• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Who are the Intelligent Conservative Commentators

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Nov 30, 2006
15,468
389
121
Bele and Lokai were bitter enemies until the end. A sad commentary on the human condition.


Once the Ariannus mission is completed, Bele takes control of the Enterprise again, but this time he deactivates the auto-destruct in the process and sends the ship to Cheron. Once there, the two aliens find the planet's population completely wiped out by a global war fueled by insane racial hatred. Both Lokai and Bele stare silently at the destruction on the monitor and realize they are the only ones left of their race (or, as they see it, their "races").

Instead of calling a truce, the two beings begin to blame each other for the destruction of the planet and a brawl ensues. As the two aliens fight, their innate powers radiate, cloaking them with an energy aura that threatens to damage the ship. With no other choice, Kirk sadly allows the two aliens to chase each other down to their obliterated world to decide their own fates, consumed by their now self-perpetuating mutual hate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_That_Be_Your_Last_Battlefield
 

Pr0d1gy

Diamond Member
Jan 30, 2005
7,776
0
76
I am, obviously.
Much like Colbert, you post/commentate as a blatantly honest conservative. Obviously, it is a gag, but the truth of what you post is you actually say what they are all thinking....which is what makes your posts so scary.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,211
126
Most good conservative intellectuals are dead, just as most conservatives are. We do have people who have stepped up and adopted the name, so the term is still in use.
 

MrColin

Platinum Member
May 21, 2003
2,403
3
81
I don't know about commentators but I can appreciate most of this blog: http://www.amerika.org

As long as you don't define "conservative" as towing the Republican line unquestioningly, its pretty conservative.
 

zanejohnson

Diamond Member
Nov 29, 2002
7,048
7
81
Ron Paul.

if ya swing to the conservative side..

way more intellectuals on the liberal side of things...
 

DCal430

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2011
6,021
9
81
The only intelligent right wing commentators are liars, thieves, and con men. If they are intelligent then he knows the craps they spew is garbage and are saying it to deceive the people.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,712
3,518
126
You are comfortable in your "liberal" shoes, or maybe better said your "progressive" shoes (which are quite a bit different than what most here would associate with the word "progressive.")

If I use the definitions found in the interview, I am quite comfortable enough to wear "conservative" shoes.

What you say about my kind of folks is close enough to what my kind of folks say about you and yours.

And that is the problem we all face.

It is like the Hatfields and the McCoys or one of the circles of hell that Dante describes.

An outsider would be prone to say, what's the difference whether you crack your eggs on the narrow end or the wider end?

Is our fate to repeat ad infinitum or is it to make the necessary breakthrough to end such a boring but vicious circle?
I am on a campaign to end insult on this forum, to require that folk speak to each other with dignity and respect and offer no opinions they do not support with reasoned argument. The Hatfields and the McCoys are two families that are Americans. If the culture allows them to fight they will fight, if the culture says no, you are world famous idiots, they will cease. The context has to change from liberal tolerance of insult to conservative absolutism. Conservatives understand that and liberals can learn to live with it.
 

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
0
0
I am on a campaign to end insult on this forum, to require that folk speak to each other with dignity and respect and offer no opinions they do not support with reasoned argument.
Ah, that must be why you referred to conservatives as "trapped wild animals" earlier in the thread.

Very dignified and respectful.

So was stirring the shit with the obviously sarcastic wisecrack about Glenn Beck.
 

emperus

Diamond Member
Apr 6, 2012
7,270
740
126
The only intelligent right wing commentators are liars, thieves, and con men. If they are intelligent then he knows the craps they spew is garbage and are saying it to deceive the people.
That is my view. I find it quite depressing that they put money over country. I can imagine then snickering at how stupid the people who believe their crap are. But, maybe I haven't been exposed to any of the honest ones.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,712
3,518
126
The only intelligent right wing commentators are liars, thieves, and con men. If they are intelligent then he knows the craps they spew is garbage and are saying it to deceive the people.
I believe that this is an example of where liberals leave the rails of reality. They cannot believe that conservatives could possibly be as opaque as they appear to liberals to be without it being motivated by evil. This need to see the other as evil is exactly what conservatives need to justify doing the same thing back. If you will watch the Bill Moyers thingi it may open your eyes to a new way to see conservatives. Just take the welfare example. If you believe that you get what you put in and deserve it because you put the effort in, read the story of The Little Red Hen, it is totally morally consistent with that view to see welfare as a violation of a natural human law, giving to the undeserving and destroying the one motivator that can save them, their own personal need. Furthermore, it is a very positive way to look at other people, that they can all be successful if they want to be. Liberals make all kinds of excuses for the weak, reinforcing the notion that folk are weak. A third way sees them as damaged and attempts to repair the damage to people's self confidence by helping them surreptitiously to help themselves.

