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?

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

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 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.

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