Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in the
 

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


Excellent example of binary thinking, Dave. The only two options are 1) trying
to talk to them or 2) abandoning all principles when conducting the war.

And you say that neoconservatism isn't binary?

Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in the
 

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

I'm stunned. Not one of the choices you offered.

According to what you just wrote:

If I am not in favor of carpet bombing the entire middle East with
thermo-nuclear devices (an example of "any means neccessary" to eliminate
terrorism), then my only other choice is to declare that
active terror groups killing innocent civilians........(as opposed to high tech
super powers with thermo nuclear bombs killing innocent civilians)......is
absolutely OK.

Doesn't work for me.

I'm in favor of capturing or killing the individual criminal *******s involved
in terrorist activities, by any reasonable means that won't result in our
creating far more innocent civilian casualties than the
terrorists have already.

I'm not in favor of invading our way through a check list of third world
countries under the guise of "fighting terrorism". (But I bet you already knew
that)

Yes, I know that neocons are all about limiting choices. But you guys have a
ways to go in this country before you can presume to tell me how I must think,
(choice A or choice B).

Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in the
 

So doing nothing is preferable to what we're doing now?

Binary.

Excludes the possibility of doing anyting "different" than what we're doing
now, and assumes that our present course is the only possible alternative to
"doing nothing."

Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in the teeth on al-Qaida Saddamn links
 

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!

There is no one dictionary that is always correct.

Binary neocon thinking: A given dictionary will always be right or wrong.

Somebody or some thing will have all the unquestionable answers, so the only
challenge is to pick the right somebody or something.

Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in the teeth on al-Qaida Saddamn links
 

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?

Well, they just mislabeled themselves. They are really 'neocenturions'. Anyone
who knows anything about etymology could explain that.

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 the teeth on al-Qaida Saddamn links
 

On 24 Jun 2004 14:27:12 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

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!

There is no one dictionary that is always correct.

Binary neocon thinking: A given dictionary will always be right or wrong.

Somebody or some thing will have all the unquestionable answers, so the only
challenge is to pick the right somebody or something.

But the M-W is definitely wrong in this case, true? How does one determine which
is the right source? Do you just search until you find a source that supports
your position?

Am I a neocon because I looked in a M-W dictionary?


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 14:27:12 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

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!

There is no one dictionary that is always correct.

Binary neocon thinking: A given dictionary will always be right or wrong.

Somebody or some thing will have all the unquestionable answers, so the only
challenge is to pick the right somebody or something.

But the M-W is definitely wrong in this case, true? How does one determine which
is the right source? Do you just search until you find a source that supports
your position?

Am I a neocon because I looked in a M-W dictionary?


John H

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


No, you are a neocon because you are a rigid, mindless fool who accepts
virtually every line of bull**** the neocons feed you.

Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in the teeth on al-Qaida Saddamn links
 

But the M-W is definitely wrong in this case, true? How does one determine
which
is the right source? Do you just search until you find a source that supports
your position?

Most people will, indeed, search just long enough to find one source or another
that supports their position and hang on for dear life against all evidence or
opposition.

Those more interested in seeking truth will
consider multiple perspectives, drawing comparisons between what others have
observed and personal, contemporary observations. The mentally adept often seek
out contradictory opinions and examine them carefully for any elements of
greater or lesser truth they may contain.
The self righteous and intellectually insecure fearfully eschew dissenting
ideas.

Much depends on motivation. Some want to appear "right" (or righteous) at any
cost. Others want to get closer to the unvarnished truth, even if it ultimately
requires changing a long-held prinicple or considering a new idea.

No single source is an authority on everything. Even dictionaries are compiled
and edited by committees that often make arbitrary or underinformed decisions.
That is one of the reasons for consulting multiple sources, as the odds of
several editorial boards making identical arbitrary or underinformed decisions
are rather low.

Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in the teeth on al-Qaida Saddamn links
 

On 24 Jun 2004 14:07:05 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

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?

