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.

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

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.

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 07:37:07 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

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.

Really? I'm not the one cutting and pasting biased political tripe and
passing it off as fact.

Your
simple-minded, right-wing pronouncements from "on the mount"
are the epitome of silliness.

Only because you are so rigid in your thinking that you refuse to
consider the other side. The difference is that I can cite logical,
economical, and psychological reasoning to support my side. All you
can do is offer up even more cut and paste vitriol laced opinions from
other morally bankrupt and intellectually dishonest writer hacks.


Dave

Dave Hall wrote:

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 07:37:07 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

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.

Really? I'm not the one cutting and pasting biased political tripe and
passing it off as fact.

Your
simple-minded, right-wing pronouncements from "on the mount"
are the epitome of silliness.

Only because you are so rigid in your thinking that you refuse to
consider the other side. The difference is that I can cite logical,
economical, and psychological reasoning to support my side.

In your mind, perhaps. The posts of yours you tout are bizarre.