Quote:
|
Originally Posted by lisarea
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cool Hand
(emphasis mine again)
I'll be charitable and allow that many of the negative opinions and epithets expressed in the OP are simply of the common type to be found in op-ed political pieces. The parts in bold are not, nor do they reflect any critical thinking on the part of the speaker.
|
Actually, I can assure you that they do. Now, they may not cite that critical thinking, but they are absolutely based on a foundation of reasoned and educated opinion. |
Read my post immediately above again. I'm referring to the parts from the OP that I quoted in bold. How those kind of playground insults can be based on a foundation of reasoned and educated opinion is beyond me. Perhaps I should repeat the third grade.
Quote:
I can assure you those are not kneejerk reactions or the product of some kind of party-line talking points.
Vitriolic? Yes. Righteous outrage? Yes. Uninformed and kneejerk? Absolutely not.
I do recognize that you don't really have any way of knowing what sort of reasoning is behind the outrage, but to assume that there simply is none is presumptuous.
|
I sense bias. Outrage is appropriate under certain circumstances. It isn't here. We are talking about a gaffe. At most, in the light most favorable to the critics of Ms. Hughes, we are talking about an appointed government official without much power pushing her religious agenda and misrepresenting what the Constitution says to the press. If that is the case, should you be upset with her? Sure. Outraged? No. Save that for more egregious behavior from someone more influential.
You cheapen righteous indignation and outrage by effusing it so indiscriminantly. Wolf!
CH