The worthless douchebag is back to slagging “populists” again:
[V]oters aren’t as stupid as the populists imagine.
People who think voters are stupid? Those are elitists like you, Brooks, you despicable swine. As author of “National Greatness” and the gutless vermin who called Sarah Palin a “fatal cancer to the Republican Party,” you are quite clearly the problem and not the solution.
Grab a nice hot cup of STFU, Brooks. Nothing is more amazing than the fact Pinch Sulzberger wastes the money it takes to employ America’s worst op-ed columnist. And that’s really saying something, when you realize that Pinch also employs Maureen Dowd and Frank Rich.
The only purpose you serve is as a bipartisan rallying point. If liberals and conservatives agree on nothing else, all least we can all agree on this: David Brooks is a worthless douchebag.
Phil,
I’m always more than ready to engage in serious political and policy debate with anyone on anything.
On the other hand, I’m from Jersey and if someone challenges me in a way I don’t like, (like say by calling me someone else’s bitch), well then I’m gonna take that person out at the knees and sling insults and ad hominems like a fucking black belt.
You did that. You’ve since backed off. Apology accepted.
I would be more than happy to explain calmly and rationally why David Brooks’ deserves nobody’s respect, least of all Conservatives. Just watch who you call a “groupie” next time.
My vulgarity and “intimations of violence”, (which you also started) have nothing to do with any disagreement on Brooks and everything to do with your coming at me like a chickenshit instead of a man.
I’m more than willing to move on.
Russ
How on earth is this a good column or anything but more of David Brook’s mindless drivel?
Perhaps someone will explain to me how “populists” (which I suppose is the term for the Tea Partying, limited government, personal responsibility coalition) is for absolving anyone of their mistakes? Last time I checked, we are happy to rip apart other people’s bad decisions, because we have to pay for them. It irks me every day that my tax dollars go towards someone else’s mortgage, when I can’t afford a home of my own. Populist? Perhaps. Anti-personal responsibility? Hardly.
This, from the man who snitted a few weeks ago that the Tea Parties are made up of a bunch of uneducated hicks. Now, I didn’t earn an engineering degree and then a JD to be called an uneducated rube by the likes of a dude with a BA in history, so pardon me if I think that Brooks’ ramblings about the educational attainment of the populists is a bit off.
To avoid ridiculous block-quoting of the rest of Brooks’ article, I’ll just say that he somehow thinks that Republicans (or conservative populists, or whomever) are now in the business of hating on big business or believing in zero-sum games. Considering that the entire purpose of the Palin-inspired populist movement is not that we are being screwed by The Man, but that we would like the government to get the hell out of our way so that we, too, can be fabulously wealthy (or at least well-off), it’s mind-boggling to try to read Brooks.
He may as well be discussing how we ride our unicorns to Tea Parties.
How on earth is this a good column or anything but more of David Brook’s mindless drivel?
Perhaps someone will explain to me how “populists” (which I suppose is the term for the Tea Partying, limited government, personal responsibility coalition) is for absolving anyone of their mistakes? Last time I checked, we are happy to rip apart other people’s bad decisions, because we have to pay for them. It irks me every day that my tax dollars go towards someone else’s mortgage, when I can’t afford a home of my own. Populist? Perhaps. Anti-personal responsibility? Hardly.
This, from the man who snitted a few weeks ago that the Tea Parties are made up of a bunch of uneducated hicks. Now, I didn’t earn an engineering degree and then a JD to be called an uneducated rube by the likes of a dude with a BA in history, so pardon me if I think that Brooks’ ramblings about the educational attainment of the populists is a bit off.
To avoid ridiculous block-quoting of the rest of Brooks’ article, I’ll just say that he somehow thinks that Republicans (or conservative populists, or whomever) are now in the business of hating on big business or believing in zero-sum games. Considering that the entire purpose of the Palin-inspired populist movement is not that we are being screwed by The Man, but that we would like the government to get the hell out of our way so that we, too, can be fabulously wealthy (or at least well-off), it’s mind-boggling to try to read Brooks.
He may as well be discussing how we ride our unicorns to Tea Parties.
How on earth is this a good column or anything but more of David Brook’s mindless drivel?
