onegoodmove

I may have said this before, but I once worked with a College Dean who said "If you want to win the high jump, pick one student who can jump 7 feet, not seven students who can jump 1 foot."

Now he WAS an elitist!

Obama should figure out a way of trapping David Brooks into a pick-up game of basketball. They could choose up sides; Brooks could have Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Rove, and Tucker Carlson. After kicking his pasty-faced opponents' ass, Obama could then invite 'em down to Applebees where he could dismember his bullshit "dictatorship of the proletariat" pose. What a bunch of douchebags.

Wow. So unless you've got a good ol' boy persona, use only small words, are seen drinking only Coke and Bud Light, and watch NASCAR, you are 'elitist' and aren't 'reaching out' to the American people. By their reasoning Larry the Cable Guy should be president.

Which team would Hillary Clinton and Cynthia Mckinney play on Tim?

Go Team Arugula!

yeah, syngas, i think tim has revealed his sexism (by not including women on the team) AND his racism- what was that "pasty-faced" comment? but worst of all, in my mind, he seems to have a problem with vaginal hygiene. tsk, tsk. :) jk

i've never even heard of appleby's. what is that, like the new starbucks?

i think obama should be proud to be an elitist. it wasn't that long ago that a man of his hue being called an elitist would have been considered an oxymoron. i think this indicates progress of some sort.

Which team would Hillary Clinton and Cynthia Mckinney play on Tim?

Your welcome to put a women's game together - so far as I know, no one has suggested that the WNBA and NBA merge.

i've never even heard of appleby's. what is that, like the new starbucks?

Applebees is a chain of family restaurants - the kind of place David Brooks pulls out of his ass every time he trots out his "elitist" line. He may even eat there - then he goes home, purges, rinses, and heads to his wine cellar to get a nice claret to wash the taste of his own bullshit from his mouth.

thanks for the info, tim. i know i could have googled it, but it's so much more fun this way, and i get the context and your own unique take on things to boot.

not a big david brooks fan, ay? that claret-swilling bastard.

actually, if EVERYBODY thought they were better than everybody else, that would be the most profound, complete form of equality i could think of. as a member of the "chosen people", for instance, i can have instant raport with a chinese person, say. since i know the chinese also consider themselves the "chosen people", we already have something in common. i'm familiar with the psychology of someone who grows up thinking that. it's like we're brothers in stupidity. anyone remember kes? :)

I guess I have a very strong doubt that Brooks believes much of the BS he slings. He isn't stupid, and he does occasionally give an indication that he considers real data - I think he's just too much of a coward to admit that he doesn't believe his own crap anymore.

Are you the pot or the kettle Tim?

What is it that I say that you think I don't believe?

Any of your ad hominem filled posts with an endless supply of rhetoric and very little substance.

It just doesn't seem compatible for someone with a PhD in any kind of science to express himself this way who expects to be taken seriously.

Douchebag? Pasty-faced? You're too smart for that junk Tim.

Its the adjectives you object to? I'll grant that at times I lose my sense of propriety, but I'm totally sincere. Brooks completely superficial analysis doesn't really deserve much better. How can a man to who works for one of the premier media outlets in the world say this kind of ridiculous crap, year after year? Is it even possible that he thinks that it is of any importance whatsoever that Barack Obama doesn't look like a guy you'd see at Applebees? I think that by suspecting he is going through the motions, no longer believing his crap, I may be giving him more credit than he's due. If he really does believe it, he's hopeless.

By the way, 'douchebag' may be over the top, but I kind of like pasty-faced. Putting aside the racial implication that becker read into it (and which I didn't intend at all), to me 'pasty-faced' was meant to communicate a sense that these guys are wimps - they swoon over their authoritarian heroes, but they're cowards themselves.

"Its the adjectives you object to? I'll grant that at times I lose my sense of propriety, but I'm totally sincere."

I don't object to it at all Tim. In fact, as someone I enjoy sparring with regularly, it's the one weakness I can count on to help level the playing field. In the event you actually make a strong point I would have a hard time arguing, I can always count on you burying it under a pile of fallacies.

I don't doubt you believe you are being sincere, but for a highly educated man to continuously and knowingly rely on fallacies demonstrates (to me) your insecurity in your positions.

I've watched David Brooks try to explain so much right wing bullsh@t. Listening to his pretzel logic defense of the neocons is truly painful. He will do his very best and then you listen to someone like Mark Shields come in to very calmly state a rational, logical position and you can feel your sanity being restored. But - Brooks has made a very good living for himself out of supporting the money men so why should he stop? Even if he did, he would still be a pasty-faced douche bag so, this way he's a pasty-faced douche bag with money and right wing importance....not to mention his pasty-faced douche bag self importance.

There were three ways to respond to the kind of comments Colbert presented. The first is mockery - which Colbert does better than anyone. The second is some kind of reasoned refutation - but there isn't anything to refute. 'Volvo-driving, latte-drinking. liberal elitist' isn't an argument - it is the substitute for an argument that conservatives have been slopping the hogs with for many years. David Brooks may use slightly more clever name-calling, but he is otherwise down at the level of Limbaugh. The third response is to vent, to reveal one's anger. Of the three responses, Colbert's is best, but I'm a scientist, not a professional satirist.

My anger isn't a logical fallacy, because it isn't an argument either, and I didn't intend that it would be mistaken for one - and it is sincere. I don't think Brooks is sincere; his job at the NYT is presumably to offer a conservative's point of view - and to write quality editorials with facts and logic to support them. He's not doing that - he's coasting. He's too lazy, or too afraid, or too comfortable to change - or he knows his fellow conservatives have so tarnished conservatives' credibility that he has taken the easy out. I think Jill is right, "Brooks has made a very good living for himself out of supporting the money men" and he won't stop.

God forbid we should have an elitist for president.

Of course, that's just one explanation for the past 2 election results. Since the framers of the constitution were elitists, I'd kinda like to go back to that system. Just this time we can have an African American be the elitist in the oval office.

David Brooks is no better than anyone one else excerpted in those clips. The assertion that it would be bad to put an elitist in office is absurd, no mater who said it. Obama has managed to connect with a lot of people during this long long primary season. He pissed me off with the FISA amendment support, so I emailed his campaign and my senators and congressmen. In the mean time, I'm practicing saying "President Obama."

God forbid we should have an elitist for president.

That won't happen. The majority of Americans prefer a President who represents the white hard-working white Americans.

white hard-working white Americans.

as opposed to what, JoAnn? "black, lazy, black foreigners"? :)

Get used to saying it JoAnn: "President Barack Obama."

I had some interesting conversations this evening. One covered what MOST of Americans are concerned about - health care, the environment, and other non-fringe issues. One of the country's recent failings has been the pushing of issues such as gay marriage, religion so that campaigns end up attracting extremists on both sides and alienating the majority of us, so too many moderates stay home on election day.

I think the current climate shows that most of us will be voting in November. Look at primary and caucus turn-outs - up, up. This bodes well for O.

Instead of this nay-saying, get the fuck out there and campaign for Obama. If your area doesn't work (too red-state), go somewhere you can make a difference. And practice saying it: President Barack Hussein Obama.

Oi! what's with the error messages? I do sign in, and yes things do post. Just irritating.

Wow, I had no idea drinking a certain coffee beverage made you elitist, or a liberal! What a revelation. I thought I knew myself...

Wow, I had no idea drinking a certain coffee beverage made you elitist, or a liberal! What a revelation. I thought I knew myself...

Wow, I had no idea drinking a certain coffee beverage made you elitist, or a liberal! What a revelation. I thought I knew myself...