Can we stop calling the Neanderthals Conservative.

[RethugAssKicker]

We need a new name for so-called modern day "Conservatives". IMO they are not conservatives, a better name s/b plain and simple "ASSHOLES".
The word conservative is much too respectful for these lame-brain knuckle dragging neanderthals.

Can anyone else think of an appropriate name for these assholes, and we all agree on using this name from now on? We must start to define the agenda and the terminology from now on!!!

[Initech]

1. I think Neanderthals would be appropriate.

[DBoon]

3. Neanderthals would object

Neanderthals were smart people, close to modern humans in intelligence, who likely mastered the human language, cared for their sick and injured, and buried their dead.

None of which applies to modern conservatives

[thereismore]

13. Close? I'd say equal.

Their brain size was larger than that of Cro-Magnons. They buried their dead ceremoniously, and played music (a flute was found).

So... there is no reason to assume their intelligence was less than ours.

[DBoon]

23. But conservatives aren't anywhere near "close"

so regardless, the original suggestion was offensive to the Neanderthals (may they all rest in peace)

[Jane Austin]

2. I think "Republicans" says it nicely.

n/t

[tk2kewl]

22. me too... Republican and Conservative are fine.

they all must bear the consequences of letting their party be taken over by neo-con war mongers, religious fundamentalists and haters. The best way to do that is to simply let them keep their name and bear the consequences of their actions.

[kahleefornia]

4. Extremists

Use Rove's language against them. I think that's why they pulled the new name for the war on terror - war on religious extremists (or violent extremists?? I forget) hit too close to home..."heyyyy...our base is religious extremists!,,,"

[RethugAssKicker]

10. Yeah I like that one... Extremists!

[phiddle]

5. Agreed! My favorites are "cons" and "wackos"

"cons" hits at the essential dishonesty and larcenous nature of the Repugs, whereas "wackos" forces reflection on the extremity of their views.

[whistle]

6. Republicans are more cro-magnon man than neanderthal....

<snip>

The First Humans: Cro-Magnon Man
Biologically modern human beings (species Homo sapiens) first appear about 120,000 years ago. Cro-magnon man, with prominent chin, a sharply rising forehead, and a gracile skeleton existed some 40,000-10,000 years ago. Remains were first found in France in 1868 and then throughout other parts of Europe. Cro-Magnon man was anatomically identical to modern humans and differed significantly from Neanderthal man, who disappeared in the fossil record shortly after Cro-Magnon's appearance. They were skilled hunters, toolmakers and artists. Their upper Paleolithic culture produced a markedly more sophisticated tool kit, using a wider variety of raw materials such as bone and antler, and containing new implements for making clothing, engraving, and sculpting. They produced fine artwork, in the form of decorated tools, beads, ivory carvings of humans and animals, shell jewelry, clay figurines, musical instruments, and polychrome cave paintings of exceptional vitality.

<link> http://www.mikedust.com/history/cromagnon.html

http://www.elephant.se/cro-magnon.php?open=Man%20and%20elephants

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/cromagnon.html

[0rganism]

11. Democrats, republicans, & every other human alive today is cro-magnon man

homo sapiens sapiens, that is.

[whistle]

20. Correction, early cro-magnon from say 45,000 BC to 10,000 BC...

...homo sapiens I consider to be more evolved in both intellectual and social characteristics.

[0rganism]

27. No significant difference. Cro-magnon is full-on homo sapiens sapiens

Cro-magnon, referring to the people of Europe from about 40k BCE onward, were anatomically the same as us in every way that would distinguish them as a subspecies. You probably would find the same kind of disparities in tribal groups with respect to social and intellectual characteristics then that you do in humans today, minus the effects of 12000 years of systemized agriculture and labor specialization. By analogy, if this were a discussion of canines, we'd be talking about the difference between wild dogs and kennel club breeds: the differences are present but artificial. They is us.

I suppose it's a more appropriate analogy for republicans in that respect, at least. We do have some evidence that Democrats and Republicans can interbreed to produce fertile offspring.

[whistle]

29. No change in 45,000 years, come-on.......

...has that been scientifically documented? Our species of humans has not evolved at all in 45,000 years? No greater intellectual capacity? No greater dexterity? Not at all sure I can buy that.

Then, are all human races on the planet considered cro-magnon? Something has to be changing, else human kind as a species is domed for extinction.

I will admit ignorance on this point as I have thought that home sapiens were a distinct evolutionary advance (modern man) following the last ice age. But that may have been due to my education in the 1950's and 60's. Fool me once and I can be fooled again and again!

[0rganism]

30. Not "no changes", but rather "no speciation"

We're sort of straying from the original topic here, but that's the gist of it. It's not so much that "we're all cro-magnon", which technically refers to remains from a certain time period discovered in Europe, but "cro-magnon" is part of "us all", where us refers to the subspecies homo sapiens sapiens.

