The Past, Present, and Future of Neoconservatism

[bigdog]

Have America’s troubles in Iraq sounded the death knell of neoconservatism, the political ideology that is said to be behind our presence there?

Over the past year, there has been no shortage of voices saying so, many with undisguised glee. Abroad, the Times of London heralded “the end of an ideological era in Washington,” while the Toronto Globe and Mail reported with satisfaction that neoconservatism has been “decisively wiped out.”

Observers here at home have agreed. To the historian Douglas Brinkley, Democratic electoral victories in November 2006 spelled “the death of the neoconservative movement,” while at National Review Online John Derbyshire wrote that “all the buzz is that neoconservatism is as dead as mutton.”

Prognoses from within neoconservatism’s ranks have been correspondingly grim. Kenneth Adelman, an author and sometime defense official in Republican administrations, has lamented that “most everything we ever stood for now . . . lies in ruins.”

Francis Fukuyama, in a short book excerpted in the New York Times Magazine, took leave of his own sometime affiliation with neoconservatism, protesting that it had “evolved into something that I can no longer support.” Jonah Goldberg, a columnist at National Review, despaired that the word neoconservatism itself has become “useless, spent.”

But more than a word is at issue. The opprobrium lately faced by neoconservatism flows from a number of entwined propositions: that its ideas shaped President George W. Bush’s war against terrorism; that the ensuing policy has failed disastrously; and that this failure demonstrates the illusions and delusions embodied in those ideas.

This indictment must either be accepted or answered, and the exercise must begin by identifying the ideas in question. That requires revisiting history that has been told before.



The term “neoconservative” was coined in the 1970’s as an anathema. It was intended to stigmatize a group of liberal intellectuals who had lately parted ways with the majority of their fellows.

As a heretical offshoot of liberalism, neoconservatism appealed to the same values and even many of the same goals—like, for example, peace and racial equality.

But neoconservatives argued that liberal policies—for example, disarmament in the pursuit of peace, or affirmative action in the pursuit of racial equality—undermined those goals rather than advancing them. In short order, the heretics established themselves as contemporary liberalism’s most formidable foes.

Two distinct currents fed the stream of neoconservatism. One focused on domestic issues, specifically by reexamining the Great Society programs of the 1960’s and the welfare state as a whole.

It was centered in the Public Interest, a quarterly founded and edited by Irving Kristol. The other focused on international issues and the cold war; it was centered in COMMENTARY and led by the magazine’s editor, Norman Podhoretz.

The former current has little if any relevance to the controversy surrounding neoconservatism today. Much of the domestic-policy critique mounted by neoconservatives eventually became common wisdom, symbolized by President Bill Clinton’s welfare-reform program and his declaration that “the era of big government is over.”

In the meantime, several of the seminal figures of the domestic wing—Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Daniel Bell, and Nathan Glazer—drifted back toward liberalism.

It was the foreign-policy wing that was, all along, more passionately embroiled in ideological disputation.1 For one thing, the stakes were higher. If a domestic policy fails, you can try another. If a foreign policy fails, you may find yourself at war.

Also, the battles that rived the Democratic party in the 1970’s, at a time when virtually all neoconservatives were still Democrats, principally concerned foreign affairs. These battles sharpened ideological talons on all sides.

The divisions stemmed from the Vietnam war. Not that all neoconservatives were hawks on this particular issue; some, including Podhoretz, were (qualified) doves. But when opponents of the war went from arguing that it was a failed instance of an essentially correct policy—namely, resisting

Communist expansionism—to contending that it was a symptom of a deep American sickness, neoconservatives answered back. Whatever problems we may have made for ourselves in Vietnam, they said, the origins of the conflict were to be found neither in American imperialism nor in what President Jimmy Carter would call our “inordinate fear of Communism,” but in Communism’s lust to dominate.

Contrary to Carter and the antiwar Left, neoconservatives believed that Communism was very much to be feared, to be detested, and to be opposed. They saw the Soviet Union as, in the words of Ronald Reagan, an “evil empire,” unspeakably cruel to its own subjects and relentlessly predatory toward those not yet in its grasp.

They took the point of George Orwell’s 1984—a book that (as the Irish scholars James McNamara and Dennis J. O’Keeffe have written) resurrected the idea of evil “as a political category.” And they absorbed the cautionary warning of the Russian novelist and dissident Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn against yielding ground to the Communists in the vain hope “that perhaps at some point the wolf will have eaten enough.”

