Cynical Nation

It seems you interpret this dream as symbolizing the bankruptcy of the conservative movement, but you're being far too literal. It's clearly a blatant homosexual fantasy.

Even as Sigmund Freud, Barely comes off as an barely literate dolt (no pun intended)....OK, OK, probbaly not very far off the mark for that pillar of today's Liberal Movement ("people aren't really responsible for their actions, as we're all controlled by a myriad of unseen forces") Mssr. Freud.

The "bankruptcy" of the conservative movement? how about the "relative cluelessness" of liberals? I'm waiting for a dream where Michael Moore and Howard Dean are homeless window washers because they got kicked out of their house for being annoying or something

WoW Rachel! You and Barry have some great dreams...I don't even remember most of mine....I'm probably fortunate in that regard.

However, I can't imagine either Howard Dean or Michael Moore washing windows or doing any kind of "honest work."

Like most Liberal elitists they seem to see work as beneath them.

I once dreamed that Ben Stein hired me to put a new cover on his family Bible. When I woke up, I realized that- (A) He very probably doesn't HAVE a family Bible, and (B)I'm not in the book binding business.
Explain that one.

Uh... a latent homosexual fantasy? ;-)

Sometimes, Barry, a tax return is just a tax return.

This thread, on the other hand, couldn't get any more gay if it were smoking a cigar.

...not that there's anything wrong with that.

You ptobably had an unpleasant experience with H&R Block where the tax guy said a lot of words you didn't understand.

I hardly ever remember my dreams. On the few occasions I do, they are not worth remembering. Weirdly, the ones I usually remember (because they are the ones I am dreaming when I am about to wake up) are usually plotted like some Lifetime movie. Absolutely terrible plotting and writing, and riveting nonetheless. Very odd.

I love the story about your mom, by the way. :o)

> ...usually plotted like some Lifetime movie.

Do they star Meredith Baxter-Birney? ;-)

I dreamed once that I was running a carnival ride for cats and all these cats would come strolling up with tickets in their mouths and I would take their tickets and lock them into the seat so they wouldn't get hurt during the ride, except I had to check the kittens against a mark on a board to make sure they were big enough to go on the ride. Then this one kitten was too small and I got into an argument with its parents because they insisted that he should be let onto the ride after they waited in line so long, except I wasn't really arguing with them. I just kept telling them that I don't make the rules and that he was under the mark on the board so he couldn't go on the ride. Then my boss came over and he was a Pekinese and you would figure a dog would back you in a situation like that, especially since I was just doing what I was told, but now he's giving me a hard time and telling me to put the kitten on the ride.

Anway. I quit that job. I don't have to take that shit.

Yeah, I have a genearl rule about taking shit from a Pekinese as well, poodles, chihuahuas and daschunds also.

First of all, I've been gone. I didn't write the first post. I wish I had.

Secondly, Buckley's (and my) conservatism has not been bankrupted by Bush's neocon crimes. The two are unrelated. Bush is not a conservative.

As I pointed out to JMK, no true conservative thinks that a president can "legislate from the oval office" without oversight. Only a neocon would go for that. No true conservative would spend wildly are recklessly, like Bush. No true conservative would encourage illegal immigration and try to legalize it by crowing "Matching willing workers with willing employers!" like that mitigates the crime.

I watched William F. Buckley almost every Sunday growing up. He was the opposite of everything Bush. He was class -- Bush is a smirking chimp traitor.

JMK blindly follows Bush, thinking he is conservative. Call JMK "Chimp Jr."

We're just waiting for you to fall asleep, Bailey...

Do they star Meredith Baxter-Birney? ;-)

No, my dreams don't tend to be that rage filled, actually. Think more cheesy. Hm. Maybe they're more ABC Family masquerading as Lifetime movie-like.

Barely, stop proving that you don't know what you're talking about and do a little research.

"Buckley's (and my) conservatism has not been bankrupted by Bush's neocon crimes. The two are unrelated. Bush is not a conservative." (BH)

William F. Buckley is a friend and supporter of the Neocon movement...and long has been.

