|
Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in theteeth on al-Qaida Saddamn links
John H wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 14:34:47 -0400, DSK wrote: John H wrote: Any conservative who *was* a liberal *is* a neoconservative. Why is Webster not sufficient as a source any longer? So, if this definition is correct, then Bush & Cheney not to mention Wolfowitz etc etc all *used* to be liberals? Interesting. When was this, exactly? DSK Doug, I didn't make up the definition. Go he http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...ve&x=10 &y=13 I have no reason to think the dictionary got it wrong. If Bush, et al, are neoconservatives, then, by definition, they were former liberals who are now espousing political conservatism. If they are not former liberals, then they are not neoconservatives, by definition. John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! What you are is an intellectually lazy, simple-minded fool. |
Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in theteethon al-Qaida Saddamn links
Harry Krause wrote: jim-- wrote: tug, tug...yank, yank....dance for me Krause, I am your puppet master. LOL! You keep repeating that, crap-for-brains, but only you and your circle jerk of righties believe it, and only because most of you are dumb as doorknobs. In a way, krause is about as big an idiot as b'asskisser. Deny, deny, deny. -- Charlie |
Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in theteeth on al-Qaida Saddamn links
John H wrote:
Doug, I didn't make up the definition. Go he I did not say that you did. If they are not former liberals, then they are not neoconservatives, by definition. If they describe themselves as neoconservatives, or prominent self-named neoconservatives say that they are, then are they lying or are they just plain stupid? Here's an interesting little tidbit http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=2806 Also note that the pundits at 'New Century' describe themselves as neoconservatives, and they have the biggest influence on Bush & Cheney (outside of Halliburton or Saudi Arabia). DSK |
Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in theteeth on al-Qaida Saddamn links
He must believe that all the democrats are so stupid they actually believe
his BS. They might agree with his politics, but even they know he is one sick puppy. "Charles" wrote in message ... Harry Krause wrote: jim-- wrote: tug, tug...yank, yank....dance for me Krause, I am your puppet master. LOL! You keep repeating that, crap-for-brains, but only you and your circle jerk of righties believe it, and only because most of you are dumb as doorknobs. In a way, krause is about as big an idiot as b'asskisser. Deny, deny, deny. -- Charlie |
Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in the teeth on al-Qaida Saddamn links
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 17:41:02 -0400, DSK wrote:
John H wrote: Doug, I didn't make up the definition. Go he I did not say that you did. If they are not former liberals, then they are not neoconservatives, by definition. If they describe themselves as neoconservatives, or prominent self-named neoconservatives say that they are, then are they lying or are they just plain stupid? Here's an interesting little tidbit http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=2806 Also note that the pundits at 'New Century' describe themselves as neoconservatives, and they have the biggest influence on Bush & Cheney (outside of Halliburton or Saudi Arabia). DSK Perhaps they were liberals as high school or college students? John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in theteeth on al-Qaida Saddamn links
John H wrote:
Perhaps they were liberals as high school or college students? Perhaps. Or maybe even younger. But with their consistently bad memory and addiction to contradiction, I wouldn't take *their* word for it. It seems most likely to me that Dick Cheney was a money grubbing fascist right from the cradle. So how is he a "neoconservative" by this definition? DSK |
Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in the teeth on al-Qaida Saddamn links
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 18:14:31 -0400, DSK wrote:
John H wrote: Perhaps they were liberals as high school or college students? Perhaps. Or maybe even younger. But with their consistently bad memory and addiction to contradiction, I wouldn't take *their* word for it. It seems most likely to me that Dick Cheney was a money grubbing fascist right from the cradle. So how is he a "neoconservative" by this definition? DSK If he was not formerly liberal, then he is not, by definition, neoconservative. John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in theteeth on al-Qaida Saddamn links
John H wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 18:14:31 -0400, DSK wrote: John H wrote: Perhaps they were liberals as high school or college students? Perhaps. Or maybe even younger. But with their consistently bad memory and addiction to contradiction, I wouldn't take *their* word for it. It seems most likely to me that Dick Cheney was a money grubbing fascist right from the cradle. So how is he a "neoconservative" by this definition? DSK If he was not formerly liberal, then he is not, by definition, neoconservative. John H Definition of someone with rigid personality...see Herring, John. |
Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in the teeth on al-Qaida Saddamn links
"Gould 0738" wrote in message ... Please Chuckie, whats your definition of a neocon? (Since you asked) Rather than a person who is newly conservative, (which a neocon may or may not be), a neocon is a person who subscribes to the "new" conservatism. The new conseratism is a black vs. white philosophy. All things are either very good, or very wicked. The new conservatism, like all philosophies, defines its own values as the "very good" values and all others as the "very wicked". All values are extreme in neoconservatism. The Commander in Chief (they seldom refer to him anymore as the president) is God's Chosen Leader for the American People, and those who oppose or even question Him are aiding and abetting our rapidly increasing number of enemies. Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, Savage, and others epitomize the voices of neoconservatism. It is a narrow minded and hateful, self congratulatory and autovindicated system of belief. However, before all four conservatives who will even bother to read this pick up the nearest flame-thrower and come back with the moral-equivalency excuses about liberals do this, this, and this....... Not all conservatives are neocons. There are a handful of traditional conservatives left in the world. The traditional conservatives are shocked at the current size of the federal government and the dismal state of government fiscal affairs. The traditional conservatives respect dissent, (recognizing that at times it is their own voices that will be those of dissent, rather than majority) and are not trapped by binary thinking. I have a very high regard for traditonal, thoughtful, contemplative, rational conservatives. The neo con says, "You're either with me, or against me!" The traditional conservative says, "We either agree, or we need to work out a solution that will be at least somewhat acceptable to all sides. It could be that neither of us is *absolutely* right, and that there is more truth in the middle than on either extreme." So, no. A neocon isn't somebody who "used to be a liberal but saw the light". (That's a fairly binary concept, that all people are either liberal or conservative, anyway). A neocon is a binary thinker who used to be a liberal, moderate, or traditional conservative but who has been blinded by the propaganda and bulldung. Not exactly the same thing. :-) (You asked) I am going to have to toss your definition by the side due to the fact that it is more a political diatribe than a definition of a word. In fact, why don't we use the definition that m-w.com has for neoconservative just to make it easier for everyone to stay on the same page. http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...eoconservative Main Entry: neo·con·ser·va·tive Pronunciation: -k&n-'s&r-v&-tiv Function: noun : a former liberal espousing political conservatism - neo·con·ser·va·tism /-v&-"ti-z&m/ noun - neoconservative adjective |
Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in the teeth on al-Qaida Saddamn links
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... John H wrote: On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 13:27:10 -0400, Harry Krause wrote: John H wrote: If a traditional conservative was a liberal, then he/she is a neoconservative. Perhaps you mean to say that Rush, Coulter, etc. are right wing extremists. I don't agree with that, but unless they were former liberals, which they may have been, then they aren't neoconservatives. Fortunately for you, you don't have to qualify in knowledge of modern English in order to babysit as a sub... Harry, you've shown your colors. Goodbye. John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! John, it isn't my problem that you are a simple-minded fool, lazy, and cannot figure out the modern-day meaning of a word in common usage. It is, however, a problem for the school district where you sub. That and your disdain for the black students in the schools where you sub make you quite a piece of work. Great you can now add situational definitions to your contributions to society. If you weren't so intellectually lazy and working so hard at being disengenuous, you'd know that "neoconservative refers to the extremist right-wing ideology of the current Republican leadership which, though it sprung out of the conservative movement, isn't conservative at all in any traditional sense (in that radicalism is, by definition, not conservative). This definition seems to be the dominant one." Please provide a reputable lexical source that defines neoconservative as you do? No cite for you. Easy enough to find. Meaning, Harry is lazy and can't support his argument! |
Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in the teeth on al-Qaida Saddamn links
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... John H wrote: On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 14:34:47 -0400, DSK wrote: John H wrote: Any conservative who *was* a liberal *is* a neoconservative. Why is Webster not sufficient as a source any longer? So, if this definition is correct, then Bush & Cheney not to mention Wolfowitz etc etc all *used* to be liberals? Interesting. When was this, exactly? DSK Doug, I didn't make up the definition. Go he http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...ve&x=10 &y=13 I have no reason to think the dictionary got it wrong. If Bush, et al, are neoconservatives, then, by definition, they were former liberals who are now espousing political conservatism. If they are not former liberals, then they are not neoconservatives, by definition. John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! What you are is an intellectually lazy, simple-minded fool. Attacking the messenger again rather than supporting, with facts, your arguments. |
Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in the teeth on al-Qaida Saddamn links
"Gould 0738" wrote in message ... It was even simpler than that. I just applied a chain of simple logic based on the definitions previously provided. If "neo" is new, then if someone is a "neo"conservative, that implies that they were previously something else. The most common "other" ideology would be a liberal. Therefore, a "new" conservative would most likely be an "old" liberal. Binary thinking at its finest. Only two possibilities to consider. The great supporter of the gray areas in between. Either you are pregnant or you are not pregnant, you can't be a little pregnant it is physically impossible. |
Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in the teeth on al-Qaida Saddamn links
For a couple of good reasons.
1) Many of the people who describe themselves as "neoconservatives" have never been liberals. 2) Other dictionaries disagree with MW. Nothing gets the rocks off like a fantasy that liberals are going over to your side in droves, I know, but that's not what the term means in US politics. In fact, why don't we use the definition that m-w.com has for neoconservative just to make it easier for everyone to stay on the same page. |
Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in theteeth on al-Qaida Saddamn links
Bert Robbins wrote:
"Gould 0738" wrote in message ... Please Chuckie, whats your definition of a neocon? (Since you asked) Rather than a person who is newly conservative, (which a neocon may or may not be), a neocon is a person who subscribes to the "new" conservatism. The new conseratism is a black vs. white philosophy. All things are either very good, or very wicked. The new conservatism, like all philosophies, defines its own values as the "very good" values and all others as the "very wicked". All values are extreme in neoconservatism. The Commander in Chief (they seldom refer to him anymore as the president) is God's Chosen Leader for the American People, and those who oppose or even question Him are aiding and abetting our rapidly increasing number of enemies. Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, Savage, and others epitomize the voices of neoconservatism. It is a narrow minded and hateful, self congratulatory and autovindicated system of belief. However, before all four conservatives who will even bother to read this pick up the nearest flame-thrower and come back with the moral-equivalency excuses about liberals do this, this, and this....... Not all conservatives are neocons. There are a handful of traditional conservatives left in the world. The traditional conservatives are shocked at the current size of the federal government and the dismal state of government fiscal affairs. The traditional conservatives respect dissent, (recognizing that at times it is their own voices that will be those of dissent, rather than majority) and are not trapped by binary thinking. I have a very high regard for traditonal, thoughtful, contemplative, rational conservatives. The neo con says, "You're either with me, or against me!" The traditional conservative says, "We either agree, or we need to work out a solution that will be at least somewhat acceptable to all sides. It could be that neither of us is *absolutely* right, and that there is more truth in the middle than on either extreme." So, no. A neocon isn't somebody who "used to be a liberal but saw the light". (That's a fairly binary concept, that all people are either liberal or conservative, anyway). A neocon is a binary thinker who used to be a liberal, moderate, or traditional conservative but who has been blinded by the propaganda and bulldung. Not exactly the same thing. :-) (You asked) I am going to have to toss your definition by the side due to the fact that it is more a political diatribe than a definition of a word. In fact, why don't we use the definition that m-w.com has for neoconservative just to make it easier for everyone to stay on the same page. http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...eoconservative Main Entry: neo·con·ser·va·tive Pronunciation: -k&n-'s&r-v&-tiv Function: noun : a former liberal espousing political conservatism - neo·con·ser·va·tism /-v&-"ti-z&m/ noun - neoconservative adjective Because that an absurd definition, and doesn;t describe the assholes who are the current-day neocons, that's why. But nice try. |
Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in theteeth on al-Qaida Saddamn links
Bert Robbins wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... John H wrote: On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 14:34:47 -0400, DSK wrote: John H wrote: Any conservative who *was* a liberal *is* a neoconservative. Why is Webster not sufficient as a source any longer? So, if this definition is correct, then Bush & Cheney not to mention Wolfowitz etc etc all *used* to be liberals? Interesting. When was this, exactly? DSK Doug, I didn't make up the definition. Go he http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...ve&x=10 &y=13 I have no reason to think the dictionary got it wrong. If Bush, et al, are neoconservatives, then, by definition, they were former liberals who are now espousing political conservatism. If they are not former liberals, then they are not neoconservatives, by definition. John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! What you are is an intellectually lazy, simple-minded fool. Attacking the messenger again rather than supporting, with facts, your arguments. Go pee up a rope, Poop. |
Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in theteeth on al-Qaida Saddamn links
Gould 0738 wrote:
For a couple of good reasons. 1) Many of the people who describe themselves as "neoconservatives" have never been liberals. 2) Other dictionaries disagree with MW. Nothing gets the rocks off like a fantasy that liberals are going over to your side in droves, I know, but that's not what the term means in US politics. In fact, why don't we use the definition that m-w.com has for neoconservative just to make it easier for everyone to stay on the same page. Neocons...it's what's for lunch this fall. |
Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in the teeth on al-Qaida Saddamn links
The great supporter of the gray areas in between. Either you are pregnant or
you are not pregnant, you can't be a little pregnant it is physically impossible. There is more to life than pregnancy. Here's a link supporting my assertion that neoconservatism is a belief system, not a resume' of previous political leanings. http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-20030724.htm Here's a link to a point on the PNAC website where they run an article describing their group as the "primary advocacy group for neoconservatism". Once again, belief rather than previous political affiliation http://www.newamericancentury.org/defense-20040325.htm And finally, here is the political biography of William Kristol, a self-described neo conservative (wrote a book extolling the "neoconservative imagination") and one of the founders of the PNAC. No liberal priors, sorry: William Kristol William Kristol is editor of The Weekly Standard, as well as chairman and co-founder of the Project for the New American Century. Before starting the Weekly Standard in 1995, Mr. Kristol led the Project for the Republican Future, where he helped shape the strategy that produced the 1994 Republican congressional victory. Prior to that, Mr. Kristol served as chief of staff to Vice President Dan Quayle during the first Bush Administration. From 1985 to 1988, he served as chief of staff and counselor to Secretary of Education William Bennett. Prior to coming to Washington, Mr. Kristol served on the faculty of Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government (1983-1985) and the Department of Political Science at the University of Pennsylvania (1979-1983). Mr. Kristol has published numerous articles and essays on topics including constitutional law, political philosophy, and public policy, and has co-edited several books, including The Neoconservative Imagination (with Christopher DeMuth, 1995), Educating the Prince: Essays in Honor of Harvey Mansfield (with Mark Blitz, 2000), Present Dangers (with Robert Kagan, 2000), Bush v. Go The Court Cases and the Commentary (with E. J. Dionne, Jr., 2001), and The Future is Now: American Confronts the New Genetics (with Eric Cohen, 2002). He is the co-author, with Lawrence Kaplan, of the best-selling book The War Over Iraq. Widely recognized as one of the nation's leading political analysts and commentators, Mr. Kristol regularly appears on Fox News Channel. He serves on the boards of the Manhattan Institute, the John M. Ashbrook Center for Public Affairs, and the Shalem Foundation. Mr. Kristol received both his A.B. (1973) and Ph.D. (1979) from Harvard University. Married with three children, he currently resides in bucolic McLean, Virginia. ************ Mr. Kristol would proably be very amused to learn that the dictionary won't let him be a neoconservative because he was never a liberal. |
Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in the teeth on al-Qaida Saddamn links
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Bert Robbins wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... John H wrote: On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 14:34:47 -0400, DSK wrote: John H wrote: Any conservative who *was* a liberal *is* a neoconservative. Why is Webster not sufficient as a source any longer? So, if this definition is correct, then Bush & Cheney not to mention Wolfowitz etc etc all *used* to be liberals? Interesting. When was this, exactly? DSK Doug, I didn't make up the definition. Go he http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...ve&x=10 &y=13 I have no reason to think the dictionary got it wrong. If Bush, et al, are neoconservatives, then, by definition, they were former liberals who are now espousing political conservatism. If they are not former liberals, then they are not neoconservatives, by definition. John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! What you are is an intellectually lazy, simple-minded fool. Attacking the messenger again rather than supporting, with facts, your arguments. Go pee up a rope, Poop. I see the ghost writer is off duty. |
Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in the teeth on al-Qaida Saddamn links
Gould,
It is unfortunate that you have chosen the path of feeding trolls, and posting off-topic. I always thought you had good input on boating related threads, but my rules, are my rules... *ploink* -- -Netsock "It's just about going fast...that's all..." http://home.insight.rr.com/cgreen/ "Gould 0738" wrote in message ... For a couple of good reasons. 1) Many of the people who describe themselves as "neoconservatives" have never been liberals. 2) Other dictionaries disagree with MW. Nothing gets the rocks off like a fantasy that liberals are going over to your side in droves, I know, but that's not what the term means in US politics. In fact, why don't we use the definition that m-w.com has for neoconservative just to make it easier for everyone to stay on the same page. |
Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in the teeth on al-Qaida Saddamn links
You too Dave...
*ploink* -- -Netsock "It's just about going fast...that's all..." http://home.insight.rr.com/cgreen/ "Dave Hall" wrote in message ... On 23 Jun 2004 15:22:13 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote: It was even simpler than that. I just applied a chain of simple logic based on the definitions previously provided. If "neo" is new, then if someone is a "neo"conservative, that implies that they were previously something else. The most common "other" ideology would be a liberal. Therefore, a "new" conservative would most likely be an "old" liberal. Binary thinking at its finest. Only two possibilities to consider. Sometimes that's all there is. Are you familiar with Occam's razor? Dave |
Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in the teeth on al-Qaida Saddamn links
|
Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in the teeth on al-Qaida Saddamn links
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 14:28:38 -0400, John H
wrote: On 23 Jun 2004 17:53:17 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote: If a traditional conservative was a liberal, then he/she is a neoconservative. Reread what you wrote. Very slowly. Regardless what a traditional conservative *was*, anybody who can be indentified as a traditional conservative *is* just that. A traditional conservative. Those who subscribe to neo-conservaTISM are neo-cons, regardless of previous affilitations or beliefs. One can "progress" from rational conservatism to neo-conservatism. No detour to liberalism required. Any conservative who *was* a liberal *is* a neoconservative. Why is Webster not sufficient as a source any longer? Who coined and defined the term 'neocon'? Apparently it wasn't Webster, and I'd be willing to bet that it was coined as a derogatory term by someone of the liberal persuasion. This isn't an archaic definition, it's what is used today: Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary One entry found for neoconservative. Main Entry: neo·con·ser·va·tive Pronunciation: -k&n-'s&r-v&-tiv Function: noun : a former liberal espousing political conservatism - neo·con·ser·va·tism /-v&-"ti-z&m/ noun - neoconservative adjective John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! Evidently liberals feel that they know more than Webster. And you're right, the term "neo con" has been redefined by liberals as some sort of negative label that they can exploit to rationalize and demonize those which they cannot debate on issue alone. Liberals tend to label any idea, concept, or group that they disagree with. "The rich", Neo con", "Hate Radio", "Religious Zealots", oh, and George W. Bush. Dave |
Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in the teeth on al-Qaida Saddamn links
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 22:27:18 -0400, "Bert Robbins"
wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Dave Hall wrote: On 23 Jun 2004 15:22:13 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote: It was even simpler than that. I just applied a chain of simple logic based on the definitions previously provided. If "neo" is new, then if someone is a "neo"conservative, that implies that they were previously something else. The most common "other" ideology would be a liberal. Therefore, a "new" conservative would most likely be an "old" liberal. Binary thinking at its finest. Only two possibilities to consider. Sometimes that's all there is. Are you familiar with Occam's razor? Dave I am. Old William called for a minimum number of points *necessary*. For issues as complex as a worldwide Islamist insurgency, black or white ain't enough. Sure it is. If you are an infidel you must convert to Islam or die by the Islamic sword. Simple, black and white and binary. That is the way our enemies think. Should we not respond in kind? Dave |
Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in the teeth on al-Qaida Saddamn links
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 06:37:30 -0400, "Netsock"
wrote: You too Dave... *ploink* You're going to be real lonely on this newsgroup pretty soon. Dave |
Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in the
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 12:34:50 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote: Dave Hall wrote: On 23 Jun 2004 15:22:13 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote: It was even simpler than that. I just applied a chain of simple logic based on the definitions previously provided. If "neo" is new, then if someone is a "neo"conservative, that implies that they were previously something else. The most common "other" ideology would be a liberal. Therefore, a "new" conservative would most likely be an "old" liberal. Binary thinking at its finest. Only two possibilities to consider. Sometimes that's all there is. Are you familiar with Occam's razor? Dave I am. Old William called for a minimum number of points *necessary*. For issues as complex as a worldwide Islamist insurgency, black or white ain't enough. Actually, there are very few shaded of gray. They want to kill us, we don't want them too. One side will win. Who do you want it to be? That's as necessary as we need to be. If you think that some sort of civilized, rational means of "talking" this out will work, I've got some serious ocean front property in Arizona that I'd like to show you...... Dave |
Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in the
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 12:37:07 -0400, DSK wrote:
Binary thinking at its finest. Only two possibilities to consider. Are you sure you want to describe this process as "thinking?" Dave Hall wrote: Sometimes that's all there is. Are you familiar with Occam's razor? Yep. Very good Dave. Either you're with us, or you're against us... intensely paranoid psychosis, logically justified. That is your interpretation and subject to your own flawed reasoning. Let's think about the choices we have. You could be: A. With us, in that you support the elimination of world-wide terrorism by whatever means necessary. B. Against us, which means that you feel that active terrorist groups killing innocent civilians is acceptable behavior in a civilized world. C. Neutral. You want to hide your head in the sand and pretend the problem will fix itself. So which are you? Dave |
Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in theteeth on al-Qaida Saddamn links
Dave Hall wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 14:28:38 -0400, John H wrote: On 23 Jun 2004 17:53:17 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote: If a traditional conservative was a liberal, then he/she is a neoconservative. Reread what you wrote. Very slowly. Regardless what a traditional conservative *was*, anybody who can be indentified as a traditional conservative *is* just that. A traditional conservative. Those who subscribe to neo-conservaTISM are neo-cons, regardless of previous affilitations or beliefs. One can "progress" from rational conservatism to neo-conservatism. No detour to liberalism required. Any conservative who *was* a liberal *is* a neoconservative. Why is Webster not sufficient as a source any longer? Who coined and defined the term 'neocon'? Apparently it wasn't Webster, and I'd be willing to bet that it was coined as a derogatory term by someone of the liberal persuasion. This isn't an archaic definition, it's what is used today: Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary One entry found for neoconservative. Main Entry: neo·con·ser·va·tive Pronunciation: -k&n-'s&r-v&-tiv Function: noun : a former liberal espousing political conservatism - neo·con·ser·va·tism /-v&-"ti-z&m/ noun - neoconservative adjective John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! Evidently liberals feel that they know more than Webster. And you're right, the term "neo con" has been redefined by liberals as some sort of negative label that they can exploit to rationalize and demonize those which they cannot debate on issue alone. Liberals tend to label any idea, concept, or group that they disagree with. "The rich", Neo con", "Hate Radio", "Religious Zealots", oh, and George W. Bush. Dave You rigid righties are a trip...neocon may not be the best definition...American Taliban might be better. |
Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in theteeth on al-Qaida Saddamn links
Dave Hall wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 22:27:18 -0400, "Bert Robbins" wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Dave Hall wrote: On 23 Jun 2004 15:22:13 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote: It was even simpler than that. I just applied a chain of simple logic based on the definitions previously provided. If "neo" is new, then if someone is a "neo"conservative, that implies that they were previously something else. The most common "other" ideology would be a liberal. Therefore, a "new" conservative would most likely be an "old" liberal. Binary thinking at its finest. Only two possibilities to consider. Sometimes that's all there is. Are you familiar with Occam's razor? Dave I am. Old William called for a minimum number of points *necessary*. For issues as complex as a worldwide Islamist insurgency, black or white ain't enough. Sure it is. If you are an infidel you must convert to Islam or die by the Islamic sword. Simple, black and white and binary. That is the way our enemies think. Should we not respond in kind? Dave You mean, we should become what they are? |
Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in the
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 12:53:49 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote: Dave Hall wrote: On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 08:08:13 -0400, Harry Krause wrote: Dave Hall wrote: it's just that they stand firm in their resolve. They make the hard decisions rather than engaging in endless debates from infinite angles. Even when their assumptions are wrong and events prove their thinking is leading to one disaster after another. No one has yet to prove that those decisions were wrong (your biased and ill-informed opinions do not count), or that these decisions have been a "disaster". Bush's "war against terrorism" is a fraud and a disaster, no matter how you and the other binaries try to spin it. I'm still waiting for you (or anyone else) to substantiate that claim with something other than biased, hate-filled rhetoric, opinion and conjecture. What you call "Bush's stupidity" may very well be a cleverly organized and well thought out effort. 20 years from now, and we'll look back a bit differently than we are now. Are you competing for the "Today's Laugh" prize? No, I don't have a chance. You've got that one in the bag. Rigid personality disorder, eh? No, it's called doing what's right, even if it makes some people uncomfortable in the short term. There's nothing right about Bush policies, except, of course, that they are mostly extremely right...wing. So doing nothing is preferable to what we're doing now? Maybe you'd rather send Al Qaeda a case of French wine and ask them nicely to not fly any more planes into our buildings? Dave |
Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in the
Dave Hall wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 12:53:49 -0400, Harry Krause wrote: Dave Hall wrote: On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 08:08:13 -0400, Harry Krause wrote: Dave Hall wrote: it's just that they stand firm in their resolve. They make the hard decisions rather than engaging in endless debates from infinite angles. Even when their assumptions are wrong and events prove their thinking is leading to one disaster after another. No one has yet to prove that those decisions were wrong (your biased and ill-informed opinions do not count), or that these decisions have been a "disaster". Bush's "war against terrorism" is a fraud and a disaster, no matter how you and the other binaries try to spin it. I'm still waiting for you (or anyone else) to substantiate that claim with something other than biased, hate-filled rhetoric, opinion and conjecture. What you call "Bush's stupidity" may very well be a cleverly organized and well thought out effort. 20 years from now, and we'll look back a bit differently than we are now. Are you competing for the "Today's Laugh" prize? No, I don't have a chance. You've got that one in the bag. Rigid personality disorder, eh? No, it's called doing what's right, even if it makes some people uncomfortable in the short term. There's nothing right about Bush policies, except, of course, that they are mostly extremely right...wing. So doing nothing is preferable to what we're doing now? Maybe you'd rather send Al Qaeda a case of French wine and ask them nicely to not fly any more planes into our buildings? Dave Uh, when your policies are wrong, and you keep on promulgating them, and they keep on delivering death and destruction, and you keep on promulgating them, then perhaps it is time to come up with some new policies. |
Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in theteeth on al-Qaida Saddamn links
Charles wrote in message ...
Harry Krause wrote: jim-- wrote: tug, tug...yank, yank....dance for me Krause, I am your puppet master. LOL! You keep repeating that, crap-for-brains, but only you and your circle jerk of righties believe it, and only because most of you are dumb as doorknobs. In a way, krause is about as big an idiot as b'asskisser. Deny, deny, deny. -- Charlie What a dumb ass. |
Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in theteeth on al-Qaida Saddamn links
"basskisser" wrote in message om... Charles wrote in message ... Harry Krause wrote: jim-- wrote: tug, tug...yank, yank....dance for me Krause, I am your puppet master. LOL! You keep repeating that, crap-for-brains, but only you and your circle jerk of righties believe it, and only because most of you are dumb as doorknobs. In a way, krause is about as big an idiot as b'asskisser. Deny, deny, deny. -- Charlie What a dumb ass. We finally agree on something....Krause certainly is a dumb ass. |
Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks intheteeth on al-Qaida Saddamn links
basskisser wrote: Charles wrote in message ... Harry Krause wrote: jim-- wrote: tug, tug...yank, yank....dance for me Krause, I am your puppet master. LOL! You keep repeating that, crap-for-brains, but only you and your circle jerk of righties believe it, and only because most of you are dumb as doorknobs. In a way, krause is about as big an idiot as b'asskisser. Deny, deny, deny. -- Charlie What a dumb ass. My ass is dumb, but at least it's located on my backside. Yours is between your ears. -- Charlie |
Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in the teeth on al-Qaida Saddamn links
|
Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in theteeth on al-Qaida Saddamn links
Netsock wrote: Gould, It is unfortunate that you have chosen the path of feeding trolls, and posting off-topic. I always thought you had good input on boating related threads, but my rules, are my rules... *ploink* LOL !!! -- Charlie |
Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in the teeth on al-Qaida Saddamn links
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 06:37:30 -0400, "Netsock" wrote:
You too Dave... *ploink* Netsock, you have violated the spam rules once too often. "Ploink" John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in theteeth on al-Qaida Saddamn links
John H wrote:
On 24 Jun 2004 02:27:49 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote: For a couple of good reasons. 1) Many of the people who describe themselves as "neoconservatives" have never been liberals. 2) Other dictionaries disagree with MW. Nothing gets the rocks off like a fantasy that liberals are going over to your side in droves, I know, but that's not what the term means in US politics. In fact, why don't we use the definition that m-w.com has for neoconservative just to make it easier for everyone to stay on the same page. Which dictionary is the one we should all rely on for accuracy? John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! If this is an example of your "thinking ability," Herring, you really shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a classroom. English is not a dead language. The meanings of words change or evolve. The current meaning of "neoconservative" has evolved over the last decade, and is as the Chuckster offered here. It obviously supercedes whatever out-of-date dictionary you might be consulting. And, as for "which" dictionary we should rely upon for accuracy, as an etymologist, I suggest there is no such dictionary. I own many dictionaries, including several editions of the OED, and when I want to really mess around with words, I might consult a dozen hard-copy dictionaries and several on-line sources, including the reasonably up-to-date electronic OED. Word play is not your game, Herring. I don't know what is...perhaps you have a future as a Southern Baptist evangelist. |
Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in the teeth on al-Qaida Saddamn links
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? 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. 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"? 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). |
Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in the teeth on al-Qaida Saddamn links
Sure it is. If you are an infidel you must convert to Islam or die by the
Islamic sword. Simple, black and white and binary. That is the way our enemies think. Should we not respond in kind? Dave For KeyRist sake, Dave. If you want to think like the enemy, why don't you just surrender? The hell with sending our kids to die for America if the very first step in a war is to stop acting like Americans and behave like a bunch of wild dogs simply because that's what the other side does. You guys are all over promoting "American Values" when it comes to suppressing civil liberties here in the US. Where the heck are your American Values when it comes to moral issues touching on foreign diplomacy or military affairs? "We better act like the enemy!" If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything. If you think the "enemy" should be emulated, just frickin' surrender and they'll let you emulate them all you want to. The "enemy" wants everybody in America to think and act like they would in an Islamic state, and you are actually recommending that we do so! Meanwhile, I guess I'll be nostalgic for a time when being American meant that we set our own high standards, rather than sought out the lowest common denominator and behaved accordingly. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:43 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com