# a new term "conservanerd"



## billc (Mar 14, 2011)

This is a great new term which deals with the conflict in the conservative/republican side of the political debate.

http://bigjournalism.com/kschlichter/2011/03/14/revenge-of-the-conservanerds/

From the article,

Conservanerds aren&#8217;t hard to identify. You can tell one by listening to him for about 15 seconds, by which time you will be overcome by a desire to either slap him or take his lunch money.  You can find them dwelling at the fringes of liberal culture &#8211; they are allowed to attend the cocktail parties as the token conservative, tolerated by their masters in return for passive obedience and the occasional swipe at Sarah Palin and her intolerable uppityness.

(As I am a Palin supporter, please, use another term for me, I would not be a conservanerd. 
                                                                                                                        Bill Cihak)


----------



## Ramirez (Mar 14, 2011)

billcihak said:


> This is a great new term which deals with the conflict in the conservative/republican side of the political debate.
> 
> http://bigjournalism.com/kschlichter/2011/03/14/revenge-of-the-conservanerds/
> 
> ...



 Conservatard :lol: ?  Just kidding Bill


----------



## billc (Mar 14, 2011)

None taken.  I can take it...wait, I need to wipe my eyes, and no, I am not crying, it's just my allergies.   Those aren't sobs either, I just like to take short breaths now and then.  I need to be alone.


----------



## Blade96 (Mar 14, 2011)

Conservaweird?


----------



## billc (Mar 14, 2011)

Et tu Blade 96!


----------



## Blade96 (Mar 14, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Et tu Blade 96!



&#1089;&#1087;&#1072;&#1089;&#1080;&#1073;&#1086;. 

Two can play at the languages game.


----------



## billc (Mar 14, 2011)

Yeah, but you actually seem to know one.  No fair.


----------



## Blade96 (Mar 14, 2011)

Heh. Not that well though - I've only had four years of Russian.


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 14, 2011)

Anti-intellectualism is a hallmark of today's movement conservatism, so no surprise that the Breitbart empire consume their intelligent own.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 14, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Anti-intellectualism is a hallmark of today's movement conservatism, so no surprise that the Breitbart empire consume their intelligent own.



I am of the opinion that 90% of everyone is a booger-eatin' moron.  I don't think any political party has a lock on it.  

That said, yes, there is an anti-intellectualism to the radical right wing of conservatism.  I want to believe that's mainly because an intellectual conservative's principles are based on reason and logic, not being told what the party line is and what to be offended by as found in the annals of certain right-wing blogs (this sword cuts both ways - plenty of liberals only believe what they read in their own blogs).  Also, I suspect that many of the radical right resent being talked down to by intellectual or pseudo-intellectual liberals, and as a result, tend to distrust anyone with a brain in their head.

But what do I know?  True conservatism died with William F. Buckley and Barry Goldwater.

The true test is this - if one of 'your own' suddenly comes up with a viewpoint that is contrary to the party line, do you listen to them, hear them out, think about what they're saying; or do you assume they've gone over to the dark side or been 'gotten to' by big powers, and turf them out of your little club?  

In other words, if a person's beliefs (left or right) can't be shaken, if it is a religious article of faith that one must believe without question what one is told, then one may be a member of the 90% I referred to.


----------



## billc (Mar 14, 2011)

How much lunch money do you have Bill Mattocks?


----------



## billc (Mar 14, 2011)

Rush, yes, that's right, Rush discussed this topic today.  He mentioned that the "intellectual" conservatives were against Ronal Reagan as well.  He was the Sarah Palin of his day.  Rush mentioned that George Will supported Howard  Baker over Reagan and that Charles Krauthammer wrote speeches for Walter Mondale.  The tea party movement and its friends are not anti-intellectual.  the tea party and its friends are Anti-ineffectual.  The beltway conservatives and their Ivy league buddies have put this country in a horrible position.  Even now, the belt way Republicans in the house are trying to slow down the spending cuts they promised.

The time for the spending increases, the tax increases, the bending before the democrats is over.   It is time to implement rather than pick at fine points.  The new wave of conservatives are smart but they are, more importantly, wiser, and determined, and not yet so much a part of the beltway that they can't see straight.


----------



## billc (Mar 14, 2011)

William F. Buckley, the anit-intellectual:

William F. Buckley, Jr. Quotes 




I'd rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University.
*William F. Buckley, Jr.*

Hardly an endorsement for intellectuals.