You'd like that wouldn't you?


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.

Nobody suggested acting like wild dogs. Weren't you the one who
chastised me for supposed "absolutes" and "binary thinking"? What do
you call that huge leap of absolute assumption?



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!"

The enemy brought the fight to us on 9/11. What would you suggest that
we do in response? Should we take it on the chin and smile? Should we
attempt to rationally negotiate with mentally unstable nut cases who
have no qualms about cutting off people's heads on TV?

WHAT would you do?



If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.

Nice hyperbole. It's just as binary as "Either you're with us or
against us".

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!

Here's some binary thinking for you; either you stop the problem, or
the problem will stop us. We may debate on the methods, but something
needs to be done. I also find it strategically and tactically a
disadvantage to be held to such a high standard of ethics, while our
enemy disregards the same. We recognize mosques schools and other
civilian areas, so they hide there. This places our forces at greater
risk.
I also find it highly offensive that the U.S. media concentrates on
the so-called "scandal" at Abu Grahib prison (For obvious agenda
driven motives) while offering little continual outrage at the string
of brutal be-headings that have occurred, not just to our citizens,
but to others as well.



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.

Maybe you're right. We should probably just develop a genetic virus
that kills only arabs. Is that high enough a standard for you?

I'm not really serious there but hell Chuck, you are all full of
criticism, but offer little to solve the problem.

Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in the teeth on al-Qaida Saddamn links
 

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

Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in the
 

On 24 Jun 2004 14:20:25 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

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

I'm stunned. Not one of the choices you offered.

According to what you just wrote:

If I am not in favor of carpet bombing the entire middle East with
thermo-nuclear devices (an example of "any means neccessary" to eliminate
terrorism), then my only other choice is to declare that
active terror groups killing innocent civilians........(as opposed to high tech
super powers with thermo nuclear bombs killing innocent civilians)......is
absolutely OK.

You forgot the "hide your head in the sand" choice...... But that
would make it "trinary" thinking.....


I would not want to carpet bomb innocents either. But when the
terrorists are so gutless as to hide behind them as human shields,
what choice would we have?


Doesn't work for me.

I'm in favor of capturing or killing the individual criminal *******s involved
in terrorist activities, by any reasonable means that won't result in our
creating far more innocent civilian casualties than the
terrorists have already.

Very good Chuck! That sounds like the perfect plan. Now all we need to
do is call the Starship Enterprise and have them scan the plant for
the DNA signatures of all the terrorists so that we can beam them all
into a detention cell on some outer world controlled by the Klingons.


Wake up! We haven't yet found OBL, his top henchmen, or the Iraqi
insurgents. The terrorists hide in countries that will not allow us in
to search for them (Pakistan). How do you resolve this? If there are
countries who support the terrorists either overtly or covertly, then
how do we apprehend them? Should there not be, as "Bush the almighty"
has suggested, a price to pay for those countries who aid and harbor
these terrorists? How do you fight an enemy who transcends borders?


I'm not in favor of invading our way through a check list of third world
countries under the guise of "fighting terrorism". (But I bet you already knew
that)

If those countries have been shown to "aid and abed" terrorists, then
do we not have a right to act? If not, then game over, since we'll
never get them. We might as well erect a wall around our country and
hide behind it, and close all of our borders.

Yes, I know that neocons are all about limiting choices.

Conservatives love choices. Guns, Schools, Medical coverage,
Privatized social security, Elections..........

But you guys have a
ways to go in this country before you can presume to tell me how I must think,
(choice A or choice B).

Chuck, it's not that we think there are only 2 choices, it's that
we've already rationalized all the other choices and have discarded
them due to their impracticality. We're not binary thinkers, we're
analytical thinkers.

Dave

Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in the
 

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 07:26:29 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

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?

No, we should be better at it.

Dave

Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in the
 

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 07:28:43 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:


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.