Sam Francis’s review of The Norman Podhoretz Reader: A Selection of His Writings From the 1950s Through the 1990s (is) Sam at his absolute sardonic best.

He starts with the dust jacket blurb by Bill Buckley, where Bill tells us, “Never (that I know) has a single lifetime borne such literary and philosophical fruit.”

Right. According to Bill, Podhoretz’s life is one of unrivaled achievement in literature and philosophy..."

Lew Rockwell

http://blog.lewrockwell.com/lewrw/archives/005407.html

Norm Podhoretz is "the father of the Necon Movement," and William F Buckley is one of his staunchest defenders.

So much so that Podhoretz was able to get Buckley to attempt to throw a real Conservative (Patrick J. Buchanan) under the proverbial bus with his book Anti-Semitism.

W F Buckley WAS a Conservative, then embraced the Neocon Movement that began in the late 1960s and has, ever since, moved steadily away from traditional Conservative Orthodoxy.

You constantly post your own poorly formed opinions as "facts," and then, in cases like this, fail to even pick a real example of the ideology you seek to defend (Conservativism), instead picking a stalwart (one of the most stalwart defenders) of the Neocon Movement.

Could you try...at least try and get at least one, single thing right in your next post???

OK JMK, you are just a lying sack of shit:

"Buckley says Bush not a True Conservative"
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/22/eveningnews/main1826838.shtml

"Bucky against torture"
http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/wfb200503181324.asp
"Buckly arch-Conservative, not neocon"
http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096412782

"Neocons want Buckly Dead"
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/2/25/115912/029

I could sit here all day and make a fool out of you JMK, but it would be redundant. If you knew anything, you would know that most conservative welcomed the neocons in the beginning, until they understood that the movement was all about fascism and unlimited power, not Conservatism.

Buckley says Bush isn't a Conservative. Buckley says Iraq is a failure. Buckley says that torture is wrong.

In other words, Buckley disagrees WITH YOU on everything, and nobody is more neocon that you are, since you believe in secret government programs, torture, war profiteering by for-profit corporations, taking from the middle class to give to the rich, outsourcing of vital American industries, and all other forms of Corporatism and neocon ideals.

My long reply to your lies about Buckley is being reviewed apparently.

Bill Buckley lauded Norman Podheretz (father of the Neocon Movement) saying, "“Never (that I know) has a single lifetime borne such literary and philosophical fruit.”

Bill Buckley is a friend and supporter of the titular head of the Neocons, Norm Podhoretz.

That much is established fact.

Lew Rockwell is a world reknowned writer and long time Libertarian.

Not a Conservative, but a Libertarian and he correctly assessed Sam Francis (another great writer) work;

"Sam Francis’s review of The Norman Podhoretz Reader: A Selection of His Writings From the 1950s Through the 1990s (is) Sam...at his absolute sardonic best. He starts with the dust jacket blurb by Bill Buckley, where Bill tells us, “Never (that I know) has a single lifetime borne such literary and philosophical fruit.”

Right. According to Bill, Podhoretz’s life is one of unrivaled achievement in literature and philosophy. (Why not science while he’s at it?)

A used up gasbag like Buckley, who was never much to begin with, thought he could get away with such crazy junk. But Sam nails him. This is “a statement that places Podhoretz somewhat higher than such dimmer bulbs as Shakespeare, Dante, and Goethe.” Don’t the publicist and publisher at the Free Press feel any shame in broadcasting such mindless ditherings by Buckley?

Podhoretz tells us that, “It was the neo-conservatives who decided that the time had come to drag capitalism out of the closet,” and cites two books of the late 1970s, by Irving Kristol and Michael Novak, another two neocon geniuses like himself.

Sam likewise nails this idiocy by the premier Commentary intellectual: “So much for Ludwig von Mises, Nobel Prize winners Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman, Murray Rothbard, Henry Hazlitt, and Ayn Rand, among others, not one of whom was a neoconservative and all of whom ‘dragged capitalism out of the closet’ decades before the neoconservatives had shed their pink diapers.”

Has Podhoretz never heard of these defenders of capitalism who predated the neocons by up to 50 years (the great Mises)? Is he stupid? More likely, he’s just a lying little propagandist who doesn’t care what the hell he says.

There’s a lot more in Sam Francis’s excellent demolition.

Where do pompous fools like Buckley and Podhoretz get the nerve to write garbage like this?

Lew Rockwell

http://blog.lewrockwell.com/lewrw/archives/005407.html

Buckley is a Norman Podhoretz supporter and Norm Podhoretz is the father of the Neocon Movement.

Please wise up!

And stop quoting the Daily Kos...it can lead to colon cancer...at least that's what I've heard from Greenpeace.

If anyone would call a neocon a neocon, it would be the Daily Kos, don't you think?

So what, Buckley wrote a DUST JACKET BLURB for some other author. Are you retarded? Your great argument is based on a courtesy DUST JACKET BLURB from one author to another!

Have you ever read dust jacket blurbs? Hyperbole is the rule. Authors provide these as a courtesy, through their publishers. They often don't even write them themselves. It's called "Marketing" which is a part of "Capitalism".

The amusing analogy here is the Michael Moore was villified by wingnuts because some of the "facts" in his documentary were based on dust jacket blurbs.

"Brownie, you're doing a heckuva job!"

I traced Lew Rockwell's blog. I like this guy:
http://blog.lewrockwell.com/lewrw/archives/005396.html

Why aren't you more like him, JMK?

"If anyone would call a neocon a neocon, it would be the Daily Kos, don't you think?"
"I like this guy(Rockwell)" (BH)...but then you reference a post, NOT by Rockwell but by someone named Thomas Woods commenting on his blog!

"August 06, 2004
Bush/Kerry '04

Posted by Thomas Woods
at August 6, 2004 09:04 PM

"Dan, I find it hard to fathom that anyone could find that hard to fathom."

Here's the facts, so you don't have to go cluttering your mind with superficialities, W F Buckley and Norman Podhoretz are long and very close friends.

Bill Buckley wrote some liner notes (they're "liner notes," not "blurbs") for Podhoretz' book version of his "greatest hits."

Rockwell is a Libertarian and despises neocons, Buckley included, and THA'S why he says things like, "A used up gasbag like Buckley, who was never much to begin with, thought he could get away with such crazy junk. But Sam nails him. This is “a statement that places Podhoretz somewhat higher than such dimmer bulbs as Shakespeare, Dante, and Goethe.” Don’t the publicist and publisher at the Free Press feel any shame in broadcasting such mindless ditherings by Buckley?" AND "Where do pompous fools like Buckley and Podhoretz get the nerve to write garbage like this?"

If you like Rockwell, then take him at his word on W F Buckley. He's not the only one who's excoriated Buckley on his "Neocon leanings," but since you, like the DK kids don't really know what a Neocon is, it's hard for you to use that term (actually an anti-semitic slur) correctly.

I deliberately quoted Lew Rockwell because he is (1) intemperate and (2) a veritable evangelical Libertarian.

The writer to which Rockwell refers, the late Sam Francis, WAS a truly great talent. Lew, not as much.

Of course I've become decidedly LESS Libertarian and decidedly more Conservative since 9/11, so I've had less and less patience for the Lew Rockwells of the world.

Still Lew did serve a singular purpose here - defining Bill Buckley's politics for you.

Here's a good basic definition;

"Neoconservatism is a political current and ideology, mainly in the United States, which is generally held to have emerged in the 1960s, coalesced in the 1970s, and has had a significant presence in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.

"The prefix neo- refers to two ways in which neoconservatism was new. First, many of the movement's founders, originally liberals, Democrats or from socialist backgrounds, were new to conservatism. Also, neoconservatism was a comparatively recent strain of conservative socio-political thought. It derived from a variety of intellectual roots in the decades following World War II, including literary criticism and the social sciences.

Irving Kristol,[1] Norman Podhoretz[2] and others described themselves as neoconservatives during the Cold War. Today, however, the movement's critics use the term more often than supporters. In fact, some people described as "neocons" today say that neoconservatism no longer exists as an identifiable movement."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_(United_States)