The death of the conservative intellectual

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Carmen813
Any thoughts?

Yes, but since I'm lazy, I'll link to what I wrote 5 days ago in response to one of my co-authors mentioning the same article.

Link

ZV

 

[soccerballtux]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Phokus
I agree, it'd be a shame if liberals became brain dead like the rightwing trolls on this forum (genx, jbourne, et al)

Awww... someone must have really had their feelings hurt :laugh: .

Never mind that your own fellow libs frequently distance themselves from you...

Why would me owning the shit out of you make my feelings hurt?

How about you keep your crying confined to one thread? Point people there if you wish/dare, but really... grow up, kid. You're the worst kind of troll... the neglected kind.

Personally they're my favorite. Gave them enough rope...and they took it.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Carmen813
The one point I disagree with is the author blaming the military. The military has performed commendably given the ever increasing operations tempo since the end of the Cold War.

Before the cold war ended, we had things like the US sponsoring death squads and terrorist armies and dictators and even an invasion in the Americas. After the cold war, that's greatly reduced. The last thing I'm going to complain about is that change - the OP article makes it sound like a bad thing.

What we do need to do better is to push for more freedom and liberty in the world. We have other and better tools than the military for that, but it's all about corporatism.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Carmen813
The one point I disagree with is the author blaming the military. The military has performed commendably given the ever increasing operations tempo since the end of the Cold War.

Before the cold war ended, we had things like the US sponsoring death squads and terrorist armies and dictators and even an invasion in the Americas.

And that was just JFK!!

 

[BarrySotero]

Wow cant believe the dude uses global warming as a measure. Marxocratic elites never debate anyone who knows what they are doing. Is Gore a brilliant guy lol? Smartest moves he makes involves ducking guys like Bjorn Lomborg, Lord Monkton and Vaclav Klaus. Limbaugh, Levin, Savage, Hewitt - any of the lowly radio talkers could rip Obama a new one on anything from warming to the Constitution (brilliant display of constitutional understanding over Chrysler). That's not even including the Heritage people, Gingrich, Jindal etc. A debate between 2 headcases like Mcain and Obama with a brain dead media covering for one of them was a joke. Truth is Obama is not that smart away from his Alinsky training and his telepromter. A party with mad hatters like Nancy Pelosi and that other creature Frank sure can't brag about much - never mind all the lib news channels, papers and radio shows go down the potty in ratings. Dems are lucky the media is nothing more than fawning paparazzi for Obama and gang. Global warming, boyz marrying boyz, scam and trade, polar bears - its a circus.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Carmen813
The one point I disagree with is the author blaming the military. The military has performed commendably given the ever increasing operations tempo since the end of the Cold War.

Before the cold war ended, we had things like the US sponsoring death squads and terrorist armies and dictators and even an invasion in the Americas.

And that was just JFK!!

Don't forget about the imprisonment of over 100,000 innocent Americans thanks to Craigs hero FDR.

 

[Lemon law]

BarrySotero is simply trolling, the topic of this thread is the death of conservative intellectualism, and why the GOP went from the top of the heap to the bottom of the political heap during the administration of GWB.

All ole barry is doing is predicting the dems will also suffer a similar fate, and blaming a biased media because that has not happened yet.

Meanwhile ole Barry is totally in denial about what is undeniable, which is why the GOP got demoted in the last two elections?

Its a chicken and an egg question, which must come first, the GOP learning from mistakes and getting their stuff together, or will the GOP just figure that is unnecessary, because the GOP will regain credibility only because the democrats will flop?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Carmen813
The one point I disagree with is the author blaming the military. The military has performed commendably given the ever increasing operations tempo since the end of the Cold War.

Before the cold war ended, we had things like the US sponsoring death squads and terrorist armies and dictators and even an invasion in the Americas.

And that was just JFK!!

You are trying to be cute, but it's soimewat offensive regarding someone who was as big an opponent of that crap that dominated our security establishment as he was.

JFK was the president of 'cut the CIA into a thousand pieces and throw them into the wind'; Reagan was the President whose administration especially did the things I describe.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: JD50
Don't forget about the imprisonment of over 100,000 innocent Americans thanks to Craigs hero FDR.

That was bad, as the imprisonment over a few years of innocents out of racist paranoia to defend the nation, but it pales against the support for the murder of a larger number of innocents for greed as systemic mass murder not in a misguided attempt to defend democracy but rather to oppose democracy and torture and terrorize and murder its supporters across several nations for decades.

 

[evident]

yeah, that sums up the failboat of the R party

 

[chess9]

Good thinking is almost always better than emotion, unless your goal is getting laid.

The Democrats are WORSE than the Republicans on this score. They are the agents of MYSTICISM! What is "CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN?" It's a mystical chant to mesmerize the masses and charm them to follow the piper.

Why would Dems refuse to allow our SuperMax Prisons to take terrorists? LOL! It's sheer baloney and mystical cant. Of course, the Republicans, on this issue, are worse. Why do Dems support the war in Afghanistan? Logic? History? No! They believe in the mystical power of democracy and the American Way! LOL! They are mostly fucking idiots!! But the Republicans are worse as they are also moral lepers.

We are governed by the biggest collection of non-thinking simians on the planet. I weep for humanity. (Oh, ok, maybe England now holds that crown, but we must be in second place.)

When we lost Buckley, though I usually disagreed with him, we lost a conservative ethos and style that Rush Limbaugh will never approach.

-Robert

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Carmen813
Any thoughts?

Yes, but since I'm lazy, I'll link to what I wrote 5 days ago in response to one of my co-authors mentioning the same article.

Link

ZV

That's an interesting read, but I wonder about your discussion of the Religious Right. You wrote:

The amount of pull that the ?religious right? has within the party very effectively stifles the party?s ability to put forth any national candidate who does not adhere to some form of Christianity.

The RR doesn't just look for a Christian - they look for an evangelical. Both parties almost always run Christians (I can't really think of a major party candidate in the last 50 years who wasn't a Christian, even if only nominally), but the Dem's candidate usually compartmentalizes his/her religion very clearly, and it's never a big issue, but the GOP candidate is expected to wear his/her religion on his/her sleeve. That to me is the difference between the two.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: Mursilis
The RR doesn't just look for a Christian - they look for an evangelical. Both parties almost always run Christians (I can't really think of a major party candidate in the last 50 years who wasn't a Christian, even if only nominally), but the Dem's candidate usually compartmentalizes his/her religion very clearly, and it's never a big issue, but the GOP candidate is expected to wear his/her religion on his/her sleeve. That to me is the difference between the two.

That about sums it up :thumbsup:

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Even though GWB&co were poor implementers of what conservatives had been bellying aching advocating for in the past 50 years, they still saw all their hopes and dreams realized as more liberal ideas were routed and everything they advocated was realized in what amounts to a living laboratory experiment.

That sentence just flat out contradicts itself. GWB spent tons of money we didn't have, expanded gov't, got involved in unnecessary foreign entanglements, and basically wrecked the GOP. I hardly think he fulfilled the "hopes and dreams" of conservatives. As Chris Rock said, GWB screwed up so badly, he made it hard for a white man to run for president!

And to the real conservative thinkers with integrity, which certainly includes the late William F. Buckley, they found most of their ideas flat out did not work in the real world. And as a result, some of these real conservative thinkers, insteaad of just blaming GWB&co, realized their ideas and theories were flawed. And to their credit, for the real conservative thinkers, it was back to the drawing board without a the necessity of buying into more liberal arguments.

Buckley came to that conclusion? I'd be interested to read that.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: chess9
Good thinking is almost always better than emotion, unless your goal is getting laid.

The Democrats are WORSE than the Republicans on this score. They are the agents of MYSTICISM! What is "CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN?" It's a mystical chant to mesmerize the masses and charm them to follow the piper.

Why would Dems refuse to allow our SuperMax Prisons to take terrorists? LOL! It's sheer baloney and mystical cant. Of course, the Republicans, on this issue, are worse. Why do Dems support the war in Afghanistan? Logic? History? No! They believe in the mystical power of democracy and the American Way! LOL! They are mostly fucking idiots!! But the Republicans are worse as they are also moral lepers.

We are governed by the biggest collection of non-thinking simians on the planet. I weep for humanity. (Oh, ok, maybe England now holds that crown, but we must be in second place.)

When we lost Buckley, though I usually disagreed with him, we lost a conservative ethos and style that Rush Limbaugh will never approach.

-Robert

:thumbsup:

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: chess9

We are governed by the biggest collection of non-thinking simians on the planet. I weep for humanity.

Humanity put those "non-thinking simians" in charge of us all. The same people who couldn't figure out you can't afford a $500K house on a $50K income elect a gov't which can't figure out you can't afford $4T in spending if you've only got $3T in revenue. The enemy is in the mirror.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: chess9

We are governed by the biggest collection of non-thinking simians on the planet. I weep for humanity.

Humanity put those "non-thinking simians" in charge of us all. The same people who couldn't figure out you can't afford a $500K house on a $50K income elect a gov't which can't figure out you can't afford $4T in spending if you've only got $3T in revenue. The enemy is in the mirror.

The problem is that politicians generally don't come from the pool of upper echelon students. Politicians come from your D- and C- subsets (occasionally we're blessed with a B), while the A students go into the private sector.

I know it's a rather broad generalization, but is it really surprising when we see these douches thrashing about whilst trying to solve rather complex problems; problems for which they have zero education or training?

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: jbourne77
The problem is that politicians generally don't come from the pool of upper echelon students. Politicians come from your D- and C- subsets (occasionally we're blessed with a B), while the A students go into the private sector.

I know it's a rather broad generalization, but is it really surprising when we see these douches thrashing about whilst trying to solve rather complex problems; problems for which they have zero education or training?

I don't see it as a lack of intellect, but more as a lack of political will, due to the contradictory, extremely-short-sighted nature of the voting public. We want the sorts of politicians who promise us the moon, but won't make us pay for it. We only want liars, really.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: jbourne77
The problem is that politicians generally don't come from the pool of upper echelon students. Politicians come from your D- and C- subsets (occasionally we're blessed with a B), while the A students go into the private sector.

I know it's a rather broad generalization, but is it really surprising when we see these douches thrashing about whilst trying to solve rather complex problems; problems for which they have zero education or training?

I don't see it as a lack of intellect, but more as a lack of political will, due to the contradictory, extremely-short-sighted nature of the voting public. We want the sorts of politicians who promise us the moon, but won't make us pay for it. We only want liars, really.

That's a good point. The public in general wants the impossible, and the only people willing to try to deliver the impossible are either a) stupid or b) liars. It's pretty cliche, but they're panderers, not civil servants.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: jbourne77
The problem is that politicians generally don't come from the pool of upper echelon students. Politicians come from your D- and C- subsets (occasionally we're blessed with a B), while the A students go into the private sector.

I know it's a rather broad generalization, but is it really surprising when we see these douches thrashing about whilst trying to solve rather complex problems; problems for which they have zero education or training?

I don't see it as a lack of intellect, but more as a lack of political will, due to the contradictory, extremely-short-sighted nature of the voting public. We want the sorts of politicians who promise us the moon, but won't make us pay for it. We only want liars, really.

That's a good point. The public in general wants the impossible, and the only people willing to try to deliver the impossible are either a) stupid or b) liars. It's pretty cliche, but they're panderers, not civil servants.

Dear me, all this blame the guy in the mirror talk and next thing you know you're going to be telling me that I vote for the folk I do because I hate myself and have an unconscious need to create my own self-destruction.

If I may offer some personal advise I'd caution you not to sound too much like that idiot, Moonbeam.

Careful also that you don't start thinking that the average person has no idea what is in his best interest and needs some elite person to tell them what to do.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Careful also that you don't start thinking that the average person has no idea what is in his best interest and needs some elite person to tell them what to do.

A dangerous thought indeed, Moonbeam. But then, if we believed the average person could be relied upon to look out for his own best interests, why does the gov't work so hard to protect us from ourselves? I know seatbelts save lives - I've walked away from auto accidents because I always buckle up. I don't need the state passing a law requiring me to exercise sound judgment. I know credit card companies don't have my best interests at heart - I don't need laws protecting me from falling into their webs. Is my brother my keeper or not?

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: chess9
Good thinking is almost always better than emotion, unless your goal is getting laid.

The Democrats are WORSE than the Republicans on this score. They are the agents of MYSTICISM! What is "CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN?" It's a mystical chant to mesmerize the masses and charm them to follow the piper.

You are way off on this. It's the republican party which has used emotional wedge issues and bottled lines like axis of evil, compassionate conservatism, etc. to get themselves elected recently. The dems have been known as the party of 12-point plans and 2-point losses. The fact that Obama had a catchy campaign slogan this time around doesn't mean everyone voted for him because of it.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: chess9
Good thinking is almost always better than emotion, unless your goal is getting laid.

The Democrats are WORSE than the Republicans on this score. They are the agents of MYSTICISM! What is "CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN?" It's a mystical chant to mesmerize the masses and charm them to follow the piper.

You are way off on this. It's the republican party which has used emotional wedge issues and bottled lines like axis of evil, compassionate conservatism, etc. to get themselves elected recently. The dems have been known as the party of 12-point plans and 2-point losses. The fact that Obama had a catchy campaign slogan this time around doesn't mean everyone voted for him because of it.

The public in general isn't nearly as interested in the nuts and bolts of campaigns and kept promises as you and I are. Like it or not, MANY people voted for Obama simply because of his rockstar appeal and the novelty of experiencing the occasion of the first black president. Ask them why they voted for Obama, and they'll tell you it was because he stands for hope and change. Press them on what hope and change they were specifically interested in, and they'll giggle and say 'oh, I don't know... he's black... that's different, right?" You might even stumble on an above-average-informed voter and they'll tell you because they wanted out of Iraq (oops), Afghanistan (oops), Gitmo closed (oops), and less secrecy in the White House (oops, but with Biden around they could still deliver on that).

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

The public in general isn't nearly as interested in the nuts and bolts of campaigns and kept promises as you and I are. Like it or not, MANY people voted for Obama simply because of his rockstar appeal and the novelty of experiencing the occasion of the first black president. Ask them why they voted for Obama, and they'll tell you it was because he stands for hope and change. Press them on what hope and change they were specifically interested in, and they'll giggle and say 'oh, I don't know... he's black... that's different, right?" You might even stumble on an above-average-informed voter and they'll tell you because they wanted out of Iraq (oops), Afghanistan (oops), Gitmo closed (oops), and less secrecy in the White House (oops, but with Biden around they could still deliver on that).

The sad truth. Someone ought to dig up those survey results which show large numbers of voters can't name their Senators, Reps., state Governor, etc. It's alarming, the depth of the average voter's ignorance.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
In somewhat related news, the GOP, in a rare bit of rationality, has dropped efforts to rename the democratic party the national democratic socialist party.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...l_ge/us_gop_dems__name

Good news!. I think this indicates that the Reps are starting to make the needed changes within their party. They got a long way to go...but it's a start.