Dave Hall wrote:

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 12:53:49 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 08:08:13 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:
it's just that
they stand firm in their resolve. They make the hard decisions rather
than engaging in endless debates from infinite angles.

Even when their assumptions are wrong and events prove their thinking is
leading to one disaster after another.

No one has yet to prove that those decisions were wrong (your biased
and ill-informed opinions do not count), or that these decisions have
been a "disaster".

Bush's "war against terrorism" is a fraud and a disaster, no matter how
you and the other binaries try to spin it.

I'm still waiting for you (or anyone else) to substantiate that claim
with something other than biased, hate-filled rhetoric, opinion and
conjecture.



What you call "Bush's stupidity" may very well be a cleverly organized
and well thought out effort. 20 years from now, and we'll look back a
bit differently than we are now.


Are you competing for the "Today's Laugh" prize?

No, I don't have a chance. You've got that one in the bag.



Rigid personality disorder, eh?

No, it's called doing what's right, even if it makes some people
uncomfortable in the short term.

There's nothing right about Bush policies, except, of course, that they
are mostly extremely right...wing.

So doing nothing is preferable to what we're doing now? Maybe you'd
rather send Al Qaeda a case of French wine and ask them nicely to not
fly any more planes into our buildings?

Dave



Uh, when your policies are wrong, and you keep on promulgating them, and
they keep on delivering death and destruction, and you keep on
promulgating them, then perhaps it is time to come up with some new
policies.

Charles wrote in message ...
Harry Krause wrote:

jim-- wrote:

tug, tug...yank, yank....dance for me Krause, I am your puppet master. LOL!



You keep repeating that, crap-for-brains, but only you and your circle
jerk of righties believe it, and only because most of you are dumb as
doorknobs.


In a way, krause is about as big an idiot as b'asskisser. Deny, deny, deny.

-- Charlie

What a dumb ass.

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
Charles wrote in message
...
Harry Krause wrote:

jim-- wrote:

tug, tug...yank, yank....dance for me Krause, I am your puppet
master. LOL!



You keep repeating that, crap-for-brains, but only you and your circle
jerk of righties believe it, and only because most of you are dumb as
doorknobs.


In a way, krause is about as big an idiot as b'asskisser. Deny, deny,
deny.

-- Charlie

What a dumb ass.

We finally agree on something....Krause certainly is a dumb ass.

basskisser wrote:

Charles wrote in message ...
Harry Krause wrote:

jim-- wrote:

tug, tug...yank, yank....dance for me Krause, I am your puppet master. LOL!



You keep repeating that, crap-for-brains, but only you and your circle
jerk of righties believe it, and only because most of you are dumb as
doorknobs.


In a way, krause is about as big an idiot as b'asskisser. Deny, deny, deny.

-- Charlie

What a dumb ass.

My ass is dumb, but at least it's located on my backside. Yours is
between your ears.

-- Charlie

On 24 Jun 2004 02:27:49 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

For a couple of good reasons.

1) Many of the people who describe themselves as "neoconservatives" have never
been liberals.

2) Other dictionaries disagree with MW.


Nothing gets the rocks off like a fantasy that liberals are going over to your
side in droves, I know, but that's not what the term
means in US politics.

In fact, why
don't we use the definition that m-w.com has for neoconservative just to
make it easier for everyone to stay on the same page.


Which dictionary is the one we should all rely on for accuracy?
John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

Netsock wrote:

Gould,

It is unfortunate that you have chosen the path of feeding trolls, and
posting off-topic.

I always thought you had good input on boating related threads, but my
rules, are my rules...

*ploink*

LOL !!!

-- Charlie

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 06:37:30 -0400, "Netsock" wrote:

You too Dave...

*ploink*

Netsock, you have violated the spam rules once too often.

"Ploink"

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

John H wrote:
On 24 Jun 2004 02:27:49 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

For a couple of good reasons.

1) Many of the people who describe themselves as "neoconservatives" have never
been liberals.

2) Other dictionaries disagree with MW.


Nothing gets the rocks off like a fantasy that liberals are going over to your
side in droves, I know, but that's not what the term
means in US politics.

In fact, why
don't we use the definition that m-w.com has for neoconservative just to
make it easier for everyone to stay on the same page.


Which dictionary is the one we should all rely on for accuracy?
John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!


If this is an example of your "thinking ability," Herring, you really
shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a classroom. English is not a dead
language. The meanings of words change or evolve. The current meaning of
"neoconservative" has evolved over the last decade, and is as the
Chuckster offered here. It obviously supercedes whatever out-of-date
dictionary you might be consulting.

And, as for "which" dictionary we should rely upon for accuracy, as an
etymologist, I suggest there is no such dictionary. I own many
dictionaries, including several editions of the OED, and when I want to
really mess around with words, I might consult a dozen hard-copy
dictionaries and several on-line sources, including the reasonably
up-to-date electronic OED.

Word play is not your game, Herring. I don't know what is...perhaps you
have a future as a Southern Baptist evangelist.

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

Tell that to the confused liberals over at the Project for the New American
Century.
They proudly use the term "neoconservative" as self description. Repeatedly.
Next failing argument, please?


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?

So, we have now abandoned the attempt to dispute the absolute and binary
characteristics of neoconservatism and switched to the "but you guys do it
too!" defense? I assume you are conceding my point.

If I tell you that 2+2=4, are you going to accuse me of binary
thinking? Sometimes the answers really are that simple.

They're always that simple, if you don't count any higher than two.

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.

Funny. Just to show you how confused I am, I didn't think that all the
hysterical, name-calling, agitating freaks on the radio
(Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, et al) were liberals. These fools are the
spokespeople
for huge numbers of people who like to call themselves conservatives. Like
clockwork,
these characters rattle off "talking points"
and withing 48 hours hundreds of thousands of sheeple are repeating them, word
for word as if they were original ideas.
They even repeat the hateful insults about liberals. Can that be defined as the
use of
"logic and rationalization"?

When you use an emotional basis for arriving at a
conclusion, it's easy to accuse the rational thinker of being "rigid".



Rational thinkers don't confuse all choices with a cosmic battle between "good"
(most like ones' self, of course) and "evil" (not like ones' self).

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.