|
|
|
|
Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in the teeth on al-Qaida Saddamn links
On 23 Jun 2004 17:32:26 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:
And your point is?
I see you failed to address the questions that I posed,
There was no need, Dave.
The question was, "Is neo-conservatism an absolute and binary philosophy?"
Since there are few absolutes in the world, the answer is no.
Rather than identify with the classic or traditional conservatives, (about whom
I said some respectful things), you elected to defend neo-conservatism.
No, I postulated that what you interpret as "binary thinking" is the
result of your liberal bias. Taking it a bit further, it is my
assertion that the whole term "neo conservative" is a liberal attempt
to identify that which they cannot comprehend, and yet another
negative label which they can use to demonize those who they cannot
agree with. Sort of like "Hate Radio".
While defending neo-conservatism against my charges of polarized perceptions
and self vindicating philosophies, you chose to use a series of absolutist,
binary, rebuttals.
How are so-called "neo conservatives" any more polarizing than their
liberal counterparts?
If I tell you that 2+2=4, are you going to accuse me of binary
thinking? Sometimes the answers really are that simple. In the cases
where they aren't, conservatives tend to use logic and rationalization
to defend their position. Liberals tend to let emotions cloud their
objectivity. When you use an emotional basis for arriving at a
conclusion, it's easy to accuse the rational thinker of being "rigid".
That's similar to posting, "Whuyt the heck do yu mein I dont kno how to spiel?"
The body of your rebuttal carries the opposing argument. No point to kick you
any further when you're down.
I'm far from down..... I'm still waiting for you to defend your
claims, and provide examples of this so-called "binary thinking", or
at least answer my original questions.
Dave
|