Most likely it’s an interaction between constitutional and environmental factors.
I’m not ignoring anything. Republican bashing, including the borderline-insane variety, always gets traction on the SDMB. This is not news to anyone I know of.
Regards,
Shodan
Hell, Reagan would be too liberal now if they actually paid attention to what he did.
I worked for the Conservative Party in New York in high school. I voted for Nixon in 1972. I voted for Republicans right up to 2000 when my spider sense went off about Bush the younger. It told me he was a nitwit, and I was right. Iraq War 1 was a masterpiece of military planning, discipline, and diplomacy, and Bush the elder, one of the best qualified people to ever be elected, was right on top of it.
As for Mr. Shodan, I’ll be charitable and say that deep down he understands the intellectual bankruptcy of the current mainstream Republican position, which is why he refused to defend it. We all know that when a politician is caught with his hand in the cookie jar, his reaction is that all coverage of it is politically motivated. I’m not saying the Republican field is dishonest (mostly) - the top candidates, except Romney, are honestly stupid. But saying that it is not necessary to respond to a point because it was in the Times (and any Republican in the Times must be a sellout, I assume) is very similar to this kind of response.
Especially Republican bashing by Republicans, it seems.
There, there, you poor, poor dear.
Since you didn’t read the article, you literally don’t know what you’re talking about.
Was there just a glitch in the Matrix? I got this deja vu feeling…
So says the guy who was one of the loudest MoFo calling for a war on Iraq.
Under normal conditions he should be removed from public discourse and probably be checked for inciting to war and deceiving the public.
How anyone – knowing who this guys is and what he has done – take him seriously anymore on any topic? Ah, yes, in US you can. He is apparently “voice of reason” now.
Geez :rolleyes:
No more than any other kind - you folks are always up to be reassured.
What am I supposed to defend - that the GOP is not a death cult rejoicing in the death of the poor? That kind of shit doesn’t need defending against - it needs mocking and derision.
A thread full of name-calling against the GOP, interspersed with complaints about how intellectually bankrupt they are. Gotta love it.
As the elections approach, this will go up exponentially. Which is fine with me - I can use the chuckles.
It’s like the threads we got about how Bush was going to cancel the elections, and the ones we get every few months about how we are gonna invade Iran, or the national conspiracy to put OWS down, or Ohio vote fraud in 2004, or etc., etc.
But it’s that nasty ol’ GOP with its alternate history and facts.
Uh-huh. 
Regards,
Shodan
But Frum is not one of them, and you can’t get around that.
:rolleyes: First time I’ve ever seen any characterization that interesting applied to David Frum.
Shodan, you keep complaining that political discussions are so one-sided around here, but what do you actually bring to the table? Let’s take a look at your activity in this thread:
Post #65: Announce you didn’t read the article. Cast aspersions on the author’s sincerity.
Post #68: Attack the New York Times (for some reason). Announce that your main purpose in this thread is to snicker condescendingly at people.
Post #71: When asked your opinion of the exerpts of the article, reiterate your dismissal the New York Times.
Post #75: Whine about how prone to Republican bashing the SDMB is. Gloat as though you’d made a point about something.
Post #77: Point to a pair of articles published by New York Magazine as proof that the New York Times is biased. Whine that the article about the Democratic Party didn’t prompt anyone to start a thread. Did not start a thread about said article.
Post #82: Whine more that Republican bashing is common on the SDMB.
Post #88: Refuse to defend the GOP. Announce that mockery and derision are appropriate tactics. Scold other people in the thread for resorting to mockery and derision. Announce that the constant Republican bashing (which you had bemoaned earlier in the thread) is in fact a source of amusement for you.
Have you ever considered, say, trying to contribute to this thread? It’s easy to see how Republican-bashing threads are so one-sided when nobody’s willing to stick up for them. I suppose it is easier to whine about the state of affairs, but it doesn’t actually do anything to bring balance to the discussion, does it?
For instance, what really is right or wrong with the GOP today? You must have some actual opinions on that.
Well, you could try actually reading the article in question, and perhaps pointing out where certain points that Mr. Frum makes are erroneous.
Oh, no, sorry, strike that. That’s just crazy talk. Shodan actually reading an article that makes cogent criticism of the beloved party. My bad for even suggesting such a silly idea.
When Pat Robertson thinks the republicans might have veered too far right for general consumption then I don’t know how much you can take away from the fact that David frum also thinks the Republicans have gone too far.
You. Did. Not. Read. The. Article.
Shodan, I’m really not bothered if someone tried to oppose the points presented in the article. I found a lot of the posters in the first half of the thread rather over-the-top. I do not believe that republicans in the post-Reagan era are necessarily nuts or evil, and I am quick to denounce posts that point to them as such without much backing. This, though? This was pretty strong backing, bringing up a lot of very valid points about the Republican party.
No, I’m not bothered by the fact that you oppose the article. I’m bothered by the way you tried to oppose it. You don’t even pretend to have read it, you just write it off as a diatribe from the NYT, a typical anti-republican hate paper. Even if you were right, this would bug me. It shows intellectual laziness, a complete and utter lack of respect for those you are debating with, and a way of thinking extremely tainted by confirmation bias. THIS is why this pissed me off so much.
Well, we have a former republican insider, and current conservative columnist, coming out and saying that the Republican party is not doing what it should be doing. And again: YOU DIDN’T FUCKING READ IT. See Shodan, here’s a hint:
When someone can make a post like this about your posting habits, with this degree of detail and derision, then one of two things is happening:
- You are an extremely poor debater with bad habits that you should stop; for example, posting in a thread that you have no interest in about an article that you refuse to read only to deride those who took the time to see what the topic was actually about!
- You’re incredibly bad at Mafia.
Seeing as this is great debates, I’m leaning towards the former.
IIRC, Pat was objecting not to the platform, but rather simply stating that it’s correct, but no longer palatable for the general public. Frum is actually criticizing the platform itself.
Well, I suppose unread dismissal would be the proper response to an article posted from, say, WorldNetDaily or American Thinker. But never to one from the NYT or its magazines, nor to Frum wherever published. I think we all understand how much the name of the messenger does and does not properly count for.
That would be like going up to the wino shitting on the park bench and offering to wipe his behind. It’s not that kind of thread.
Like I said, this is a Two Minute Hate, where people rant about how much Republicans hate Mexicans and that kind of thing. Like I also said, you don’t argue with that - you point at it and laugh.
It’s like Der Trihs and his foolishness. You can’t argue with that kind of thing, and it isn’t amusing to try.
If there were any chance of a serious discussion, sure. In this thread, there isn’t - it’s just liberals patting each other on the back on how enlightened and wise and wonderful they are, and how evil and wrong and stupid and icky anyone who disagrees with them is. Part 982,386.
But Frum is not one of them, and you can’t get around that.
[/quote]
Actually, yes, he is one of those people. That’s why he wrote the article - to complain about the GOP’s alternate history.
Apparently you didn’t read it either.
Regards,
Shodan
How so?
All those things happened in the GOP’s real history, on the Earth with the blue sky.
The fact that he says things like this -
sort of tipped me off that he was complaining about it.
Regards,
Shodan