Please Chuckie, whats your definition of a neocon?

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
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

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)

On 23 Jun 2004 02:44:27 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

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.

And you gave ME a lecture for making assumptions? This definition is
nothing more than liberal justification for their demonization of
those who refuse to bend before their "enlightened" viewpoint. It's
not that so-called "neocons" resort to binary thinking, it's just that
they stand firm in their resolve. They make the hard decisions rather
than engaging in endless debates from infinite angles.

Not all issues are good/bad black/white etc, but there are those which
are, and they need to be dealt with accordingly. Trying to turn an
essentially black/white issue into infinite shades of gray does
nothing more than invite endless debates on semantics, and hopelessly
bogs down the main issue with all sorts of "baggage". All of which
results in the inability to reach consensus and arrive at a definitive
decision. Guys like John Kerry who constantly waffle back and forth
and refuse to define their position by anything other than the
political winds are good examples of this.

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.

So you are of the opinion that pundit hacks like Michael Moore(on)
spewing their ever public dissent in a world forum, does not undermine
our efforts and by extension emboldens our enemies? Do you not agree
that despite our internal differences, that we should still attempt to
present a united front? Is the idea of fighting terrorism so repugnant
to the left, that denouncing it in a public forum is more important
than defending America?

Or is it possible that you do not agree that the people responsible
for terrorism are our real enemies? Yea, I know, liberals do not
believe in true evil. Liberals believe that "bad" people are they way
they are due to some social or environmental injustice. Maybe we
should just send them money and some really good drugs and the problem
will just go away on its own.......

Dave

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. Rigid personality disorder, eh?

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". We've lost more lives in one campaign in WWII than
we have in the whole Iraq war to date. Yet by the logic of some of you
guys on the left, we probably should have abandoned our effort in WWII
as well.

No one (At least no one with an ounce of realism) claimed going into
this war on terrorism, that it would be easy. Our enemy is hard to
identify, and hides behind the protection of many contributors. Should
this mean that we should do nothing? Or should we try to "reason" with
people who have openly stated that their goal is to drive western
culture from their lands, and ultimately from the face of the earth?
What bargaining chip could we hold for them? What concessions could we
offer? What other course of action would be preferable to the one
which our leader has selected?

Did you even think that we might need to establish a base of operation
so that we can carry on the next phase of this campaign? There are a
lot of smoking guns in Saudi Arabia, and in Iran. If we were to
seriously pursue this, we would jeopardize our oil imports as well as
present a logistical problem. Having Iraq for both substitute oil and
as a point of deployment makes strategic and tactical sense.

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.

Rigid personality disorder, eh?

No, it's called doing what's right, even if it makes some people
uncomfortable in the short term. If we don't fight the battle now, our
children will have to, and the odds will be less in our favor.


Dave

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.


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?





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.

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

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On 23 Jun 2004 02:44:27 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

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.

And you gave ME a lecture for making assumptions? This definition is
nothing more than liberal justification for their demonization of
those who refuse to bend before their "enlightened" viewpoint. It's
not that so-called "neocons" resort to binary thinking, it's just that
they stand firm in their resolve. They make the hard decisions rather
than engaging in endless debates from infinite angles.

I call it taking debate into the minutia in order to bore people into losing
interest, thus becoming apathetic to what moral change is in store. The
Impeached Ones defense attorney's were great at taking each and every piece
of evidence and twisting it until interest faded. The impression would be
defeat but really it was just people tuned out. Liberals have a way with
over analyzing the obvious. At some point the obvious becomes insulting.


Not all issues are good/bad black/white etc, but there are those which
are, and they need to be dealt with accordingly. Trying to turn an
essentially black/white issue into infinite shades of gray does
nothing more than invite endless debates on semantics, and hopelessly
bogs down the main issue with all sorts of "baggage". All of which
results in the inability to reach consensus and arrive at a definitive
decision. Guys like John Kerry who constantly waffle back and forth
and refuse to define their position by anything other than the
political winds are good examples of this.

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.

