Ed Morrissey serves. Jazz Shaw returns. J.E. Dyer smashes. Jazz Shaw whiffs. Game, set, and match to the conservatives. Granted, the debate’s an easy one to win if you’re willing to think, but it’s always……

First, only being willing to pay back loans if the lender agrees to lend you again the first amount plus interest plus spending cash is extortion – which is so wrong that it is illegal.

If you say it’s not extortion because you intend to pay back the money by borrowing the first amount plus interest plus spending cash from other lenders instead of the first lender is a Ponzi scheme – and this, too, is so wrong that it’s illegal.

{^_^}

a “psychological” faction that has made them unreasonable and nearly insane

And, I’d submit that “nearly” be edited out…

This “mother of all no-brainers” deal that Brooks accuses the GOP of turning down doesn’t exist.

Well as Nancy Pelosi said; “We have to pass the bill before you know what’s in it.”

I believe those are now in the rear view mirror and problems are escalating.

What a douche!

I have long suspected that Brooks whether he’s ranting about Palin or tea parties or this latest incoherent rant, is just transcribing WH talking points. They spew this bilge at the watercooler and he basically stenographs it for them.

The paper raised the prospect of more rapid, pent-up climate change when emerging economies eventually crack down on pollution.

Don’t you just love it when scientists use obscure technical terms like “pent-up”. That’s a sure mark of rock-solid research.

The only reason we are subject to Brooks thoughts are the assertion he is a conservative. He is not. He voted for Obama and has continuously advocated for the Democratic point of view. He is an impersonator.

pat on July 5, 2011 at 12:51 PM

Sadly, it’s a profitable career path. There will always be a demand for token fake-conservatives in the liberal old media.

Odie1941 on July 5, 2011 at 11:45 AM

Exactly!

I swear, I love me some Ed Morrissey!!

Oh, and Brooks was broadsided by the caboose while drooling over the crease in Obama’s trousers. HAH!

The members of this movement do not accept the logic of compromise, no matter how sweet the terms.

First of all, the terms being offered by Democrats are not that “sweet.”

Second, why would anyone want to compromise with people who are pushing policies that have been shown time and again to utterly fail?

could he just please publish the list of “Intellectual Authorities” he’s thinking of. . . . . .??

Narniaman on July 5, 2011 at 1:16 PM

Himself. Mr. Frum. Ms. Noonan. Mr. Krauthammer. Mr. Krugman. And like that.

The members of this movement do not accept the logic of compromise, no matter how sweet the terms. If you ask them to raise taxes by an inch in order to cut government by a foot, they will say no. If you ask them to raise taxes by an inch to cut government by a yard, they will still say no.

This is not true. Rather, some of us want the government to cut (by the inch, foot, yard, furlong, whatever…) as an entirely standalone act – just once – prove that it is even possible – we need to see it, to believe it.Then, having done that, we can discuss raising taxes.

The members of this movement do not accept the legitimacy of scholars and intellectual authorities. A thousand impartial experts may tell them that a default on the debt would have calamitous effects, far worse than raising tax revenues a bit. But the members of this movement refuse to believe it.

Lied to. Lied to. Lied to. Lied to. liedtoleidtoliedtoliedto! Suddenly, Mr. Brooks is surprised by skepticism. (Hint: we’ve been lied to!)