And again I'd refer to the example of kennel dogs: are some breeds bigger or stronger or more agile or more trainable than others? Sure, but they're still part of the overall domestic canine species, which are now considered a subspecies of wolves, BTW. You could look at modern humans much the same way when compared to our ancient predecessors found in the Cro-Magnon rock shelter, although we haven't subjected ourselves to the same kind of intense long-term eugenics programs that have produced the modern canine variants.

So are we essentially the same, gene-wise, as the Cro-Magnons? Yes, but to say that such a thing "dooms us for extinction" is baseless. Cro-magnon man (aka us) evolved and prospered the same way every other species on the planet evolved and prospered (putting creationist statements to the contrary aside for the moment). We are extremely well adapted to an omnivorous hunting-gathering lifestyle in a wide variety of climates, we have few natural predators, our ability to use tools and clothing is an incredible survival advantage, we have a solid social inclination and the ability to pass complex knowledge from generation to generation. I think it's safe to say that if we had continued to exist as hunter-gatherers, or even small-scale agrarians and pastoralists, we could have lived on this planet for millions of years along with every other species and continued to evolve until the sun burned out or some other huge natural catastrophe reshaped the biosphere.

So, far from "dooming us to extinction", I would say that it is our legacy inherited from the people called Cro-Magnon that has given us our best assurance of survival. It is our guarantee that we belong to this planet, not the other way around. That notion came later. Even if the entire edifice of modern civilization crumbled to its very foundations on every continent, our species has the genetic background to continue on without it.

[ironman202]

7. Thieves? Moneygrubber? Religious Extremists?

Usurers? Thought Police? Misanthropes? Hypocrits? Monodeists? Vicious Intolerant UnAmerican Ignorant Greedy Low Down Snake Licking Overstuffed Lick-Spittal Heartless Dickless Brainless Backward Ludite Incestuous Cannibalistic Zombified Selfish Childish Stink Ass Bug Eyed Slack Jawed Motherfuckers?

[RethugAssKicker]

12. LOL

[linazelle]

8. R-e-g-r-e-s-s-i-v-e-s

They want to take us back a hundred years or more--the good old days, when the earth was flat, voting rights were nonexistent, unions were nonexistent, states were not united, women had no rights--and people slaved from sun up to sun down to earn a living.

[RethugAssKicker]

14. THATS THE BEST.....REGRESSIVES!!!!

[MissMarple]

15. Regressive is good. I like regressive wingnuts, too.

:)

[kahleefornia]

18. PERFECT!!

I'm so using that from now on. We have a winner!

[0rganism]

9. What the heck did Neanderthals ever do to you?

By anthropological accounts, homo neanderthalensis were relatively peaceful hunter-gatherers who died off as more tool-inclined homo sapiens took over the European continent. Their brains were larger than ours. They walked erect, and did not drag knuckles.

I don't see much distinguishing comparison to modern conservatives, really.

[RethugAssKicker]

16. You're right .. my apologizes

I like the "Regressive" name...

[0rganism]

19. Regressive works, but does it capture their authoritarian scapegoating?

I don't know that there's any one specific term adequate to describe the overall attitude, practice, and agenda of the contemporary radical "conservative".

[lildreamer316]

28. You remind me of the GEICO commercial

Where they say it's so simple a caveman could do it; and the cavemen get all offended. Friggin' hilarious!

[quiet.american]

17. Couldn't agree more!

Every time I hear even "the left" constantly refer to the "conservative right" or "religious right" it makes me cringe!

Personally, I call them abuse-of-power partisans, abuse-of-power extremists, religious fanatics, religious zealots and the Kool-Aid drinkers.

[LiberalEconomist]

21. No!!! There is no need to!!

Conservatives are the problem. These people are enabled by conservatives. They were elected by conservatives. They represent conservatives.

I have had it with people around here and elsewhere expounding the virtues of true conservatism. Conservatism in its true or any other form does not represent the values of democrats. Conservatism is about fear and bigotry, not about progress and the preservation of humanity.

Yeah, yeah some a**hole will reply that they are trying to conserve the environment and give me the dictionary definition. So let me pre-empt you: When you say the word "fag" what does that mean? Well, in the context of popular language it ain't the dictionary definition. Get it! By the way, the dictionary definitions include: 1) to work hard and become very tired, 2) to serve as a servant...


If you are conservative, but don't like the direction of the Republican party, then why don't you infiltrate the GOP and change the agenda. I like my liberalism. I don't need your infection.

[Lefty48197]

24. I usually say, "assh*ole, neanderthal, Republicans"

but I'd be willing to rearrange the words if necessary.

[McCamy Taylor]

25. "Reactionary" is the word you want, I believe.

It implies someone who is too far to the right, who is overdoing things, doing harm, out on a limb etc.

I think if the Dems started using the word Reactionary to describe people like Rush and Ann Coulter the public would pick it up very quickly.

[ComerPerro]

26. They have completely destroyed the word "Conservative"

to such a point that to me "Conservative" is hardly worthy of respect.

I like "neo cons", but I think something like "asshole", "liar", "fraud", "sycophant", or "hypocrite" is much more accurate.