Many in our history, both statesmen and scholars, had drawn a distinction between Americans’ sentiments and America’s self-interest. Where Communism was concerned, the neoconservatives saw the two as intertwined. Communism needed to be fought both because it was morally appalling and because it was a threat to our country.

[Le Kiwi]

Just post the fricking link, instead of wasting the bandwidth with your clumsy cuttin

g and pasting, please, Bigneocon.

But do post it, because it's great watching the neo's wiggle, shuck and jive. Once you've posted the link, we can go wallow in the opaque slime that is the neocon fantasyland if we feel so inclined. It's good to understand the enemy, as Sun Tzu once said. He wasn't a neocon, because he actually used his intelligence, and wasn't an arrogant smirking prick with delusions of grandeur, like the rest of your little neo-circle-jerks.

You go Bigd

ogma......you go !

[Area 51]

biglog,
Please start your own little thread in which to post your looooonnnng flatulations. They take up way too much space. That way, we can have a place to go to when there is absolutely nothing to do for a day or two.

[bigdog]

I'd rather coat myself in peanut butter and let a chipmunk go to town than hang around with a progressive.

They wear burlap, smell like hand lotion, and they're not only unfunny but they're also hypocrites.

Take MoveOn.org, the progressive pothole that took out a full page ad in the New York Times calling General David Petraeus a traitor.

Now apparently Moveon is sending cease and desist letters to Cafe Press, a website that lets folks make their own t-shirts and coffee mugs. Why? Because some are making items that mock Move-on.

I went there and tried to make a mousepad with Wilford Brimley's face on it, but my computer crashed before my houseboy could complete the order.

You know what's funny about Move-on? How unfunny they are. They can dish it out, but they can't take it.

They say these items violated their trademarks - but the shirts weren't meant to mislead consumers, but to make fun of Moveon.

It's great to see how thin-skinned these saps are.

After all, progressives like Move on are apt to label anyone they dislike a Nazi - because, naturally, anyone who doesn't agree with them must be worse than Hitler.

Progressives will compare you to adolf if you don't recycle - they'll pray for your death if you support the war.

They'll take out a full page ad under the cover of the First Amendment and then try to censor people who speak out against them.

Like many organizations clouded by ideaological hatred, they pursue angry agendas fueled by blind rage, turning into a instruments of intolerance that would make a Klansman appear cuddly.

And for that reason, that makes them worse than Hitler. Which, by saying that makes me an honorary member of Move-on. I wonder if they'll buy me a t-shirt.

hat-tip: greg

[247]

cutnpaste yawn-age

[bigdog]

For their passion against Communism, neoconservatives were accused of being “zealots” and “Manicheans.” To this, one neoconservative rejoined: “we face a Manichean reality.”

That is to say, the struggle between the Communist world and the West involved, on the one hand, some of the most malign, murderous regimes ever created and, on the other hand, some of the most humane. The moral consequences were enormous.

This attitude was one of the things that set neoconservatives apart from traditional conservatives. To be sure, there were a few intellectuals of the Right, like William F. Buckley, Jr. and Whittaker Chambers, who shared the neoconservatives’ loathing for Communism.

But mainstream conservatives were better represented by the approach of Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford and their foreign-policy mentor, Henry Kissinger, according to which the Soviet Union was to be seen more as another great power than as the vessel of a lethal ideology; the policy of détente was devised accordingly.

This approach was embraced by such conservative icons as the Reverend Billy Graham, who hoped to convert Russians to the Gospel, and the capitalist Donald Kendall, who hoped to sell them Pepsi—without, in either case, troubling with the issue of their enslavement.

Even those traditional conservatives who distrusted the readiness of Nixon and Kissinger to make deals with the Soviet Union tended to share the underlying philosophy of foreign-policy “realism.”

As opposed to the neoconservative emphasis on the battle of ideas and ideologies, and on the psychological impact of policy choices, realists focused on state interests and the time-honored tools of statecraft.

That was one reason why, for the neoconservatives of the 1970’s, the great champions in American political life were not conservative or Republican figures but two Democrats of unmistakably liberal pedigree: Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson and George Meany, the president of the AFL-CIO.

When President Ford, on Kissinger’s counsel, closed the White House door to Solzhenitsyn upon his expulsion from Soviet Russia, these two stalwart anti-Communists formally welcomed him to Washington.

It was only with the accession of Ronald Reagan to the presidency in 1981 that the neoconservatives made their peace with Republican-style conservatism. Reagan brought several neoconservatives—notably Jeane Kirkpatrick, Richard Perle, Max Kampelman, and Elliott Abrams—into pivotal foreign-policy positions in his administration (and, on the domestic-policy side, William J. Bennett and others).

With time, most neoconservatives moved into the Republican fold. As for Reagan’s “belligerent” approach to the cold war, it was criticized as loudly by both liberals and conservatives within the foreign-policy establishment as it was cheered by neoconservatives.

But there can be no question that it issued in a sublime victory: the mighty juggernaut of the Soviet state, disposing of more kill power than the U.S. or any other state in history, capitulated with scarcely a shot.

[cusanorojo]

Originally Posted by bigdog

I'd rather coat myself in peanut butter and let a chipmunk go to town than hang around with a progressive.

They wear burlap, smell like hand lotion, and they're not only unfunny but they're also hypocrites.

Take MoveOn.org, the progressive pothole that took out a full page ad in the New York Times calling General David Petraeus a traitor.

Now apparently Moveon is sending cease and desist letters to Cafe Press, a website that lets folks make their own t-shirts and coffee mugs. Why? Because some are making items that mock Move-on.

I went there and tried to make a mousepad with Wilford Brimley's face on it, but my computer crashed before my houseboy could complete the order.

You know what's funny about Move-on? How unfunny they are. They can dish it out, but they can't take it.

They say these items violated their trademarks - but the shirts weren't meant to mislead consumers, but to make fun of Moveon.

It's great to see how thin-skinned these saps are.

After all, progressives like Move on are apt to label anyone they dislike a Nazi - because, naturally, anyone who doesn't agree with them must be worse than Hitler.

Progressives will compare you to adolf if you don't recycle - they'll pray for your death if you support the war.

They'll take out a full page ad under the cover of the First Amendment and then try to censor people who speak out against them.

Like many organizations clouded by ideaological hatred, they pursue angry agendas fueled by blind rage, turning into a instruments of intolerance that would make a Klansman appear cuddly.

And for that reason, that makes them worse than Hitler. Which, by saying that makes me an honorary member of Move-on. I wonder if they'll buy me a t-shirt.

hat-tip: greg

Amen

[Area 51]

Aholemen

[nero]

Solid !

[247]

squalid
fascist

zionist

[Le Kiwi]

I don't recall the USSR capitulating to anybody, except the fact that it's whole rotting structure could no longer support the weight of the empty promises it had made to its citizens.
As for it having more killpower than the US, er, wrong.
The neocons so desperately wanted the gullible public to believe that, though, to maintain the heady profits and their kick-backs in the arms race against a well-armed and potentially threatening super-power, but which was a pale force against the might ranged against it, although it's simple, pragmatic and motivated approach may have made some holes in the US wall of Dollars that opposed it...
But, please, neocon worshippers, do keep believing that you, and only you, "bought" down the wall. The tinkling and crashing sound of your allusions and illusions shattering would be heartbreaking, and I may even feel sorry for you.

Well, maybe not.

Straussian neoconservatism is as much a scourge on Civilisation as the last, dying days of the Roman Empire, and the vile rise of European fascism in the 20's and 30's, and as corrupt and malignent as the spectre of Stalinist communism during the early years of the Cold War.
If you truly can't see this, then you need to get down to an opticians pretty smartly, because your blindness is spreading like a cancer.

Raging

Neocon

Fascists

[nero]

Pothead

Socialist

Moonbats

[bigdog]

Originally Posted by cusanorojo

Amen

Originally Posted by nero

Pothead

Socialist

Moonbats

Hallelujah

[bigdog]

By the 1990’s, therefore, the neoconservatives’ analysis seemed vindicated. But, by the same token, the cause that had drawn them together and defined them—the cold war—was concluded.

In the relatively quiet 1990’s, most of the nation’s attention was concentrated on taxes and budgets and other domestic concerns.

