lack of conservative intellectuals

[giuliano]

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.

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.

even the intelligent conservatives, like colin powell, cringe at some of the things coming from bush's or rummy's mouths.

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?

[Comrade]

There are plenty of conservative intellectuals, they just get discouraged after reading the raving loonacy of the left on forums. I know I've certainly had to take week-long breaks from this forum.

And I doubt being liberal allies you with the smarter, though that's not what liberals will tell you.

This is stereotyping, in any case. If Bush wants to address Nascar fans while Kerry talks to some spoiled brats, that's fine with me.

[bishop]

the "conservative" pro-bush argument has been losing considerable steam. a while back, i'm sure you noticed how leading republican think-tanks began to distance themselves from bush. cato's been extremely vocal in their criticism. i've also seen a lot of criticism from heritage, which surprised me since they've always been fearless in showing their partisan colors.

that's understandable as bush's conduct in office is nowhere close to traditional republican or conservative ideals. the only conservative points he wins on are his bigoted social conservatism. he's clearly scoring big points making this election into a culture war - damn them fags. nothing fiscally conservative, he practices activist foreign interventionism and nation building (hardly conservative ideas), he supports amnesty for illegal immigrants, etc... nothing conservative about that either.

i think the reason why you see such a void in intellectual conservatives in the real world or online is because bush has not only contradicted conservative ideals, he has also contradicted his own. once upon a time he voiced complete support for the powell doctrine. then what does he do? sends us into a war that was not necessary and didn't include an exit strategy. his own "bush doctrine"... of all the countries that supports islamic terrorism, iraq was nowhere near the top of the list.

i think the crux of the pro-bush argument isn't to give strong intellectual arguments for bush's behavior, it's to demonize kerry because they cannot give strong intellectual arguments for bush's behavior. i.e. it's the only available option. after a while, thinking people get tired of making excuses in order to support a man and his unconservative policies.

[Comrade]

I've yet to see anyone provide evidence that this war was not necessary, but I guess it's one of those things if you repeat enough people will believe you, right?

Exit strategy? Someone definitely missed the whole point.

There are no strong intellectual arguements for Bush's behavior? Really? How long have you been on this forum? Or is this another mantra of wishful thinking to repeat?

No wonder you people are so rabid in your Bush hate, you don't even listen to the other side.

[Gorgo]

Can one use the term 'intellectual' and support George Bush in the same sentence without having internal damage?

Provide evidence that this war was not necessary to do what? To show that the United States is the largest terrorist nation on earth?

Originally posted by Comrade, I've yet to see anyone provide evidence that this war was not necessary, but I guess it's one of those things if you repeat enough people will believe you, right? Exit strategy? Someone definitely missed the whole point. There are no strong intellectual arguements for Bush's behavior? Really? How long have you been on this forum? Or is this another mantra of wishful thinking to repeat? No wonder you people are so rabid in your Bush hate, you don't even listen to the other side.

[Comrade]

Let's see, slander and hateful rhetoric. Yeah, conservatives are definitely the dumb ones.

[Comrade]

Come to think of it, this whole thread is actually pretty clever. Seems you've had enough bashing Bush, and now want to bash the people who don't think he's "the greatest criminal of all time"

[Gorgo]

I think you mean libel, which means making false written statements to injure one's reputation. Slander is making false oral statements to injure one's reputation.

What false statements have been made here?

[Comrade]

I'm utterly devastated by your semantics.

But if we really want some alse statements, then let's see.

" the "conservative" pro-bush argument has been losing considerable steam"

"then what does he do? sends us into a war that was not necessary"

"i think the crux of the pro-bush argument isn't to give strong intellectual arguments for bush's behavior, it's to demonize kerry because they cannot give strong intellectual arguments for bush's behavior"

"the United States is the largest terrorist nation on earth"

[Comrade]

by the way

slan*der
n.
1) A false or malicious statement or report about someone.

I used it just fine. Theres nothing un-malicious about your statements, Gorgo.

[bishop]

I've yet to see anyone provide evidence that this war was not necessary, but I guess it's one of those things if you repeat enough people will believe you, right?

explain why his war was necessary. especially in light of no wmd or associated programs and no connections to al qaeda.

Exit strategy? Someone definitely missed the whole point.

yup.. someone sure did miss that point - bush.

There are no strong intellectual arguements for Bush's behavior? Really? How long have you been on this forum? Or is this another mantra of wishful thinking to repeat? No wonder you people are so rabid in your Bush hate, you don't even listen to the other side.

bullshit. i've been posting on political forums for years. i voted for bush, and for a good amount of time i fervently supported him. i'm definitely not alone as far as that goes. the anger/hate evident in your posts simply highlights the frustration bush supporters are experiencing in trying to find reasons to support him. god forbid republicans/conservatives choose to stand up for what they believe in, eh? limited government and all that other stuff...

gotta feel betrayed when other republicans and former bush supporters buck the bandwagon i'm sure. i've seen how the remaining bush supporters react towards independent thinking.. it's too bad that the only legs bush supporters have left to stand on is the ol' ABD line - anyone but democrats!

funny that instead of a tax and spend democrat, we have a tax cut and spend "republican".

[Gorgo]

Iraq has been sanctioned, attacked illegally for years, had its infrastructure illegally bombed. Weekly, at times almost daily bombings for years. The second Gulf War was a blatantly illegal attack. The first was not so blatantly illegal, but was probably illegal.

This doesn't count the attacks against Yugoslavia, the invasion of Panama (more destructive than the invasion of Kuwait), attacks against Grenada, Cuba and many, many other countries over the years, not to mention the terror against people inside the borders of the present United State.

Then we have other direct interventions in Central and South America, invasions by proxy armies, such as the Contras, and support of puppet dictators and support of tortures and murders and dissapearances and terror in these states. Not to mention training terrorists and murders at the infamous "School of the Americas."
|
What part of the "largest terrorist nation on earth" is false?


See Ed Herman's "The Real Terror Network."

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=...=define:slander

[Yankeefan21]

Originally posted by giuliano, 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. 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. even the intelligent conservatives, like colin powell, cringe at some of the things coming from bush's or rummy's mouths. 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?

Sheik you frothing foam at the mouth libur-al sombitch!! how dares ya says that consurvs gots no intellect??

Yo buddy it's me Noah (Noahmijo)

Man never thought I'd say you again ever since I got banned from the exlusive don't you dare defy the word of Pam Conservative X.

Bishop got me on here and I just saw your avator and thought "it's gotta be the sheik NO ONE else would have that avator"

Nice to run into you again you Aussie loco!

[Comrade]

No connections to Al Qaida? We still believe this? Fine, ignore the 9-11 Comission and the Butler report, and all the Wilson stuff. Also ignore the fact that the information that led to some of the recent arrests came from an Ansar Al-Islam (an Al Qaida arm) training camp found east of Baghdad several months ago. But ignore all that.

No WMDs? You mean we didn't find a cache of sarin artillary shells? But fine, I accept your raising the bar, there were no "huge" caches of WMDs.
Saddam Hussein had the ability to produce them. But we could trust Ole' Uncle Saddam with that, right?

The anger is my posts is indicative of all that stuff I just posted above, how Bush haters ignore all the evidence to the contrary and continue to spew worthless like "greatest criminal of all time" and "the US is the greatest terrorist state"

Your theories about why people still support Bush are very cute, but inaccurate.

Missed the point indeed. You people seem to think that democracy in Iraq is an abstract thing, that it does not affect a region that breeds terrorism. That is wishful thinking, but hey, fine, chances are any terrorism isn't going to hurt ME, I live in a small town, so you all can spend billions on security measures and not even try to fix the bigger problem all you like.

There is no exit strategy because the war on terror isn't like Vietnam, where we can pack up and go home if we think we're losing.

[bishop]

oh, you mean this 9/11 commission report? i guess you must've read a different 9/11 commission report.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Jun16.html

There is "no credible evidence" that Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq collaborated with the al Qaeda terrorist network on any attacks on the United States, according to a new staff report released this morning by the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

you said:

No WMDs? You mean we didn't find a cache of sarin artillary shells? But fine, I accept your raising the bar, there were no "huge" caches of WMDs. Saddam Hussein had the ability to produce them.

he was able to produce nukes? i always thought that you needed a nuclear reactor to do that. also didn't see any evidence clearly showing that he was actively developing chemical and/or biological weapons either. and, "cache" is quite an overstatement.

Missed the point indeed. You people seem to think that democracy in Iraq is an abstract thing, that it does not affect a region that breeds terrorism.

i recall hearing the same pro-democracy argument when the afghanistan campaign was going on. we support democracy in afghanistan in the most half-assed way possible. we'll see just how successful our iraq nation building project ends up looking in iraq. looks to me like we're clearly running the show, and iraq still is not sovereign in the real sense of the word. but at least we have a friendly puppet there. we'll see what happens, with the kurds pushing for autonomy, the shiite's pushing for total control and the sunni's fighting to keep the majority status they enjoyed under saddam. my money is on either another strong man or a civil war, not democracy. that seems to be extremely wishful thinking.

and, i'm sure the american public weighs democracy in iraq higher than iraqi connections with al qaeda or wmd's.. but at this point, that's the only salient argument you have left since everything else has turned up flat.

There is no exit strategy because the war on terror isn't like Vietnam, where we can pack up and go home if we think we're losing.

iraq in the war on terror.. thanks for the laugh. if bush was truly interested in going after terrorists, he should've gone to countries where terrorists were unquestionably being harbored. and, he would've gone after countries actively developing wmd and participating in their proliferation.


i'm sure you're tired of playing defense all the time. wouldn't it be nice for one of the things bush promised to come true so you can grab some vindication? seems that defending bush on iraq trumps everything, and it's one of the last remaining cards (next to the anti-gay, bible thumping rhetoric) - it trumps his total lack of fiscal responsibility, amnesty for illegal immigrants, "the u.s. cannot be all things to all people", big government and decreased state rights, etc., etc...

it's time for real conservatives to take back our mantle. neo-conservatives are not conservatives.

the neo-conservative revolution must be stopped in 2004. we are not heading in a good direction at all. bush talks like it's 1933. i will not let him undo what we've fought so long for.

i have yet to hear conservative logic that makes sense in light of many facts on the topics of iraq, the drug war, civil rights, standards of living, and the economy. when i hear conservatives have a plan that will not crush the individual, trample rights, and shaft or exclude the blue collar worker, then i will respect and try it.

but all i hear from bush and most conservatives is elitism of all sorts. i am not interested in bending the lives of the bottom 80% to make the lives of the top 20% better. i am interested in making everyone's life better and more free and fair. bush is not. that is clear like crystal.

[Yankeefan21]

It's even worse than that, it's more like bending the lives of 98% to make the lives of 2% better. Even people who make over $100k are feeling the bite in average income cities.

[Kyran]

bishop, I'm not gonna defend Bush. I'll defend the facts. Saddam had WMDs. Saddam evaded UN inspections. The tv media downplayed it. Iraq had al-Qaeda connections. The 9/11 commission acknowledged the Iraq-Qaeda connection. The tv media downplayed it. He ran a police state where there was no election process or fair judicial system. Furthermore, Saddam gave an orchestrator of the first WTC attack shelter and compensation.

Kerry voted to bomb Iraq every day, every week, for all these years. The tv media and the lying left say it's Bush's fault.

Now remember, I'm not defending Bush. But the alternative is someone who wants to raise minimum wage, raise taxes, force people to pay for failing government schools, appease terrorists, and hand over our soverignty to the United Nations. So does it look like we're out of reasons to support the republicans? HA!

The conservatives may be losing steam, but the left is full of hot air as always. I'll take a neocon over self-righteous socialists who won't listen to reason. What's Bush gonna do...illegalize adultery? HA!

[Yankeefan21]

facts. Saddam had WMDs.

Link with proof please?

Kerry voted to bomb Iraq every day, every week, for all these years. The tv media and the lying left say it's Bush's fault.

That's that wonderful right-wing spin. Make it seem as though Kerry is just as guilty as Bush's bumbling.

Read the statement for yourself on Kerry's vote for the Iraq war:



Gee sounds more like Kerry was trusting the president to make good on his word and not lie in turn for his vote to authorize military action.



So essentially Kerry's crime in this case was that he trusted the president to be truthful NOT that he agreed war was the right choice.



Read the full statement here:
http://www.independentsforkerry.org/upload...kerry-iraq.html

Now remember, I'm not defending Bush. But the alternative is someone who wants to raise minimum wage, raise taxes, force people to pay for failing government schools, appease terrorists, and hand over our soverignty to the United Nations. So does it look like we're out of reasons to support the republicans? HA!

Raising the mininum wage God forbid we give people a living wage and a few high schoolers will miss out on those Domino's Pizza jobs.

Force people to pay for government schools let me ask you did you ever attend public school or take out a college loan? I'd rather help fund schools because that will eventually lead to a pay-off, more education equals more jobs equals less hoods on the street or in jail where you pay far more to keep them in the can than you do in school.

Appease terrorists? LoL how exactly would Kerry appease the terrorists anymore than Bush already has?

Hand our soveriegnty over to the UN?

Quote from Kerry's DNC speech (and he has said this numerous times)


"I defended this country as a young man and I will defend it as President.  Let there be no mistake:  I will never hesitate to use force when it is required.  Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response. I will never give any nation or international institution a veto over our national security.  And I will build a stronger American military."

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeche..._2004_0729.html

The conservatives may be losing steam, but the left is full of hot air as always. I'll take a neocon over self-righteous socialists who won't listen to reason. What's Bush gonna do...illegalize adultery? HA!

Wake up we're getting closer and closer to a sinister form of Socialism and isn't the left's doing.

[Suburbanite]

I think the problem with any intellectualism is that is really removes any gungho mentality that partisans need. I'd be hard pressed to find an intellectual Democrat or Republican to be honest. Only because intellectualism breeds some sense of real or fake relativism and an intellectual is always able to see two-sides of a coin, a true intellectual anyways. But do Democrats love those five dollar words? You bet they do. And do Republicans like their drawls and colloquialisms? Damn right. They love to speak how their voters speak.