david brooks vs. thomas friedman vs. ross douthat

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (202 of them)

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 (2 years 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 (2 years 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 (2 years 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 (2 years 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 (2 years 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 (2 years 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 (2 years ago) Permalink

wowwww i had never read that

goole, Saturday, 21 April 2012 15:57 (2 years ago) Permalink

hahahahahaha

pleural eff u son (k3vin k.), Saturday, 21 April 2012 16:25 (2 years ago) Permalink

Jesus Christ

Choad of Choad Hall (kingfish), Saturday, 21 April 2012 17:02 (2 years ago) Permalink

"chunkier Reese Witherspoon drunkenly masticating"
About 1,970 results (0.22 seconds)

s.clover, Saturday, 21 April 2012 17:19 (2 years 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 (2 years ago) Permalink

so "sux2bu" is harvard for "god hates fags", got it

goole, Tuesday, 24 April 2012 17:47 (2 years 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 (2 years 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 (2 years 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 (2 years 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 (2 years ago) Permalink

yep. this poll was easy.

it's smdh time in America (will), Tuesday, 24 April 2012 22:32 (2 years 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 (2 years 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 (2 years ago) Permalink

Automatic thread bump. This poll is closing tomorrow.

System, Saturday, 28 April 2012 00:01 (2 years 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 (2 years ago) Permalink

Automatic thread bump. This poll's results are now in.

System, Sunday, 29 April 2012 00:01 (2 years ago) Permalink

backwards!

dharunravir (k3vin k.), Sunday, 29 April 2012 00:23 (2 years ago) Permalink

strong campaign by douthat down the stretch but he couldn't close the gap.

balls, Sunday, 29 April 2012 00:37 (2 years ago) Permalink

http://www.tnr.com/book/review/bad-religion-ross-douthat

balls, Sunday, 29 April 2012 00:38 (2 years 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 (2 years ago) Permalink

yeah she's awful too

dharunravir (k3vin k.), Sunday, 29 April 2012 00:44 (2 years 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 (2 years 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 (2 years ago) Permalink

he also got sonned in the nyt

(REAL NAME) (m coleman), Sunday, 29 April 2012 13:54 (2 years ago) Permalink

6 months pass...

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 (2 years ago) Permalink

i'm not a big charles pierce fan

goole, Monday, 19 November 2012 17:21 (2 years 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 (2 years ago) Permalink

i'm from minnesota...

goole, Monday, 19 November 2012 17:23 (2 years 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 (2 years ago) Permalink

It's a nice response to an NYT idiot

the max in the high castle (kingfish), Monday, 19 November 2012 17:25 (2 years 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 (2 years ago) Permalink

I'm a huge Charles Pierce fan because he writes pieces like that.

Deafening silence (DL), Monday, 19 November 2012 17:34 (2 years ago) Permalink

I'm a huge Charles Pierce fan because he writes pieces like that.

++

cf. Krugman’s response.

Allen (etaeoe), Monday, 19 November 2012 18:32 (2 years ago) Permalink

what's supposed to be wrong with charles pierce

j., Monday, 19 November 2012 18:49 (2 years ago) Permalink

I like Krugman's response a lot.

the max in the high castle (kingfish), Monday, 19 November 2012 18:58 (2 years ago) Permalink

yep

iatee, Monday, 19 November 2012 19:02 (2 years ago) Permalink

1 year passes...

http://observer.com/2014/02/the-tyranny-and-lethargy-of-the-times-editorial-page/#ixzz2sSv69gIu

One current Times staffer told The Observer, “Tom Friedman is an embarrassment. I mean there are multiple blogs and Tumblrs and Twitter feeds that exist solely to make fun of his sort of blowhardy bullshit.” (Gawker has been particularly hard on Mr. Friedman, with Hamilton Nolan memorably skewering him in a column entitled “Tom Friedman Travels the World to Find Incredibly Uninteresting Platitudes,” as a “mustachioed soothsaying simpleton”; another column was titled “Tom Friedman Does Not Know What’s Happening Here,” and the @firetomfriedman Twitter account has more than 1,800 followers.)

Another Times reporter brought up Mr. Friedman, unsolicited, toward the end of a conversation that was generally positive about the editorial page: “I never got a note from Andy or anything like that. But I will say, regarding Friedman, there’s the sense that he’s on cruise control now that he’s his own brand. And no one is saying, ‘Hey, did you see the latest Friedman column?’ in the way they’ll talk about ‘Hey, Gail [Collins] was really funny today.’”

Mordy , Friday, 7 February 2014 01:36 (9 months ago) Permalink

times reporting staff otm. editorial is so so bad.

Mordy , Friday, 7 February 2014 01:50 (9 months ago) Permalink

whatever you may think of the NYT editorial page -- I read this article a few days ago -- the WaPo page deserves reporting to the fucking Hague.

Bryan Fairy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 7 February 2014 01:54 (9 months ago) Permalink

Editorial page has been a piece of shit for my entire lifetime.

Pale Smiley Face (dandydonweiner), Friday, 7 February 2014 03:16 (9 months ago) Permalink

Ever since the internet I've kind of scratched my head at why these particular individuals, of all people, get paid so much money to opine about stuff every week

Burt Stuntin (Hurting 2), Friday, 7 February 2014 03:17 (9 months ago) Permalink

you don't get why someone might prefer to read paul krugman vs some random dude w/ a tumblr?

balls, Friday, 7 February 2014 03:19 (9 months ago) Permalink

that's not fair. ppl do like krugman. obv much more embarrassing is friedman + brooks + dowd etc

Mordy , Friday, 7 February 2014 03:21 (9 months ago) Permalink


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.