See the story of Nail or Stone Soup.
 
Last edited:

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,712
3,518
126
Ah, that must be why you referred to conservatives as "trapped wild animals" earlier in the thread.

Very dignified and respectful.

So was stirring the shit with the obviously sarcastic wisecrack about Glenn Beck.
I refered to them as trapped wild animals because I have a huge ache in my heart when I see one and can't help it because it's dangerous to do so. I also need to try to communicate in images rather than words. Do you maybe feel trapped somehow that you reacted to my words as you did?

He who has made a door and a lock has also made a key..... A saying
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,712
3,518
126
Bele and Lokai were bitter enemies until the end. A sad commentary on the human condition.
Two things, the neurological data does not support an equal distribution of altered reality thinking and the story is one created by liberals to show racial bigots what they look like to unbiased people, demonizing the other based of differences that are inconsequential. I believe the divide between liberals and conservatives has reached disaster levels and is hurting the nation. Kirk couldn't help these two. Are we any wiser. I have suggested that were we to change the forum rules......you know the story.
 

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
0
0
I refered to them as trapped wild animals because I have a huge ache in my heart when I see one and can't help it because it's dangerous to do so.
I don't know whom you think you're fooling with this bogus little peacemaker routine, but I assure you that it's not me.
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
23,003
770
126
As said in another thread, Shepard Smith is very good.
I agree, because he calls out consevatives and their stupidity all the time. I can't believe his head hasn't exploded from working at Fox News yet.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,712
3,518
126
I don't know whom you think you're fooling with this bogus little peacemaker routine, but I assure you that it's not me.
In a long life of examining the motivations of myself and other people it has become axiomatic to my understanding that those situations in which one suspects he is being fooled are just those situations where one has at some time in the past been made to feel a fool. Thus it becomes very important to the ego, in those situations, to announce ones suspicions preemptively. The intention of this, of course, is to transfer the feeling on uneasiness generated over onto the person who has aroused the old feeling. This has a high probability of working if the target is unaware of this process. But when the consciousness of understanding is present the only feeling this causes is sympathy for the person as for a wild animal caught in an unconscious trap. You would like to help, but the animal is mean.

Here I liken an animal which can't reason with a human being who does not know what he feels. Nothing can give the animal reason and nothing can make conscious what is not.

Furthermore, this happens to a person of awareness so often that it quickly becomes something one doesn't worry about.

When I entered this thread the most high minded thing I can think of I should have done, is to leave it. I know of no conservative thinkers that I could tout as what I consider intellectual thinkers and that is purely my own failing. I believe, however, that conservative philosophy makes a tremendous amount of emotional sense to conservative minds and that they must have their idols. One example of a 'thinker' that some of my family admire is Glenn Beck, a person so delusional that even altered reality conservatives must agree is good numbers. So, nasty little person that I am, I mentioned him. Everywhere in my posts of late I have been trying to change my tone toward conservatives because tone just makes them mad, but I also have a temper and as long as the forum rules allow an altered reality to be stuck like a bare ass in my face, I still fall victim to showing them my ass too. I know it is useless and serves no purpose, but it redresses an imbalance in the force.

But I know, having studied the data on conservative thinking, that they are decent people with a moral foundation. So I would say to you that it is entirely possible to experience rage at the blindness of others while being rationally aware that rage only makes them more delusional. Being human is very complex and I fall into stereotypical patterns and make mistakes.

The trapped animal thingi, think what you want, but I know I meant no insult.
 

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
0
0
In a long life of examining the motivations of myself and other people it has become axiomatic to my understanding that those situations in which one suspects he is being fooled are just those situations where one has at some time in the past been made to feel a fool. Thus it becomes very important to the ego, in those situations, to announce ones suspicions preemptively. The intention of this, of course, is to transfer the feeling on uneasiness generated over onto the person who has aroused the old feeling. This has a high probability of working if the target is unaware of this process. But when the consciousness of understanding is present the only feeling this causes is sympathy for the person as for a wild animal caught in an unconscious trap. You would like to help, but the animal is mean.
Are you a trained and licensed psychologist? I would assume not, because if you were, you would behave in a more responsible manner. Assuming not, the above is just more of the amateur psychoanalysis you seem to consider a hobby. It may entertain you, but I assure you that it either bores or insults everyone else.