Who are you to declare that these policies are "wrong" By what
objective criteria do you make this judgement call?

Dave

Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in the
 

On 24 Jun 2004 14:22:18 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

So doing nothing is preferable to what we're doing now?

Binary.

Excludes the possibility of doing anyting "different" than what we're doing
now, and assumes that our present course is the only possible alternative to
"doing nothing."

I'm still waiting for you to outline a *practical* alternative to what
we're doing now.

Dave

Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in the
 

Dave Hall wrote:

I would not want to carpet bomb innocents either. But when the
terrorists are so gutless as to hide behind them as human shields,
what choice would we have?


Some other choice, perhaps?

By oozing down to the level of the terrorists (killing innocent
civilians), we're no better than they are, and we certainly cannot claim
any higher moral ground.

If that's what we're left with, and if in terms of practicality, we kill
lots of innocent civilians, too, we're not demonstrating much difference
between us and those we go after.

It's so unfortunate we don't seem to have reliable intel or even
reliable Iraqis on the ground in their country, eh?

Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in the
 

Dave Hall wrote:

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 07:26:29 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

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?

No, we should be better at it.

Dave



Yeah, well, when you are trying to win the hearts and minds, as Bush
keeps saying, that is NOT how you do it.

Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in the
 

Dave Hall wrote:

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 07:28:43 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:


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.


Who are you to declare that these policies are "wrong" By what
objective criteria do you make this judgement call?

Dave


You've been living in a cave the last year?

Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in the
 

On 24 Jun 2004 14:09:35 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

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


Excellent example of binary thinking, Dave. The only two options are 1) trying
to talk to them or 2) abandoning all principles when conducting the war.

You have yet to offer up alternatives that are workable, practical,
and effective. So yes, the choices are limited, but you can't seem to
see that.

Let's explore historical methods of dealing with "hostile" nations
(Bearing in mind that these were whole countries which were easy to
identify), shall we.....

We have in the past:

Negotiated in good faith until the object of contention was resolved.

Objected to a particular course of action and advised that the action
would not be tolerated. After a little chest thumping and veiled
threats, nations of weaker resolve have backed down (Cuban Missile
Crisis).

Imposed economic sanctions until the hostile country capitulated.

Convinced several other countries of the "evils" of a particular
action and used collective intimidation to back the hostile country
down.

Used covert actions to infiltrate and influence government action in
those hostile countries.

Used military force.

Now, which of these actions would be the most effective against an
enemy who transcends borders?

Feel free to add any that I might have missed off the top of my
head...

Dave

Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in the
 

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 11:41:56 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Am I a neocon because I looked in a M-W dictionary?


John H

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


No, you are a neocon because you are a rigid, mindless fool who accepts
virtually every line of bull**** the neocons feed you.


As opposed to you, a rigid mindless fool who accepts virtually every
line of bull**** the liberals and emotionally driven writer hacks feed
you?

Harry, the real joke is that you are nothing more than the flip side
of the same coin. If there is such a thing as a "neo-conservative"
(other than the webster definition), then you are a shining example of
a "neo-liberal".

Dave

Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in the
 

Dave Hall wrote:

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 11:41:56 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Am I a neocon because I looked in a M-W dictionary?


John H

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


No, you are a neocon because you are a rigid, mindless fool who accepts
virtually every line of bull**** the neocons feed you.


As opposed to you, a rigid mindless fool who accepts virtually every
line of bull**** the liberals and emotionally driven writer hacks feed
you?


That's simply not true, Dave. I have different opinions on a number of
significant issues with the presumed Democratic standard=bearer and with
the true liberals in my party. As for the emotionally driven "writer
hacks," I suspect you are just jealous, as your writing skills are
rudimentary.




Harry, the real joke is that you are nothing more than the flip side
of the same coin. If there is such a thing as a "neo-conservative"
(other than the webster definition), then you are a shining example of
a "neo-liberal".

I'm more of a Clinton Democrat on fiscal issues, but very liberal on
social issues. I suspect my truly liberal friends would make you quake
in your boots.

Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in theteeth on al-Qaida Saddamn links
 

"jim--" wrote in message ...
"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.

Ah, you're too stupid to follow a thread, I see.

Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in theteeth on al-Qaida Saddamn links
 

Charles wrote in message ...
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

Another ignorant post from the village idiot.

Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in theteethon al-Qaida Saddamn links
 

Harry Krause wrote:

No, you are a neocon because you are a rigid, mindless fool who accepts
virtually every line of bull**** the neocons feed you.

As opposed to the bull**** you constantly feed us?

-- Charlie

Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in the
 

We can never win this war on terrorism by killing people. Even Tenet
says that to call the war on terrorism a war is incorrect, it is no
more a war than the war on crime or the war on drugs neither of which
will ever have an endpoint.

We have probably increased the number of terrorists 10 fold by
invading Iraq. There are millions upon millions of potential recruits
throughout the world.

The solution to the terrorism problem has been staring us in the face
for 40 years but I'm afraid we are just too blind to see it. We
unconditionally support Israel as they commit what basically amounts
to genocide. We support a cadre of ruthless dictators as long as they
share our interests. At the same time we talk about democracy and free
elections. The hypocracy is so shameful as to render our proclamations
of freedom utter nonsense.





(Gould 0738) wrote in message ...
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

I'm stunned. Not one of the choices you offered.

According to what you just wrote:

If I am not in favor of carpet bombing the entire middle East with
thermo-nuclear devices (an example of "any means neccessary" to eliminate
terrorism), then my only other choice is to declare that
active terror groups killing innocent civilians........(as opposed to high tech
super powers with thermo nuclear bombs killing innocent civilians)......is
absolutely OK.

Doesn't work for me.

I'm in favor of capturing or killing the individual criminal *******s involved
in terrorist activities, by any reasonable means that won't result in our
creating far more innocent civilian casualties than the
terrorists have already.

I'm not in favor of invading our way through a check list of third world
countries under the guise of "fighting terrorism". (But I bet you already knew
that)

Yes, I know that neocons are all about limiting choices. But you guys have a
ways to go in this country before you can presume to tell me how I must think,
(choice A or choice B).

Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in the
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
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.


I see that you have finally come on board about Johnson's Great Society.

Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in the
 

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
So doing nothing is preferable to what we're doing now?

Binary.

Excludes the possibility of doing anyting "different" than what we're
doing
now, and assumes that our present course is the only possible alternative
to
"doing nothing."

You are sitting in a tree and there is a lion at the base of the tree that
wants to kill you and eat you. You have a gun. How are you going to free
yourself from the tree?

Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in the
 

Very good Chuck! That sounds like the perfect plan. Now all we need to
do is call the Starship Enterprise and have them scan the plant for
the DNA signatures of all the terrorists so that we can beam them all
into a detention cell on some outer world controlled by the Klingons.

Or, failing that, we can occupy every country where there ever was, is, or
might someday be a terrorist. To make sure we get them all, we need to kill off
anybody we even suspect, in the least, might have terrorist tendencies.
Probably no more practical than the Starship Enterprise.

Wake up! We haven't yet found OBL, his top henchmen, or the Iraqi
insurgents. The terrorists hide in countries that will not allow us in
to search for them (Pakistan). How do you resolve this? If there are
countries who support the terrorists either overtly or covertly, then
how do we apprehend them?

Bush: Hello, General XYPHAHUANG?

General X: Yes, Mr President! My closest friend and honored ally! How are Laura
and the twin Bushes?

Bush: Fine, general. Seems we have a small problem, however. A group of
criminal terrorists thugs blew up a bunch of
stuff here in the US and killed a helluva lot of innocent folks. Turns out
these criminals are hiding in your country.

General X: Pajukistan does not support terrorism!

Bush: Of course not, and I'm glad to hear you say that. This is a courtesy call
to let you know that we will be sending a few thousand Army Rangers and Navy
Seals into your country by the end of this week.

General X: You mean you are going to invade us? What about the treaty?

Bush: Invade, shamde. This is a law enforcement action. We don't want to
acquire any territory, we don't want to topple your government, we want to
avoid civilian causalties. This is your opportunity to *invite* us to search
for these *******s.

General X: And if I don't choose to invite you?

Bush: Well, in that case we're coming anyway and this is a courtesy call to let
you know to expect us.

General X: This will pizz off my people! I'll be lucky to remain in power! You
can't do this! Don't forget, we've got a nuclear bomb!

Bush: Yes, we can. And we will. There's no doubt that you do not want to start
a nuclear war with the United States. The good news is, you won't need to. You
do have an alternative to our presence, of course. Deliver Osama bin Ladin or
his verifiable corpse to your border within 96 hours. If you can find him, do
so. If you can't we're coming to "help" you.

**************

So, that's how. In my opinion. Beats hell out of calling the Starship
Enterprise or killing every Muslim on the face of the earth, anyway.

Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in theteeth on al-Qaida Saddamn links
 

This is a boat newsgroup. Plonk.

Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in the
 

This is a boat newsgroup. Plonk.

Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in theteeth on al-Qaida Saddamn links
 

"basskisser" wrote in message

Another ignorant post from the village idiot.

HEY! WAIT A MINUTE!!!

Last week you said I could be the Village Idiot! No fair! No fair!

Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in the
 

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 14:10:11 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 07:28:43 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:


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.


Who are you to declare that these policies are "wrong" By what
objective criteria do you make this judgement call?

Dave


You've been living in a cave the last year?

That didn't answer the question. What factual, OBJECTIVE criteria can
you cite that proves that the president's policies were "wrong"?

After 9/11, enhanced security policies were enacted. A new department
of homeland security was created. To date, there have been no further
attacks on U.S. soil. To call this policy a failure, there would have
to be another attack in spite of the new policies.

The war in Iraq was won in a matter of weeks. Saddam was deposed, and
eventually captured, his son's killed. Most of Saddam's underlings
were also captured. The Iraqi people were freed from tyrannical
oppression. While it's true that keeping the peace has been somewhat
tumultuous, that is to be expected when the desperation of the
terrorists are hightailed as the date for the transition of power
looms ahead. How is this a failure? It would be a failure if we pulled
out now and let the insurgents win.

Sure there was a cost. Both monetarily and in human lives. But any war
has these costs, and they have never historically been a major
consideration when the greater good is factored into the big picture.

Dave

Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in the
 

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 14:08:30 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:

I would not want to carpet bomb innocents either. But when the
terrorists are so gutless as to hide behind them as human shields,
what choice would we have?


Some other choice, perhaps?

I'm all ears. Tell me what that choice is.


By oozing down to the level of the terrorists (killing innocent
civilians), we're no better than they are, and we certainly cannot claim
any higher moral ground.

We don't need to. We only need to win.


If that's what we're left with, and if in terms of practicality, we kill
lots of innocent civilians, too, we're not demonstrating much difference
between us and those we go after.

The difference is we don't kill people for no reason. We didn't fly
airplanes into tall buildings to make a political point. If the
terrorists refuse to follow the terms of war as defined by the Geneva
convention, then they should be the ones responsible for the lives of
the people that they willingly place in harm's way. We still have the
right to pursue the enemy.

What signal does that send to the enemy if we cease pursuing them if
they hide in civilian areas?



It's so unfortunate we don't seem to have reliable intel or even
reliable Iraqis on the ground in their country, eh?


I wouldn't know, and neither do you. Neither one of us has a "need to
know".