By 1996, Podhoretz himself proclaimed that neoconservatism was “dead,” and that “what killed it was not defeat but victory; it died not of failure but of success.” As a consequence, he wrote, “in foreign policy it has become impossible to define a neoconservative position.”

This, in my judgment, underestimated the signs that a distinctive neoconservative approach to post-cold-war foreign policy had already been taking form. In 1990-91, cold-war neoconservatives lined up with traditional conservatives serving in the first Bush administration in support of military action to force Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait.

At the time, most liberals opposed the use of force, and so did some so-called paleoconservatives like Patrick J. Buchanan and Robert Novak, as well as various libertarians.

No less revealing than the debates between the war’s opponents and supporters was a division that opened within the ranks of the supporters themselves once the fighting ended.

In an act of quintessential “realism,” President Bush declined to order American forces to capture Baghdad and oust Saddam Hussein or even to obstruct Saddam’s campaign to suppress Iraqis who had risen in rebellion against him. Most neoconservatives disagreed with at least the latter of these decisions.

In 1992, the Bush administration’s realism got the better of it once again when war broke out in Bosnia. The President dismissed the violence there as a “hiccup,” and James Baker, his Secretary of State, famously declared that “we have no dog in that fight.”

When the new Clinton administration proved equally inert, and with the death toll mounting, a lobby developed for some form of American intervention.

Most active members of that lobby were neoconservatives, and other neoconservatives, with notable exceptions like Charles Krauthammer, embraced its position.

By contrast, most traditional conservatives believed that America’s own interests were not sufficiently engaged to justify intervention. Many liberals, for their part, while sharing a sense of urgency about Bosnia, were characteristically chary of using force or acting outside the aegis of the United Nations (whose actions, as it happened, had been constraining the victims of aggression more than the aggressors).

After Bosnia, the top foreign-policy issue in the latter half of the 1990’s was the enlargement of NATO. Liberals and conservatives were arrayed on all sides.

But most of those associated with the neoconservative camp, with the prominent exception of the historian Richard Pipes, were united in favor of it. I worked with Jeane Kirkpatrick and Paul Wolfowitz (and two moderate Democrats, Anthony Lake and Richard Holbrooke) to organize a statement, signed by most of America’s former top foreign-affairs officials, that helped to seal the debate.

[bigdog]

This series of events suggests that some kind of common neoconservative mentality endured beyond the cold war. What were its elements?

First, following Orwell, neoconservatives were moralists. Just as they despised Communism, they felt similarly toward Saddam Hussein and Slobodan Milosevic and toward the acts of aggression committed by those dictators in, respectively, Kuwait and Bosnia.

And just as they did not hesitate to enter negative moral judgments, neither did they hesitate to enter positive ones. In particular, they were strong admirers of the American experience—an admiration that arose not out of an unexamined patriotism (they had all started out as reformers or even as radical critics of American society) but out of the recognition that America had gone farther in the realization of liberal values than any other society in history. A corollary was the belief that America was a force for good in the world at large.

Second, in common with many liberals, neoconservatives were internationalists, and not only for moral reasons. Following Churchill, they believed that depredations tolerated in one place were likely to be repeated elsewhere—and, conversely, that beneficent political or economic policies exercised their own “domino effect” for the good.

Since America’s security could be affected by events far from home, it was wiser to confront troubles early even if afar than to wait for them to ripen and grow nearer.

Third, neoconservatives, like (in this case) most conservatives, trusted in the efficacy of military force. They doubted that economic sanctions or UN intervention or diplomacy, per se, constituted meaningful alternatives for confronting evil or any determined adversary.

To this list, I would add a fourth tenet: namely, the belief in democracy both at home and abroad. This conviction could not be said to have emerged from the issues of the 1990’s, although the neoconservative support for enlarging NATO owed something to the thought that enlargement would cement the democratic transformations taking place in the former Soviet satellites.

But as early as 1982, Ronald Reagan, the neoconservative hero, had stamped democratization on America’s foreign-policy agenda with a forceful speech to the British Parliament. In contrast to the Carter administration, which held (in the words of Patricia Derian, Carter’s Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights) that “human-rights violations do not really have very much to do with the form of government,” the Reagan administration saw the struggle for human rights as intimately bound up in the struggle to foster democratic governance.

