Why do Republicans want to take the term "Conservative" away from David Brooks?

no_vaseline_IHB

no_vaseline_IHB

New member
I saw Oscar do it here, and I saw Tom Delay do it on "Hardball" tonight.



My point - just because somebody is critical of you, doesn't mean they are against you.



Discuss!
 
[quote author="no_vaseline" date=1235654093]I saw Oscar do it here, and I saw Tom Delay do it on "Hardball" tonight.



My point - just because somebody is critical of you, doesn't mean they are against you.



Discuss!</blockquote>


The fact that he works for the New York Times DOES mean that he is against us.
 
[quote author="WINEX" date=1235657041]The fact that he works for the New York Times DOES mean that he is against us.</blockquote>




<a href="http://eagar.mit.edu/EagarPresentations/tweagarwriting/logic.html">http://eagar.mit.edu/EagarPresentations/tweagarwriting/logic.html</a>



<em>6. Sweeping (or Hasty) Generalization: This assumes that what is true for one is true for all.</em>



You can discuss this, or you can turn it into a debating contest. I'm game either way.
 
Quick note to Republicans, stop kicking people out of your (our) party. I'm not sure whether these purported Republicans noticed, but none acted as a conservative these past 8 years. Btw, No Vas - I've met Tom Delay - actually a great guy. Not many people know this, but he was an exterminator before getting elected to congress. very down to earth guy - he offered me a chew of tobacco. i would've taken it, if I didn't already know that doing so would make me barf...
 
[quote author="no_vaseline" date=1235658500][quote author="WINEX" date=1235657041]The fact that he works for the New York Times DOES mean that he is against us.</blockquote>




<a href="http://eagar.mit.edu/EagarPresentations/tweagarwriting/logic.html">http://eagar.mit.edu/EagarPresentations/tweagarwriting/logic.html</a>



<em>6. Sweeping (or Hasty) Generalization: This assumes that what is true for one is true for all.</em>



You can discuss this, or you can turn it into a debating contest. I'm game either way.</blockquote>


What more is there to discuss/debate?
 
[quote author="WINEX" date=1235658840][quote author="no_vaseline" date=1235658500][quote author="WINEX" date=1235657041]The fact that he works for the New York Times DOES mean that he is against us.</blockquote>




<a href="http://eagar.mit.edu/EagarPresentations/tweagarwriting/logic.html">http://eagar.mit.edu/EagarPresentations/tweagarwriting/logic.html</a>



<em>6. Sweeping (or Hasty) Generalization: This assumes that what is true for one is true for all.</em>



You can discuss this, or you can turn it into a debating contest. I'm game either way.</blockquote>


What more is there to discuss/debate?</blockquote>


Apparently nothing.



Will you still feel the same way when Murdoch buys them?



<a href="http://blogs.reuters.com/mediafile/2009/02/25/murdochs-paper-love-la-times-next/">http://blogs.reuters.com/mediafile/2009/02/25/murdochs-paper-love-la-times-next/</a>
 
[quote author="no_vaseline" date=1235659153][quote author="WINEX" date=1235658840][quote author="no_vaseline" date=1235658500][quote author="WINEX" date=1235657041]The fact that he works for the New York Times DOES mean that he is against us.</blockquote>




<a href="http://eagar.mit.edu/EagarPresentations/tweagarwriting/logic.html">http://eagar.mit.edu/EagarPresentations/tweagarwriting/logic.html</a>



<em>6. Sweeping (or Hasty) Generalization: This assumes that what is true for one is true for all.</em>



You can discuss this, or you can turn it into a debating contest. I'm game either way.</blockquote>


What more is there to discuss/debate?</blockquote>


Apparently nothing.



Will you still feel the same way when Murdoch buys them?



<a href="http://blogs.reuters.com/mediafile/2009/02/25/murdochs-paper-love-la-times-next/">http://blogs.reuters.com/mediafile/2009/02/25/murdochs-paper-love-la-times-next/</a></blockquote>


If he displaced the current ownership, the culture of the company would change. The fact is that the NY Times is a very anti-American paper. At one time in the distant past, they tried to pretend to be objective. After the past few years, they can't even pretend and keep a straight face.



