BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion

Subject: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Wesley S
Date: 03 Feb 06 - 04:03 PM

Many of us have noted an increase in some rather unsavory behavior here at the Mudcat. Logic and reason used to be the soup de jour of Mudcat discussions – but sadly this is no longer true. We've got trouble. Right here in Mudcat City. With a capital C and a capitol N and it spells out Neo-Con. How can you tell that's you've entered the Neo-Con Zone and you're talking with one of THEM ? Here are a few ways to tell :

1 – Fuzzy logic
2 – Unreasonable fear of "them"
3 – Faded bumper sticker that says "My country – love it or leave it"
4 - Strange spasms whenever the names Bill, Hillary or Ted are mentioned
5 – Total disregard for the poor
6- T-shirts that say "Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out"
7 – When they run out of ideas they just shout louder
8 – When they run out of ideas they use profanity
9 – Everything that ever went wrong can be blames on "them liberals"
10 – They never met a tax they were willing to pay

I'm sure there are a lot more. If you think of any please pass them along.

Don't get me wrong. Most neo-cons { and you know the exceptions } are likeable people – you just don't want to talk politics with them. They don't foam at the mouth unless you mention the UN, the ACLU or Planned Parenthood.

So if you run into a Neo-con on the Mudcat – just love them the best you can. It will confuse the hell out of them.

ILLEGITIMI NON CARBORUNDUM

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 03 Feb 06 - 05:04 PM

Bashing Conservatives on a specific issue is one thing, but dedicating threads to it belittles and demeans this forum. There are some conservatives here and it is becoming very unpleasant.

Yours, Aye. Dave


Semper ubi sububi.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Wesley S
Date: 03 Feb 06 - 05:34 PM

11- Humorless

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Feb 06 - 06:22 PM

12- Most start with "GUEST,...."

13- They would rather attack the messenger than the message...

14- They delight in long "Tropic of Cancer" length cut-n-post crap from well financed eing-nut blogs...

15- They do not read very well...

16- If they really screw up, they just reinvent themself as yet another GUEST...

17- Most don't have to work because they post all day long...

18- According to the Wes Ginny Slide Rule clearly 75% suffer from polymorphorphous guilt syndrome...

19- They are way to serious and need to chill, but

20- Half of them actually have or had mom's who think they're just great...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Peace
Date: 03 Feb 06 - 06:23 PM

"Semper ubi sububi."

And I always do. Fruit of the Looms.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Peace
Date: 03 Feb 06 - 06:24 PM

Tibi seris, tibi metis.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Jeri
Date: 03 Feb 06 - 07:03 PM

Nope...not enough hatred here yet.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: GUEST,Wesley S
Date: 03 Feb 06 - 07:09 PM

Dave - Really - I'm sorry you didn't see the humor in my post. I never thought anyone would take it seriously. Some of my best friends are conservative - including my brother.

But in a website full of Shatner, Chongo, John from Hull, Martin Gibson and Shambles ramblings, you really think THIS thread "belittles and demeans this forum" ???? Oh my goodness!

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Peace
Date: 03 Feb 06 - 07:15 PM

I am a conservative. I'm not in the least offended by your thread, Wesley.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Alba
Date: 03 Feb 06 - 08:07 PM

Threads started by neo nazi groups belittle and demean this Forum.*
Let's just get a bit of a prospective going here!!!

Wesley's Thread is humor. Remember humor..It's something that makes you smile when you stop to read and see the funny things in a post. Pissed off is what you get when the Threads* that should be taken very seriously (and in fact anywhere else would be clicked into cyber oblivion) aren't. Plenty threads have been started on the Mudcat by neo cons targeting Liberals with no attempt at humor at all!

I thought it was funny Wes:)

Me transmitte sursum, caledoni!

Jude

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Feb 06 - 10:22 PM

In Hoc Signo Vinces...

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Amos
Date: 03 Feb 06 - 10:52 PM

Non republicanii carborundum, anyway.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: GUEST,Boab
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 12:08 AM

Eh?
Rex Graeciam duas pulchras filias habuit----

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: michaelr
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 01:15 AM

Gawd, people still use Esperanto!?!

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Once Famous
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 01:18 PM

This thread is completely humorless. It's originator has many hang-ups and issues.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Amos
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 02:35 PM

There goes MG, projecting his skull-blasts onto others.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: CapriUni
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 02:49 PM

From Garrison Kiellor, many, many many years ago (if I recall correctly):

Everyone has a sense of humor. It's just that not everyone has your sense of humor.

(or something to that effect)

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: kendall
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 02:59 PM

It makes a difference whose ox is gored.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: gnu
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 03:06 PM

Fruit of the Loom? I am a Penman's man myself. I find the FOTL kinda like the old Brunswick Hotel built well over a hundred years ago. I'll stop right there. I'll just say that customer satisfaction was, ah, er, lacking.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: bobad
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 03:12 PM

Penman's gnu ? I would have thought that as a maritimer you would support and be supported by Stanfields.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 03:22 PM

"Hillary." What a lovely name. "Hillary." Say it again. "Hillary." It brightens up your whole day just saying it. "Hillary." "Hillary." "Hillary."

Mmmmmmm....good!

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: bobad
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 03:26 PM

Hillary Harmony has a nice alliterative ring to it.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Amos
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 03:46 PM

Little Hawk is going from bad to worse....first it was Shatner, then that awful poet McGonagall, and now he wants to endorse Hillary with transcendental phrases? My Gawd, he must be going through an especially hard time!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 03:49 PM

Damn straight. Using "Hillary" as a daily mantra can have really dramatic effects on one's consciousness. I mean, look what it did for Bill (Clinton, not Shatner).

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: gnu
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 03:50 PM

Stanfields? Same deal as FOTL and the Brunswick hotel... no ballroom and ya can't dance in the bar. Hey... I would support the local economy if it could support me.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Peace
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 03:58 PM

Penman's? Get a life!

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: jimmyt
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 04:29 PM

21, conservatives know when to use"to" and when to use "too" as opposed to my good buddy Bobert in his #19.

My mom thought I was just great, but is that not a mom thing? I had no idea...

I think the Wes Ginny sliderule needs to be retired to the Smithsonian and replaced with the Georgia Cakalator; guicker, more accurate and easily carried in your bib overalls.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: GUEST,Ruggie
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 04:43 PM

Ah been tryin' ta git one o' them Georgia Cakalotors fer years. On account of Ah needs to cakalate mah chances with the gal over t' the Seven-Eleven store. Ah figger with the raht cakalations she will be mahn by Valentine's Day!

I seen a liberal once, but they tends to avoid mah neck o' the woods.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 05:54 PM

Sorry Wesley was in a humourless mood when I posted ;-) Guess you dont read Latin either LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Peace
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 05:57 PM

"Guess you dont read Latin either LOL"

I do. Just that it doesn't mean anything to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: gnu
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 05:58 PM

FOTL? Get a dick!

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 05:58 PM

Just like this thread Peace... Have Fun Mate

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Peace
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 06:01 PM

"FOTL?"

Friends of the Lantern? Foes of the Lugubriousness? IS THAT LATIN?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: gnu
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 06:12 PM

No... you said "Fruit of the Looms". I had some. Now, even though I am of Irish descent, I shouldn't have that problem with me shorts being short of, ah, accomodation.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: GUEST,Wesley S
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 06:20 PM

Wow - when someone the caliber of a Martin Gibson says that you have "hang-ups and issues" - that's high praise indeed. It's funny how one little compliment can just make your day. It's little like Hitler telling you that you have anger issues.

Speaking of calibers - what's smaller than a .22 ?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Once Famous
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 06:21 PM

There goes, Amos. Just obsessing about me because of his hate for a dissenting voice to his complete bullshit.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: gnu
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 06:25 PM

Wesley... you prick... you should have to issue a warning before a post like that... I gotta get a cloth to clean this up... hahahaha.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Cluin
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 06:31 PM

FOTL = Found Out Too Late

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 06:37 PM

The most offensive acronym of all is NFL. Trust me. Any Lithuanian knows in a heartbeat just what that is all about.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Peace
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 07:02 PM

"Speaking of calibers - what's smaller than a .22 ?"

.177 air rifle.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: GUEST,G
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 07:21 PM

Speaking as a Conservative, I do not find this thread offensive but somewhat erroneous with regard to the first post....

Wesley S, Neocons ARE Conservatives also. You obviously have confused them with Dems. Simply change the word "Neo-con" to Democrat and the accuracy of this thread will be restored.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 08:09 PM

Thanks, JimmyT, but the Wes Ginny Slide Rule has been secretly plotting to put poor ol' me in the Smithsonian.... I think the P-Vine might be in on it as well...

Now that's the blues...

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Peace
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 08:09 PM

I read somewhere that there is a 2 mm. Google it if ya want.

I would guess that's about a .08

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Once Famous
Date: 05 Feb 06 - 06:55 PM

Now your talking about Wesley's putz. Or is that a pee shooter?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Wesley S
Date: 06 Feb 06 - 09:16 AM

WOW - Not that's a retort right up there with "I know you are but what am I??" Really junior high stuff.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Feb 06 - 10:15 AM

"...Lasciate ogni speranza voi che entrate..."

"Pluritas non est ponenda, sine necessitate"

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Feb 06 - 10:22 AM

...Lasciate ogni speranza voi che entrate..."

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: WooBerry
Date: 06 Feb 06 - 10:42 AM

I am a conservative, and while I don't find the post offensive, I find it very tiresome, and boring. I live in MA so I hear the same thing day in and day out from people who are not trying to make jokes, and it gets really old. This is why I wouldn't bother posting on the non music threads. If you want to pick some group to make fun of, try your own group. I find them also to be very humorless.

Semper ubi sub ubi is not real latin, because wear as in don clothing is not the same word as wear (as in a slang word for clothing in Latin)

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Feb 06 - 10:48 AM

O si bili, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O nobili, demis trux
Si vats enim, causen dux.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Feb 06 - 11:08 AM

I find them also to be very humorless.

There's nothing funny about what the BuShites are doing to the country- and to the world, Woo. Picture's pretty grim.

That may have something to do with it.

And if you're a REAL conservative, you should be pretty upset yourself at the BuShite's antics, no?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Pied Piper
Date: 06 Feb 06 - 11:12 AM

Beautiful Railway Bridge of the Silv'ry Tay!

Oh my God it's catching.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: katlaughing
Date: 06 Feb 06 - 11:46 AM

He who establishes his argument by noise and command, shows that his reason is weak.- Michel de Montaigne

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Amos
Date: 06 Feb 06 - 12:27 PM

Or that he is speaking to the unreasonable.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: WooBerry
Date: 06 Feb 06 - 04:38 PM

I do object to some of President Bush's entitlement spending. But I would never call the president of our country a vulgar name. It just demeans the whole country, and it only hurts us in the long run, whichever side you are on. What I find so difficult about either side is the absolute intolerance to any beliefs or strategies other than one's own. And then rather than debating the issues, it all degenerates to name calling....

Diana <---going back to the conservative Anglican boards :)

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: GUEST,G
Date: 06 Feb 06 - 04:49 PM

"Speaking to the unreasonable" - thanks for the reminder, Amos.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Wesley S
Date: 06 Feb 06 - 04:56 PM

Diana - I happen to call the President "Shrub" - it's a small bush. I can think of other things to call him but I don't. It's a trend to call the other team by funny names. It blows off steam.

Former Speaker of the House Jim Wright told me that in years past the two "teams" would have argued about a bill on the floor but then they were still good enough friends to go out for a beer later. That just doesn't happen anymore. Too much animosity.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Once Famous
Date: 06 Feb 06 - 04:58 PM

Junior high stuff is much more desirable than your stuffy old man stuff, WesleyS

No one should ever grow up to be like you.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Wesley S
Date: 06 Feb 06 - 05:16 PM

Woof !! Woof !! Woof !!!

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Feb 06 - 06:28 PM

"Junior high stuff is much more desirable than your stuffy old man stuff, WesleyS."

That explains it! Well, Wesley, now we know where Martin is coming from. I can't say I'm the least bit surprised.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Feb 06 - 06:35 PM

But I would never call the president of our country a vulgar name...

Why in heavens name not, Woo? He regularly refers to his political opponents as traitors and enemies, and as a$$holes & worse- and he's been caught on tape doing so - as have members of his cabinet.

Just following the example of the U.S Head of State, is all.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 Feb 06 - 06:56 PM

One can have respect for the office of the President of the United States without having respect for the person who holds that office. One respects what the office should be. If the person in that office fails to live up to the demands of the office and shows by his policies and actions that he is not worthy of the office, that doesn't mean one respects the office any the less.

When one is in the military, one may have contempt for an officer who is stupid and arrogant. But when you salute that officer, you are saluting the uniform, not necessarily the man. Same idea.

By the same token, it is one's patriotic duty to criticize one's country's leaders when one judges them to be in the wrong. Not to do so, mindlessly accepting what they do merely because they are the leaders, verges on treason. At the very least, it is a failure to do one's duty as a citizen.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: GUEST,Wesley S
Date: 06 Feb 06 - 07:48 PM

Well said, Don.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Feb 06 - 08:17 PM

Hey, I'll have to admit to callin' Bush both a "liar" and a "crook" becuase I deeply feel he is both of those but...

... I'd never call him a "scumbag", or anything like that...

I didn't particularlly like Clinton either but did once defend him aginst someone calling him a "scumbag"... Liar? Now that's a different story...

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: DougR
Date: 06 Feb 06 - 09:29 PM

Peace: you are a conservative? Well blow me down! I never would have thunk it.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Cluin
Date: 06 Feb 06 - 09:32 PM

Let the haunting begin.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Feb 06 - 10:17 PM

And, Dougie, you call yerself a Republican??? I 'd hardly belive it...

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: GUEST,Boab
Date: 06 Feb 06 - 11:35 PM

Hey Amos---leave McGonnagal alone---
"Upon yon hill there staunds a coo---
"It's no there noo--
"--It must hae shiftit,"

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: WooBerry
Date: 07 Feb 06 - 08:04 AM

Well Greg,

I have not heard the president call people names in a public forum, and if I did, I would say that it is not appropriate. I think vulgar speech brings a society down (depending on the forum of course). I don't think that traitor or enemy is a vulgar term, in the same category as "scumbag." I think that people who validate and support states who are America's enemies, are leaning toward the traitorous. What they do with those feelings is what determines whether or not they are actually enemies or traitors themselves.

Greg, all of us have referred to other people rudely. We are human beings after all. It is a shame that some things get caught on tape (both sides!) and reverberate through the media until everyone thinks it is the status quo to talk about other people in a demeaning way.

Wesley, I don't find the name shrub vulgar or offensive. I also think that people can disagree with other people's polictical opinions and that doesn't make them stupid or traitorous. I applaud that this country supports free speech. But I mourn the loss of collegiality between parties or rivals. The rhetoric from both sides is so oppressive!

Don, I do agree that it is our patriotic duty to criticize the actions of the officer if we believe his/her actions are in error. I just think the remedy should be the ballot box, not the low road.

Diana

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Once Famous
Date: 07 Feb 06 - 08:32 PM

Don has chosen the low road and has exercised his double standard of free speech.

Very well put, WooBerry.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: michaelr
Date: 07 Feb 06 - 09:30 PM

WooBerry -- (great handle!) -- allow me to jump in here.

I'd like to remind you that Vice President Dick Cheney told an elected representative of the American people to go fuck himself on the floor of the Capitol. I'm hard put to imagine anything more vulgar trying to pass for political discourse.

And yes, calling an Americat compatriot a traitor pretty much equates to calling him a scumbag, I'd say. And if you're saying that being critical of Bush's Iraq policy is "leaning toward the traitorous", that puts you squarely in "Martin Gibson"'s camp -- one of the most vulgar people I've come across.

Welcome to the Mudcat, Diana. Tell us about your musical interests sometime. Meanwhile, Be warned it's not safe here below the line.

Cheers,
Michael

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Once Famous
Date: 07 Feb 06 - 09:42 PM

Hi diana, pay no attention to MichaelR and many of the other American dissenters and left wing lugnuts.

They're just unsatisfied with many of the good things in life and just live for a handout and ridicule everything that is good about the world as they exist on the fringe of society.

They just so mcuh hate the truth especially about themselves.

Appreciated your post. I was raised to respect the office of President, also.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Feb 06 - 10:20 PM

Yeah, Diana, listen to the hate-monger of Mudcat, Mertin Giobson himself..

Go click on his name... What will happen is a complete list of his postings with the exceptions on a spell of his GUEST, Martin Gibson's posts..

Yeah, read a few of them, especially his views on woman... And be sure to read all the ones where he goes days without posting one single post that doesn't have some reference to genitals in it...

Yeah, Martin Gibson, above anyone here in Mudville, has been the most vulgar and hatefilled poster, bar none...

So before you attach yer future to his star, check him out... You siad you don't particularrly like the term "scumbag". I don't either yet "scumbag" is a compliment to some of the crap that Martin has spewed here at this forum...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: WooBerry
Date: 08 Feb 06 - 11:18 AM

michaelr,

I thought what Dick Cheney said was very rude and inappropriately uttered! (Although I don't blame him for his thoughts!. Calling someone a traitor as hate speech is like calling someone a scumbag, yes. But calling someone a traitor who has given away military secrets is the truth.
My handle I've had since 1992, when I got on AOL for the first time.
There is a story of course.

My musical interests derive from early indoctrination from my father, who even though being one of "Barry's Boys" was a Joan Baez and CMT fan. Since I started teaching Sunday School, I have found a wealth of folk songs which the children (and I) like that are singable, and scripturally accurate. I am looking on gathering a group of them which can be modified to fit my particular program.

I will present them to a group next fall (conference)
I am also interested in genealogy
In real life I am an anesthesiologist.

Now do none of you find it outrageous that the "pastor" who presided over Coretta King's funeral thought it was a good forum to bring up WMDs?

I shall remain out of any camps or factions if I can,

Diana

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: DougR
Date: 08 Feb 06 - 11:33 AM

WooBerry: A breath of fresh air!

I thougt the whole "Celebration of Life" thing for Coretta King was a bit over the top myself. One might have thought the Queen of England died. The remarks of that outrageous "pastor" and those of former president Jimmy Carter (the worst in U. S. history IMO) were inappropriate and rude. The funeral should have been free of politics.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Ebbie
Date: 08 Feb 06 - 02:37 PM

Good lord. You can't mean it, DougR? What has the Queen of England done in comparison with what Coretta Scott King spent her life in?

Racism is a subtle thing, ain't it.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Amos
Date: 08 Feb 06 - 03:26 PM

I didn't hear the service, but what was it the pastor said about WMDs in his "outrageous" talk? I find it hard to imagine that including an acronym in a speech of and by itself is grounds for outrage, except perhaps to those who are predisosed to it by reason of some sense of guilt or some such.

Did he say they were good things? I can see how that would be inappropriate. Or did he say they had been used as an excuse for a war which Coretta King took a position against?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Feb 06 - 03:59 PM

Racism is a subtle thing, ain't it.

There's nothing at all subtle about our boy Douggie.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Alba
Date: 08 Feb 06 - 04:11 PM

Amos I had some trouble finding reference to the Eulogies delivered at Mrs King's Funeral through my usual places but found this which gives a reasonably balanced report: Link

Doug R...Rude!! Is this new Conservative lingo for anyone who airs their Freedom of Speech in Public in this Country but only applies if the People doing so are disagreeing with the actions of the current Administration!
Nasty is what I would call your post Doug, not rude, just nasty.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: WooBerry
Date: 08 Feb 06 - 06:19 PM

What is nasty, or even rude about Doug's post?
He has freedom of speech as well.
Personally, I think funerals should be a celebration of the life of the person who died, and in the case of a religious person, joy at their reunions with loved ones, not political platforms.

Diana

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Feb 06 - 06:19 PM

Welcome aboard, WooBerry!

I was not advocating the "low road," (as Martin Gibson—who knows more about low roads than anyone else here on Mudcat—claims). And I agree that the ballot box is the way to handle it.

But that, by itself, is not enough. Merely voting on election day is the bare minimum. If you feel strongly about the issues, you need to get involved in campaigning for your position and for candidates who hold that position. Among other things, that means being politically active, keeping thoroughly informed, and discussing the issues with others (as one attempts to do here on Mudcat—and, one hopes, elsewhere as well!). In any discussion, here or elsewhere, using abusing language about office holders and candidates—and about each other—is counterproductive. It only irritates people and muddies the discussion. Calling someone a "moron" or a "scumbag" says nothing about the person being insulted, but it does speak volumes about the person who feels it necessary to use that kind of language.

Not my style.

Prior to the last presidential election, among other things, I attended my party caucus and voted for David Kucinich, the candidate whose views came closest to my own. He didn't make the "finals," but at least I made my opinions known. In the next presidential campaign, I will also attend my neighborhood caucus. That's being a part of the "informed electorate" that Thomas Jefferson said is necessary if democracy is to survive.   

Merely disagreeing with Martin Gibson does not qualify as "taking the low road."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Peace
Date: 08 Feb 06 - 06:22 PM

Well, Ol' Bill's blowjob was about sex, but it got political in one helluva hurry, so I guess someone's funeral could be misinterpreted too.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: DougR
Date: 08 Feb 06 - 06:24 PM

Call it what you wish, Alba! I, however, am not a racist and how anyone could read that into my my post tells me just how twisted the thinking of some of you people is. The post did not denigrate Mrs. King or the good work she and her husband did. I think a six hour funeral service for ANYBODY is a bit over the top! You will also note that I included in my post IMO. Or perhaps in the opinion or those of you who find fault with the post people are not entitled to their own opinion in this thread. Must agree with the "lefty" screwballs! Right.

Funerals are not a suitable place for partisan posturing and is an insult to the memory of the person in the casket!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: michaelr
Date: 08 Feb 06 - 06:25 PM

And from Doug, as usual, a breath of stale air.

Diana - I didn't hear any reference to WMDs, but what Jimmy Carter (probably the last president who was a genuinely good man) mentioned was the fact that both MLK and his wife had their civil rights violated by illegal wiretaps.

At the funeral of a person who devoted her life to the struggle for civil rights, I don't see that as being out of place.

Cheers,
Michael

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Feb 06 - 06:36 PM

Douggie's just being his normal asshole self.

Among other things, what's with the parentheses around "pastor"? The Reverend Joseph Lowerey is an ordained Methodist Minister & a co-founder with Dr. King of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.

Short Bio
HERE

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Feb 06 - 06:45 PM

I'm not sure how one could go about celebrating Coretta Scott King's life without references to politics... Like her husband, her entire life was surrounded in politics...

Yes, there was one reference to WMD's... Big deal... Only a true partisan would let that one reference tarnish a 2 hour plus celebration... Yet partisan folks is just like that...

Heck, Democrats, Greens, liberals and oprogressives had to put up with a month's worth of Reagan worshiping after President Reagan died but fir the most part we just let what became a one month long Republican circle jerk go on with very little protest...

Yet one 3 second long mention of WMD's at a civil rights leaders funeral and that's seems to be what at least one poster will remember of this funeral...

Like I said.... partisan...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Feb 06 - 06:49 PM

Whoops! Buggered up that link somehow

Lowery Bio HERE

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: leftydee
Date: 08 Feb 06 - 06:57 PM

Diana,

I'm interested to know if you think outing a CIA agent is traitorous.

Bob

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Alba
Date: 08 Feb 06 - 07:39 PM

"What is nasty, or even rude about Doug's post?
He has freedom of speech as well."

Eh, Well it depends what side of the fence your reading from I suppose.
I too have free speech. It does apply to people who do not have the same Political opinions as Doug and yourself, really, check on it but I am sure on this point IMO (a chill sweeps over Alba's seemingly Liberal screwball back!) you could say I am RIGHT!.
Maybe your Politics play no part in any other area of your Life or work but how one could talk about Mrs Correta King in a Eulogy and not acknowledge her tireless Fight for Civil Rights minus Political statement. IMO it would have been impossible.
I am sure you will disagree but then it is only MY opinion.
Oh yeah hello and welcome and all that.

DougR.
"Call it what you wish, Alba!"
Thank you for your permission. I will, in fact I think I did.
It seems that you have joined the rank and vile of gutter Right Wing Idiots that post here unfortunately IMO.

Personally it is of no importance to me how long Mrs Correta King's Funeral Service lasted. However long it was it was only a tiny moment in a day compared to a Life spent fighting for the Rights of others by a courageous and selfless Woman.

Jude

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Peace
Date: 08 Feb 06 - 07:45 PM

"Personally, I think funerals should be a celebration of the life of the person who died, and in the case of a religious person, joy at their reunions with loved ones, not political platforms."

La dee da.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Feb 06 - 07:51 PM

"Traitors" are judged so simply from the point of view of the people in power (and their backers). When those people are no longer in power, the former traitors are often hailed as the new heroes or martyrs by the new people in power...who will select as the new "traitors" those who act in a way they don't like.

Such is the hypocrisy and opportunism of people in the grip of any politically partisan struggle.

Not one of them is a traitor in his own mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Peace
Date: 08 Feb 06 - 07:56 PM

Quisling was just doing things the way he saw fit, right?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Amos
Date: 08 Feb 06 - 07:57 PM

Looks like not only the pastor, but President Carter, President Clinton, and Coretta and Martin King's daughter all took the opportunity to point ou that politics is generating a major erosion and undermining of the virtues that the Kings lived for -- justice, individual rights before the law, individual dignity and personal freedoms. And for some reason they all seemed to be glancing at President Bush, who smiled through the whole event.

Their doing so was not making a funeral into a political platform; quite the contrary -- they were speaking in support of the social virtues that the Kings stood for. To put a twist on it is, to my mind, a bit disingenuous.

As for the length of the ceremony, perhaps Doug knows someone more deserving of a large memorial convocation?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Once Famous
Date: 08 Feb 06 - 08:10 PM

Diana

Watch our for the ultra radical wing nuts here. There is socialists and late '60s hippies here who never grew up and really made much of their life since.

It should be apparent by now who they are.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Peace
Date: 08 Feb 06 - 08:18 PM

I'm one of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: GUEST,Wesley S
Date: 08 Feb 06 - 08:19 PM

Me too - We are Sparticus !!

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Peace
Date: 08 Feb 06 - 08:22 PM

Yeah, OK, but do you shave yer legs?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: GUEST,Wesley S
Date: 08 Feb 06 - 08:23 PM

Only on "date" night.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Peace
Date: 08 Feb 06 - 08:25 PM

Me too.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: GUEST,Wesley S
Date: 08 Feb 06 - 08:28 PM

How many bottles of beer on the wall ??

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: GUEST,Wesley S
Date: 08 Feb 06 - 08:28 PM

100 !!

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Feb 06 - 08:44 PM

"Quisling was just doing things the way he saw fit, right?"

Well, of course he was, Bruce. He figured, no doubt, that the Germans had the winning ticket and were ushering in a "new era", and he decided it was time to get on board. So did hundreds of thousands of willing Ukranians, Lithuanians, French, Danes, Dutch, Estonians, Latvians, Belgians....and MILLIONS of Hungarians, Rumanians, Finns, Bulgarians, Croatians, Italians, and God knows who else who joined up with the Wehrmacht, or the SS, or became allies with the Germans in World War II.

Do you really think they did not, at the time, think they were doing "the right thing"?

If their side had won, they would never have doubted it, in light of the successful outcome. That's what wars are like. The winners sanitize their own record, and damn that of the losers.

I am not saying Quisling did the right thing. I am saying that he, with his own limited and pragmatic view of the situation in 1940, most likely thought he was doing the right thing.

By the way, Churchill was also planning to invade Norway in 1940. Both the Germans and the British had already decided that a neutral Norway was simply too dangerous and inconvenient to their cause, and that Norway had to be occupied and utilized as a base to control access to and from the Baltic and into the North Sea. The British plan to invade Norway was in an advanced stage and the Germans knew it, but the Germans beat them to the punch by invading first. If Hitler had been a little slower off the mark, someone like Mr Quisling (maybe even Mr Quisling himself!) would have been cooperating with the British occupation forces, and would now be remembered as a very good guy in our history books.

Do you know that Vichy France very nearly declared war on Great Britain in 1940 after the Royal Navy bombarded the French fleet in Oran on July 3rd 1940, sinking some battleships and killing over a thousand French sailors? Mainland France would then have been at war with England and allied with Germany. How would that play back now?

Would that, Bruce, have made the French instantly and overnight evil people to their core? No. It would have made them emotional people, reacting to an extremely bad situation as emotional people do...and doing what they thought was "right".

You cannot get so hung up on the incredible awfulness of Nazis that you fall into the trap of assuming that everyone was ever associated with them in any way must have been automatically satanic or something like that. Life just isn't that simple.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Feb 06 - 08:55 PM

Actually, Martin, it's you who is here on this computer 24/7... Maybe you like to explain how that levels with yer assessment that its the "socialists and late 60's hippies" who haven't "made mauch of their lives"...

If my life revolved around sitting in fron a computer attacking folks 24/7 I'd hardly go looking at other folks as the failuers...

This "late 60's hippie", as well as most of my olf "late 60's hippie" friends are still very much in the game and, guess what??? We are not only sucessfull people but not given in to sitting in front of a danged computer to define who we are...

Bobert ("late 60's hippie" and still in the game...)

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: GUEST,Mrs. Beasley (former English teacher)
Date: 08 Feb 06 - 09:01 PM

"There IS ARE socialists and late '60s hippies here who never grew up and really made much of their LIFE LIVES since."

D FOR CONTENT, E FOR GRAMMAR.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Feb 06 - 09:31 PM

Whew!!!

I saw Mrs. "Ballbuster" Beasley's name on the last post and was afraid to read it... I just knew it had to be poor ol' me gettin' yet another well deserved butt whup but...

...na-na-na-na-na-nuh, Martin, ol' buddy.

Yeah, I might be a socialist and "late 60's hippie" but I can at least keep my garmmerizin' half up to snuff...

And as fir content, you got lucky, Martin... I would have given you an "I" for "imcomplete", just like most of yer danged thoughts... Something always seems to be missing...

(Did you use the word, "thought", Bobert?)

Nevermind, Martin. I've juast had a break-though here...

Bobert

p.s. How'd I do, Mrs. Beasley? BTW, I really like the way you've been wearing your hair lately... It makes you look like a young Morgan Fairchild... Is that new dress? It makes you look like a cover-girl model...

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Peace
Date: 08 Feb 06 - 09:31 PM

Vicious ol' broad with that red pen, huh?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Ron Davies
Date: 08 Feb 06 - 10:03 PM

Doug R--

You no doubt mean to say that since the lives of Dr. King and his wife were so blissfully free of politics, a memorial service for Coretta King should likewise be so.

Anything you say, since you're always right.

In fact, far right.


It would also be instructive to hear Azizi's comments on your views. Though it's remotely possible it would not be pleasant reading for you.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: GUEST,Mrs. Beasley (former English teacher)
Date: 08 Feb 06 - 10:24 PM

Quite good, Bobert. Your spelling and grammar may not earn you a Rhodes Scholarship, but your reasoning powers (aided, perhaps, by your Wes' Ginny slide rule) are first rate.

I was gentle with Martin Gibson on the matter of content because everyone has a right to an opinion, even if he does get his opinions from those spittle-spraying right-wing radio talk show hosts.   Unfortunately, there seems to be a lot of that going around. My initial impulse was to give him an "I." Not for "Incomplete," though. "I" for "Imbecile." But I don't want to offend the imbeciles in the world who have pleasant dispositions.

Morgan Fairchild? Why, thank you, Bobert. Although I like to think of myself as looking a bit more like a young Audrey Hepburn.

Carry on.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Peace
Date: 08 Feb 06 - 10:34 PM

OK. Sorry about callin' you an ol' broad.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: WooBerry
Date: 08 Feb 06 - 10:52 PM

"And from Doug, as usual, a breath of stale air."

"Douggie's just being his normal asshole self. "

" La dee da." (huh?)

I may just go above the line for a breath or two of fresh air!
If I want verbal abuse I can get it at home, for free!

D

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Peace
Date: 08 Feb 06 - 10:54 PM

Have a nice trip.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Amos
Date: 08 Feb 06 - 11:59 PM

You are mistaken, Mister "Gibson"; sadly mistaken. In all the times I have seen the two of you trade insults, you have always come out the loser, not to put too fine a point on it. Worse, a loser who consoles himself by telling himself he actually won.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Ironmule
Date: 09 Feb 06 - 02:14 AM

I'm inclined to think neocon is a short version of "kneejerk conservative," unfortunately used to avoid considering the value of some ideas that might just possibly come from a conservative source. Those guilty of kneejerking also come in liberal varieties as well, and mostly they like to use the term neocon liberally (often). ;^)


As someone who thinks for himself, sometimes taking liberal, and sometimes conservative positions; I find kneejerkers on the far reaches of either side annoying. And too often loud.

As for my brother calling me a neocon, I think he's got a fine sense of humor, and I can laugh at a joke where ever it comes from. ;^)

Jeff Smith

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: HuwG
Date: 09 Feb 06 - 04:13 AM

I must quibble with Little Hawk's post above.

Vidkun Quisling was a man of fixed, if unpleasant, political convictions. I doubt whether he would have had the moral elasticity to act for British occupying forces as he did for the Germans.

With regard to "mainland France", read what is referred to as "Vichy France" in most postwar works. There were those in that regime who would collaborate with the German occupiers, only to whatever extent would mitigate the worst effects of the occupation. There were also some outright far right-wing sympathisers (such as Darnand, the Minister of the Interior) but far more many trimmers and time-servers.

A declaration of war against Britain by the Vichy government would not have been supported by the bulk of the French population, regardless of actions by British forces at Mers-el-Kebir (and later at Dakar, and in Syria and Lebanon).

...

My personal distaste for right-wing sympathisers relates mainly to their flawed revisionist logic. For example, you occasionally hear some people referring to the "American occupation of Britain in World War II". In a very narrow sense of logic, the presence of US troops in Britain can be compared to that of, say, German troops in Hungary, in that in both cases, the foreign troops were invited by an indigenous government by treaty or agreement with their more powerful allies.

However, this puerile logic fails when the results are compared. Numbers of population forcibly dispossessed, deported and even murdered by the "occupiers" ? In Britain, none. In Hungary, several hundred thousand Jews, along with gypsies and slav minorities.

Other acts detrimental to the host nation ? Property looted, women raped, natural resources plundered, citizens executed for overt or concealed hostility to the occupiers? In the entire war, there were fewer than two hundred serious crimes reported involving American (and Canadian) soldiers stationed in Britain; and considering the numbers which at various times were stationed in Britain, this is remarkably low. Land might be temporarily requisitioned for military buildings; it was handed back when no longer required. Whatever amenities or facilities were diverted to the "occupiers" was more than compensated for by generous donations of goods and materials.

And so on. (And however galling it may have been at the time, I will not regard seduction by nylons and Luckies as any form of coercion.)

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Feb 06 - 09:15 AM

Nope, Jeff, it stands for Neo-Conservative with or without the hyphen and is a partcularly pernicious, mean-spirited & reactionary political philosophy as espoused by Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, Robert Kagan, Carl Rove, Grover Norquist, et. al. and as practiced by the BuShite junta.

"Google" it, (with & without hyphen) and you'll probably find more than enough to disgust you.

For good measure, look up the "Project for a New American Century".

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: WooBerry
Date: 09 Feb 06 - 10:09 AM

I don't like unpleasantness from either side

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Ironmule
Date: 09 Feb 06 - 11:15 AM

For me, it's a kneejerk attempt to categorize and thus dismiss, ideas I think worth examining thoughtfully, and I see kneejerkers on the far sides of both camps.

The loudness with which the kneeo's monopolize what would otherwise have been thoughtful discourse, keeps most center right and center left from being able to cooperate to get good things done.

I've been watching politics for over forty years, and the middle used to be able to ignore the far out wings. There's been a capturing of the primary process lately that works to the advantage of organized far right and far left activists, and leaves the disorganized center with little voice. I don't think the country is nearly as polarized as the media and activists want us to believe.

But nobody seems to listen to me........

Jeff Smith

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Amos
Date: 09 Feb 06 - 11:42 AM

Dear Ms. Beasley:

In grading Martin's essay, up-thread from here, you gave him a "D" for content and and "E" for grammar.

In my school years, there was no grade between "D" and "F". Is E an intermediate grade now? In my preschool years it stood for "Excellent" on such opinions as "plays well with others", for example. But I know that does not apply in the present case.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: leftydee
Date: 09 Feb 06 - 11:46 AM

Diana,
Since you won't answer my question about traitors, how about answering this. You said in an earlier post your did not approve of Bush's entitlement spending. Which entitlements do you disapprove of?

Bob

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: DougR
Date: 09 Feb 06 - 11:46 AM

Who would be more deserving of a tribute similar to the one accorded Mrs. King, Amos? Why you, of course, you! :>) And Alba of course, and one would not want to forget old optomistic Greg F. too, of course (it's never a good idea, I know, to name names ..one always leaves someone out and they feel slighted). You are all deserving of a six hour tribute. You all contribute SO much!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Amos
Date: 09 Feb 06 - 11:53 AM

Oh, Doug -- sarcasm? Isn't that a little low for you to stoop?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Feb 06 - 12:18 PM

Douggie's grumpy, missed his nap.

Go back to sleep, Douggie, everything's fine.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: GUEST,Mrs. Beasley (former English teacher)
Date: 09 Feb 06 - 01:34 PM

Amos, the grade of "E" in the school district where I taught indicated a failing grade.

A = Excellent, B = Good, C = Acceptable, and D = Poor. The use to the "E" was merely a progression through the alphabet. There was an addition grade of "S," which indicated that the student had completed the work, but it was of such a nature that it indicated that he or she would not be going on to college. And, of course, "I," which indicated "Incomplete." The student had not finished the course.

I agree that "F" would be more specific, as in "F = Fail." This, of course, is what was intended. The "D" for content, as I mentioned above, was pure mercy in my part. Undeserved. But that was my method (undoubtedly in vain) of attempting to encourage the student to do better. Hope springs eternal.

Peace, although I like to think of myself as looking like a young Audrey Hepburn (at one time, it believe I did), I must confess, I AM a bit sensitive about the word "broad."

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: WooBerry
Date: 09 Feb 06 - 02:26 PM

Bob, I don't mind discussion, but these days comments seem to result in torrents of name calling. I am not going to convince you, and you are not going to convince me, so what is the point?

It's sad!

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: leftydee
Date: 09 Feb 06 - 08:08 PM

Diana,
You'll see that I'm not a name caller. But I have asked these questions so I can try and figure out where you're coming from. I have some conservative views myself but still can't understand how people can consider themselves patriots and be so stingy with their fellow citizens. I am one of the 60s hippies that where slammed here earlier, but, believe me, I have grown up and am a responsible citizen. I have been very fortunate in life and earn a very nice living. That being said, I'll also say that I'm proud to pay taxes that help the less fortunate and help build and defend America. I also consider it a duty to speak out against things that are wrong and do not appreciate my patriotism questioned when I do. So.... where are you coming from? What would make America a better place? I have a few ideas.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Ron Davies
Date: 09 Feb 06 - 10:05 PM

Diana--

I feel slightly stronger about this than some, perhaps.

You "don't like unpleasantness from either side". Please consider how calling someone a "traitor", as you have done, comes across. You may possibly grant that it qualifies as "unpleasant". At the very least, it's intemperate. So it may call forth an intemperate response.

Exactly who are you fingering for this crime and what exactly did the person do?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: GUEST,!!
Date: 09 Feb 06 - 10:48 PM

I sincerly hope that the post attacking Ron Davies and the remark regarding Ron using his real name here on the Mudcat is not an attempt at some kind of threat!
For if it was indeed intended to be threatening that would, in fact, be not only plain foolish but a seriously unwise thing to do. Seriously. Might be wise to explain the meaning and intent behind that post.

Diana...Ron was addressing you I think.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Amos
Date: 09 Feb 06 - 11:16 PM

Please let me implore on you that he is not.

I am sure this is not poetic license at work, so I can only assume that is ineptitude and illiteracy -- especially considering the abysmal truth value of the rest of the message. And I think you've been corrected on that "ooo! I won, i won" crap before, Martin. It's just self-aggrandizement, but you don't even do that well.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Feb 06 - 01:26 AM

Neo-cons are not conservatives. They are the opposite of conservatives. They are radicals.

And they are about as far from being fiscal conservatives as it is possible to get. They're borrow and spend, big government radicals.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Once Famous
Date: 10 Feb 06 - 08:00 AM

Using one's real name on Mudcat I don't believe is a very wise thing to do. With all of the anti-semitism, I sure would not.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Feb 06 - 08:06 AM

If I were a Jewish impersonator, I wouldn't either...

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Ron Davies
Date: 10 Feb 06 - 11:20 PM

So sorry, Martin, to see that you're still suffering from being "dehumanized every day". It shows.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Peace
Date: 10 Feb 06 - 11:27 PM

'For good measure, look up the "Project for a New American Century".'

I posted a link to the document about three years ago, Greg. One of the writers of it was a certain fellow named Paul Wolfowitz. He seems to have a connection with the World Bank. (That was a tongue-in-cheek statement.) However, indeed do read the document. It is a 'blueprint' of exactly what's been going on. Interesting also that the term "New World Order" has been kicking around for over a hundred years.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: michaelr
Date: 10 Feb 06 - 11:59 PM

Go away, Martin.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Arne
Date: 12 Feb 06 - 08:32 PM

'Martin Gibson':

Using one's real name on Mudcat I don't believe is a very wise thing to do. With all of the anti-semitism, I sure would not.

Imagine my surprise.   ;-)

I'd note, however, that I use my given name, despite your threats to bring the (supposed) massive firepower of FLAME to bear on me. I don't take unnecessary risks, but I'm not about to let any incipient fascists, brown-shirt wannabees, or blustering bullies dissuade me from proudly and publicly making my points, and attempting to enlighen people when appropriate. Say, 'Martin', still got your duct tape and plastic wrap at the ready?

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: autolycus
Date: 13 Feb 06 - 06:02 PM

Er ---   h-h-h-h-hello. (Ducks, fearful of being accused of ...................(complete to your heart's content.

   Carol C. Neo-cons are not conservatives? They're the opposite? They're radicals?

Doesn't that need more unpacking, (as we say in philosophy circles)

Please?

pretty please?

Thanks in advance.

P.S. Just want to advance the discussion, rather than fire blanks.

P.P.S. What is supposed to be gained by mere insults?

          Anyone?

          g-g-g-g-g-g-oood-d-d-d-d-db-b-b-b-b-bb-ye.

Auto.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Feb 06 - 06:24 PM

She means that they are not oldtime conservatives, such as we knew prior to the 1980's. Oldtime conservatives were fiscally responsible. Neo-Cons are not. Oldtime conservatives did not rush to war when war is inadvisable. Neo-cons do. Oldtime conservatives were loyal to the Constitution of the United States. Neo-Cons regard it as an impediment.

That sort of thing...

Some oldtime conservatives support the neo-cons, because they haven't realized that an insane alternative to "liberalism" is not a good alternative nor is it the only alternative. Some oldtime conservatives do not support the neo-cons, but can't bring themselves to support the Democrats either, which is not surprising! (The Democrats are corrupt.)

Here's one more difference: oldtime conservatives were in favour of creating jobs in America, through American free enterprise. Neo-cons are in favour of moving most of the traditional American jobs to Asia, because a multi-national corporation has no loyalty to any society, only to its own bottom line.

And more: Oldtime conservatives believed in saving money and paying off debts. Neo-cons are in favour of buying on credit and never paying your debts if you can possibly avoid it. Just pass them on to the general public.

And more: Oldtime conservatives believed in the middle class. Neo-cons believe in only 2 classes: the very rich...and the poor. The middle class is now steadily withering away and vanishing under their tenure, as it gradually joins the ranks of the poor.

She's right. They are not conservatives, they are radicals. The Nazis also pretended to be conservatives, but were extreme radicals, and they appealed to the same basic emotions in people as the neo-cons do.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Feb 06 - 10:28 PM

Gee "Martin"--somebody sure is focusing on me a lot. For somebody who claims I am responding to him a lot, when it comes to obsession you really should look in the mirror.

Sorry to tell you--somebody who uses his own name is likely to be more credible than a denizen of the sewer (sorry, I meant a profile of courage) who has never yet used his own name on Mudcat. Of course it also doesn't really help your credibility that you have told us that you don't take seriously what you say on Mudcat.

Fine. Neither will we.

That gives you... uh....let's see... exactly zero credibility on any topic.

I stand behind everything I've ever written. If you stood behind your "contributions", you'd likely be missing a few teeth. But, who knows, maybe you have no more to lose.

Dick Greenhaus, among others, is not afraid to use his name--perhaps it's because he does not just live to "pull chains", and he believes in discussion, as most of us do. You ought to try it sometime.

He also knows that anti-Semitism exists--and that it is something other than disagreeing with the utterances of a foul-mouthed fool--recognize anybody.?

Hope you can stay out of the gutter. Maybe you can-if the moderators have you on a tight enough leash.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Feb 06 - 11:28 PM

Anybody for making birth control retroactive?

Don Firth (my real name)

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: DougR
Date: 14 Feb 06 - 12:34 PM

I doubt that anyone on the Mudcat has more fun than Martin Gibson.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Wolfgang
Date: 14 Feb 06 - 12:45 PM

Anybody for making birth control retroactive? (Don Firth)

'Life not worth to live' was a Nazi euphemism for murder. You have added a new euphemism.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Stephen L. Rich
Date: 14 Feb 06 - 02:38 PM

While I completely understand the term "Neo-Con", I have a bit of trouble with it. It makes them sound like they ought to glow in the dark or something.

Stephen Lee

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Ron Davies
Date: 14 Feb 06 - 10:39 PM

Doug R--

Au contraire. Based on the foul vitriol (look it up) of many of his posts, "Martin" actually doesn't seem very happy--even though I've told him over and over our only purpose here is to make him happy. Can't understand what the problem could be.

Maybe his bad humor has something to do with being "dehumanized every day"-- (he certainly has a way with words.)

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Feb 06 - 11:17 PM

Making Martin Gibson happy isn't my only purpose. I also hope to secure at least one dinner engagement with Winona Ryder, and I am determined to redecorate this room at some point...

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Peace
Date: 14 Feb 06 - 11:20 PM

She any relation to Red?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Feb 06 - 11:21 PM

No. She is the niece of some counter-culture icon...Timothy Leary or someone like that.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Peace
Date: 14 Feb 06 - 11:30 PM

Oh. Thought she was related to someone famous like Red Ryder. Timothy Leary was a figment of his own imagination.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: GUEST,Larry K
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 09:36 AM

Let me understand the point of this thread.   To make this forum better, we should remove all conservatives and their point of view. Than all liberals and progressives can live together in perfect peace and harmony.   Just like on West Wing before it was cacelled.

The best part of being a liberal is that thinking is optional.

If republicans are the "angry" party, what do you call Howard Dean "yeaaaaaaaah", Hillary "power to the peeeeeeeeebbbbbbbbllleee", Al "he betrayed this country" Gore, Ted "the swimmer" Kennedy, Smucky Shumer, and our favorite Cindy Sheehan.

Ok OK, lets look at the Republican candidates for president in 08 to be fair.   McCain, George Allen, Bill Frist, Rudy Gulliani, Condalisa Rice.   Wow, what a bunch of loud obnoxious angry people.

In order for humor to work, there has to be a thread of truth to it to make it seem possible.   As I said, the best part of being a liberal is that thinking is optional.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 11:53 AM

The best part of being Larry K is that thinking is not an option.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Wesley S
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 01:11 PM

" To make this forum better, we should remove all conservatives and their point of view. "

Larry, Larry , Larry - Go back and read the first post in this thread and see if you can find where I suggested that all the conservatives vacate the premises. Lighten up a little.

"Let me understand the point of this thread"

The point of this thread was to have a little fun. If you are offended. Gee - I'm sorry. I'll make it up to you someday. I promise.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 01:15 PM

"He needs a blowjob more than any white man I ever met."

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 02:04 PM

Are you feeling marginalized, Larry K? Rejected? Ostracized? It may be that pesky dandruff that is ruining your relations with mainstream liberals, the people whom you most admire and wish to emulate. Well, there is an answer! RESDAN. That's right, Larry K, RESDAN can remove that unsightly dandruff within 3 days or YOUR MONEY BACK! RESDAN. Buy it with confidence, and regain your aplomb as you plunge fearlessly into the liberal mainstream and gain acceptance, respect, and recognition at last! RESDAN. (Only available in Canada.)

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 02:07 PM

By the way, Condoleeza Rice doesn't look so much angry as coldly venomous, to me. Like a cobra.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 02:42 PM

I think she needs a blowjob too.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 06:33 PM

Wolfgang, you're suggestion that my comment about making birth-control retroactive constituted a new euphemism for murder is a bit over the top. If one is so inclined, one can push it to that conclusion if one wishes, but that is not at all what I intended. It was purely a wisecrack, like suggesting to some pest that they "go play in the traffic." It is not a serious suggestion that they commit suicide. It is merely a hyperbolic way of telling the person that they are being a pest.

Let's try to maintain our perspective.

I would certainly not suggest that Martin Gibson be murdered or that he go get himself run over by a bus. Although there are times when the thought has its attractions, I really want him to stay alive. I figure that just having to be himself is punishment enough for the nastiness he feels impelled to heap on other people. That can't be easy to live with.

And Larry, "The best part of being a liberal is that thinking is optional." Really? With certain exceptions such as William F. Buckley, I've always been painfully aware of an anti-intellection streak in most of the conservatives that I've talked to or heard on radio or television. Shall we compare George W. Bush's I.Q. with the I.Q of John Kerry? Or Al Gore? No? Well, okay then.

Just as a passing thought, I'll bet that Bill Moyers has a higher I.Q. than Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly combined.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 07:08 PM

There are some highly intelligent conservative spokespersons, but their general voting constituency in rural America seems to distruct intellectuals. I think it goes back to the old prejudice of straight-talkin' frontier folks against smooth-talkin' city slickers...a cultural phenomenon that has been played upon and mythologized in countless movies and stories of the American West, the American South, etc...

They like George Bush because he reminds them of themselves..."just a regular guy".

Very few American politicians do not at least try to somehow earn those hometown, simple folk credentials, because it will get you votes.

Jimmy Carter benefited from it, remember? He was just "a little peanut farmer from Plains, Georgia". Nixon tried hard to make out that he was just a regular middle class guy whose wife wore an inexpensive "Republican cloth coat". It's laughable, but they all do it one way or another if they possibly can. Reagan played on the noble, craggy Frederick Remington cowboy-style image. Kennedy reminded folks that he had fought heroically in the war and been wounded. Etc...etc...etc...

They all try to prove that they are the kind of guy you want coaching your kids' little league baseball team. What a line! LOL!

The worst possible thing an American candidate can do is fail utterly to meet those hometown expectations of Ay-Murrican masculinity and patriarchal toughness combined with fairness.

Excuse me while I snicker in my popcorn and wait for the cavalry to ride in to the rescue...

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 07:40 PM

Exactly so, Little Hawk. 'Tis a pity and a shame, but what is one to do?

I'm vaguely reminded of an old Twilight Zone episode in which a man wandered around lost until he stumbled into a valley where everyone was blind. He remembered the old adage, "In the valley of the blind, the one-eyed man is king." So, being sighted himself, he figured he had it made. Until the people in the valley, who had evolved without eyes and had no concept of vision, decided he was abnormal and felt they were doing him a favor when they blinded him.

I'm beginning to think that if a candidate for higher public office accidentally reveals that he or she possesses a brain and knows how to use it, they won't stand a chance.

What does that say about the state of our political system? Or our society in general?

Kinda scary sometimes. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Once Famous
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 09:58 PM

DougR is kind of right. I do have more fun here than many. Ron Davies is absolutely obsessed that I am so unhappy. I think some of the language I hyave used has deeply offended him.

Big deal.

Ron, how do we know you are really Ron Davies? Personally, I don't really believe that you are. I could sign up as a member Ron Q. Davies or Ron Davies. That's Ron Davies with a . after the name.

You could put your address here and we could look you up.

But we could also have a dozen pizzas delivered to your house from different places all at the same time if you do.

So, posting with one's real name is seriously no big deal. It just serves that person's ego if he has to think so much about it.

Yep, DougR is right. I've been known to have some fun here.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 03:38 PM

Don,

"Shall we compare George W. Bush's I.Q. with the I.Q of John Kerry?"

Actually, we did a year or two back- George was higher....


So what?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 03:50 PM

http://www.vdare.com/sailer/kerry_iq_lower.htm


and look at what is out on the net...

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: GUEST,Wesley S
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 03:57 PM

I don't really care what the number is - the question is does he put his IQ to good use ? In my mind the answer is no. Your milage may vary.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 04:11 PM

As I said, so what? Do YOU? By MY standards?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 04:14 PM

Tell you what, bb, I started to try to wade through all of that stuff and gave up when it when it became evident that it involved conversions, estimates, and assumptions that this score on this kind of test was the equivalent of that score on some other kind of test. Maybe a few straight facts are in there someplace, but it would take a lot of sifting to find them. And especially considering the general bent of the website, I really have my doubts that any honest, authentic information is to be found there.

I'm not yielding that point. But even assuming that Bush's I.Q. is higher than either Kerry's or Gore's, let me give you a hypothetical situation. Two guys live side by side. One has a riding mower that has all kinds of features and would be good for maintaining the pristine condition of a golf course. His next door neighbor has one of the old-fashioned hand-push variety. Guess which one has a lawn that would rival the tidiness of a golf course and which has a yard that looks like a jungle?

Throughout his administration, Bush has not demonstrated anything resembling a level of intelligence beyond what could be called "ordinary" or "about average." No matter how good your power mower is, if you don't take it out of the shed now and then. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 04:26 PM

Don,

" No matter how good your power mower is, if you don't take it out of the shed now and then. . . ."


No arguement with your conclusion- but what exactly have you SEEN a Kerry administration do? You are comparing real world versus dream- and real world NEVER wins that comparison.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 04:33 PM

No, but we HAVE seen what a BuShite administration has done and intends to do- and that ain't a dream, its a goddamn real world nightmare.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 04:35 PM

Don,

" And especially considering the general bent of the website, I really have my doubts that any honest, authentic information is to be found there. "


Again, if you want to dispute facts, that is fine- but if YOU can disallow information ( without looking at the information) from those sites that you dislike ( the SRS Rule) than I can, as well- and then what will we argue about?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 04:59 PM

After wading through several screens and still not finding anything to get my teeth into, I took to scanning, and, assuming that there might by some kind of conclusion or summary at the end—and still not finding one—I decided if the writer of the page had any solid conclusions, he would not have hidden behind a fog-bank of speculation and obfuscation. If he had something to say, I couldn't find anyplace where he came close to saying it, but granted, I could have missed it. I assume that you've read it thoroughly. If you can excerpt the relevant section and post that, I will certainly read and consider it.

In the meantime, I clicked on a few of the links on the page and noted the sponsor of the site and who it is affiliated with. Yet another conservative "think-tank."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 05:18 PM

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/6/7/104717.shtml

http://davidm.blogspot.com/2004/10/bushs-iq-greater-than-kerrys-according.html

http://election.about.com/b/a/121198.htm




"In the meantime, I clicked on a few of the links on the page and noted the sponsor of the site and who it is affiliated with. Yet another conservative "think-tank." "

As if any LIBERAL think tank would publish the truth if it was not what they wanted you to think...

Actually, I try to look at BOTH sides of the issue, and it seems like the liberals are NOT going to tell you anything that makes their candidate looke bad.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 05:35 PM

Hey, Ted Bundy was said to have a high I.Q.....

Like who cares??? Waht does this have to do with the steady stream of screw-ups on Bush's part...

If he's a danged genious he's saving his best for the end of the game...

And there's also the issue of character and integrity and Bush has failed miserably in those two areas...

Even his own party is starting to see it and rebel... And conservative columnists like George Will are rebelling...

Now back to the original program...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 06:05 PM

bb, I would not accept anything from a liberal think-tank without substantial verification either.

By the way, did you find the relevant paragraphs? I can verify figures. Random speculation isn't that easy to verify.

And Bobert's point just above is valid. "By their fruits ye shall know them."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 06:08 PM

bb, I just checked the new links you posted. Maybe so. But Bobert's point is still valid.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Amos
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 07:19 PM

An interesting essay by an arch-conservative on the cultism of the peculiarly Bushian Neoconservative movement can be found on this page.

Regards,


A

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Arne
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 09:01 PM

BeardedBruce:

No arguement with your conclusion- but what exactly have you SEEN a Kerry administration do?

You have a point. But to be honest, Bruce, I have a hard time even imagining any other ways the maladministration could possibly f*** things up any more royally. Hate to say it, Bruce, but this maladministration has been one disaster after another, one bad decision after another, one botched job after another ... unless, of course, you want to count the "affirmative action" for the incompetent and crooked, and easy money, Dubya's given to the likes of Gallagher, Armstrong Williams, Michael Brown, Kerik (attempted), George Deutsch, anonanonanon ... and the money he's taken from the other crooks.

Yes, we don't know how Kerry might have fared, but it's impossible to believe he could possibly have done worse....

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 09:18 PM

Yeah, Arne, this was the point I was trying to make a few months ago with one of the Bushites here and I challenged him to pick just one Bush policy that he would defend and ***he***, no me, choze Bush's handling of Katrina...

Thus a 300 plus "KatrinaGate" thread I started in which I laid out my arguments against Bush... Early going, there was a lot of huff and puff by not only this particular Bushite but the Bushites in general... No real rebuttals, mind you, but lots of name calling and huffing anf puffing...

"Well, now you don't talk so loud.." (Dylan)

See, yer absolutely right, Arne, and that is why the Bushites would rather divert attention away from Bush's record of failure... There isn't one policy that Bush has pushed thru that was anything but a redistribution of wealth away from the working class to his campaign donors...

Not one!!! No child left behind is a friggin' joke... Bush not only wouldn't write the checks but now state and local governments are in deeper in having to pick up where Bush quit... And entire jurisdictions have opted out of it because for the little you get, it costs you more... Total failure... Even the most recent Secretary of Education has had to roll back goals becuase it was apparent that the program was failing... But what has occured out of this propgram is increased recruitment of kids who aren't even old enough to shave... Yeah, get 'um young.... No child left unrecruited is about the sum total of the only thing that Repubs could have said Bush has accomplished other than theft, stupid wars, war crimes and the trashing of the Bill of Rights...

But, hey, Bush is a genious compared to Keryy!!! Well, if that's the case then the US is in serious trouble...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Arne
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 09:19 PM

BeardedBruce:

NewsMax??? What a crock. But now we see where you get your curious notions....

But the other links don't say much either about methodology there (perhaps the Vdare linked-to-a-link-to-a-link Sailer stuff has more meat as to the supposed methodology, but it's still hand-waving and crap. None of these test are "IQ" tests, and for that matter, even IQ tests are notoriously suspect at measuring pure "IQ" [of there even is such s thing; Google "Spearman's 'g'" for a bit more on that), not to mention they're not very reliable at measuring samll difference and unuseful for comparison purposes. As the instructions for the WAIS-R (the most common clinical test used by psychologists) say, the results are for diagnosic purposes and for guiding clinical treatment only. They can tell you if someone is particularly disabled or gifted, but they can't tell you who's going to do better on even the next test, when the original scores are within a fraction of a SD. Other tests are quite similar in lack of precision. Personally, I had three quarters of a "full SD" difference between retests on the SAT verbal.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Peace
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 09:27 PM

My IQ has varied by over ten points at various times and under different conditions.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 11:22 PM

Sorry, courageous "Martin"--you just don't come across here as a very happy guy. And we do all we can to make you happy. Don't you think that's altruistic- (look it up)- of us? But it seems nothing we say, particularly nothing I say, can make you happy. Can't understand it. It's a puzzlement.

Re: names: actually it's not a question of ego--it's a question of credibility--which, it pains me deeply to have to say, you're a bit short on.

Hope you enjoy the pizza.

Looking forward to your next calm, well-reasoned posting.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Feb 06 - 01:44 PM

Using one's own name indicates a fundamental honesty. One is willing to take responsibility for what one posts, both credit and blame.

Don Firth
(Donald Richard Firth on my birth certificate)

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Amos
Date: 17 Feb 06 - 01:52 PM

IQ is a very tiny part of the overall measure of a man or woman; I believe I have read somewhere that Hitler had a very high IQ. The larger question is to what ends that intelligence is applied. You can be terribly quick at deception, profiteering, shell-games, PR and doubletalk. You can be awfully canny at acting the part of a dumb and honest regular guy when you really see yourself as a brilliant expert manipulator untroubled by bourgeois standards of honesty. You can be a raving psycho and still have a very high capability for manipulating symbols.

The question of relative merit shows up more in what one produces.

Just compare the four offspring (two of Kerry, two of Bush) if you want a quick gauge of their relative merits. Two thoughtful, articulate and analytical, two meretricious, cliche-ridden, giggly and self-serving.

Ya pays yer money and you takes yer cherce.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Feb 06 - 03:25 PM

If George indeed does have a fairly high I.Q. (I'm still not convinced), then considering his demonstrated business acumen and his stumble-bum behavior as president -- well, how often does he take his mower out of the shed, anyway?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Feb 06 - 03:31 PM

Don,
The reason I brought up the IQ thing ( NOTE MY "SO WHAT?") was because of your
"Really? With certain exceptions such as William F. Buckley, I've always been painfully aware of an anti-intellection streak in most of the conservatives that I've talked to or heard on radio or television. Shall we compare George W. Bush's I.Q. with the I.Q of John Kerry? Or Al Gore? No? Well, okay then."

seems like we are drifting- YOU made a claim which I have refuted.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Amos
Date: 17 Feb 06 - 03:49 PM

Let's see:

Offspring: alcoholic airheaded bimbos
Business Record: Series of dismal collapses barely escaped
Major accomplishments, Texas: Highest number of executions in history of state.
Major accomplishments, USA: Reversed a balanced budget into a hemmorhaging one. Largest trade deficit in history. Unnecessarily placed thousands of Americans in mortal peril by starting a war unilaterally. Worst record of civil rights since the nineteenth century. Organized the FEMA into ineptitude, costing millions of dollars and hundreds of lives. Poor military strategist. Politically inane and incompetent. Dramatically worsened American repute in every nation in the world.

By their products ye shall know them.


A

A

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Feb 06 - 03:57 PM

Not refuted to my satisfaction. I want to see figures, not speculation on a neo-con web site.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Feb 06 - 04:17 PM

"Bush's SAT score was 1206 (566 Verbal, 640 Math). See the upper-left
corner of his Yale transcript:
http://www.iuptown.com/YaleProtest/bushs_yale_transcript.htm

This web page offers a theoretical conversion of pre-1974 SAT scores to IQ:
http://members.shaw.ca/delajara/Pre1974SAT.html

Based on that conversion chart, Bush's IQ would be about 129.


Another web page, "SQ, IQ, and self-skills in recent US Presidents"
mentions that Charles Murray, author of a book on IQ called "The Bell
Curve," compares a that SAT score to an IQ of about 125.

"On his SAT's, President GW Bush scored 566 verbal and 640 math, for a
total of 1206 (from http://members.shaw.ca/delajara/SATIQ.html ). The
Bell Curve author Murray estimates a 1206 SAT equates to about 125 IQ.
"
http://www.sq.4mg.com/Presidents.htm

" Finally, when it comes to raw IQ, Bush is in the mid-range of
American Presidents. In 1999, Charles Murray and I calculated, based
on Bush's SAT score of 1206 (old-style scoring system), that his IQ
was probably about 125 or a little higher..."
source: Steve Sailer, vdare.com:
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/karl_rove.htm"

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Feb 06 - 05:19 PM

Since when did S.A.T.'s equate to I.Q.??? Oh, I missed the part in that link that had Karl Rove's name in it....

Well, if Karl Rove says his boy is a friggin' genious then I reckon they better have Cheney tested 'cause Bush ain't hit a lick in life yet... Had he been born to any other family he'd probably be in jail... Way too much larceny and dishonestly in the boy's blood...

Amos really hit the nail on the head with his little sanpshot of Bush's life as a failure... One is hard-peressed to find one thing he has done well that is honorable....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Arne
Date: 17 Feb 06 - 05:54 PM

BeardedBruce:

From your link:

Your page quoting the journal article:

'The correlation between the two scores was 0.58. The standard error of estimate for the SAT total score was 102; the standard error of estimate for the Otis was 5.8. This correlation of 0.58 gives a spuriously low impression of the correlation between the SAT and the Otis due to restriction in the range of ability in this sample.'

A 0.58 R^2 is not all that good, FWIW.

If someone knows why they have 1300 for scores before 1974, please send an email to enlighten me.

[the table's last entry is 1280 SAT]

Hate to say it, Bruce, but this web page author (Mr. da la Jara) perhaps doesn't know that the SAT topped out at 1600 at the time (800 verbal and 800 math). Doesn't lead to too much confidence in the conclusions.

I'd note that SATs are nominally normed at 1000 combined (500 each, S.D. 100) and IQs are supposedly normed at 100 (S.D. 15). I'd also note that SATS are not taken by everyone, but rather by the college-bound (or hopeful) while IQ scores are supposedly for the population as a whole (who might be expected to be lower scoring).

Here's you page once again quoting the journal article, though:

In this group: Otis Gamma mean = 117, SD = 7.2; SAT mean = 980, SD = 126.

This gives a mean for Otis scores within this cohort of 17 above nominal IQ mean, but a mean SAT of 980, 20 points below nominal SAT mean. I'd note that these are "Otis scores", which are not necessarily normed the same as IQs (nor is it obvious that they are the equivalent of more common IQ measurement tests, such as the WAIS-R).

Here's more for you on SAT versus IQ estimation.

More specifically, see here.

As for Mr. Sailer's "conversion" of Kerry's score, you have even more significant problems;

1). The OCS tests indicate a mean of 50 and a S.D. of 10, but for what group??? The cohort of people taking the OCS tests is undoubtedly different than those taking the SAT. Do we compare that to the SAT population? The general population? The cohort taking the tests in paper referenced on the de la Jara page? Sailer does some handwaving about this, but is not able to provide any actual numbers for IQ mean and distribution of the cohort those taking the OCS (he seems to indicate that that of officers is a proxy for this, but it's not at all clear that the cohort of officers is the same as the cohort of those taking the OCS test).

2). The precision of the OCS tests is not all that great if it's scored 50+/-10. The scores could easily be a couple points higher or lower than measures. The fact that raw scores (questions answered right) were in the same range (50 some) indicates that there isn't a lot of precision; couple of questions here and there will make a couple of points difference.

Steve Sailer doesn't address these problems very much, and then he goes referencing Charles Murray (whose book was citing Cyril Burt's fraudulent date long after Kamin had proven it to be fraudulent).

So, if you're looking for authority here, I think you'd do better than to cite Steve Sailer.


Here's some more Sailer tripe:

After fighting and losing the most expensive Congressional race in the country in 1972, Kerry wound up the next year at a surprisingly non-glittering law school, Boston College.

Ummm, BC is one of the better law schools (tier 2, roughly, I'd say, IIRC the rankings when I was lookng around). OTOH, Dubya was denied admission to UT Law School, so perhaps Sailer, if he were honest, might opine about the significance of that.... Here's U.S. News on rankings in 2003: BC = 27th, UT = 15th. But Kerry got in to BC, and Dubya didn't get into UT.

* * * * *

But, as others have pointed out, the proof is in the pudding: At the very least, if Dubya has any brain cells left after CAS and coke abuse, he's too lazy to take the lawn mower out of the shed, as evidenced by his unrivaled train of career failures. And his absolute incomprehensibily when he tries to talk shows that something's definitely not quite there upstairs....

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 17 Feb 06 - 06:44 PM

There is a substantial body of published information on the correlations between various measures of achievement and ability (two different things) and while I'd have to do some collateral research before accepting the "conversions" in the Bush/Kerry IQ debacle as convincing what is presented there is "mostly credible."

The bottom line is that while either of them could be presumed to be in the "bright" category, neither would have had a particularly good chance of being admitted to my college, at the time of their admission elsewhere, based on the SAT scores given by this analysis. The scores quoted would not disqualify them, but they'd need to score extremely well against other criteria that were/are applied.

On the other hand, it should be noted that there is (was) no such thing as an SAT score that would guarantee admission in the absence of a good record with respect to other criteria. As an alumnus "interviewer" for my admissions office, I saw a couple of applicants with SATs at 95th percentile on BOTH tests - approximately 97th percentile overall, who were refused admission. The "dumbest" applicant that I interviewed who was admitted was at about 92d percentile overall, although many applicants with somewhat lower SATs were admitted - I just didn't get any to interview.

The IQ and SAT scores, found or imputed, make it "not surprising" that either of these persons could be admitted to most any good university, but neither appears to be particularly "gifted," making any quibbling about a few points one way or another simply trite and senseless. The basic "intellectual capacities" - if one chooses to call what these tests measure by that name - are sufficient for either of these two to be fully functional in an executive (or legislative) position. There is no real way to assess whether either of them has "lived up to his ability" except by observing what they've done and what they are doing.

A fair percentage of Mensa members drive cabs, make hamburgers, and sweep floors; and the average IQ of *functional inmates at facilities caring for the "criminally insane" may well be above the average for the population at large. I'd look it up, but I don't feel the need to be sure.

* functional = discounting those confined because they simply don't have the intellectual capacity to be make their way outside institutional care.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Neo-con invasion
From: Once Famous
Date: 17 Feb 06 - 11:04 PM

Blah, blah.