Harry Krause wrote in message ...
jim-- wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
mono sect wrote:
There are many links between Terrorists and Saddamn, so ES&D

http://www.foxnews.com/video2/player...nion&4&wvx-300

Bob Kerrey, a former Democratic senator from Nebraska and now a member
of the commission, said Friday on ABC's "Good Morning America" he
believes Clinton should have been more aggressive in going after
al-Qaeda following the ship attack.

"I think he did have enough proof to take action," Kerrey said.
"That's a difference of opinion."





Bill O'Reilly? Nothing more than another Limbaugh-type entertainer.

So what exactly did he say that was incorrect Harry? If you want to be
credible do not attack the messenger...attack the message.



Look here, buttwipe, I have no interest in what you think is or is not
credible. Got it? O'Reilly is just another right-wing rabble rouser. You
may think he spews "the truth," but that's because you're a neocon
wanna-be.

Ahhh.. name calling. The last bastion of the intellectually inferior.
The final argument for the wiseguy without an arguement.

"Neocon wanna-be"... Perhaps you could enlighten me as to what EXACTLY
a neocon wanna-be really is?

(Cap) wrote in message
Ahhh.. name calling. The last bastion of the intellectually inferior.
The final argument for the wiseguy without an arguement.

"Neocon wanna-be"... Perhaps you could enlighten me as to what EXACTLY
a neocon wanna-be really is?

Neo- meaning *new*
con- short for *conservative
wanna-be- slang for someone who *wants to be*.

So, neocon is short for *new conservative*, a phrase coined to explain
the new age jackals that inhabit the right wing, and those that WANT
TO BE, but are a little short in the intelligence department, so they
don't quite know how.
Simple, really. I think that most people of average intelligence would
be able to figure out what a "neocon wanna-be" is.

"basskisser" wrote in message

Simple, really. I think that most people of average intelligence would
be able to figure out what a "neocon wanna-be" is.

So, then ....... who explained it all to you?

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

Simple, really. I think that most people of average intelligence would
be able to figure out what a "neocon wanna-be" is.

So, then ....... who explained it all to you?

Ah, the village idiot pops up, as usual. Jeez, don't even need bait
with you, just snag you out of the water.

basskisser wrote:

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

Simple, really. I think that most people of average intelligence would
be able to figure out what a "neocon wanna-be" is.

So, then ....... who explained it all to you?

Ah, the village idiot pops up, as usual. Jeez, don't even need bait
with you, just snag you out of the water.

Just a minute there, fella. There are lots of village idiots on the
right here...I would be hard-pressed to select one as *the* village
idiot! Gawkin is in the pack, though, no doubt about it.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message

Just a minute there, fella.

LOL

You guys run a marvelous MAS. keep it up -- it's all you've got left.

"basskisser" wrote in message

Don't evade the issue -- answer the question. If it requires average
intelligence to be able to figure out what a "neocon wanna-be" is, who
explained it all to you? Harry? Hehehe

On 21 Jun 2004 11:01:07 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:

(Cap) wrote in message
Ahhh.. name calling. The last bastion of the intellectually inferior.
The final argument for the wiseguy without an arguement.

"Neocon wanna-be"... Perhaps you could enlighten me as to what EXACTLY
a neocon wanna-be really is?

Neo- meaning *new*
con- short for *conservative
wanna-be- slang for someone who *wants to be*.

So, neocon is short for *new conservative*,

So, judging from your definition, a "new" conservative is someone who
used to be something else but is now conservative. Since the
ideological opposite of conservative is liberal, then following that
logic, the conclusion can be drawn that a "new" conservative is most
likely an "old" liberal. A former liberal who now, after having to
move out of their parent's house, getting a job of their own,
starting a family, and realizing how the world really works, has now
matured and come to the realization that liberal idealism is a joke,
which tries to force equality where it can't exist naturally.
Consequently, their viewpoint have changed to embrace what traditional
conservative values are.

So a "neo conservative" is a liberal convert. Seems to be a lot of
those lately. Liberalism is having a tough time holding on to people
over the age of 30. Unless, of course, they haven't yet achieved
anything, and still look to the government for "help"......

Dave

FASCINATING DEMONSTRATION

of conservbative logic.

1. Make an assumption
2. Declare you own assumption "true"
2. (a) Make additional assumptions that rely on the truth of the previous
assumption.
3. Decide your newly discovered truth is holy writ and become self righteous in
its promulgation.

Thanks for sharing!

Dave Hall wrote:

So, judging from your definition, a "new" conservative is someone who
used to be something else but is now conservative. Since the
ideological opposite of conservative is liberal, then following that
logic, the conclusion can be drawn that a "new" conservative is most
likely an "old" liberal. A former liberal who now, after having to
move out of their parent's house, getting a job of their own,
starting a family, and realizing how the world really works, has now
matured and come to the realization that liberal idealism is a joke,
which tries to force equality where it can't exist naturally.
Consequently, their viewpoint have changed to embrace what traditional
conservative values are.

So a "neo conservative" is a liberal convert. Seems to be a lot of
those lately. Liberalism is having a tough time holding on to people
over the age of 30. Unless, of course, they haven't yet achieved
anything, and still look to the government for "help"......

Dave

Gould 0738 wrote:
FASCINATING DEMONSTRATION

of conservbative logic.

1. Make an assumption
2. Declare you own assumption "true"
2. (a) Make additional assumptions that rely on the truth of the previous
assumption.
3. Decide your newly discovered truth is holy writ and become self righteous in
its promulgation.

Thanks for sharing!


Indeed, this is what I enjoy most about the "cons" here...and why I
rarely bother to correct their "mis-assumptions." It's fun to watch them.