Since you didn't get the point in my last reply, I'll try again. You haven't demonstrated, nor have you convinced me, that David Frum was using guilt by association to wrongly attack this group of antiwar conservatives. You've offered no significant facts to support your contentions. Frum made a solid effort and gave extensive factual accounts to show that these men have very similar political ideologies.
I've followed Pat Buchanan and Bob Novak for over thirty years. Always thought they both presented the conservative side in a fair manner. However, Novak's public demeaner has changed drastically over the last several years and Buchanan made a first class fool of himself by leaving the GOP. Neither man's public behavior has served him well of late.
>>> ... surely you can demonstrate how it is so, as the last time I checked, you have yet to respond to my detailed outlining of Frum's tactic.
I can't demonstrate something that never existed. Frum employed no "tactic", as you say, he simply wrote a solid political essay. You want me to say, you're right and Frum is wrong. That ain't gonna happen. It would be a lie and I'm not into fabricating untruths to please anyone.
As I've already said, these men have much in common on a political level. Guilt by association remains a weak argument on your part. There has been no "smear tactic", "gratuitous attacks", and "intellectually fraudulent smears" by Frum on anyone. You just don't get it. Frum spoke the truth. Again, if Frum wants to use the label "paleo" to get his point across there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. By all accounts, Bob Novak, Pat Buchanan and Joe Sobran are all paleo conservatives.
You don't hide your dislike for David Frum and the closing paragraph of your last reply, says it all. The man has a talent with words and in this specific piece, Frum speaks the truth. I've got to say it again. Sometimes the truth hurts. This is a perfect case of the truth upsetting both you and Novak. It doesn't help your case by denying that obvious fact.
Btw, you never laid a glove on Frum. If it makes you happy, keep trying.
Seeing as you have refused to address my breakdown of Frum's essay, I do not see how you can legitimately make that claim.
Since you didn't get the point in my last reply, I'll try again. You haven't demonstrated, nor have you convinced me, that David Frum was using guilt by association to wrongly attack this group of antiwar conservatives.
And since you evidently did not read my previous post, I'll note that I did indeed demonstrate in an extensively quoted breakdown of the article that Frum was using guilt-by-association in post #27. You have yet to address or even acknowledge that post's contents. As for not convincing you, I do not see how you can legitimately cite me for that considering that you yourself stated in post #47 "Needless to say, no effort on your part will convince me otherwise."
You've offered no significant facts to support your contentions.
That is simply not so. I quoted Frum's article extensively to demonstrate my point back in #27. You are free to continue ignoring that post, but lying about it not being there will not make it go away.
As I've already said, these men have much in common on a political level. Guilt by association remains a weak argument on your part. There has been no "smear tactic", "gratuitous attacks", and "intellectually fraudulent smears" by Frum on anyone. You just don't get it. Frum spoke the truth.
You may shout all that in repetition to your heart's content, but it no more makes it correct than flapping your arms will make you fly. The fact is, Frum DID use guilt by association as the central feature of his essay. It is pervasive throughout the essay, as I demonstrated by quoting him back in post #27. It is also a matter of fact that, by using guilt by associations at the heart of his essay, Frum engaged in an intellectually dishonest and argumentatively weak form of attack.
Again, if Frum wants to use the label "paleo" to get his point across there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
There is when he uses it to describe people who are not "paleos," or when he uses it to paint people with racism based on the anti-semitic quotes of a few fringer extremists. Frum did both of those things and you could see it quoted in post #27 if you were honest enough to open your eyes for a moment.
By all accounts, Bob Novak, Pat Buchanan and Joe Sobran are all paleo conservatives.
I'm sure that would come as news to Bob Novak! It would probably come as news as well to several from the Lew Rockwell crowd who were also labelled "paleos" even though they are, by their own admission, libertarians.
You don't hide your dislike for David Frum
You are correct about that! I find him to be an intellectually weak and self-absorbed writer. This latest charade only demonstrates it further.
The man has a talent with words
He's penned a single soundbyte that any one of us could have dreamed up. It worked as a soundbyte and was a good soundbyte at that. But it was still a soundbyte and his contribution to writing it no more makes him a Shakespeare than this thread makes you or me a Chaucer.
Frum speaks the truth. I've got to say it again.
Since convincing yourself of his truthfulness in the face of all factual evidence seems to be your game, I suppose you do have to keep telling yourself that.
Btw, you never laid a glove on Frum.
You keep telling yourself that. In the meantime, the arguments you refuse to even read indicate beyond dispute that Frum's smear piece is an intellectually fraudulent waste of paper. You are perfectly free to live in a deluded reality where up is down and black is white, and for all I care you can preserve that reality for yourself by reaffirming its "existence" by repetition of statements such as that. But back here in the real world, Frum has been torn apart by honest conservatives of all types and will continue to be torn apart by honest conservatives of all types. He will continue to be torn apart because his arguments ingulge in fraud.