lack of conservative intellectuals

[Aldo]

Masked man speak with forked tongue. I adhere with the principals of the marraige covenant, and need no ann coulter doll for any gratification. Ann is an educated attorney who knows our constitution which she learned the old fashioned way, in school and in practical experience clerking for a Supreme Court judge for years. Between Ann and Mark Levin, who is also a sharp defender of our constitution, they can see and present the case that your liberal President Clinton should have been convicted in the Senate. Read your history, o masked man, and learn that all previous impeachments were for far less egregious crimes and/or embarrassments to our country's high offices. You liberals who think that crimes of sex and perjury are just minor, spent too much time at Woodstock learning your basic morals.

[The_Lone_Liberal]

Originally posted by Aldo,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Aldo,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Masked man speak with forked tongue.  I adhere with the principals of the marraige covenant, and need no ann coulter doll for any gratification. [/b]

Well put (if not well-spelt). :rolleyes: But....

Originally posted by Aldo,@ Ann is an educated attorney who knows our constitution which she learned the old fashioned way, in school and in practical experience clerking for a Supreme Court judge for years.

If that's what turns you on... Sounds like you must have a real collection of Ruth Bader-Ginzberg dolls.

<!--QuoteBegin-Aldo,
Read your history, o masked man, and learn that all previous impeachments were for far less egregious crimes and/or embarrassments to our country's high offices.  [/quote]

"All previous impeachments"?? Er.... that would be how many, o reader of history?

[kharmajunkie]

Originally posted by Aldo, I suggest you rethink Bush's statement, "if you are not with us you are against us." It appears you liberals are against us. Too much of that happy juice as youngsters leaves you believing "we can all be friends." You who don't believe in religion as a reason for conflict, keep track of the terrorists who blow up their fellow man in the name of Allah.

That one statement (for us/against us) is the foremost reason why I won't vote for President Bush. I've voted in enough elections to know that I'm never going
to be fully represented; I'm not a sellout Repub or a Borg party member. I've never felt left out in the cold though and that's how I feel under the Bush administration. I don't think he realizes that he's all of our President; not just the GOP. That's something that Reagan, Clinton and every other President in my lifetime seemed to understand.

[Aldo]

"All previous impeachments"?? Er.... that would be how many, o reader of history?[/quote]
All impeachments of high office, including Presidents and Federal Judges. There aren't that many, but the 12 or so are impeached for reasons that make Clinton look like a rapist or perjurer. oh, he is, he is.

[Comrade]

Originally posted by kharmajunkie, That one statement (for us/against us) I'm sure you mean for us/with the terrorists, right? You people would NEVER misquote Bush, now would you? is the foremost reason why I won't vote for President Bush.

You really can't understand what he meant when he said that? He wasn't saying that you can either be on our side or their side because HE says so, he is saying that you can either be with us or against us because there are going to be no sidelines in this war. It isn't OUR fault, but its probably useless to try and explain it to you.
People are so thick.

[Aldo]

Now I'm starting to get it. You say it isn't OUR fault that the terrorists bombed our country. Your efforts of explaining it to me wasn't wasted. Please don't put yourself down for not having the intellect to explain it as you did. You did a good job. For those of you who have said that being in Iraq is wrong, I do suppose that Iraq was going to be on our side, because as you said, there will be no sidelines in this war. But explain this to me, where are all those bleeding hearts going to hide? Does Canada have enough room?

[Comrade]

Well, even with the snotty attitude I didn't understand what your post was about.

I do suppose that Iraq was going to be on our side, because as you said, there will be no sidelines in this war. But explain this to me, where are all those bleeding hearts going to hide? Does Canada have enough room?

What was this supposed to mean? You must help me, my poor intellect just can't take it.
No, don't bother, I got what you meant, and you, in all your genius, didn't understand my point.

[kharmajunkie]

Actually Com, I'm the one that feels it useless trying to explain things to you. I'm speaking strictly on the attitude of President Bush and his constant alienation of his fellow Americans with his us/
them attitude. I was referring to his general attitude, not just from that statement; that was just an example. Read my whole post, in context, and then come and attack my intelligence.

[kharmajunkie]

Originally posted by Aldo, But explain this to me, where are all those bleeding hearts going to hide? Does Canada have enough room?

Typical attitude. Liberal=hiding wus. A lot of us "liberals" have done a lot of the fighting for this country throughout history. I was in during peace time
myself but I can tell you that my "liberal" Father and Uncles were overseas during Nam, Korea and WWII; not bending over for five deferments or going to keggers in Alabama.

[Aldo]

[quote=kharmajunkie,]

Quote by: Aldo,   I suggest you rethink Bush's statement, "if you are not with us you are against us."  You who don't believe in religion as a reason for conflict, keep track of the terrorists who blow up their fellow man in the name of Allah.

That one statement (for us/against us) is the foremost reason why I won't vote for President Bush.

Please explain how you see this conflict splitting up Kharmajunkie. I see only two clear sides. Oh, the Muslim fanatics may wait a little longer before they kill the French, Germans and other appeasers, but don't doubt for a minute that their aim isn't to kill all Infidels, which will include Canadians, French, Germans, and all peoples who are not Wahabi Muslim. They might not get to you in your lifetime, but I suppose you care about your offspring also. This isn't going to be a short war. I realize many liberals fought and died for our country and for this we thank you all. But during the wars previously fought, we gathered together as a country to fight a common enemy. We must join sides again and defeat this enemy or be defeated by them. I see it as President Bush said, "If you aren't with us, you are against us."

[Ken Carman]

Originally posted by PatrickHenry,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (PatrickHenry,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Ken Carman, I suppose my brain is just wired differently and often uses different definitions than the mainstream. I would question the "intellect" of anyone who sells out their opinion making process for cash. To me the very definition of intellect is what we are doing right here.

It's more about ethics than intellect. The "researchers" are bright enough to create credible PR, even masquerading as grassroots support. You wouldn't say that only good people are smart would you? There ARE evil geniuses, correct? I question their sense of right and wrong, not their brains.

Slightly off topic: What about all the shills on talkradio and Conservative TV? Do they know what whores they are and don't care? Or are they true believers?[/b][/quote]

I think where we disagree here is the meaning of "intellect." Some very smart people are quite evil. To me "intellect" really requires one use the mind to actually assess a situation as fairly as possible, according to each individual's ability. Those who use intentionally their minds for evil are either not using their intellect, or have sold it for something that destroys them as well as those around them, eventually. They may be using the same neuronic pathways "intellect" uses, but these pathways have been stolen and are being raped by the individual for what they think is personal gain. I know, that's probably not correct according to the dictionary. My thesaurus gives me "intelligence" as a synonym, or similar concept. That's how I prefer to use the word; the meaning of words being a rather fluid item. To me, one is not displaying "intelligence" when that person is so concerned with short, personal gain, that they screw everyone else and, eventually, themselves. Life tends to be a pretty big and dangerous boomerang, and too many people don't realize that.

In regard to talk show hosts, some are whores and some are true believers so swallowed up in their own belief system they do not see they evil they promote. This is the conundrum, the paradox, where those who actual are using "intellect" can promote great evil. So, in a sense, you are right. And it's pretty damn hard to get inside someone else's head and really know which side of this rather vague fence they fall on. Sometimes they don't even know themselves. I also tend to find that those who insist they absolutely know what another person's motives have an agenda that ignores their intellect in favor of destroying another person for personal/political gain.

[The_Lone_Liberal]

Du-u-u-h-hh-hhh....

What wuz da topik here again...... Sumpin' about intallektuals??? Mus' be sumbuddy here who's smart enuf to remember, even if ya wuzn't smart enough to stay on track..
:rolleyes:
Didn't dis all start with

Originally posted by giuliano,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (giuliano,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>has anyone noticed that there is a lack of conservative intellectuals, in comparison to liberals? on various msg boards, conservatives are routinely outnumbered by liberals. in the media, there is a lack of the same. they look up to ann coulter, for crying out loud! they believe she is an intellectual. noam chomsky may be an incurable conspiracist, but he's damned intelligent.[/b]

*putting on my smart hat* Giuliano, the clues to the mystery implied in your opening question lie right in your next few words. You perceive a "a lack of conservative intellectuals, in comparison to liberals" because you simply percieve liberals as intellectual and conservatives as -- well -- dumbasses... When you do that, when you are in any place at all where "conservatives are routinely outnumbered by liberals" then you will be impressed by the majority of liberal intellectuals as a pure mathematical function.

I've had some fun here poking fun at Aldo's coulter-worship. Still, if you rule Coulter out as an intellectual because she's an ideologue and rule Chomsky in because he's intelligent -- that suggests you wouldn't score very high on the analogy section of the SATs. (You would of course, if the questions bypassed areas where you are trapped in your ideological bias.)

Originally posted by giuliano,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (giuliano,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>is it possible that liberals are just more intelligent than conservatives, on average? where bush goes to NASCAR races, kerry is more likely to address a college crowd.[/b]

Kerry is more intelligent because he talks to crowds whose frontal lobes haven't reached adult size and who have no memory of experiences upon which to judge his words? Was that smarter than Bush courting those huge crowds of grown-up voters the Democrats only recently discovered are there?? Sorry, G, on that one, our Democrat leaders had their heads up their butts. (And yes, I said "our").
<!--QuoteBegin-giuliano,@
even the intelligent conservatives, like colin powell, cringe at some of the things coming from bush's or rummy's mouths.[/quote]
John Kerry is cringing over some of the stuff that came out of his mouth after the Vietnam war. I cringe over it too, because I believed him back then and went to work right at his side to get him elected to Congress while the war was still on. John has this wonderful intelligent look, high forehead, raised inquisitive brows, Boston-brahman intelligentsia accent ... and Dubblya has this furrowed brow, like he's struggling to see against a bright light, and that -- well, NASCAR -- way of talking.