Perhaps someone will explain to me how “populists” (which I suppose is the term for the Tea Partying, limited government, personal responsibility coalition) is for absolving anyone of their mistakes? Last time I checked, we are happy to rip apart other people’s bad decisions, because we have to pay for them. It irks me every day that my tax dollars go towards someone else’s mortgage, when I can’t afford a home of my own. Populist? Perhaps. Anti-personal responsibility? Hardly.
This, from the man who snitted a few weeks ago that the Tea Parties are made up of a bunch of uneducated hicks. Now, I didn’t earn an engineering degree and then a JD to be called an uneducated rube by the likes of a dude with a BA in history, so pardon me if I think that Brooks’ ramblings about the educational attainment of the populists is a bit off.
To avoid ridiculous block-quoting of the rest of Brooks’ article, I’ll just say that he somehow thinks that Republicans (or conservative populists, or whomever) are now in the business of hating on big business or believing in zero-sum games. Considering that the entire purpose of the Palin-inspired populist movement is not that we are being screwed by The Man, but that we would like the government to get the hell out of our way so that we, too, can be fabulously wealthy (or at least well-off), it’s mind-boggling to try to read Brooks.
He may as well be discussing how we ride our unicorns to Tea Parties.
Hey Stacy I don’t read Brooks I read you. You might be right in every particular in your criticism of him.
I read this post and I think to myself I wonder if Stacy ever regrets writing something like this. Maybe I’m just gutless. Maybe it’s just the Irish Catholic guilt in me that pervades everything. I question whether this is you being ballsy or foolish.
At the same you are an excellent writer, muscular, daring, and intrepid. I admire that without reservation.
Hey Stacy I don’t read Brooks I read you. You might be right in every particular in your criticism of him.
I read this post and I think to myself I wonder if Stacy ever regrets writing something like this. Maybe I’m just gutless. Maybe it’s just the Irish Catholic guilt in me that pervades everything. I question whether this is you being ballsy or foolish.
At the same you are an excellent writer, muscular, daring, and intrepid. I admire that without reservation.
Beautifully put Roxanne.
Welcome to the Mob Roll: http://www.thats-right.com/the-mob/
I understand if, after reading above, you ask me to remove your site. But I’m keeping my fingers crossed that you won’t.
And to steal a Phil P gem…”Extra points for Roxanne”
Russ
Beautifully put Roxanne.
Welcome to the Mob Roll: http://www.thats-right.com/the-mob/
I understand if, after reading above, you ask me to remove your site. But I’m keeping my fingers crossed that you won’t.
And to steal a Phil P gem…”Extra points for Roxanne”
Russ
Beautifully put Roxanne.
Welcome to the Mob Roll: http://www.thats-right.com/the-mob/
I understand if, after reading above, you ask me to remove your site. But I’m keeping my fingers crossed that you won’t.
And to steal a Phil P gem…”Extra points for Roxanne”
Russ
Beautifully put Roxanne.
Welcome to the Mob Roll: http://www.thats-right.com/the-mob/
I understand if, after reading above, you ask me to remove your site. But I’m keeping my fingers crossed that you won’t.
And to steal a Phil P gem…”Extra points for Roxanne”
Russ
“At the same you are an excellent writer, muscular, daring, and intrepid. I admire that without reservation.”
Careful Oxbay…Phil P may still be lurking in the shadows looking for another “groupie” over which he can run roughshod with his Brooks-esque, super-mild brilliance.
You’ve been warned.
“At the same you are an excellent writer, muscular, daring, and intrepid. I admire that without reservation.”
Careful Oxbay…Phil P may still be lurking in the shadows looking for another “groupie” over which he can run roughshod with his Brooks-esque, super-mild brilliance.
You’ve been warned.
“Compassionate conservatism” was Marvin Olasky and the evangelical establishment’s thing. The “national greatness conservatism” thing was exemplified by John McCain’s 2000 campaign. At least according to my recollection.
“Compassionate conservatism” was Marvin Olasky and the evangelical establishment’s thing. The “national greatness conservatism” thing was exemplified by John McCain’s 2000 campaign. At least according to my recollection.
“Compassionate conservatism” was Marvin Olasky and the evangelical establishment’s thing. The “national greatness conservatism” thing was exemplified by John McCain’s 2000 campaign. At least according to my recollection.
Have to admit, that is pretty homoerotic.