Here I liken an animal which can't reason with a human being who does not know what he feels. Nothing can give the animal reason and nothing can make conscious what is not.
And despite your "long life of examination" it hasn't occurred to you that such "likening" would just be taken by said human beings as an insult. Neat.

When I entered this thread the most high minded thing I can think of I should have done, is to leave it.
And yet you didn't. Why? Seems to me because you just wanted to use the thread as another reason to employ your psychobabble against conservatives.

I know of no conservative thinkers that I could tout as what I consider intellectual thinkers and that is purely my own failing.
Yes, it is.

I believe, however, that conservative philosophy makes a tremendous amount of emotional sense to conservative minds and that they must have their idols.
The same is true of those who are not conservative.

Where were you in 2008? Did you not notice the fanfare surrounding one Barack Obama?

One example of a 'thinker' that some of my family admire is Glenn Beck, a person so delusional that even altered reality conservatives must agree is good numbers. So, nasty little person that I am, I mentioned him.
So you've just admitted that in a thread about intelligent conservative commentators, you decided to involve yourself even though you can't think of any, and instead deliberately mentioned someone you consider not intelligent but "delusional".

The behavior you just described is commonly known as "trolling".

Everywhere in my posts of late I have been trying to change my tone toward conservatives because tone just makes them mad, but I also have a temper and as long as the forum rules allow an altered reality to be stuck like a bare ass in my face, I still fall victim to showing them my ass too. I know it is useless and serves no purpose, but it redresses an imbalance in the force.
And that's why I said "I don't know whom you think you're fooling with this bogus little peacemaker routine, but I assure you that it's not me."

I doubt you're fooling anyone else, either.

PS I bet you don't really know that much about Glenn Beck, and haven't listened to him much. I have. I don't agree with him about pretty much anything, but he's not really that bad of a guy.
 

sm625

Diamond Member
May 6, 2011
8,176
135
106
Creating an image of a good honest conservative is a billion dollar industry involving the greatest minds. They put a lot of effort into painting lipstick on a pig. In most cases the pig is really a warmongering wall street suckling eugenics worshipping piece of filth not even worthy of the level of a swine. Is it any wonder all the popular ones are pro-war, pro-bigpharma, pro-prisoncomplex, pro-carcinogen ... pro-death in every form, yet still they are worshipped by millions of duped morons? Why? Because they are the manufactured alternative to the "evil liberal". Does it matter that they are the same in most ways and worse in others? Hell no, of course it doesnt. The people who pick these Hannitys and O-frickn-Reallys have taken real political-cultural dynamics and turned them into college sports team uber rivalries. That is the purpose of mainstream political thought. The real issues are of absolutely no importance or consequence.

It has been this way for a long time now. And this will be so for 10, 20, 30, 50 years or however long the population remains sentient. At the rate things are progressing, we will reach a point where there is no way to differentiate this democrat/republican/liberal/conservative nonsense from the meaningless twaddle of chirping birds. None of these terms are even remotely associated with anything resembling a solution.
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,530
271
136
Thump553 beat me to David Brooks and David Frum; I'll add Will Wilkinson whom I first saw writing for The Week and then The Economist.
Yes, Frum and Brooks definitely come to mind. And while certainly conservative, they're quite moderate and I find it sad that there are so few passionate conservatives that can speak intellectually in public without coming off as completely in the tank for said political cause (Krauthammer, Kristol, Goldberg, etc.).

I would add Michael Smerconish to this list. He's not a firebrand conservative though, he's just really middle of the road. Love listening to him on 980AM here in SoCal. Definitely plays both sides of the fence fantastically.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,712
3,518
126
CharlesKozierok: Are you a trained and licensed psychologist?

M: Here you ask a question:

C: I would assume not, because if you were, you would behave in a more responsible manner. Assuming not, the above is just more of the amateur psychoanalysis you seem to consider a hobby. It may entertain you, but I assure you that it either bores or insults everyone else.