I remember when John Kerry took note of my son Johnny's Red Sox jacket and asked him what he thought the team's chances were that year. I cringed, because Johnny was only three at the time. I cringed. There was other stuff, then and in the years since. I cringe with every flip and flop, because I now face up to the fact that it is not John Kerry's keen perception into the issues of each situation that calls for a position shift. I have finally come to see that he just doesn't grasp things anywhere near as -- well -- as does the guy who says, "nook-yoo-lar". (BTW, my son Johnny's middle name is "Kennedy", if you question where my basic sympathies really lie.)
<!--QuoteBegin-giuliano,
it doesn't make you more correct, just because the movement you align yourself with may be on average more intelligent. but has anyone else noticed this? do you agree?    [/quote]
No, Giuliano, I do not agree. We are anything but correct if we stay aligned with a movement gone so far off track if we don't try to get it back on track. Just like this discussion here in this topic.

[kharmajunkie]

I don't see things as black and white as you do then Aldo. I don't think that a fellow American that has a differing view on any issue, including war, is "against us". That attitude is divisive and it doesn't wear well on a President. I don't understand what you mean when asking how I see "this conflict splitting". If you're asking if I was for the war in Iraq? Yes, in 91. Are you asking me if we should
have gone after the Taliban in Afghanistan? Yes. No, I do not believe
in conflict over religion but it doesn't really matter what I believe if someone attacks me based on religion.

[Aldo]

[quote=kharmajunkie,]I don't see things as black and white as you do then Aldo. I don't think that a fellow American that has a differing view on any issue, including war, is "against us".
Aldo speaks here:
I see this war as a black and white issue. They kill us, or we kill them. They break our things or we break their things. President Bush was not only referring to our own citizens when he made that "with us or against us" quote, but especially to all countries on the globe. Thank God that Libya has seen the wisdom of this quote, and other countries have also paid attention to this quote. e.g. Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, to a point, Poland and the new Nato countries in Europe.

[Aldo]

Originally posted by kharmajunkie, I don't understand what you mean when asking how I see "this conflict splitting".  I mean, do you see peoples splitting into more than two advesaries in this war over time?  1) Those supporting the Taliban et al, and 2) those opposed to the Taliban et al.  There may be a small number of nuetrals, if they don't get attacked by the Taliban, but I suspect the number of nuetral countries will be very few. ..I do not believe in conflict over religion but it doesn't really matter what I believe if someone attacks me based on religion.

kharmajunkie, your quote in the sentence above supports my position in this discussion. This war is based solely on religion. This war will continue as long as the radical Wahabi Muslim religious want to convert every Infidel to their religion, or kill them. This is what they teach their children.

[kharmajunkie]

He's got all of you so scared and wrapped up in terrorism; it's sad.
If you see that as a wise quote then we are way too far apart on this issue. You respect tough talk, I respect tough action. And if you don't see and hear dissention in this country when our President talks
then you're a party follower; at least your loyal. It doesn't matter anyway Aldo, he's not losing now. He's made for tv in a mostly fat,
uninformed and prozac happy tv watching nation and I bet he ends up winning by ten points. Fucking two-party lemmings.

[Aldo]

Originally posted by kharmajunkie, He's got all of you so scared and wrapped up in terrorism; it's sad. If you see that as a wise quote then we are way too far apart on this issue. You respect tough talk, I respect tough action. And if you don't see and hear dissention in this country when our President talks then you're a party follower; .

Kharmajunkie, you say I respect tough talk. Talk is talk. Doesn't mean much without action. I too respect tough action. This administration is taking tough action and will increase the tough action when appropriate. Most of the dissention I hear in our country comes from the democrats who hate Bush and claim Gore won the election. Thank God for our Founding Fathers who implemented the Electoral College. Would you rather have an Attorney General like Janet Reno, who gave us Ruby Ridge, Elian Gonzales, Waco, and the flooding of the I.N.S. with orders to fast track one million illegals to get registered for the democrats? (Source, John Ashcroft's book)

[The_Lone_Liberal]

Just curious. Does "intellect" (the actual subject of this topic area) have anything to do with the ability to stay focused on what the subject really is? :rolleyes:

[bishop]

You perceive a "a lack of conservative intellectuals, in comparison to liberals" because you simply percieve liberals as intellectual and conservatives as -- well -- dumbasses...

that is hardly true.

i've known him for quite some time and i can vouch for him.

[kharmajunkie]

No Aldo, we agree on Reno. Unfortunately Ashcroft's no better. As far as religious wars are concerned, I'm not on the side of Christians
or Muslims. There are extremists on both sides, ever been to Belfast?
And the abortion doctor killers are no better than those IRA pricks.
Frankly, I have a bigoted opinion of Islam and it's not flattering so
I'm better off not going there. But as far as your assertion that the
Wahabi are taught to convert everyone to Islam, I was raised that way too; by Jehovah's Witnesses. That argument doesn't wash since pretty much every religion wants their members to preach and convert the masses. My quote didn't support anything you said, not unless you spin it that way. I was saying that I don't want a religious war but I have no control over that since I'm in the middle of two sheeplike factions that have no room in their life for free thinking and letting
everyone alone to live their lives.