On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 13:41:27 -0400, John H
wrote:

On 22 Jun 2004 14:39:14 GMT, (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!

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

Maybe Dave just used a fairly standard and respected source for his definition,
Meriam-Webster's dictionary, which defines a neoconservative: a former liberal
espousing political conservatism.


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.

Of course there is always a few exceptions to this (A disclaimer for
guys like Doug K, who like to construct strawman rebuttals to prove
those few exceptions, as if that invalidates the rule).


So, his initial assumption was pretty darn correct. However, since Webster's
does not put any time reference in its definition, the assumption that the
liberal who switched must be old is just that - an assumption.

The term "old" does not refer so much to a particular age, as it does
to a previous position.


There are both young and old neoconservatives.

It's never too late to wake up and smell the coffee ;-)


Many of us, during high school
and college, considered ourselves "liberal," but woke up and realized that the
rhetoric dealing with helping the poor was just that. The name of the game is
power, whether the clothing is sheep's or not.

Experience and cynicism will do that to a person. I was very
idealistic when I was in school. Life's hard lessons soon evaporated
that.

Dave

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.

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

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.

"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.

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

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?

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.

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

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?