Dave

Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in the
 

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 14:42:10 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 11:41:56 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Am I a neocon because I looked in a M-W dictionary?


John H

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


No, you are a neocon because you are a rigid, mindless fool who accepts
virtually every line of bull**** the neocons feed you.


As opposed to you, a rigid mindless fool who accepts virtually every
line of bull**** the liberals and emotionally driven writer hacks feed
you?


That's simply not true, Dave. I have different opinions on a number of
significant issues with the presumed Democratic standard=bearer and with
the true liberals in my party.

Anyone can say that. No one is 100% in lock step with anyone's
political party.

As for the emotionally driven "writer
hacks," I suspect you are just jealous, as your writing skills are
rudimentary.

I am hardly "jealous". I at least have the integrity to report facts,
not my opinion of what my interpretation of those facts are. Most of
those articles, that you faithfully cut and paste, are little more
than op-ed pieces, with little factual basis. Sort of like Michael
Moore's "propagandamentary" film.


Harry, the real joke is that you are nothing more than the flip side
of the same coin. If there is such a thing as a "neo-conservative"
(other than the webster definition), then you are a shining example of
a "neo-liberal".

I'm more of a Clinton Democrat on fiscal issues, but very liberal on
social issues. I suspect my truly liberal friends would make you quake
in your boots.

I'm more of a Reagan conservative, but that's not the point.

Once I cut your liberal friends to shreds with solid reasoning and
practical logic, they would be the one's quaking. I wonder how many of
them truly understand the concepts of a free market economy and
freedom, and the benefits and consequences of each.


Dave

Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in the
 

Dave Hall wrote:

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 14:42:10 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 11:41:56 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Am I a neocon because I looked in a M-W dictionary?


John H

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


No, you are a neocon because you are a rigid, mindless fool who accepts
virtually every line of bull**** the neocons feed you.


As opposed to you, a rigid mindless fool who accepts virtually every
line of bull**** the liberals and emotionally driven writer hacks feed
you?


That's simply not true, Dave. I have different opinions on a number of
significant issues with the presumed Democratic standard=bearer and with
the true liberals in my party.

Anyone can say that. No one is 100% in lock step with anyone's
political party.

As for the emotionally driven "writer
hacks," I suspect you are just jealous, as your writing skills are
rudimentary.

I am hardly "jealous". I at least have the integrity to report facts,


Dave, you wouldn't know a fact if it bit you on the ass. Your
simple-minded, right-wing pronouncements from "on the mount"
are the epitome of silliness. You're like a junkyard dog whose been
tossed a tired out old bone, and you're going to worry that meatless
bone down to what you hope is marrow. Except the bone is so old and
chewed out, there isn't any.

Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in theteeth on al-Qaida Saddamn links
 

"John Gaquin" wrote in message ...
"basskisser" wrote in message

Another ignorant post from the village idiot.

HEY! WAIT A MINUTE!!!

Last week you said I could be the Village Idiot! No fair! No fair!

The whole S.R.W.C.J. is.

Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in the
 

On 24 Jun 2004 14:04:12 -0700, (Alex Horvath)
wrote:

We can never win this war on terrorism by killing people. Even Tenet
says that to call the war on terrorism a war is incorrect, it is no
more a war than the war on crime or the war on drugs neither of which
will ever have an endpoint.

You make a good point here. We probably should re-evauate our tactics.
Tanks and bombs probably aren't the answer. But some form of force is.
Before we can do that though, we have to loosen up on the idea that
covert operations are "sneaky" or "underhanded".


We have probably increased the number of terrorists 10 fold by
invading Iraq. There are millions upon millions of potential recruits
throughout the world.

Once Iraq becomes stable and the people taste what it's like to be
self governing, I can't see why they would prefer to be oppressed by a
fanatical fundamentalist religious fanatic. The terrorists are running
scared. They know as well as we do, that once their people taste
freedom, there will be no turning back, and their power base will
evaporate.



The solution to the terrorism problem has been staring us in the face
for 40 years but I'm afraid we are just too blind to see it. We
unconditionally support Israel as they commit what basically amounts
to genocide.

Woah! back up Jack. Who is it that continually sends homicide bombers
into which country to blow up innocent civilians? Is Israel to blame
for fighting back? Does Israel not have a right to peaceful
sovereignty?

We support a cadre of ruthless dictators as long as they
share our interests.

Like who?

At the same time we talk about democracy and free
elections. The hypocracy is so shameful as to render our proclamations
of freedom utter nonsense.

We would prefer that all dictatorships go away and be replaced by
democratic governments. Unfortunately we don't have the right to force
this on people unless (as in the case in Iraq) that government poses a
potential threat to world stability and our safety. If the oppressive
dictatorship is relatively benign (They aren't researching WMD,
killing thousands of it's own citizens, or invading a neighboring
country)

Dave

Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in the
 

On 24 Jun 2004 22:44:36 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Very good Chuck! That sounds like the perfect plan. Now all we need to
do is call the Starship Enterprise and have them scan the plant for
the DNA signatures of all the terrorists so that we can beam them all
into a detention cell on some outer world controlled by the Klingons.

Or, failing that, we can occupy every country where there ever was, is, or
might someday be a terrorist. To make sure we get them all, we need to kill off
anybody we even suspect, in the least, might have terrorist tendencies.
Probably no more practical than the Starship Enterprise.

Binary thinking Chuck. No one has suggested we occupy every country.
But we can be a force for change in the region. Once one country
enjoys the benefits of democracy, it becomes easier to "nudge" the
others. When democracy takes a firm foothold, there will be less and
less need for terrorists.


Wake up! We haven't yet found OBL, his top henchmen, or the Iraqi
insurgents. The terrorists hide in countries that will not allow us in
to search for them (Pakistan). How do you resolve this? If there are
countries who support the terrorists either overtly or covertly, then
how do we apprehend them?

Bush: Hello, General XYPHAHUANG?

General X: Yes, Mr President! My closest friend and honored ally! How are Laura
and the twin Bushes?

Bush: Fine, general. Seems we have a small problem, however. A group of
criminal terrorists thugs blew up a bunch of
stuff here in the US and killed a helluva lot of innocent folks. Turns out
these criminals are hiding in your country.

General X: Pajukistan does not support terrorism!

Bush: Of course not, and I'm glad to hear you say that. This is a courtesy call
to let you know that we will be sending a few thousand Army Rangers and Navy
Seals into your country by the end of this week.

General X: You mean you are going to invade us? What about the treaty?

Bush: Invade, shamde. This is a law enforcement action. We don't want to
acquire any territory, we don't want to topple your government, we want to
avoid civilian causalties. This is your opportunity to *invite* us to search
for these *******s.

General X: And if I don't choose to invite you?

Bush: Well, in that case we're coming anyway and this is a courtesy call to let
you know to expect us.

General X: This will pizz off my people! I'll be lucky to remain in power! You
can't do this! Don't forget, we've got a nuclear bomb!

Bush: Yes, we can. And we will. There's no doubt that you do not want to start
a nuclear war with the United States. The good news is, you won't need to. You
do have an alternative to our presence, of course. Deliver Osama bin Ladin or
his verifiable corpse to your border within 96 hours. If you can find him, do
so. If you can't we're coming to "help" you.

So, if I take this seriously, you are advocating that we ignore the
sanctity of a sovereign nation by committing, what amounts to, an act
of war? How is that any different than what we did in Iraq? Even
though our goal would not be to overthrow the government, they will be
compelled (if for no other reason than to save face) to respond. Do
you not think this would also be interpreted as a battle call for the
unification of our enemies?

Personally I like the idea to some extend, and it is one of my
favorite alternative solutions. But it is not without its own set of
consequences, and will make just as much of a stir in the world
community and we will inevitably be cast as aggressors even though we
are simply pursuing criminals.