Have to admit, that is pretty homoerotic.
Have to admit, that is pretty homoerotic.
Have to admit, that is pretty homoerotic.
And I maintain my key points, which were delivered forthrightly (i.e. like a man):
1. That Stacy, to his detriment, has accrued an e-entourage of bobbleheads;
2. That prejudicially dismissing a man’s argument in toto, without bothering to absorb or reflect on it, simply because of prior — or even on-going — disagreements is foolish. Chickenshit, even. And certainly a cop-out for a Stacy, a guy with a formidable intellect. If he wants to fisk, then he should fisk. If he wants to call names, then he should call names, and not pretend he’s actually debunking or debating.
If the reference to fellatio so threatens your manhood, forget it, consider that remark (admittedly flip) retracted. But the above points stand.
And I maintain my key points, which were delivered forthrightly (i.e. like a man):
1. That Stacy, to his detriment, has accrued an e-entourage of bobbleheads;
2. That prejudicially dismissing a man’s argument in toto, without bothering to absorb or reflect on it, simply because of prior — or even on-going — disagreements is foolish. Chickenshit, even. And certainly a cop-out for a Stacy, a guy with a formidable intellect. If he wants to fisk, then he should fisk. If he wants to call names, then he should call names, and not pretend he’s actually debunking or debating.
If the reference to fellatio so threatens your manhood, forget it, consider that remark (admittedly flip) retracted. But the above points stand.
And I maintain my key points, which were delivered forthrightly (i.e. like a man):
1. That Stacy, to his detriment, has accrued an e-entourage of bobbleheads;
2. That prejudicially dismissing a man’s argument in toto, without bothering to absorb or reflect on it, simply because of prior — or even on-going — disagreements is foolish. Chickenshit, even. And certainly a cop-out for a Stacy, a guy with a formidable intellect. If he wants to fisk, then he should fisk. If he wants to call names, then he should call names, and not pretend he’s actually debunking or debating.
If the reference to fellatio so threatens your manhood, forget it, consider that remark (admittedly flip) retracted. But the above points stand.
And I maintain my key points, which were delivered forthrightly (i.e. like a man):
1. That Stacy, to his detriment, has accrued an e-entourage of bobbleheads;
2. That prejudicially dismissing a man’s argument in toto, without bothering to absorb or reflect on it, simply because of prior — or even on-going — disagreements is foolish. Chickenshit, even. And certainly a cop-out for a Stacy, a guy with a formidable intellect. If he wants to fisk, then he should fisk. If he wants to call names, then he should call names, and not pretend he’s actually debunking or debating.
If the reference to fellatio so threatens your manhood, forget it, consider that remark (admittedly flip) retracted. But the above points stand.
I read this post and I think to myself I wonder if Stacy ever regrets writing something like this.
— Oxbay
Nope. In 1997, as in 2009, Brooks was pre-eminent among those who argued that GOP defeat in the presidential election meant that conservatives were to blame and that the way to go was to cede political terrain to the Democrats. The man’s instincts are catastrophically flawed, and yet he’s such a pusillanimous wretch that he refuses to admit having ever been wrong about anything.
He should go back to writing snarky essays of sociological observation, at which he excels, and leave politics to others. Against all the good that William F. Buckley did in his life, we must weigh this tragic sin, that Buckley plucked a young David Brooks from obscurity and thereby gave him the “conservative” pedigree that he has viciously abused ever since.
I read this post and I think to myself I wonder if Stacy ever regrets writing something like this.
— Oxbay
Nope. In 1997, as in 2009, Brooks was pre-eminent among those who argued that GOP defeat in the presidential election meant that conservatives were to blame and that the way to go was to cede political terrain to the Democrats. The man’s instincts are catastrophically flawed, and yet he’s such a pusillanimous wretch that he refuses to admit having ever been wrong about anything.
He should go back to writing snarky essays of sociological observation, at which he excels, and leave politics to others. Against all the good that William F. Buckley did in his life, we must weigh this tragic sin, that Buckley plucked a young David Brooks from obscurity and thereby gave him the “conservative” pedigree that he has viciously abused ever since.
that’sright: thank you. (I also saw that you have my blog-friend, Velvet Hammer/Ironic Surrealisim. Woo-hoo!)
Philip P:
If you go back to read the sentence that Stacy quoted, it’s fantastically prejudiced and ignorant. Yes, Stacy could have systematically explained exactly why such a statement is wrong, from defining “populists” as Brooks does, to finding pertinent examples of their ideology, explaining why their ideology is not actually based on the theory of the ignorant voter (but with maybe a nod to the work of libertarians like Ilya Somin, who study rational voter ignorance), and, thus, why Brooks was wrong to make that statement.
Or he could simply point out that it’s a statement which reeks of elitism and a total lack of understanding of the political movements which are shaping our country. This is not an issue, divorced from previous disagreements with the man; this is a continuation of Brooks’ ignorance.
Moreover, you seem to believe that the one sentence is an anomaly in an otherwise rational article; many of us, having had the “populist” label thrown upon us but not recognising the attitudes which Brooks attributes to us, find the entire opinion to be wrong-headed.
When one’s premises are wrong, most of one’s conclusions will be wrong. Need we really conduct an ab initio explanation of Brooks’ shortsightedness each time the guy comes out with a column?
that’sright: thank you. (I also saw that you have my blog-friend, Velvet Hammer/Ironic Surrealisim. Woo-hoo!)
Philip P:
If you go back to read the sentence that Stacy quoted, it’s fantastically prejudiced and ignorant. Yes, Stacy could have systematically explained exactly why such a statement is wrong, from defining “populists” as Brooks does, to finding pertinent examples of their ideology, explaining why their ideology is not actually based on the theory of the ignorant voter (but with maybe a nod to the work of libertarians like Ilya Somin, who study rational voter ignorance), and, thus, why Brooks was wrong to make that statement.
Or he could simply point out that it’s a statement which reeks of elitism and a total lack of understanding of the political movements which are shaping our country. This is not an issue, divorced from previous disagreements with the man; this is a continuation of Brooks’ ignorance.
Moreover, you seem to believe that the one sentence is an anomaly in an otherwise rational article; many of us, having had the “populist” label thrown upon us but not recognising the attitudes which Brooks attributes to us, find the entire opinion to be wrong-headed.
When one’s premises are wrong, most of one’s conclusions will be wrong. Need we really conduct an ab initio explanation of Brooks’ shortsightedness each time the guy comes out with a column?
that’sright: thank you. (I also saw that you have my blog-friend, Velvet Hammer/Ironic Surrealisim. Woo-hoo!)
Philip P:
If you go back to read the sentence that Stacy quoted, it’s fantastically prejudiced and ignorant. Yes, Stacy could have systematically explained exactly why such a statement is wrong, from defining “populists” as Brooks does, to finding pertinent examples of their ideology, explaining why their ideology is not actually based on the theory of the ignorant voter (but with maybe a nod to the work of libertarians like Ilya Somin, who study rational voter ignorance), and, thus, why Brooks was wrong to make that statement.
Or he could simply point out that it’s a statement which reeks of elitism and a total lack of understanding of the political movements which are shaping our country. This is not an issue, divorced from previous disagreements with the man; this is a continuation of Brooks’ ignorance.
Moreover, you seem to believe that the one sentence is an anomaly in an otherwise rational article; many of us, having had the “populist” label thrown upon us but not recognising the attitudes which Brooks attributes to us, find the entire opinion to be wrong-headed.
When one’s premises are wrong, most of one’s conclusions will be wrong. Need we really conduct an ab initio explanation of Brooks’ shortsightedness each time the guy comes out with a column?
“Have to admit, that is pretty homoerotic.”
I have no idea who this stupid comment is directed to but keep your fantasies in the closet.
“1. That Stacy, to his detriment, has accrued an e-entourage of bobbleheads;”
And my point now stands again that you’re a fucking twat, a jackass and, now, a complete an utter fool. You really don’t want to tangle with me on policy nimrod. I’ll fucking annihilate you but, I know now, you ain’t worth it.
From one snarky comment in a thread on David Brooks your dumb ass concludes that I’m part of an e-entourage of Stacey McCain’s. Get your fucking facts straight you twit. I don’t give a fuck who Stacey McCain is; if there was an opportunity to take him on and he deserved it, I’d let it rip. That it hasn’t happened yet isn’t my problem.