When Reagan’s Westminster speech led to the creation of the National Endowment for Democracy, the man chosen to lead it was Carl Gershman, a onetime Social Democrat and a frequent contributor to COMMENTARY. Although not an avowed neoconservative, he was of a similar cast of mind.

This mix of opinions and attitudes still constitutes the neoconservative mindset. The military historian Max Boot has aptly labeled it “hard Wilsonianism.” It does not mesh neatly with the familiar dichotomy between “realists” and “idealists.” It is indeed idealistic in its internationalism and its faith in democracy and freedom, but it is hardheaded, not to say jaundiced, in its image of our adversaries and its assessment of international organizations.

Nor is its idealism to be confused with the idealism of the “peace” camp. Over the course of the past century, various schemes for keeping the peace—the League of Nations, the UN, the treaty to outlaw war, arms-control regimes—have all proved fatuous. In the meantime, what has in fact kept the peace (whenever it has been kept) is something quite different: strength, alliances, and deterrence.

Also in the meantime, “idealistic” schemes for promoting not peace but freedom—self-determination for European peoples after World War I, decolonization after World War II, the democratization of Germany, Japan, Italy, and Austria, the global advocacy of human rights—have brought substantial and beneficial results.

[247]

Mental retardation is a term for a pattern of persistently slow learning of basic motor and language skills ("milestones") during childhood, and a significantly below-normal global intellectual capacity as an adult. One common criterion for diagnosis of mental retardation is a tested intelligence quotient (IQ) of 70 or below and deficits in adaptive functioning.
People with mental retardation may be described as having developmental disabilities, global developmental delay, or learning difficulties.
Signs
There are many signs. For example, children with developmental disabilities may learn to sit up, to crawl, or to walk later than other children, or they may learn to talk later. Both adults and children with intellectual disabilities may also
have trouble speaking
find it hard to remember things
have trouble understanding social rules
have trouble discerning cause and effect
have trouble solving problems
have trouble thinking logically.
In early childhood mild disability (IQ 60–70) may not be obvious, and may not be diagnosed until children begin school. Even when poor academic performance is recognized, it may take expert assessment to distinguish mild mental disability from learning disability or behavior problems. As they become adults, many people can live independently and may be considered by others in their community as "slow" rather than retarded.
Moderate disability (IQ 50–60) is nearly always obvious within the first years of life. These people will encounter difficulty in school, at home, and in the community. In many cases they will need to join special, usually separate, classes in school, but they can still progress to become functioning members of society. As adults they may live with their parents, in a supportive group home, or even semi-independently with significant supportive services to help them, for example, manage their finances.
Among people with intellectual disabilities, only about one in eight will score below 50 on IQ tests. A person with a more severe disability will need more intensive support and supervision his or her entire life.
The limitations of cognitive function will cause a child to learn and develop more slowly than a typical child. Children may take longer to learn to speak, walk, and take care of their personal needs such as dressing or eating. Learning will take them longer, require more repetition, and there may be some things they cannot learn. The extent of the limits of learning is a function of the severity of the disability.
Nevertheless, virtually every child is able to learn, develop, and grow to some extent.

Diagnosis
According to the latest edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV),[4] there are three criteria before a person is considered to have a developmental disability: an IQ below 70, significant limitations in two or more areas of adaptive behavior (i.e., ability to function at age level in an ordinary environment), and evidence that the limitations became apparent in childhood.
It is formally diagnosed by professional assessment of intelligence and adaptive behavior.

IQ below 70
IQ tests were created as an attempt to measure a person's abilities in several areas, including language, numeracy and problem-solving. The average score is 100. People with a score below 75 will often, but not always, have difficulties with daily living skills. Since factors other than mental ability (depression, anxiety, lack of adequate effort, cultural differences, etc.) can yield low IQ scores, it is important for the evaluator to rule them out prior to concluding that measured IQ is "significantly below average".
The following ranges, based on the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS), are in standard use today:
Class IQ
Profound mental retardation Below 20
Severe mental retardation 20–34
Moderate mental retardation 35–49
Mild mental retardation 50–69
Borderline mental retardation 70–79

Significant limitations in two or more areas of adaptive behavior
Adaptive behavior, or adaptive functioning, refers to the skills needed to live independently (or at the minimally acceptable level for age). To assess adaptive behavior, professionals compare the functional abilities of a child to those of other children of similar age. To measure adaptive behavior, professionals use structured interviews, with which they systematically elicit information about the person's functioning in the community from someone who knows them well. There are many adaptive behavior scales, and accurate assessment of the quality of someone's adaptive behavior requires clinical judgment as well. Certain skills are important to adaptive behavior, such as:
daily living skills, such as getting dressed, using the bathroom, and feeding oneself;
communication skills, such as understanding what is said and being able to answer;
social skills with peers, family members, spouses, adults, and others.
Evidence that the limitations became apparent in childhood
This third condition is used to distinguish it from dementing conditions such as Alzheimer's disease or is due to traumatic injuries that damaged the brain.

Causes
Down syndrome, fetal alcohol syndrome and Fragile X syndrome are the three most common inborn causes. However, doctors have found many other causes. The most common are:
Genetic conditions. Sometimes disability is caused by abnormal genes inherited from parents, errors when genes combine, or other reasons. Examples of genetic conditions include Down syndrome, Fragile X syndrome, Phelan-McDermid syndrome (22q13del), Mowat-Wilson syndrome and phenylketonuria (PKU).
Problems during pregnancy. Mental disability can result when the fetus does not develop inside the mother properly. For example, there may be a problem with the way the fetus's cells divide as it grows. A woman who drinks alcohol (see fetal alcohol syndrome) or gets an infection like rubella during pregnancy may also have a baby with mental disability.
Problems at birth. If a baby has problems during labor and birth, such as not getting enough oxygen, he or she may have developmental disability due to brain damage.
Health problems. Diseases like whooping cough, measles, or meningitis can cause mental disability. It can also be caused by not getting enough medical care, or by being exposed to poisons like lead or mercury.
Iodine deficiency, affecting approximately 2 billion people worldwide, is the leading preventable cause of mental disability in areas of the developing world where iodine deficiency is endemic. Iodine deficiency also causes goiter, an enlargement of the thyroid gland. More common than full-fledged cretinism, as retardation caused by severe iodine deficiency is called, is mild impairment of intelligence. Certain areas of the world due to natural deficiency and governmental inaction are severely affected. India is the most outstanding, with 500 million suffering from deficiency, 54 million from goiter, and 2 million from cretinism. Among other nations affected by iodine deficiency, China and Kazakhstan have begun taking action, while Russia has not. [5]
Malnutrition is a common cause of reduced intelligence in parts of the world affected by famine, such as Ethiopia. [6]
The use of forceps during birth can lead to mental retardation in an otherwise normal child. They can fracture the skull and cause brain damage.
Institutionalisation at a young age can cause mental retardation in normal children.
Sensory deprivation in the form of severe environmental restrictions (such as being locked in a basement or under a staircase), prolonged isolation, or severe atypical parent-child interactions.
Psycho-social disadvantage. Contributing factors are lack of reading material, use of a language not common in that community, poor diet, poor health practices, and poor housing.

[Le Kiwi]

Sounds like the neocons were all delivered by forceps. They sure all look like it.
Hello, Richard Perle, of the "Neo Perle Harbor" fame.

I could post so much stuff on these weasels, all verifiable, all perfectly clear concerning their disasterous (except for the oil and gun guys..) meddling in US and World politics, but there is not enough space on the web for it all.
Bigdogma, how about you give, in your own words, (I'll wait while you type slowly..) the reason why you think these clowns are best suited to be destroying America. Or just let us know how much they pay for your undying love and support to post all their crap here. If it's enough, maybe I'll forget my moral revulsion about fascism and join them. Maybe I can have a stripper sig too ! Wow. That would be neat !

[247]

Don't you know guys like bigdog and XFBO have pledged their undying love to GW because he gave them a $100 a year tax cut.
At that point, they don't care what he does.

Originally Posted by Le Kiwi

Bigdogma, how about you...just let us know how much they pay for your undying love and support to post all their crap here.

[Le Kiwi]

Wow !! A WHOLE HUNERD BUCKS !!!

Sheeiit ! Where do I sign on up to be a nerocon ?

I can cut n' paste with the best of 'em !

[nero]

Originally Posted by Le Kiwi

Wow !! A WHOLE HUNERD BUCKS !!!

Sheeiit ! Where do I sign on up to be a nerocon ?

I can cut n' paste with the best of 'em !

Don't you mean that you can wave a white flag with the best of them ?