Oh, BTW, I hadn't watched the video clip of David Brooks in the other thread prior to posting in this thread. I have now watched it, and David Brooks is ridiculous. In the words of one of the greatest presidents of all time, "government is the problem, not the solution."



A return to our roots is necessary to get the kind of turnout among the base, and to attract people who have gone Libertarian for lack of any other choice.
 
[quote author="no_vaseline" date=1235654093]I saw Oscar do it here, and I saw Tom Delay do it on "Hardball" tonight.



My point - just because somebody is critical of you, doesn't mean they are against you.



Discuss!</blockquote>


You've gone a bit too far there. Show me the quote where I claimed Brooks is not conservative?
 
[quote author="Oscar" date=1235693321]You've gone a bit too far there. Show me the quote where I claimed Brooks is not conservative?</blockquote>


Am I assuming too much?



[quote author="Oscar" date=1235644949]David Brooks is an open and unabashed Obama supporter and asking him about any opposition is like asking Al Gore about global warming; you are only going to get one viewpoint and no objectivity.</blockquote>


If Brooks is an Obama apologist he must be a Dem apologist and by extension, not conservative.



It was not my intention to misstate your position, and if I did so, I apologize.
 
[quote author="WINEX" date=1235659834] The <span style="font-size: 16px;">fact</span><span style="color: red;"></span> is that the NY Times is a very anti-American paper.</blockquote>


<em>12. Imperfect or False analogy: Although some analogies are excellent for teaching, analogies which distort the facts represent another form of fallacy.</em>



Fact eh?
 
[quote author="no_vaseline" date=1235701820][quote author="Oscar" date=1235693321]You've gone a bit too far there. Show me the quote where I claimed Brooks is not conservative?</blockquote>


Am I assuming too much?



[quote author="Oscar" date=1235644949]David Brooks is an open and unabashed Obama supporter and asking him about any opposition is like asking Al Gore about global warming; you are only going to get one viewpoint and no objectivity.</blockquote>


If Brooks is an Obama apologist he must be a Dem apologist and by extension, not conservative.



It was not my intention to misstate your position, and if I did so, I apologize.</blockquote>
David Brooks, for whatever reason, has attached himself to Obama. Maybe he, like myself, bought into the Obama of the campaign trail who was promising to go through the federal budget line by line to remove inefficient and useless programs. Maybe he just suffers from white guilt. Either way, he is an Obama supporter. If that equals "not conservative" by definition in your eyes, then that is your view. In my eyes, it simply means what I stated in the quote... he supports Obama... and he is therefore not an objective observer but a biased one, in the same way that Al Gore is not objective about global warming.



In any case, you swung and missed.
 
[quote author="no_vaseline" date=1235702312][quote author="WINEX" date=1235659834] The <span style="font-size: 16px;">fact</span><span style="color: red;"></span> is that the NY Times is a very anti-American paper.</blockquote>


<em>12. Imperfect or False analogy: Although some analogies are excellent for teaching, analogies which distort the facts represent another form of fallacy.</em>



Fact eh?</blockquote>


Yes, it is a fact. How many times has the New York times published classified information that leaked in the past 8 years? That kind of stuff DIRECTLY costs American lives.
 
[quote author="WINEX" date=1235703962][quote author="no_vaseline" date=1235702312][quote author="WINEX" date=1235659834] The <span style="font-size: 16px;">fact</span><span style="color: red;"></span> is that the NY Times is a very anti-American paper.</blockquote>


<em>12. Imperfect or False analogy: Although some analogies are excellent for teaching, analogies which distort the facts represent another form of fallacy.</em>



Fact eh?</blockquote>


Yes, it is a fact. How many times has the New York times published classified information that leaked in the past 8 years? That kind of stuff DIRECTLY costs American lives.</blockquote>


Whose death can be DIRECTLY tied to an article printed by the NYT?
 
[quote author="WINEX" date=1235703962][quote author="no_vaseline" date=1235702312][quote author="WINEX" date=1235659834] The <span style="font-size: 16px;">fact</span><span style="color: red;"></span> is that the NY Times is a very anti-American paper.</blockquote>


<em>12. Imperfect or False analogy: Although some analogies are excellent for teaching, analogies which distort the facts represent another form of fallacy.</em>



Fact eh?</blockquote>


Yes, it is a fact. How many times has the New York times published classified information that leaked in the past 8 years? That kind of stuff DIRECTLY costs American lives.</blockquote>


Tune in next week for-



<em>"That was Nixon's excuse too" </em>or



<em>"I can see you're all broke up about Valerie Plame. Want a tissue?"</em>
 
[quote author="Oscar" date=1235703849]In any case, you swung and missed.</blockquote>


I prefer assumed and overreached, but either way, I stand corrected and apologize if I offended you.



Thank you for clarifing.
 
Yes we should keep all the facts of what was happening in

Iraq a secret from the American people. Dont want any bad news

that may hurt public sentiment getting out.

Rummy needed to keep all of his failures from the public thats for sure.



Dont need to tell the Ameican People we are listening to their

International Phone calls. Never mind the constitution. Warrants ?

Those Existing FISA Laws were just getting in the way.



This country is screwed when the Secret Police have more power

than the Constitution and the 1st Amendment of the Bill of Rights.



But its A OK to out the CIA Agent whose Husband has pissed you off

by exposing the truth of the Administrations lies. Thanks Scooter.
 
[quote author="green_cactus" date=1235704458][quote author="WINEX" date=1235703962][quote author="no_vaseline" date=1235702312][quote author="WINEX" date=1235659834] The <span style="font-size: 16px;">fact</span><span style="color: red;"></span> is that the NY Times is a very anti-American paper.</blockquote>


<em>12. Imperfect or False analogy: Although some analogies are excellent for teaching, analogies which distort the facts represent another form of fallacy.</em>



Fact eh?</blockquote>


Yes, it is a fact. How many times has the New York times published classified information that leaked in the past 8 years? That kind of stuff DIRECTLY costs American lives.</blockquote>


Whose death can be DIRECTLY tied to an article printed by the NYT?</blockquote>


Is that the dumbest response you can think of? Personally I believe you can do better than that.
 
[quote author="WINEX" date=1235705666][quote author="green_cactus" date=1235704458][quote author="WINEX" date=1235703962][quote author="no_vaseline" date=1235702312][quote author="WINEX" date=1235659834] The <span style="font-size: 16px;">fact</span><span style="color: red;"></span> is that the NY Times is a very anti-American paper.</blockquote>


<em>12. Imperfect or False analogy: Although some analogies are excellent for teaching, analogies which distort the facts represent another form of fallacy.</em>



Fact eh?</blockquote>


Yes, it is a fact. How many times has the New York times published classified information that leaked in the past 8 years? That kind of stuff DIRECTLY costs American lives.</blockquote>


Whose death can be DIRECTLY tied to an article printed by the NYT?</blockquote>


Is that the dumbest response you can think of? Personally I believe you can do better than that.</blockquote>


You said it was a fact. That there was a direct correlation between an article in the NYT and American lives. I'm just asking for you to elaborate on your statement. Otherwise, it would only be the kind of labeling that befits a totalitarian state. Which is it?
 
[quote author="bltserv" date=1235705432]But its A OK to out the CIA Agent whose Husband has pissed you off

by exposing the truth of the Administrations lies. Thanks Scooter.</blockquote>


Umm... in the interest of "truth"... it was Richard Armitage who outed Plame to Novak. Libby was convicted of lying to investigators, not outing a covert agent.
 
[quote author="Oscar" date=1235707197][quote author="bltserv" date=1235705432]But its A OK to out the CIA Agent whose Husband has pissed you off

by exposing the truth of the Administrations lies. Thanks Scooter.</blockquote>


Umm... in the interest of "truth"... it was Richard Armitage who outed Plame to Novak. Libby was convicted of lying to investigators, not outing a covert agent.</blockquote>


Your absolutely correct Oscar.

I thought it better to just mention the guy that fell on his sword for the

conspiracy of the cover up in the affair. Should have been Rove IMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top