M: Here you answer it and then assume, if you yourself are a licenses psychologist, your version of what means to exercise responsibility in that field, if it even applies here in a forum, is the correct understanding of all the various kinds of responsibilities various psychologists might offer up as proper, or, if you are not a psychologist and I am not, that your amateur understanding of psychological responsibility is superior to my amateur understanding. Naturally, the intention is to create the impression, for your own mind, that I am an amateur and even an amateur might detect in that some inner need or motivation. And, of course, you can assure me of nothing because, as with other forms of insults people like to throw, boredom is a phenomenon that happens to boring people, folk who have choked on some unconscious feeling they are trying to repress and again, my years of knowledge, introspetcion, and analysis of others have shown me that.

C: And despite your "long life of examination" it hasn't occurred to you that such "likening" would just be taken by said human beings as an insult. Neat.

C: You're not a very careful listener, I fear. People hate themselves, don't know it and don't want to know it, psychologists included. I've said it a thousand times because it can't be heard. There is nothing you can liken them to which will not insult them. The truth about ourselves is the greatest insult there is, and, my turn to suspect, it is probably what you find about me so threatening that you have this need to respond as you have. Just a guess, mind you, based on my years of analysis and experience with having hundreds of tons of garbage heaped on my head at the mention of the words 'self hate'. But you could check out the web. More and more professional psychologists ect. seem to be taking it seriously.

C: And yet you didn't. Why? Seems to me because you just wanted to use the thread as another reason to employ your psychobabble against conservatives.

M: I didn't because I am flawed exactly as I said. But probably that's not good enough for you. You want to gnaw at your bone. And you strike me as an extremely intelligent person. Could you find another term than psychobabble, maybe just actually present some sort of case. I see the use of the term psychobabble as just a form of deflection.

C: Yes, it is.

M: I try for honesty. I told you so to affirm your faith in your own insight, not so you could bask in it's glory. Not saying you are or that it would bother me if you did, only that there is a difference in how a generous spirit and a mean one react to another's confession.

C: The same is true of those who are not conservative.

M: Same is some ways, different in others. My point is that conservatives seek emotional confirmation whereas liberals seek confirmation of their reasoning. These are, of course, tendencies, not absolutes.

C: Where were you in 2008? Did you not notice the fanfare surrounding one Barack Obama?

M: My intention was to say that conservatives must have folk they look up to as conservative authorities because there are many many conservatives and there are surely folk among them who are spot on in arguing for a conservative perspective. In short, I was saying that intelligent conservative that conservatives admire must exist. I was saying that my view of their experts might look like their view of Beck.

C: So you've just admitted that in a thread about intelligent conservative commentators, you decided to involve yourself even though you can't think of any, and instead deliberately mentioned someone you consider not intelligent but "delusional".

M: Mostly yes, but again, you don't seem to be too familiar with my position. I've only said about a thousand times now that conservatives are not stupid, that calling them stupid is ridiculous, and that doesn't mean I haven't been ridiculous in the past or that I won't again. The evidence, however, is that conservatives use their intelligence to rationalize their altered vies of reality, again, relatively speaking to liberals who use it more to reason. As to the rest I admit you are right and that I should not have done it. And that's what I said.

C: The behavior you just described is commonly known as "trolling".

M: I never call people trolls. I use my vast knowledge of human nature acquired over years of self analysis and the observation of others to put the term troll in human terms. I'm not a big fan of putting folk in boxes and labeling them so that one can dismiss them as 'known quantities'. It's a mind killer.

C: And that's why I said "I don't know whom you think you're fooling with this bogus little peacemaker routine, but I assure you that it's not me."

M: But you see I've admitted to the major portion of your thesis and yet you're still back in the past grinding away on it. Are you saying you don't take my admission as genuine?

C: I doubt you're fooling anyone else, either.

M: I have admitted to you all the points on which I think you are right and defended all those on which I disagree and done so sincerely. Who is fooling whom, I cannot say with certainty. I am as sincere as I can be and can't do more.

C: PS I bet you don't really know that much about Glenn Beck, and haven't listened to him much. I have. I don't agree with him about pretty much anything, but he's not really that bad of a guy.

M: I don't know how to quantify much. I called him the gentle giant. I too see a nice guy, but I have suspicions he might be fooling me. I also like most of your posts but you seem to be very strict in a psychological sort of way, kind of rigid in a almost conservative style.

Anyway, thanks for you input. I have some ways to go before I reach perfection.

PS: I forgot to mention that when I said I don't like to put people in boxes, that's exactly what I did with Beck. I pre-defined him as a nut case. Not the right thing to do.....
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY