"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