"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 14:07:38 -0700, "Charles Momsen"

said:

Dave, that was verbatim from Goldwater's 1964 acceptance speech. Real
conservatives would recognize those words immediately. It is one of the
greatest American political speeches of all time.



Frankly, I don't give a damn what you think "real conservatives" (whatever
that means) would recognize.

But you do give a damn about my use of "real English".

Thanks for the advice. I frequently make mistakes doing many things and
appreciate criticism of any type, it helps me make less mistakes, understand
other people, grow and become a better person. If one doesn't challenge
their own beliefs, they are doomed to repeat the same mistakes over and
over.

Real conservatives read about the history of conservatism, the foundations
upon which it based and the criticisms of it. With a better understanding of
conservatism/libertarianism one can better persuade others to the benefits
of such a philosophy and improve the world as a whole in addition to the
vast personal benefits of living such a philosophy. Knowledge, used
correctly, is power.

Here is a book I'd recommend to read. It covers the modern conservative
movement in the early 60's.
http://images.amazon.com/images/P/08...1.LZZZZZZZ.jpg Note the
rugged, chiseled individual on the cover in western garb, the cactus, the
shotgun and the rugged landscape beyond the patio furniture. Yosuf Karch,
the photographer, certainly captured the essence of it all. In your heart
you know he's right!

"Dave" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 14:19:03 -0700, "Charles Momsen"

said:

And for you a trip to the history books:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...aterspeech.htm

Hey, I don't even believe in Papal infallibility, let alone Goldwater's
speech writer's infallibility. He simply got it wrong.

What was wrong? The grammar or the message?

wrote in message
news
On 7 Nov 2008 15:54:01 -0600, Dave wrote:

On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 14:19:03 -0700, "Charles Momsen"

said:

And for you a trip to the history books:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...aterspeech.htm

Hey, I don't even believe in Papal infallibility, let alone Goldwater's
speech writer's infallibility. He simply got it wrong.

You would no doubt insist on adding eyebrows to the Mona Lisa.

I'd add a beehive and glasses!

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 14:07:38 -0700, "Charles Momsen"

said:

Dave, that was verbatim from Goldwater's 1964 acceptance speech. Real
conservatives would recognize those words immediately. It is one of the
greatest American political speeches of all time.

Frankly, I don't give a damn what you think "real conservatives" (whatever
that means) would recognize. But if that is indeed a direct quote, his
speech writer needed to consult the dictionary.


Bwahahhahahahah! Speechwriter is one word, dude!

--
Gregory Hall

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 17:39:14 -0500, said:

Hey, I don't even believe in Papal infallibility, let alone Goldwater's
speech writer's infallibility. He simply got it wrong.

You would no doubt insist on adding eyebrows to the Mona Lisa.

Never thought I'd hear you liken a Goldwater speech to the Mona Lisa g.

Touche!

On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 18:25:02 -0600, Dave wrote:

On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 18:37:35 -0500, "Gregory Hall"
said:

Bwahahhahahahah! Speechwriter is one word, dude!

Both speechwriter and speech writer are in common use. Probably neither
is regarded as incorrect today, though you'll probably find the second
more common. In fact, some spell check programs, including that of
Agent, will flag the former as an error.

But DID YOU bother to check the dictionary as you are so quick to tell
others to do? Spell-check is quite often wrong. Besides, few in any
newsgoup are here worrying about 100% perfect spelling or grammer.
Getting a point across is much more important. If good spelling and
grammer were so important to you, you would never let a liberal teach
anyone you care about.

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 16:26:54 -0700, "Charles Momsen"

said:

What was wrong? The grammar or the message?

Had I wanted to object to the message I would have done so.

Goldwater's speech writer was Karl Hess. I met him and Toni Nathan at the
Libertarian Party convention in Chicago during the late 70's. Toni Nathan
was the first woman ever to get an electoral college vote cast for her. She
preceded Geraldine Ferraro by almost 2 decades.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/29477.html

On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 16:25:08 -0700, "Charles Momsen"
wrote:

In your heart
you know he's right!


In your guts, you know he's nuts!

"Ken Marino" wrote in message
m...
On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 18:25:02 -0600, Dave wrote:

troll sh*t removed

Both speechwriter and speech writer are in common use. Probably neither
is regarded as incorrect today, though you'll probably find the second
more common. In fact, some spell check programs, including that of
Agent, will flag the former as an error.

But DID YOU bother to check the dictionary as you are so quick to tell
others to do? Spell-check is quite often wrong. Besides, few in any
newsgoup are here worrying about 100% perfect spelling or grammer.
Getting a point across is much more important. If good spelling and
grammer were so important to you, you would never let a liberal teach
anyone you care about.


So, liberals can't spell? Wow. I guess all those Pulitzers should be
returned.

http://www.pulitzer.org/bycat

Your political bias underwear showing, since you've made some mistakes
yourself.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

On 7 Nov 2008 17:58:01 -0600, Dave wrote:

On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 17:39:14 -0500, said:

Hey, I don't even believe in Papal infallibility, let alone Goldwater's
speech writer's infallibility. He simply got it wrong.

You would no doubt insist on adding eyebrows to the Mona Lisa.

Never thought I'd hear you liken a Goldwater speech to the Mona Lisa g.

I was pointing out that it is wrong to modify an historical artifact.
Spelling and grammar in a historical document should be left alone,
just as photos accompanying news reports should not be doctored. I
know you have strong tendencies to revise history, but you really
should try to control those urges.

I guess maybe I should have used an example closer to your level of
understanding. How about: You would no doubt insist on trying to
polish a turd.