So you are of the opinion that pundit hacks like Michael Moore(on)
spewing their ever public dissent in a world forum, does not undermine
our efforts and by extension emboldens our enemies? Do you not agree
that despite our internal differences, that we should still attempt to
present a united front? Is the idea of fighting terrorism so repugnant
to the left, that denouncing it in a public forum is more important
than defending America?

Liberals don't see the bigger picture, they live for the moment. What ever
they can do to win pack power that Bush won illigentamately from AlGore, the
sooner they can raise taxes and spend your money on them selves and their
base. I read an artical that claimed AlGore's support comes mainly from
inner city high school drop outs. If this is true, is it no wonder why the
Democrat Party is 'bluest' around the big cities?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/vote2000/cbc/map.htm


Or is it possible that you do not agree that the people responsible
for terrorism are our real enemies? Yea, I know, liberals do not
believe in true evil. Liberals believe that "bad" people are they way
they are due to some social or environmental injustice. Maybe we
should just send them money and some really good drugs and the problem
will just go away on its own.......

With Saddamn is was the fact he got away with killing a 10 year old school
mate.


Dave

Looking at these numbers helps one to understand the wisdom of
our forefathers in creating the Electoral College system.
The difference in the vote count in just New York City might have elected
Al Gore, in a popular vote only system.

http://www.rosecity.net/al_gore/election_map.html

"mono sect" wrote in message
...

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On 23 Jun 2004 02:44:27 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

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.

And you gave ME a lecture for making assumptions? This definition is
nothing more than liberal justification for their demonization of
those who refuse to bend before their "enlightened" viewpoint. It's
not that so-called "neocons" resort to binary thinking, it's just that
they stand firm in their resolve. They make the hard decisions rather
than engaging in endless debates from infinite angles.

I call it taking debate into the minutia in order to bore people into
losing
interest, thus becoming apathetic to what moral change is in store. The
Impeached Ones defense attorney's were great at taking each and every
piece
of evidence and twisting it until interest faded. The impression would be
defeat but really it was just people tuned out. Liberals have a way with
over analyzing the obvious. At some point the obvious becomes insulting.


Not all issues are good/bad black/white etc, but there are those which
are, and they need to be dealt with accordingly. Trying to turn an
essentially black/white issue into infinite shades of gray does
nothing more than invite endless debates on semantics, and hopelessly
bogs down the main issue with all sorts of "baggage". All of which
results in the inability to reach consensus and arrive at a definitive
decision. Guys like John Kerry who constantly waffle back and forth
and refuse to define their position by anything other than the
political winds are good examples of this.

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.

So you are of the opinion that pundit hacks like Michael Moore(on)
spewing their ever public dissent in a world forum, does not undermine
our efforts and by extension emboldens our enemies? Do you not agree
that despite our internal differences, that we should still attempt to
present a united front? Is the idea of fighting terrorism so repugnant
to the left, that denouncing it in a public forum is more important
than defending America?

Liberals don't see the bigger picture, they live for the moment. What ever
they can do to win pack power that Bush won illigentamately from AlGore,
the
sooner they can raise taxes and spend your money on them selves and their
base. I read an artical that claimed AlGore's support comes mainly from
inner city high school drop outs. If this is true, is it no wonder why the
Democrat Party is 'bluest' around the big cities?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/vote2000/cbc/map.htm


Or is it possible that you do not agree that the people responsible
for terrorism are our real enemies? Yea, I know, liberals do not
believe in true evil. Liberals believe that "bad" people are they way
they are due to some social or environmental injustice. Maybe we
should just send them money and some really good drugs and the problem
will just go away on its own.......

With Saddamn is was the fact he got away with killing a 10 year old school
mate.


Dave

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 11:01:46 -0400, mono sect wrote:

Looking at these numbers helps one to understand the wisdom of our
forefathers in creating the Electoral College system. The difference in
the vote count in just New York City might have elected Al Gore, in a
popular vote only system.

http://www.rosecity.net/al_gore/election_map.html

There's considerable blue on that map. If land could vote, but it can't,
so what's your point? There were several reasons our founding fathers set
up the Electoral College. One of them was to avoid partisan politics.

http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf