Say something you don't like

[MongGrel]

If he's the one carrying it, how could he tell?

Easily.

I wonder where it is pointing now...

 

[MagickMan]

Easily.

I wonder where it is pointing now...

That's easy. Same place it always points, back at you.

 

[kage69]

Yawn.

Yet another Democrat who can't accept criticism of his party lest it destroy his fragile ego.

Bobercunt the Broken Record of Fail still clinging to that notion that people he disagrees with are his dreaded Democrats. Shocking!

Your difficulties with thread subjects, comprehension, and integrity are a constant source of amusement here, hope you know that. You sticking up for character assassination really shouldn't be a surprise to anyone here I guess, but I confess I did have hope Magick would figure it out.

Oh well. Thanks for the predictable threadcrap, the additional confirmation you're a butthurt moron is appreciated, I guess.

 

[kage69]

It's too hard for him to understand that I like Bernie (the guy's just a few apples shy of a bushel), he must be another public school graduate. :\

Just an heads up here sparky...

I'd still vote for him over Hillary or Trump.

..to which I replied...

"Good to hear"


I understand that fine, what I don't understand is your and Bober's need to ignore the topic than act like self-righteous, omniscient pricks. Is putting troll on pause really that hard for you guys? Do I need to go into how stupid it is to defend character assassination with more character assassination? Jesus you guys are dumb. The mention of public school, heh, are you guys related are something?

Hey, you want to mimic Bober's pusswad projection complex and his self-righteous hypocrisy? Your call hoss, and good luck with that.

 

[BoberFett]

LOL, rage on loser.

 

[BoberFett]

Hey, look who showed up to get all critical blah blah blah etc.

There is a surprise.

Oh good, my stalker is back.

I posted in the thread as the OP requested. Kage69 then went into full on "liberal" rage mode because he's as stupid as you are.

 

[Blackjack200]

lol Fair enough, although that would work better if it were referencing someone who was regularly conservative. Brooks is simply the new Andrew Sullivan.

Put it this way, the Times always has one supposedly conservative columnist whose main thrust is writing about how conservatives are wrong about, well, everything. On the other hand, the Times has a LOT of progressive columnists, and none of them are anything less than the purest of Scotsmen. Coincidence?

Let me ask you, are you sincerely questioning David Brooks's conservative chops? I'll concede that Brooks is more likely than most on the right to critize the Republicans, but I still think it carries more weight than if a someone from the actual left did it. This is from Wikipedia, but if you really want to contest that I might spend some time later looking more deeply into it. It's possible I'm wrong about Brooks.

As an undergraduate, Brooks frequently contributed reviews and satirical pieces to campus publications. In his senior year, he wrote a spoof of the life-style of wealthy conservative William F. Buckley Jr., who was scheduled to speak at the university: "In the afternoons he is in the habit of going into crowded rooms and making everybody else feel inferior. The evenings are reserved for extended bouts of name-dropping."[9] To his piece, Brooks appended the note: “Some would say I’m envious of Mr. Buckley. But if truth be known, I just want a job and have a peculiar way of asking. So how about it, Billy? Can you spare a dime?” When Buckley arrived to give his talk, he asked whether Brooks was in the lecture audience and offered to give him a job.[10]

Upon graduation, Brooks became a police reporter for the City News Bureau of Chicago, a wire service owned jointly by the Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun Times.[11] He says that his experience on Chicago's crime beat had a conservatizing influence on him[12] In 1984, mindful of the offer he had previously received from William F. Buckley, Brooks applied and was accepted as an intern on Buckley's National Review. According to Christopher Beam, the internship included an all-access pass to the affluent life style that Brooks had previously mocked, including yachting expeditions; Bach concerts; dinners at Buckley’s Park Avenue apartment and villa in Stamford, Connecticut; and a constant stream of writers, politicians, and celebrities.


Brooks was an outsider in more ways than his relative inexperience. National Review was a Catholic magazine, and Brooks is not Catholic. Sam Tanenhaus later reported in The New Republic that Buckley might have eventually named Brooks his successor if it hadn’t been for his being Jewish. “If true, it would be upsetting,” Brooks says.[13]

After his internship with Buckley ended, Brooks spent some time at the conservative Hoover Institute at Stanford University and then got a job writing movie reviews for the Washington Times. In 1986, Brooks was hired by the Wall Street Journal, where he worked first as an editor of the book review section, enlisting William Kristol to review Allan Bloom's The Closing of the American Mind, which catapulted that book to national prominence. He also filled in for five months as a movie critic. From 1990–94, The Wall Street Journal posted Brooks as an op-ed columnist to Brussels, from whence he covered Russia (making numerous trips to Moscow); the Middle East; South Africa; and European affairs. On his return, Brooks joined the neo-conservative Weekly Standard when it was launched in 1994–95. In 1996, he edited an anthology, Backward and Upward: The New Conservative Writing.[5][14]

 

[kage69]

LOL, rage on loser.

Rage?

*sigh* We've been over this before Bober, dismissive amusement != rage. You're confusing those sustaining tears with other bodily fluids again I'm afraid, while you guzzle away. Ain't no fridge under that bridge, huh? :biggrin:

Have to say though, the smug glee in which you do it only makes it better. You should definitely keep posting.

 

[kage69]

Let me ask you, are you sincerely questioning David Brooks's conservative chops? I'll concede that Brooks is more likely than most on the right to critize the Republicans, but I still think it carries more weight than if a someone from the actual left did it. This is from Wikipedia, but if you really want to contest that I might spend some time later looking more deeply into it. It's possible I'm wrong about Brooks.

That's a tough question given where the party has gone!

It's been said that Saint Reagan probably wouldn't pass "conservative" muster these days and I haven't seen much that makes me question that. Even though "broken clocks" like Brooks probably do count for more than say a Michael Moore, the capricious ferocity in which many conservatives go after their 'RINOs' makes me think the difference in weight is minimal.

 

[shira]

Ron Paul has some crazy ass ideas.

While I like many of ideas, some of them are off-the-wall nuts. I supported his presidential run because his ideas of conservatism (really libertarianism, because conservativism is a joke at this point) need to be a part of the debate. But I honestly don't think he'd be a good president.

Just a second there, slick. You "supported" Ron Paul or you "support" Ron Paul? Because if it's the former, you're not following instructions. And if it's the latter, and you "honestly don't think he'd be a good president," then why on earth would you support him?

I think Hillary has very few inherent principles, that she doesn't really stand for anything, but I support her because I think she'd be a decent President. Do you understand the difference between your, um, "contribution" and mine?

But maybe you have that conservatard brain-defect Moonie keeps writing about. You know, like the difficulty righties seem to have paying attention from one sentence to the next, both in what they read and what they write.

 

[werepossum]

Gary Johnson - I have a lot of respect for you, I lived in NM during your term as governor and you were exactly the sort of leader I think our country needs. Aligning yourself with the Libertarian party was foolish, while we both understand the party was founded to promote fiscal conservativism and social liberalism, the wider perception by the public has been Co-opted by the tinfoil hats and no-holds-barred anarchists (another party destroyed by non-representative extremists)

As such the Libertarian name has become too tarnished to garner popular support, the rational solution is to focus on a new grassroots party holding the same ideals but messaged better to avoid damaging public opinion.

Methinks you miss the point. Gary Johnson is my ideal candidate ever over my half-century+, but he aligned himself with the Libertarian Party because that party most represents his policy positions and principles. What is the point of supporting Gary Johnson if you then insist that he fit within one of the two parties that will inevitably bend him to their positions? I mean, I agree that the Libertarian Party has its share and more of nutcases, but so do the Democrat and Republican Parties.

 

[werepossum]

Let me ask you, are you sincerely questioning David Brooks's conservative chops? I'll concede that Brooks is more likely than most on the right to critize the Republicans, but I still think it carries more weight than if a someone from the actual left did it. This is from Wikipedia, but if you really want to contest that I might spend some time later looking more deeply into it. It's possible I'm wrong about Brooks.

Yes, I am questioning Brooks' "conservative chops". If having worked at some conservatively institutions makes him a conservative, then why would not working for the New York Times make him a liberal progressive?

Read his political pieces. He is the Times' new Andrew Sullivan.

That's a tough question given where the party has gone!

It's been said that Saint Reagan probably wouldn't pass "conservative" muster these days and I haven't seen much that makes me question that. Even though "broken clocks" like Brooks probably do count for more than say a Michael Moore, the capricious veracity in which many conservatives go after their 'RINOs' makes me think the difference in weight is minimal.

I don't think what you said is what you think you said. Victim of spellcheck?

 

[Ausm]

Rage?

*sigh* We've been over this before Bober, dismissive amusement != rage. You're confusing those sustaining tears with other bodily fluids again I'm afraid, while you guzzle away. Ain't no fridge under that bridge, huh? :biggrin:

Have to say though, the smug glee in which you do it only makes it better. You should definitely keep posting.

Fuck that jobless loser...

 

[kage69]

I don't think what you said is what you think you said. Victim of spellcheck?

D'oh!

lol thanks Enigo, good catch...

 

[kage69]

Fuck that jobless loser...

Sounds like he's been fucked over enough. Pass.