Read more: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/w/williamfb400600.html#ixzz1Gdp9Mzld​


----------



## girlbug2 (Mar 15, 2011)

Liberanerd? Do such creatures really exist?


----------



## Blade96 (Mar 15, 2011)

billcihak said:


> None taken.  I can take it...wait, I need to wipe my eyes, and no, I am not crying, it's just my allergies.   Those aren't sobs either, I just like to take short breaths now and then.  I need to be alone.



I've got a hanky.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Mar 15, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> The true test is this - if one of 'your own' suddenly comes up with a viewpoint that is contrary to the party line, do you listen to them, hear them out, think about what they're saying; or do you assume they've gone over to the dark side or been 'gotten to' by big powers, and turf them out of your little club?



This is why I tore up my greenpeace membership card.
I agree with them on many things, but I got fed up with the fact that the majority of the weenies seem to employ the same tactics as the right wing and left wing extremists: refuse to discuss arguments on an intellectual level and take everything to the emotional level.

Like I said in my gingrich thread: the world would benefit greatly if people stopped cheering the village idiots in their own camp.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 15, 2011)

billcihak said:


> How much lunch money do you have Bill Mattocks?



Almost none.  What does that have to do with anything?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 15, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Rush, yes, that's right, Rush discussed this topic today.  He mentioned that the "intellectual" conservatives were against Ronal Reagan as well.  He was the Sarah Palin of his day.  Rush mentioned that George Will supported Howard  Baker over Reagan and that Charles Krauthammer wrote speeches for Walter Mondale.



He's picking and choosing to make his point.  But that's typical; his listeners are hardly going to do any of their own research.

http://www.amazon.com/Reagan-Knew-William-Buckley-Jr/dp/0465009263



> That may have been one of Reagans greatest gifts: his ability to  separate political and personal matters, to disagree with someone while  remaining respectful and friendly. It would be easy, if you were  skimming this book, to miss most of its subtleties. But it is, in truth,  a deeply subtle account, full of insights not only into Ronald Reagan  but also into William Buckley, his longtime friend, supporter, and  (occasional) critic. --David Pitt



Buckley was a conservative intellectual.  Buckley was a Reagan supporter, so much so that he wrote a book about his friend, the last one he ever wrote.  Therefore, Rush's statement that intellectual conservatives did not like Reagan is incorrect.  But I doubt any of his listeners can stop their heads bobbing up and down long enough to do their own research and figure it out.




> The tea party movement and its friends are not anti-intellectual.  the tea party and its friends are Anti-ineffectual.  The beltway conservatives and their Ivy league buddies have put this country in a horrible position.  Even now, the belt way Republicans in the house are trying to slow down the spending cuts they promised.



The Tea Party are idiots.  And I am an anti-idiotarian.  It's like matter and anti-matter, I hope to never come in close proximity.



> The time for the spending increases, the tax increases, the bending before the democrats is over.   It is time to implement rather than pick at fine points.  The new wave of conservatives are smart but they are, more importantly, wiser, and determined, and not yet so much a part of the beltway that they can't see straight.



The new wave of conservatives are numbskulls who cling to a party line above anything else.  They are either incapable of thinking for themselves or they prefer not to.  If the party leaders suggested they wear a particular color shirt and give a particular salute to demonstrate solidarity, they'd do it without a word of dissension.


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 15, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> If the party leaders suggested they wear a particular color shirt and give a particular salute to demonstrate solidarity, they'd do it without a word of dissension.



On a very odd note...
"Sarah Palin called the Obama Administrations actions as the Road to Ruin!...We are on the Road to Ruin, and we are stopping on the side of that road to protest the downfall of our country!"  LINK


----------



## billc (Mar 15, 2011)

Well, Rush, who was a friend of William Buckley's, made the point on his show that Buckley was one of the "intellectual" conservatives who actually liked Reagan.  It was the other conservanerds who didn't like Reagan.  Of course Reagan, like Palin, ran rings around his detractors.  

Yes, the Tea party are idiots, just ask all the democrats who were kicked out of office in the last election.  I'm sure they would agree with you Bill Mattocks.  Of course winning elections just isn't as satisfying as debating the finer points of logic and reason with democrats as they implement their tax increases and spending increases, and cut the military, and apologize to our enemies.  I see what you mean.  Those Tea Partiers are real idiots.


----------



## billc (Mar 15, 2011)

You know Bill Mattocks, just hand over your lunch money and we'll call it even.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 15, 2011)

billcihak said:


> You know Bill Mattocks, just hand over your lunch money and we'll call it even.



Hehehe.  Come get it.  Oh, and you might want to bring your own lunch with you; you'll be at it all day.


----------



## granfire (Mar 15, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> On a very odd note...
> "Sarah Palin called the Obama Administrations actions as the Road to Ruin!...We are on the Road to Ruin, and we are stopping on the side of that road to protest the downfall of our country!"  LINK




Mr Big should suit her for misuse of song lyrics...


----------



## billc (Mar 15, 2011)

I have to say thank you Bill Mattocks.  As Dennis Prager says, he prefers Clarity to agreement when he cannot agree with the other person.  You have clarified the position of the Intellectual conservatives quite well, especially how they feel about the regular peope who make up the Tea party.  Thank you.  Now, the tea pary will take the fight to the democrats and actually try to stop the tax increases, the out of control spending and all the other damage the beltway republicans and democrats are doing to the country.  Thanks.  

xxoxxoo


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 16, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Yes, the Tea party are idiots, just ask all the democrats who were kicked out of office in the last election.  I'm sure they would agree with you Bill Mattocks.  Of course winning elections just isn't as satisfying as debating the finer points of logic and reason with democrats as they implement their tax increases and spending increases, and cut the military, and apologize to our enemies.  I see what you mean.  Those Tea Partiers are real idiots.



There's my point.  You don't have to be intelligent to win an election; you only have to get people to vote for you.  If you can manufacture outrage, you can do that.  The Tea Party did that quite effectively.  Doesn't make them intelligent, doesn't make their agenda smart.

If it did, then the Democrats who previously swept the _'permanent majority'_ of Republicans from office before the Tea Party existed would also have been geniuses.  They weren't.

Your reply did a lot to strengthen my argument.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 16, 2011)

billcihak said:


> I have to say thank you Bill Mattocks.  As Dennis Prager says, he prefers Clarity to agreement when he cannot agree with the other person.  You have clarified the position of the Intellectual conservatives quite well, especially how they feel about the regular peope who make up the Tea party.  Thank you.  Now, the tea pary will take the fight to the democrats and actually try to stop the tax increases, the out of control spending and all the other damage the beltway republicans and democrats are doing to the country.  Thanks.
> 
> xxoxxoo



Just because the Tea Party holds some of the same goals I do, does not mean I march alongside of them. They're out-of-control morons, responding in lockstep to various puppet masters, and I despise them.

And likewise, just because I despise them, does not mean that I am against the things they are for.

What it does mean is that I am glad when they obtain objectives that I believe are worthwhile and benefit us all, but I do not stop being scared of their overall level of idiocy in terms of their rank-and-file.  They're dumb as posts, just like most union members, and just as dangerous.

I agree with many of the things the Tea Party is for, but I continue to think for myself and reserve the right to do so.  That makes me an enemy of the Tea Party, and the feeling is mutual.  I feel they're dangerous morons who are not that far from carrying pitchforks and torches if they were so ordered by their masters, and I'm not having any.  Mobs are scary things; the Tea Party is a mob just like MoveOn.org and the SIEU, IMHO.  The fact that they hold some of the same values I do does not make me like them.


----------



## billc (Mar 16, 2011)

Please, Bill mattocks, continue.  You are winning friends and influencing people at break neck speed.


----------



## Ramirez (Mar 16, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Please, Bill mattocks, continue.  You are winning friends and influencing people at break neck speed.



 Are you kidding,  Bill Mattocks posts in this thread have been great, the anti-idiot one was a classic,  I'll be using that one.


----------



## granfire (Mar 16, 2011)

shockingly I find myself agreeing with billi.......


----------



## billc (Mar 16, 2011)

I was listening to Hugh Hewitt on my way to class tonight and he was Talking to congressman Pence. Pence believes that we as conservatives need to pick a fight and stand our ground, on spending, tax cuts, defunding planned parenthood and Npr and so on. 
It made me think of a line that Hugh Hewitt uses quite often when he refers to President Lincoln asking General Grant what his plans for the war were. Grant replied that he was going to fight on this line (wherever that actually was) all summer. 

The republican party needs a lot fewer McCllelan's Bill Mattocks and a lot more General Grants. You know, the general who wanted to actually fight the enemy instead of dancing around him.

(It was interesting as well because not 2 minutes later Hugh Hewitt mentioned McCllelan as well.)

Quote:






*Robert E. Lee, *_Commander of the Army of Northern Virginia._
"Grant is not a retreating man. Gentlemen, the Army of the Potomac has a head." 

People didn't think much of Grant either:





*Alexander Stephens, *_Vice President of the Confederacy, upon meeting Grant near the end of the war._
"We all form our preconceived ideas of men of whome we have heard a great deal, and I had certain definite notions as to the appearance and character of General Grant, but I was never so completely surprised in all my life as when I met him and found him a different person, so entirely different from my idea of him. His spare figure, simple manners, lack of all ostentation, extreme politeness, and charm of conversation were a revelation to me, for I had pictured him as a man of a directly opposite type of character, and expected to find in him only the bluntness of a soldier. Notwithstanding the fact that he talks so well, it is plain he has more brains than tongue. He is one of the most remarkable men I have ever met. He does not seem to be aware of his powers."

From me:  Grant probably was an early member of the Tea Party (at least when it came to engaging an enemy in battle)


----------



## granfire (Mar 16, 2011)

billcihak said:


> I was listening to Hugh Hewitt on my way to class tonight and he was Talking to congressman Pence. Pence believes that we as conservatives need to pick a fight and stand our ground, on spending, tax cuts, defunding planned parenthood and Npr and so on.
> It made me think of a line that Hugh Hewitt uses quite often when he refers to President Lincoln asking General Grant what his plans for the war were. Grant replied that he was going to fight on this line (wherever that actually was) all summer.
> 
> The republican party needs a lot fewer McCllelan's Bill Mattocks and a lot more General Grants. You know, the general who wanted to actually fight the enemy instead of dancing around him.
> ...




Ok, moment over...


----------



## billc (Mar 16, 2011)

Yes, we need more Grants:

Quote:





*Charles Dana, *_Special Commissioner attached to the War Department, sent from Washington to check on Grant during the Vicksburg campaign._
"Grant was an uncommon fellow, the most modest, the most disinterested, and the most honest man I ever knew, with a temper that nothing could disturb, and a judgement that was judicial in its comprehensivenss and wisdom. Not a great man, except morally, not an original or brilliant man, but sincere, thoughtful, deep, and gifted with courage that never faltered. Unaffected, unpretending hero, who no ill omens could deject and no triumph unduly exalt.."[SIZE=+0]

[/SIZE]


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 16, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Yes, we need more Grants:



I don't know, the Freedmen's Bureau and Reconstruction sound an awful lot like all that race based socialism you hate so...


----------



## billc (Mar 16, 2011)

Here is a column by Hugh Hewitt, another idiot tea party supporter:  I just found this column.

http://townhall.com/columnists/hughhewitt/2011/03/16/the_mcclellan_republicans

From the article:

Perhaps now even Steelers fans will understand why I have taken to calling the House Republican the McClellan Republicans &#8211;always preparing to fight but never quite getting to the political battlefield that is the great spending debate.

Speaker John Boehner, GOP Leader Eric Cantor and GOP Whip Kevin McCarthy have been in their saddles since November 2, and even though their formal power only arrived in January, they have had more than four months to prepare the debate over the CR, the debt ceiling and the FY 2012 budget.

If they prepared at all they prepared poorly, concentrating on symbolic gestures and focusing on procedural niceties like &#8220;open rules&#8221; rather than closing with the Democrats and forcing the first of the many showdowns ahead on spending.


The Tea Party volunteers and the GOP activist base worked all through 2010 to provide the House GOP leadership with an army of freshmen, but now the Speaker refuses to use it. In early 1862 Lincoln remarked about his ever-preparing, never-moving general that "_f General McClellan does not want to use the army, I would like to borrow it for a time.&#8221; This is where the Tea party patriots find themselves now, and not just them but millions of voters who see in Chris Christie, Scott Walker and John Kasich the model of political leadership they expected and who are pressing for the Speaker to get to the inevitable confrontation_


----------

