The most sophisticated defense system on Earth is the series of adaptive, overlapping, interlocking lies and half-truths Never Trumpers deploy to shield themselves from the terrible knowledge that the Left has been right about the Right all along.
No Half Measures
5 comments:
I can't wait to see what the GOP pukes up in 2024.
Where is Bunker Baby`s super-duper missile ?
David Brooks twatted this morning - June 4 -
"I believe in democracy. I believe in a free press. I believe in open debate. I love it when my newspaper prints pieces I disagree with. It causes me to think."
Not one statement of fact here is true, or even true-adjacent in the common lexicon. Except the last - which could, in fact, be possible, if only as a statement of fear.
The more outlandish the claim, the more crucial the evidence.
Democracy? No. He can't believe in democracy and support Bush or Trump. They were not elected nor maintained in power by democracy. Quirks of the Constitution designed to thwart the will and impulse of the people is, per def. anti-democratic. It's ok, Dave. Just say it. 'I prefer Lawn Order.' Not the same thing as democracy.
"Free Press?" Journalists are embedded in the armed forces, access to public hearings and officials is dependent upon submission, and tv reporters are arrested and beaten by police while filming peaceful protests. Allowing for any of these is not the same thing as a 'free press.'
'Open debate?' says the man who does not read his comments section.
"I love it . . . " Yeah, he said that to his first wife, too. Also, this is a hypothetical. 'I love it when.' A specific example is necessary to support this claim.
"It causes me to think?" 'It' referring to the, singular, hypothetical news article with which he disagreed, 'causes' is present tense, so, we know that is bullshit, (would have caused) him 'to think?' Again, DFB's definition of 'thinking' must be different from mine.
I expect 'being caused to think' affects my preconceived notions and prompt change. That is what thinking means. I am not 'thinking' when I am rebutting an argument. I sort examples and rhetorical devices for relevance and effect and affect. It is not thinking, but it is work. Cogito ergo sum is not existence proved by approving chin-strokes or concerned pipe-tapping.
In all your years, Driftglass, of cataloging the horrors that are DFBs ouvre - have you any evidence of 'thinking?'
Yrs, In solidarity, from the Arctic Socialist Hellscape of Waffles and Brown Cheese.
After all these years. David Brooks chooses this time in history to inform us farm animals he actually all of a sudden "believes" in things.
It is like a discussion a evangelical type started with me in the break room at work some time ago.
He needed to tellme I was Godless and he owned God more than me.
So I asked; Do you believe Satan exists?
Response" I don't believe in Satan.
What Bible do you hold dear?
Response a King James Version .
Is there more than one version?
Response; yes
Does it have references in your King James version of Satan?
Response; there are references and to all the sin of him.
So you believe in God but Satan does not exist? But there are references meaning nothing?
Response; You are Godless.
All this "believing" accomplishes what?
Believing vs Facts and knowing. Believing vs hope.
In other words, Sullivan offered nothing of value in what he would call intellectual property of his article.
Hey friend, I agree with you 100%.
Post a Comment