable and you find yourself watching it year after year. I applaud Gibson for his passion and love of the Lord, but just because it's a "Jesus" movie, doesn't make it sacred and "untouchable" as to criticism. Franco Zeffirelli's film is a hands down winner.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/
and for some really GREAT columns on his speech, go here
http://www.weeklystandard.com/default.asp
So hey, everybody - enough on the rest of it - go and read some GOOD columns
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.