On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 13:45:47 -0400, Dave Hall wrote:

On 24 Jun 2004 13:57:37 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Taking it a bit further, it is my
assertion that the whole term "neo conservative" is a liberal attempt
to identify that which they cannot comprehend, and yet another

Tell that to the confused liberals over at the Project for the New American
Century.
They proudly use the term "neoconservative" as self description. Repeatedly.
Next failing argument, please?

How do you know that web site, which you are so enamored with, was not
created as fear propaganda for guys like you who look for such
conspiracies. Think about it Chuck, if this was a clandestine plot by
some sinister government insiders, do you think they'd let their plans
out in the open?

I do not know any people who consider themselves conservatives (I am
one) who apply the term "neo conservative" to their ideology.


While defending neo-conservatism against my charges of polarized perceptions
and self vindicating philosophies, you chose to use a series of absolutist,
binary, rebuttals.


How are so-called "neo conservatives" any more polarizing than their
liberal counterparts?

So, we have now abandoned the attempt to dispute the absolute and binary
characteristics of neoconservatism and switched to the "but you guys do it
too!" defense? I assume you are conceding my point.

It is by your perception that so-called "neo cons" exhibit binary
thinking. And since the bible says let those without sin, cast the
first stone, you have no right to accuse others of a condition that
you, yourself are guilty of.


My point is that there really isn't such a thing as a neo con. The
term was created by the (liberally biased) media to assign to those
more outspoken members of the conservative ideology in order to
separate and demonize them. Less outspoken conservatives offer less
vocal resistance to revisionist liberal doctrine, and their apathy is
a liberal's best friend.



If I tell you that 2+2=4, are you going to accuse me of binary
thinking? Sometimes the answers really are that simple.

They're always that simple, if you don't count any higher than two.

In the cases
where they aren't, conservatives tend to use logic and rationalization
to defend their position. Liberals tend to let emotions cloud their
objectivity.

Funny. Just to show you how confused I am, I didn't think that all the
hysterical, name-calling, agitating freaks on the radio
(Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, et al) were liberals. These fools are the
spokespeople
for huge numbers of people who like to call themselves conservatives. Like
clockwork,
these characters rattle off "talking points"
and withing 48 hours hundreds of thousands of sheeple are repeating them, word
for word as if they were original ideas.
They even repeat the hateful insults about liberals. Can that be defined as the
use of
"logic and rationalization"?

If you remove the emotional slant that forces you to deny the
potential truth in what they say, then yes, it is rationalization. If
Hannity reports on democrats who were caught on open mike commenting
that the democratic party would be better off if the economy remained
poor, or if he plays each and every sound byte from John Kerry and
other democrats who favored force against Iraq 2 or three years ago,
but now speak out against it (Tapes have an unlimited memory), is this
not an indication of flip-flopping? If he plays each and every
emotionally charged, and fact absent banter that passes for an Al Gore
speech, or Ted Kennedy improperly accusing (without merit) that the
president concocted the war for political gain, or Howard Dean
speculating that the president knew about 9/11 before it happened, or
reading a memo from Terry McAuliffe outlining DNC smear strategy, is
this not rational, and logical reporting? Everything he cites is a
matter of public record. You may argue the context or try to apply
that infinite shades of gray defense, but these statements are not
lies. I check each and every one.

And I still have yet to hear one thing "Hateful" utter from Hannity's
mouth. If calling liberals to the carpet for their actions is hateful
to you, then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on the
definition of "hate".

You just don't like the other side to have a voice. Sorry to break it
to you, but the New York Times (Jayson Blair) and NPR do not tell the
whole truth about very much political, as they have their own slant
and agenda.

For that, Fox News is a blessing (I can hear Harry puking). Yes, Fox
is biased to the right, but if you take what they say along side what
NPR says you can make a better informed decision, assuming you're
objective enough to accept both sides.


When you use an emotional basis for arriving at a
conclusion, it's easy to accuse the rational thinker of being "rigid".



Rational thinkers don't confuse all choices with a cosmic battle between "good"
(most like ones' self, of course) and "evil" (not like ones' self)

I know, liberals do not believe in "Evil" (And without evil there is
no point of reference to determine "good"), so it's all too easy for
you to dismiss this as simpleton thinking. I just wonder what it will
take to change your mind.......

In the meantime, your assignment is to provide those "choices", so
that we can consider their practicality and chance for success.


Dave

If Chuck were not overly biased, even he would have to agree that your post was
well done.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!