Talk:David Brooks
|
This Political pundits related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information. |
| ||
|
| ||||
|
This article contains information about one or more living persons. Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats. |
I feel like this article is very unfair to David Brooks. Just for starters he Isn't a crazy dogmatic true believer. He's flexable. He's admitted some of the things he said that are quoted here where stupid. http://nymag.com/news/media/67010/index5.html read paragraphs three and four you can see he feels the one nation slightly devided article was bad. or read this page http://nymag.com/news/media/67010/index2.html for details on how he isn't dogmatic. Or read the whole article I think it represents david brooks loads better then what we have here on rational wiki right now. summary: hey I like David Brooks--NonPerson (talk) 01:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- We don't accuse him of being "dogmatic", we accuse him of being a VSP, which he is. Nobodies calling him an extreme right-winger though.ClothCoat (talk) 03:14, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
((person)) If one goes to a talk by Brooks, one will probably hear a story about how the late William F Buckley took a liking to Brooks, and kind of took him "under his wings." That seems to be a fairly big deal for Brooks, and, as things have progressed, it seems possibly true that Brooks feels a certain responsibility for being one of the major "maintainers" of the "William F Buckley tradition" (which Brooks seems very impressed with). Too me, it is somewhat unclear how all of this affects what Brooks writes today, but I think it is something to be aware of whenever one reads a Brooks article. — Unsigned, by: 75.25.121.227 / talk / contribs