Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
I agree it's suspect... but we have enough purposeful hyperbole and flat out misinformation to warrant playing these close to the vest for sake of being conservative in our accusations... even if there is something potentially fishy behind it.
Interesting. I had no idea he was the head of FIRE for a while. Seems like an eminently sensible op-ed. I'm not sure what the disagreement would be, other than on the fringes of the left.
This op-ed was everything that's wrong with this "free speech on campus" discussion and with the Times opinion page. The internet rightly destroyed Weiss for a ridiculous, obvious mistake that undermined her argument. If you're so desperate for examples of the left being unreasonable towards reasonable people that you cite an obvious parody account as one of your small handful of examples, that should tell you something about both the premise and the thoughtfulness of the writer. Her "apology," of course, was half-###ed at best and admitted to none of that.
I don't know what Sommers said, but James Damore and Heather Heying have been recently shouted down for pretty much these exact statements.
Interesting take also. You know I take you seriously about these things, and it's quite possible that this is the case. But I seem to recall my friends from Columbia complaining of the exact same stuff she was complaining about in '04-'05, so she gets some credit with me for speaking out then and speaking out now.
I don't know the facts of those incidents. Unless you're just talking about Damore getting fired, in which case I'd disagree- his problem was context, not content.
They were on a panel discussion that got disrupted -- at about the 20-minute mark here. Not a huge deal in the grand scheme of things, but it's an example of people using force or disruption instead of conversation or debate to try to defeat opposing ideas. (And they threw in the f-word -- fascism -- to committ Bari Weiss's peeve.)
I don't know much about the Columbia 04-05 thing she's been getting heat about. My perspective was her confusing a fairly obvious parody with the real thing and then using that as one of the foundations of her argument was so bad that it undermined her column totally, so I don't care if it was also hypocritical.
It don't think it undermined her column totally. I say this because by the time I had read her column, the correction had already been made and the reference to the fake tweet had already been deleted -- and yet the column was still cogent.
I’m curious, ra- do you agree with the views put forth in this piece? You believe the Deep State is out to get Trump?
No. I don't believe in Deep State, but I do believe they're leveraging obstruction of justice and their criminal charges in really cynical ways.
Typical liberal rag.
It actually was quite critical of the GOP. I decided to link so that this didn't become a conservative echo chamber, though there aren't many things but echoes in here anyway.
It was quite critical. Appropriately so. It's a good rag, as rags go.It actually was quite critical of the GOP. I decided to link so that this didn't become a conservative echo chamber, though there aren't many things but echoes in here anyway.
I don't get it, is this a plea to drop one's ideals? Moaning about the Founding Fathers? Well.rockaction said:
Absolutely true, but it's getting worse.
Yeah, it's a fiery op-ed. I don't endorse nor agree with it. The main takeaway I got from it was that the GOP playbook that has been in use since the nineties is sort of dead, according to the author. It was very popular in the world of think tanks to quote de Tocqueville and talk about the Founding Fathers, so I get the criticism.
I think what DeMuth is getting at is really the non-delegation doctrine and the executive and legislative branches deferring decisions to the courts, hoping that the circuit courts and SCOTUS will decide the issue for them. It's a way to avoid responsibility for one's vote and becomes a question of accountability. Better for Congress to pass along the onerous qualities of legislation to a bureaucrat in the executive branch, or an elected official to pass along legislative responsibility to a judge with a lifetime appointment rather than go on record with an actual vote.
It was, I found it completely implausible that Trump could win Pennsylvania. I remember having dinner with a friend from PA before the election and he told me that Trump would win there and I disagreed. He was obviously right.
Italicized: I don't agree domestically. I think domestic politics had moved away from the GOP. Paul Ryan and Scott Walker are perfect examples of the unpopularity of their own proposals in their own state of Wisconsin (which is much like PA, MI, etc.).
Just trying to explain what the article of the day is and its content. No mania really. Sober for a month and two cups of coffee this morning. On my way to an appointment soon.
Ok, maybe we're saying the same thing. The conservative foreign policy seemed to me to be Colin Powell's - the DOD General version - that the rules for foreign engagement needed to simple and stark. But most especially certain lessons of the Vietnam War badly needed to be learned. The key to the Pentagon Papers wasn't free speech or transparency, it was that the DOD and the IC knew in ca 1968 that the war's goals could not be attained. So, do not lie to the American people about that and do not twist intelligence publicly. Well that's what happened in 2003 (and not just by the GOP I might add). - That concept, the Powell doctrine, was and still would be IMO popular. The problem of course is the progenitor himself threw himself onto his own sword before the UN to effect its evisceration.
It'd be for the good of real conservatives, yes. It's been a weird phenomenon to watch him keep conservatism at bay with his judicial appointments.
Yeah, I think we are. Even I got swept up in the heady Wilsonian leanings of Bush mainly because -- and I think Bush did the same -- I trusted the think tank world. Never, given the foreign policy premises coming out of D.C. think tanks from the early nineties onward, would one have imagined the utterly intractable hatred the West faced in Islamic countries when it came to being seen as liberator vs. colonizer/war criminals.adversaries.
Point noted, though. I'll try to be more succinct. I figure a longer headline is better than a misleading one and wasted time clicking on an article.