Your problem on the other hand is a far more deep-seated psychological malady which is, I fear, ultimately unsolvable. You’re a fucking loser who picks fights like a pussy from behind a computer, unprovoked, and then fights desperately to redeem himself by making himself look smarter than he is.
That, my friend, is David Brooks. You’re in good company pussy.
“Have to admit, that is pretty homoerotic.”
I have no idea who this stupid comment is directed to but keep your fantasies in the closet.
“1. That Stacy, to his detriment, has accrued an e-entourage of bobbleheads;”
And my point now stands again that you’re a fucking twat, a jackass and, now, a complete an utter fool. You really don’t want to tangle with me on policy nimrod. I’ll fucking annihilate you but, I know now, you ain’t worth it.
From one snarky comment in a thread on David Brooks your dumb ass concludes that I’m part of an e-entourage of Stacey McCain’s. Get your fucking facts straight you twit. I don’t give a fuck who Stacey McCain is; if there was an opportunity to take him on and he deserved it, I’d let it rip. That it hasn’t happened yet isn’t my problem.
Your problem on the other hand is a far more deep-seated psychological malady which is, I fear, ultimately unsolvable. You’re a fucking loser who picks fights like a pussy from behind a computer, unprovoked, and then fights desperately to redeem himself by making himself look smarter than he is.
That, my friend, is David Brooks. You’re in good company pussy.
“Have to admit, that is pretty homoerotic.”
I have no idea who this stupid comment is directed to but keep your fantasies in the closet.
“1. That Stacy, to his detriment, has accrued an e-entourage of bobbleheads;”
And my point now stands again that you’re a fucking twat, a jackass and, now, a complete an utter fool. You really don’t want to tangle with me on policy nimrod. I’ll fucking annihilate you but, I know now, you ain’t worth it.
From one snarky comment in a thread on David Brooks your dumb ass concludes that I’m part of an e-entourage of Stacey McCain’s. Get your fucking facts straight you twit. I don’t give a fuck who Stacey McCain is; if there was an opportunity to take him on and he deserved it, I’d let it rip. That it hasn’t happened yet isn’t my problem.
Your problem on the other hand is a far more deep-seated psychological malady which is, I fear, ultimately unsolvable. You’re a fucking loser who picks fights like a pussy from behind a computer, unprovoked, and then fights desperately to redeem himself by making himself look smarter than he is.
That, my friend, is David Brooks. You’re in good company pussy.
Ilya Somin! Rational ignorance! Now you’re talking, Roxeanne.
We have to recognize that most people — those whom I call Ordinary Americans — are not professional members of the political class and therefore are ill-acquainted with the specialized concepts and esoteric knowledge over which the political class possesses a near-monopoly. The Ordinary American may therefore be said to be “ignorant” of the issues that are familiar to, say, a congressional liaison for the Heritage Foundation, without being deficient in intelligent or derelict in the duties of citizenship.
Citizens of a free society ought to be able to ignore the day-to-day political battle without great peril. This is why limited government is so important, in order to preserve a free space outside politics, where people can go about their daily lives unmolested by government. The remorseless expansion of government infringes on that free space, which is why “big government conservatism” is a non sequitur.
The fact that I don’t feel a need to elaborate point-by-point why David Brooks is wrong — and permanently so — does not mean I am incapable of such elaboration. And it certainly does not mean that David Brooks is right, because he never is.
Ilya Somin! Rational ignorance! Now you’re talking, Roxeanne.
We have to recognize that most people — those whom I call Ordinary Americans — are not professional members of the political class and therefore are ill-acquainted with the specialized concepts and esoteric knowledge over which the political class possesses a near-monopoly. The Ordinary American may therefore be said to be “ignorant” of the issues that are familiar to, say, a congressional liaison for the Heritage Foundation, without being deficient in intelligent or derelict in the duties of citizenship.
Citizens of a free society ought to be able to ignore the day-to-day political battle without great peril. This is why limited government is so important, in order to preserve a free space outside politics, where people can go about their daily lives unmolested by government. The remorseless expansion of government infringes on that free space, which is why “big government conservatism” is a non sequitur.
The fact that I don’t feel a need to elaborate point-by-point why David Brooks is wrong — and permanently so — does not mean I am incapable of such elaboration. And it certainly does not mean that David Brooks is right, because he never is.
Never right?
“No institution is more likely to channel opportunity to new groups and new people than vigorous financial markets.”
Sounds right to me.
Or are you now a market skeptic, Stacy?
Face it: David Brooks is a prick, but much of what he says is mild-mannered center-right boilerplate.
Never right?
“No institution is more likely to channel opportunity to new groups and new people than vigorous financial markets.”
Sounds right to me.
Or are you now a market skeptic, Stacy?
Face it: David Brooks is a prick, but much of what he says is mild-mannered center-right boilerplate.
Never right?
“No institution is more likely to channel opportunity to new groups and new people than vigorous financial markets.”
Sounds right to me.
Or are you now a market skeptic, Stacy?
Face it: David Brooks is a prick, but much of what he says is mild-mannered center-right boilerplate.
Never right?
“No institution is more likely to channel opportunity to new groups and new people than vigorous financial markets.”
Sounds right to me.
Or are you now a market skeptic, Stacy?
Face it: David Brooks is a prick, but much of what he says is mild-mannered center-right boilerplate.
“Your problem on the other hand is a far more deep-seated psychological malady which is, I fear, ultimately unsolvable. You’re a fucking loser who picks fights like a pussy from behind a computer, unprovoked, and then fights desperately to redeem himself by making himself look smarter than he is.”
Yeeaahh, probably psychology isn’t your thing, hah.
“Your problem on the other hand is a far more deep-seated psychological malady which is, I fear, ultimately unsolvable. You’re a fucking loser who picks fights like a pussy from behind a computer, unprovoked, and then fights desperately to redeem himself by making himself look smarter than he is.”
Yeeaahh, probably psychology isn’t your thing, hah.
“Your problem on the other hand is a far more deep-seated psychological malady which is, I fear, ultimately unsolvable. You’re a fucking loser who picks fights like a pussy from behind a computer, unprovoked, and then fights desperately to redeem himself by making himself look smarter than he is.”
Yeeaahh, probably psychology isn’t your thing, hah.
“Your problem on the other hand is a far more deep-seated psychological malady which is, I fear, ultimately unsolvable. You’re a fucking loser who picks fights like a pussy from behind a computer, unprovoked, and then fights desperately to redeem himself by making himself look smarter than he is.”
Yeeaahh, probably psychology isn’t your thing, hah.
Brooks gave us the unfortunate term “National Greatness Conservatism,” which, in addition to the sins you’ve already skewered him for, constitutes identity theft of genuine conservatism. There’s nothing “conservative” about surrendering the Bill of Rights, continuous war (especially wars of aggression based on lies), and towering deficits.
Brooks gave us the unfortunate term “National Greatness Conservatism,” which, in addition to the sins you’ve already skewered him for, constitutes identity theft of genuine conservatism. There’s nothing “conservative” about surrendering the Bill of Rights, continuous war (especially wars of aggression based on lies), and towering deficits.
Brooks gave us the unfortunate term “National Greatness Conservatism,” which, in addition to the sins you’ve already skewered him for, constitutes identity theft of genuine conservatism. There’s nothing “conservative” about surrendering the Bill of Rights, continuous war (especially wars of aggression based on lies), and towering deficits.
Brooks gave us the unfortunate term “National Greatness Conservatism,” which, in addition to the sins you’ve already skewered him for, constitutes identity theft of genuine conservatism. There’s nothing “conservative” about surrendering the Bill of Rights, continuous war (especially wars of aggression based on lies), and towering deficits.
“Yeeaahh, probably psychology isn’t your thing, hah.”
Nah it is…and you’re a textbook case of extreme self-delusion and what I like to call “nerd syndrome”.
Get help loser.
“Yeeaahh, probably psychology isn’t your thing, hah.”
Nah it is…and you’re a textbook case of extreme self-delusion and what I like to call “nerd syndrome”.
Get help loser.
“Yeeaahh, probably psychology isn’t your thing, hah.”
Nah it is…and you’re a textbook case of extreme self-delusion and what I like to call “nerd syndrome”.
Get help loser.
“Yeeaahh, probably psychology isn’t your thing, hah.”
Nah it is…and you’re a textbook case of extreme self-delusion and what I like to call “nerd syndrome”.
Get help loser.
For those amongst us who spent the ’90s with our noses in chemistry books, is this the 1997 piece to which you refer?