Then again, once OBL is alerted that we're coming in after him, he
will bolt across yet another border, and the whole process has to be
repeated.

I actually prefer a more "covert" type of operation where we send in a
crack team of army specialists to "get in, get it on, and get out",
under the cover of darkness. But for some reason, liberals tend to
look with disapproval toward covert operations (That whole "big
brother" thing). This would also require a huge improvement in our
intelligence gathering capabilities, and we all know how democrats
historically rate funding for these agencies.


So, that's how. In my opinion. Beats hell out of calling the Starship
Enterprise or killing every Muslim on the face of the earth, anyway.


How does this solution work any better than what we've done so far?


Dave

Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in theteeth on al-Qaida Saddamn links
 

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 01:06:59 GMT, "Stanley Barthfarkle"
wrote:

This is a boat newsgroup. Plonk.


Mr. Barthfarkle, it is not necessary to notify the group, thus adding to the OT
stuff, every time you "plonk" someone.

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 the teeth on al-Qaida Saddamn links
 

On 24 Jun 2004 15:55:59 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

But the M-W is definitely wrong in this case, true? How does one determine
which
is the right source? Do you just search until you find a source that supports
your position?

Most people will, indeed, search just long enough to find one source or another
that supports their position and hang on for dear life against all evidence or
opposition.

Those more interested in seeking truth will
consider multiple perspectives, drawing comparisons between what others have
observed and personal, contemporary observations. The mentally adept often seek
out contradictory opinions and examine them carefully for any elements of
greater or lesser truth they may contain.
The self righteous and intellectually insecure fearfully eschew dissenting
ideas.

Much depends on motivation. Some want to appear "right" (or righteous) at any
cost. Others want to get closer to the unvarnished truth, even if it ultimately
requires changing a long-held prinicple or considering a new idea.

No single source is an authority on everything. Even dictionaries are compiled
and edited by committees that often make arbitrary or underinformed decisions.
That is one of the reasons for consulting multiple sources, as the odds of
several editorial boards making identical arbitrary or underinformed decisions
are rather low.


My gosh, do I sense some heresy here? Do you really mean your statement about
"...no single source is an authority on everything"? Does Harry know you feel
this way? Or b'asskisser?

FWIW, I continue striving hard to maintain the mediocre standards I've set for
myself.

(I can't believe you put all that effort into a response to that ridiculous post
of mine!)

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 15:55:59 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

But the M-W is definitely wrong in this case, true? How does one determine
which
is the right source? Do you just search until you find a source that supports
your position?

Most people will, indeed, search just long enough to find one source or another
that supports their position and hang on for dear life against all evidence or
opposition.

Those more interested in seeking truth will
consider multiple perspectives, drawing comparisons between what others have
observed and personal, contemporary observations. The mentally adept often seek
out contradictory opinions and examine them carefully for any elements of
greater or lesser truth they may contain.
The self righteous and intellectually insecure fearfully eschew dissenting
ideas.

Much depends on motivation. Some want to appear "right" (or righteous) at any
cost. Others want to get closer to the unvarnished truth, even if it ultimately
requires changing a long-held prinicple or considering a new idea.

No single source is an authority on everything. Even dictionaries are compiled
and edited by committees that often make arbitrary or underinformed decisions.
That is one of the reasons for consulting multiple sources, as the odds of
several editorial boards making identical arbitrary or underinformed decisions
are rather low.


My gosh, do I sense some heresy here? Do you really mean your statement about
"...no single source is an authority on everything"? Does Harry know you feel
this way? Or b'asskisser?

FWIW, I continue striving hard to maintain the mediocre standards I've set for
myself.

(I can't believe you put all that effort into a response to that ridiculous post
of mine!)

John H


Yeah, sure, Herring. Nice try at a retreat.