mbf,

We get it. Conservatives are scary.

George Bush is insulated, obtuse and incompetent. Not the Machiavellian super-genius head of a Christianist conspiracy.

That doesn't mean that he can't continue screwing us royally.

I promise, if a dark tide swallows America, no one will blame you.

Its the same reason why Nazis and Communists attacked science and journalism (vis-a-vis whatever their dominant hate ideology was)

To illustrate:

Part of the reason we got the bomb before Germany is because Germany rejected the cutting edge research of the Jewish scientists who were doing ground breaking workin in nuclear physics as being "Jewish" science.

In Stalinist Russia, Mendelian genetics was rejected because it was said to believed to be "capitalist" science.

A lot of Americans don't believe global warming and evolution because they think its "liberal" science.

Raj, I could say to you: "I get it. You think I'm being overly alarming."

I could also say to you, accuratetly I'd wager, that you've never It Can't Happen Here, given the irony of that last statement.

But I'm not saying conservatives are scary. I don't find George Will, Andrew Sullivan, Bruce Fein, Bob Barr, or any other number of conservatives scary.

I find movement conservatism disturbing, and alarming, and I think people are underestimating it.

Another paranoid to add to the list: Robert Altemeyer, author of The Authoriatarians

You should e-mail Altemeyer, too, and let him know you "get it."

hows come it is a horror beyond words and vile and demented and probably even criminal if you read the patriot act real close to wish that those afghan guys had killed cheney and not the innocents at the gate BUT it is the height of honor and patriotic and really really good to salute the actual deaths of thousands if not hundreds of in Iraq and going one better to call for even more deaths?

what is really really vile and demented is to celebrate those thousands and thousands of murders as some kind of victory and then to kiss the fat white asses of the murderers.

From Tuesday's post on the moronic Cheney comments "scandal"

You called it, Glenn! I hope Kurtz' audience recognizes his drivel for the idiocy it is; the more attention called to the stupidity, the more likely they will. You don't suppose it was all just an exercise in distraction from GW's new record low approval ratings, do you? Nah.

BTW, congratulations on being the bottom scorer in another useless wingnutty exercise:

http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2007/03/were-such-dirty-bitchez.html

I guess I should compliment everyone here on their civility!

It's windy. Then, it's calm. 'Whiddiful' is fun to say.

It's a word that reminds me of a fun game of whiff ball. Shortstop! Pitcher's who are not up the river can play catcher. Water/waiter/boys?

Also: a 'whiddiful' one could be a bad-game-player. It was often said a bad 'whiddiful' did deserve the halter and ordered to plow some thistle field, elsewhere. Live and learn! Yes. Or we rascals are wasting a lot of time.

What has been "wasted," can be redeemed by making those who are attributable for inciting murderous war....Well, the 'word' is clear that certain scampi'sh war-criminals do deserve, WHO (?), THEM who deserve to be 'hanged.' That's believable and right if we believe in the 'New English Dictionary.' 1808.

'To cheat justice,' to make the word justice vile, the bad 'Whiddleful' escape the gallows that await them. It means, we get what we do fully deserve, somehow. Sow oats, sow weeds or thorn-bushes. Okay. Its a private interpretation, and to me, opine, and it's just a truism that's behond language, yet right!

Some 'stuff' we just can't blurt out in public or everyone would know. Tell one fool, tell the world. Some aren't ready to 'handle' the truth, yet. But, we all must, sooner, the better. The 'live and learn' rascal said this clear. Thanks.

That lf-rascal whiddifully said it good. Trouble or not, come what may, escape the gallows, you 'lefty,'s. Let the other 'whiddiful' ilk get to go. It's best to stop stop stop the war. This is_____!

Bantaam P wrote: " No [sic] go back and take your meds like a good paranoid delusional boy."

If you don't agree with what m.b.f. (or anyone else posting, for that matter) has to say, it strikes me as pretty simple a thing to say, "I disagree, and here's why" and make your case. There's no need to demean anyone (incuding yourself) by resorting to the sort of insult you posted. It doesn't serve anything.

m.b.f. may have some views that don't square with yours, fair enough. That makes him/her a "good paranoid delusional boy"? Seems to me Raj doesn't agree with m.b.f. either, and has thus far been able to disagree with what strikes me as a largely fair, mature, reasoned discourse that is not childishly dismissive.

For my own part, I am alarmed in many of the ways m.b.f. is about much of what seems to be the undercurrent of what seems to be the actions and intentions of those I have longed referred to as monarchists (authoritarians, movement neoconservatism, and other such classifications). At the same time, I try to hold on to the hope that Glenn has expressed on occasion, that it's not quite as bad as I envision, and that it's not the end. I'm concerned that not enough people are seeing the dangers, or that they might only see the dangers after more damage is done, when historically there comes a movement of some kind to correct something, which is sadly, often not enough to comfort those who mourn the losses that such a reaction might have been prevented. And still much of life is confrontation with loss, of all kinds, at many times. It's not an answer; it's a process.

In the meantime, thanks to m.b.f. and Raj for the stimulating argument, and m.b.f., I know you're perfectly capable of standing up for yourself and I meant no intrusion, was only saddened to see that particular comment unfold as it did.

I also wanted to echo another poster's compliment of Paul Rosenberg, whose comments in this thread I have found particularly informative, insightful, and inspiring.

Alliteratively yours, and, as ever, no kings,

Robert