1 posted on
05/17/2003 7:08:55 AM PDT by
YankeeReb
To: YankeeReb
For Mailer, manliness these days sees to be to get liquored up and use some gal-pal as a punching bag.
2 posted on
05/17/2003 7:16:26 AM PDT by
JAWs
To: YankeeReb
I was thinking that one of the reasons, if not the main reason, liberals hate Bush so much is that he typifies everything about the American middle class the left hates:
1) He believes in free markets, individualism, and limited government.
2) He believes in the greatness of America and our responsibility to defend her.
3) He believes there is such a thing as right and wrong.
To: YankeeReb
The so called champions of the little person are beyond condescending.
6 posted on
05/17/2003 7:48:49 AM PDT by
tkathy
To: YankeeReb
What Mr. Mailer and the Democrats with cataracts can't come to terms with is that George W. Bush is not an intellectual lightweight and simply calling him one doesn't make him one. His critics can't understand how a man who can't talk a good game can play one so well. They measure the man by what James Q. Wilson calls "the college definition of intelligence," rather than the real thing.
I've said this many times before though not so eloquently. Quite often, the strongest leadership does not need glib words or mere academic skills.
Talk is cheap. W. acts.
To: YankeeReb
This article was written by a woman, but you would not know that except for her name. [If I missed something, let me know.] I think that this written work is masculine in the best sense. That is quite an achievement, given its topic. Bravo Zulu
11 posted on
05/17/2003 11:35:42 AM PDT by
ontos-on
To: YankeeReb; Dr. Eckleburg
Ancient Evenings and Jack Abbott screwed up his whole writing legacy
12 posted on
05/17/2003 6:25:26 PM PDT by
JesseShurun
(The Hazzardous Duke)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson