i assume that brooks and douthat have a sinister purpose behind everything they write, so while i no doubt disagree, it at least makes sense.
friedman just seems clueless and is a terrible writer. 'my cab driver in cairo' etc good lord.
― mookieproof, Friday, 20 April 2012 00:39 (1 year ago) Permalink
well the clueless head in the clouds thing is what makes it marginally more defensible, like he's just this crazy guy talking to you on the bus
― iatee, Friday, 20 April 2012 00:41 (1 year ago) Permalink
Friedman the crazy guy on the bus talking nonsense whilst drooling on his overcoat also has the ear of the President and a shockingly large number of Democratic movers and shakers. that's why i voted for him.
― a big fat fucking fat guy in a barrel what could be better? (Eisbaer), Friday, 20 April 2012 00:44 (1 year ago) Permalink
I'll be the contrarian and say Douthat, the only one who creates the blip of an impression that he's read other things besides editorials and policy statements. Also, I saw him in the queer part of Dupont Circle in 2009 in the company of what looked like a Provincetown bartender.
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 20 April 2012 00:45 (1 year ago) Permalink
^^^ sounds like infidelity
also, aren't we voting for the worst?
― mookieproof, Friday, 20 April 2012 00:46 (1 year ago) Permalink
yes
― iatee, Friday, 20 April 2012 00:47 (1 year ago) Permalink
Friedman's latest column is a masterpiece of cowardice and stupidity:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/opinion/friedman-one-for-the-country.html?_r=1
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 20 April 2012 00:47 (1 year ago) Permalink
I'll vote for Friedman as worst because he's taken most seriously. The right wing doesn't even take Brooks seriously.
voted Douthat cause i hate the way he couches intolerant/ugly sentiments in the deceptive rhetoric of "reason" and "balance"
― demolition with discretion (m coleman), Friday, 20 April 2012 00:48 (1 year ago) Permalink
alfred OTM on what makes Friedman the worst of this entire sorry lot.
― a big fat fucking fat guy in a barrel what could be better? (Eisbaer), Friday, 20 April 2012 00:50 (1 year ago) Permalink
Brooks would win on photos alone
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 20 April 2012 00:50 (1 year ago) Permalink
ross is "known" in conservative circles for his impeccable sense of style
― demolition with discretion (m coleman), Friday, 20 April 2012 00:56 (1 year ago) Permalink
douthat's face def bothers me the most
― iatee, Friday, 20 April 2012 01:00 (1 year ago) Permalink
motherfucker just looks SOFT
― demolition with discretion (m coleman), Friday, 20 April 2012 01:02 (1 year ago) Permalink
brooks is the worst. friedman is ok minus the globalization shtick.
― bnw, Friday, 20 April 2012 01:04 (1 year ago) Permalink
Douthat looks like a late 30-something version of Paul Dano's character from the extra man.
― a big fat fucking fat guy in a barrel what could be better? (Eisbaer), Friday, 20 April 2012 01:06 (1 year ago) Permalink
Douthat still thinks it's 1995.
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 20 April 2012 01:07 (1 year ago) Permalink
Jonah Goldberg has the same delusion.
i was hoping this thread title was something that happened.
― goole, Friday, 20 April 2012 01:10 (1 year ago) Permalink
what is douthat's shtick, as compared to brooks' red/blue staters are like *this* and friedman's absurd metaphors that lead nowhere?
― mookieproof, Friday, 20 April 2012 01:10 (1 year ago) Permalink
He's a Christian whose hands shake at the suspicion that libs might think he hates gays and women.
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 20 April 2012 01:13 (1 year ago) Permalink
he's not one of those republican extremists - heavens - tho he takes pains to diplomatically point out how liberals/women/gays/muslims/etc bring problems on themselves
― demolition with discretion (m coleman), Friday, 20 April 2012 01:18 (1 year ago) Permalink
that's right
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 20 April 2012 01:23 (1 year ago) Permalink
a concern troll then; how innovative
― mookieproof, Friday, 20 April 2012 01:25 (1 year ago) Permalink
if forced at gunpoint to read one of the three every day for the rest of my life i'd still choose douthat
friedman... just pull the trigger
― yologram (J0rdan S.), Friday, 20 April 2012 01:26 (1 year ago) Permalink
your doppelganger
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 20 April 2012 01:26 (1 year ago) Permalink
while we also talk about their merits as writers, how about we also turn this into a MFK thread?
― yologram (J0rdan S.), Friday, 20 April 2012 01:27 (1 year ago) Permalink
when i was working a (very good and non-depressing) temp job at a financial planning group, the well meaning 50 something jewish libs frequently discussed friedman columns in reverent hushed tones... first time i'd ever heard anyone irl bring dude up as a serious columnist
― yologram (J0rdan S.), Friday, 20 April 2012 01:29 (1 year ago) Permalink
― demolition with discretion (m coleman), Thursday, April 19, 2012 8:48 PM (43 minutes ago)
^^
― pleural eff u son (k3vin k.), Friday, 20 April 2012 01:34 (1 year ago) Permalink
i still find that less distasteful (or at least more garden variety) than friedman's schtick
― yologram (J0rdan S.), Friday, 20 April 2012 01:36 (1 year ago) Permalink
all three are vile of course
NYT doesn't really have any 'very good' writers as columnists. i mean krugman's always worth a read but even following charles m blow on twitter has tempered my like of him
― pleural eff u son (k3vin k.), Friday, 20 April 2012 01:37 (1 year ago) Permalink
krugman is a very good writer
― iatee, Friday, 20 April 2012 01:38 (1 year ago) Permalink
i'd heard that 'from beirut to jerusalem' was good, but find it a little hard to credit now -- perhaps the subject matter restrained him from making it an archetypical global fable, as with everything else?
― mookieproof, Friday, 20 April 2012 01:38 (1 year ago) Permalink
yeah i changed my mind after i wrote his name and didn't bother to change my first statement haha xp
― pleural eff u son (k3vin k.), Friday, 20 April 2012 01:39 (1 year ago) Permalink
charles m blow seems ripe for display name puns, now that i think of it
The late William Safire was the only one who could occasionally write a sentence I'd read twice.
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 20 April 2012 01:45 (1 year ago) Permalink
i agree that krugman is worth reading and i always do but i am often smh at the way he seems to be preaching to the choir, he takes such a hard line that even though he's right he sort of paints himself into an ideological corner that just inflames the right instead of engaging him
obv that's not entirely or even largely his fault but i feel like he's wielding a battle axe when should be using the rapier
― the late great, Friday, 20 April 2012 01:46 (1 year ago) Permalink
lol ross douchehat
― i don't believe in zimmerman (Hurting 2), Friday, 20 April 2012 01:47 (1 year ago) Permalink
brooks is like the bill gates looking dude in the back of newsweek who even though i am on the other side of the political spectrum i find myself agreeing with or at least appreciating the differing view cause his tone is measured
really love the loyal opposition guy though
― the late great, Friday, 20 April 2012 01:49 (1 year ago) Permalink
Krugman has given up on trying to talk w/ the shit-throwing baboons who call themselves conservatives these days. i don't blame him at all, it's really the most sensible approach.
i'll also stan for Nicholas Kristof.
― a big fat fucking fat guy in a barrel what could be better? (Eisbaer), Friday, 20 April 2012 01:52 (1 year ago) Permalink
Krugman is a classic example of a pundit with whom I agree often but whose prose is pedestrian at best (boy, does he love his rhetorical questions).
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 20 April 2012 01:53 (1 year ago) Permalink
douthat = least stupid/ most hateful
― it's smdh time in America (will), Friday, 20 April 2012 01:57 (1 year ago) Permalink
krugman = shrillbrooks/douthat = reasonable
does this perception hurt k-thug or not?
― mookieproof, Friday, 20 April 2012 01:57 (1 year ago) Permalink
friedman at the very least seems interested in interesting things
― it's smdh time in America (will), Friday, 20 April 2012 01:59 (1 year ago) Permalink
haha otm
― iatee, Friday, 20 April 2012 01:59 (1 year ago) Permalink
interested in reducing them to a catch phrase?
― mookieproof, Friday, 20 April 2012 01:59 (1 year ago) Permalink
THE WORLD IS NOT FLAT; SHUT UP
― mookieproof, Friday, 20 April 2012 02:00 (1 year ago) Permalink
^^haha fair enough. still, the other two (esp Douthat) are kind of just dicks. if you're going to be a dick, you'd better be right and/ or interesting
― it's smdh time in America (will), Friday, 20 April 2012 02:02 (1 year ago) Permalink
I feel like I could get thomas friedman to change his mind on a lot of things if you just framed it in the 'interesting thoughts about interesting things' way, and maybe if you dressed up a a taxi driver
― iatee, Friday, 20 April 2012 02:03 (1 year ago) Permalink
"what if universal health care...was an app?"
― iatee, Friday, 20 April 2012 02:05 (1 year ago) Permalink
Being a likeable person obviously does not preclude intellectual dishonesty and deceitful rhetoric in order to 'win' a political argument.
― Aimless, Friday, 20 April 2012 17:23 (1 year ago) Permalink
goole, is this the book to which you refer?
read a couple reviews
obv this book did not penetrate the republican id
― HE HATES THESE CANS (Austerity Ponies), Friday, 20 April 2012 20:40 (1 year ago) Permalink
Friedman's disconnect from reality reminding me increasingly of John Candy as Melonville Mayor Tommy Shanks
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Friday, 20 April 2012 20:45 (1 year ago) Permalink
douthat's exchange w/saletan: easy to imagine ross rationalizing the catholic church's persecution of heretics like galileo or copernicus back in the day
― demolition with discretion (m coleman), Saturday, 21 April 2012 12:10 (1 year ago) Permalink
"burning people at the stake is messy, certainly, but serves as a necessary correction to a widespread cultural drift away from xtian orthodoxy"
― demolition with discretion (m coleman), Saturday, 21 April 2012 12:12 (1 year ago) Permalink
One successful foray ended on the guest bed of a high school friend's parents, with a girl who resembled a chunkier Reese Witherspoon drunkenly masticating my neck and cheeks. It had taken some time to reach this point--"Do most Harvard guys take so long to get what they want?" she had asked, pushing her tongue into my mouth. I wasn't sure what to say, but then I wasn't sure this was what I wanted. My throat was dry from too much vodka, and her breasts, spilling out of pink pajamas, threatened my ability to. I was supposed to be excited, but I was bored and somewhat disgusted with myself, with her, with the whole business... and then whatever residual enthusiasm I felt for the venture dissipated, with shocking speed, as she nibbled at my ear and whispered--"You know, I'm on the pill..."
― Mordy, Saturday, 21 April 2012 13:27 (1 year ago) Permalink
"wait did I just say all that out loud?"
― i don't believe in zimmerman (Hurting 2), Saturday, 21 April 2012 15:17 (1 year ago) Permalink
wowwww i had never read that
― goole, Saturday, 21 April 2012 15:57 (1 year ago) Permalink
hahahahahaha
― pleural eff u son (k3vin k.), Saturday, 21 April 2012 16:25 (1 year ago) Permalink
Jesus Christ
― Choad of Choad Hall (kingfish), Saturday, 21 April 2012 17:02 (1 year ago) Permalink
"chunkier Reese Witherspoon drunkenly masticating"About 1,970 results (0.22 seconds)
― s.clover, Saturday, 21 April 2012 17:19 (1 year ago) Permalink
Gay relationships may be unitive in some sense, but they are not unitive in the male-female, difference-reunited sense that the Biblical narrative strongly suggests that God intended sex to be. Gay people can bear and rear children, but they cannot bear and rear them in accordance with what the Biblical narrative suggests is God’s original intention for the reproduction of the human race. Homosexuality may be innate, but recall that one of the core doctrines of Christianity is that sin itself is innate—that our innermost being is in some sense broken and fallen and turned from God’s desires for us. What a traditional Christian morality asks of gay people seems impossibly difficult, but the Jesus of the New Testament asks the near impossible of people quite frequently.
guess who
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 24 April 2012 17:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
so "sux2bu" is harvard for "god hates fags", got it
― goole, Tuesday, 24 April 2012 17:47 (1 year ago) Permalink
they are not unitive in the male-female, difference-reunited sense that the Biblical narrative strongly suggests that God intended sex to be
It is wholly OT-based stuff like this that makes baby Jesus cry.
― Aimless, Tuesday, 24 April 2012 17:49 (1 year ago) Permalink
Wow this Douthat guy, I was not really even that aware of his views until recently. I mean at least Brooks and Friedman are faux-intellectuals of this century.
― i don't believe in zimmerman (Hurting 2), Tuesday, 24 April 2012 21:45 (1 year ago) Permalink
haha 'the biblical narrative strongly suggests'
what kind of punk-ass bullshitty appeal to scripture is THAT.
― j., Tuesday, 24 April 2012 22:23 (1 year ago) Permalink
What a traditional Christian morality asks of gay people seems impossibly difficult, but the Jesus of the New Testament asks the near impossible of people quite frequently.
will you be getting around to any of it at any point or are you concentrating for now on not being gay
― their private gesture for bison (difficult listening hour), Tuesday, 24 April 2012 22:30 (1 year ago) Permalink
yep. this poll was easy.
― it's smdh time in America (will), Tuesday, 24 April 2012 22:32 (1 year ago) Permalink
I was supposed to be excited, but I was bored and somewhat disgusted with myself, with her, with the whole business
maybe you should try having sex with another dude
― call all destroyer, Tuesday, 24 April 2012 22:33 (1 year ago) Permalink
I could see the whole xtian thing as this gag column he tried out for the harvard newspaper and then when it worked he just stuck w/ it and years later he is trapped doing this and feeling really guilty cause irl he's just a boring atheist w/ nothing to say
― iatee, Tuesday, 24 April 2012 23:15 (1 year ago) Permalink
Automatic thread bump. This poll is closing tomorrow.
― System, Saturday, 28 April 2012 00:01 (1 year ago) Permalink
(Aimless innocently opens ILE New Answers, sees the names David Brooks, Thomas Friedman and Ross Douthat, starts sobbing like a frightened child)
Make it stop!
― Aimless, Saturday, 28 April 2012 01:01 (1 year ago) Permalink
Automatic thread bump. This poll's results are now in.
― System, Sunday, 29 April 2012 00:01 (1 year ago) Permalink
backwards!
― dharunravir (k3vin k.), Sunday, 29 April 2012 00:23 (1 year ago) Permalink
strong campaign by douthat down the stretch but he couldn't close the gap.
― balls, Sunday, 29 April 2012 00:37 (1 year ago) Permalink
http://www.tnr.com/book/review/bad-religion-ross-douthat
― balls, Sunday, 29 April 2012 00:38 (1 year ago) Permalink
we could've been less sexist and thrown Maureen Dowd in the mix.
― a big fat fucking fat guy in a barrel what could be better? (Eisbaer), Sunday, 29 April 2012 00:39 (1 year ago) Permalink
yeah she's awful too
― dharunravir (k3vin k.), Sunday, 29 April 2012 00:44 (1 year ago) Permalink
hah that book review authoritatively calls bullshit on douthat
"ROSS DOUTHAT’S ANALYSIS of religion in America is more sophisticated than the analysis of, say, Rick Santorum—but not by much. "
^^excellent lead sentence
― (REAL NAME) (m coleman), Sunday, 29 April 2012 13:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
"My problem with Douthat’s book is not that his opinions differ from my own. My problem is that he does not seem to have any idea what he is talking about."
― (REAL NAME) (m coleman), Sunday, 29 April 2012 13:52 (1 year ago) Permalink
he also got sonned in the nyt
― (REAL NAME) (m coleman), Sunday, 29 April 2012 13:54 (1 year ago) Permalink
Charles Pierce:
I refuse to accept the term "curmudgeonly annoyance" from a teenage sex-panic victim with D'Artagnan starter-kit facial hair."
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/ross-douthat-post-election-14752276
― the little prince of inane false binary hype (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 19 November 2012 17:05 (6 months ago) Permalink
i'm not a big charles pierce fan
― goole, Monday, 19 November 2012 17:21 (6 months ago) Permalink
it's okay to be a mild Charles Pierce fan
― the little prince of inane false binary hype (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 19 November 2012 17:22 (6 months ago) Permalink
i'm from minnesota...
― goole, Monday, 19 November 2012 17:23 (6 months ago) Permalink
oh so that's a football reference right
― the little prince of inane false binary hype (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 19 November 2012 17:25 (6 months ago) Permalink
It's a nice response to an NYT idiot
― the max in the high castle (kingfish), Monday, 19 November 2012 17:25 (6 months ago) Permalink
ha no i mean "not a big fan" = "i want to play around in your blood"
― goole, Monday, 19 November 2012 17:27 (6 months ago) Permalink
I'm a huge Charles Pierce fan because he writes pieces like that.
― Deafening silence (DL), Monday, 19 November 2012 17:34 (6 months ago) Permalink
++
cf. Krugman’s response.
― Allen (etaeoe), Monday, 19 November 2012 18:32 (6 months ago) Permalink
what's supposed to be wrong with charles pierce
― j., Monday, 19 November 2012 18:49 (6 months ago) Permalink
I like Krugman's response a lot.
― the max in the high castle (kingfish), Monday, 19 November 2012 18:58 (6 months ago) Permalink
yep
― iatee, Monday, 19 November 2012 19:02 (6 months ago) Permalink