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


Excellent example of binary thinking, Dave. The only two options are 1) trying
to talk to them or 2) abandoning all principles when conducting the war.

And you say that neoconservatism isn't binary?

Let's think about the choices we have. You could be:

A. With us, in that you support the elimination of world-wide
terrorism by whatever means necessary.

B. Against us, which means that you feel that active terrorist groups
killing innocent civilians is acceptable behavior in a civilized
world.

C. Neutral. You want to hide your head in the sand and pretend the
problem will fix itself.

So which are you?

Dave

I'm stunned. Not one of the choices you offered.

According to what you just wrote:

If I am not in favor of carpet bombing the entire middle East with
thermo-nuclear devices (an example of "any means neccessary" to eliminate
terrorism), then my only other choice is to declare that
active terror groups killing innocent civilians........(as opposed to high tech
super powers with thermo nuclear bombs killing innocent civilians)......is
absolutely OK.

Doesn't work for me.

I'm in favor of capturing or killing the individual criminal *******s involved
in terrorist activities, by any reasonable means that won't result in our
creating far more innocent civilian casualties than the
terrorists have already.

I'm not in favor of invading our way through a check list of third world
countries under the guise of "fighting terrorism". (But I bet you already knew
that)

Yes, I know that neocons are all about limiting choices. But you guys have a
ways to go in this country before you can presume to tell me how I must think,
(choice A or choice B).

So doing nothing is preferable to what we're doing now?

Binary.

Excludes the possibility of doing anyting "different" than what we're doing
now, and assumes that our present course is the only possible alternative to
"doing nothing."

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!

There is no one dictionary that is always correct.

Binary neocon thinking: A given dictionary will always be right or wrong.

Somebody or some thing will have all the unquestionable answers, so the only
challenge is to pick the right somebody or something.

On 24 Jun 2004 13:57:37 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

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?

Well, they just mislabeled themselves. They are really 'neocenturions'. Anyone
who knows anything about etymology could explain that.

John H

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

On 24 Jun 2004 14:27:12 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

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!

There is no one dictionary that is always correct.

Binary neocon thinking: A given dictionary will always be right or wrong.

Somebody or some thing will have all the unquestionable answers, so the only
challenge is to pick the right somebody or something.

But the M-W is definitely wrong in this case, true? How does one determine which
is the right source? Do you just search until you find a source that supports
your position?

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!

John H wrote:
On 24 Jun 2004 14:27:12 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

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!

There is no one dictionary that is always correct.

Binary neocon thinking: A given dictionary will always be right or wrong.

Somebody or some thing will have all the unquestionable answers, so the only
challenge is to pick the right somebody or something.

But the M-W is definitely wrong in this case, true? How does one determine which
is the right source? Do you just search until you find a source that supports
your position?

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.

But the M-W is definitely wrong in this case, true? How does one determine
which
is the right source? Do you just search until you find a source that supports
your position?

Most people will, indeed, search just long enough to find one source or another
that supports their position and hang on for dear life against all evidence or
opposition.

Those more interested in seeking truth will
consider multiple perspectives, drawing comparisons between what others have
observed and personal, contemporary observations. The mentally adept often seek
out contradictory opinions and examine them carefully for any elements of
greater or lesser truth they may contain.
The self righteous and intellectually insecure fearfully eschew dissenting
ideas.

Much depends on motivation. Some want to appear "right" (or righteous) at any
cost. Others want to get closer to the unvarnished truth, even if it ultimately
requires changing a long-held prinicple or considering a new idea.

No single source is an authority on everything. Even dictionaries are compiled
and edited by committees that often make arbitrary or underinformed decisions.
That is one of the reasons for consulting multiple sources, as the odds of
several editorial boards making identical arbitrary or underinformed decisions
are rather low.

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 24 Jun 2004 13:57:37 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

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?

How do you know that web site, which you are so enamored with, was not
created as fear propaganda for guys like you who look for such
conspiracies. Think about it Chuck, if this was a clandestine plot by
some sinister government insiders, do you think they'd let their plans
out in the open?

I do not know any people who consider themselves conservatives (I am
one) who apply the term "neo conservative" to their ideology.


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.

It is by your perception that so-called "neo cons" exhibit binary
thinking. And since the bible says let those without sin, cast the
first stone, you have no right to accuse others of a condition that
you, yourself are guilty of.


My point is that there really isn't such a thing as a neo con. The
term was created by the (liberally biased) media to assign to those
more outspoken members of the conservative ideology in order to
separate and demonize them. Less outspoken conservatives offer less
vocal resistance to revisionist liberal doctrine, and their apathy is
a liberal's best friend.



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"?

If you remove the emotional slant that forces you to deny the
potential truth in what they say, then yes, it is rationalization. If
Hannity reports on democrats who were caught on open mike commenting
that the democratic party would be better off if the economy remained
poor, or if he plays each and every sound byte from John Kerry and
other democrats who favored force against Iraq 2 or three years ago,
but now speak out against it (Tapes have an unlimited memory), is this
not an indication of flip-flopping? If he plays each and every
emotionally charged, and fact absent banter that passes for an Al Gore
speech, or Ted Kennedy improperly accusing (without merit) that the
president concocted the war for political gain, or Howard Dean
speculating that the president knew about 9/11 before it happened, or
reading a memo from Terry McAuliffe outlining DNC smear strategy, is
this not rational, and logical reporting? Everything he cites is a
matter of public record. You may argue the context or try to apply
that infinite shades of gray defense, but these statements are not
lies. I check each and every one.

And I still have yet to hear one thing "Hateful" utter from Hannity's
mouth. If calling liberals to the carpet for their actions is hateful
to you, then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on the
definition of "hate".

You just don't like the other side to have a voice. Sorry to break it
to you, but the New York Times (Jayson Blair) and NPR do not tell the
whole truth about very much political, as they have their own slant
and agenda.

For that, Fox News is a blessing (I can hear Harry puking). Yes, Fox
is biased to the right, but if you take what they say along side what
NPR says you can make a better informed decision, assuming you're
objective enough to accept both sides.


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)

I know, liberals do not believe in "Evil" (And without evil there is
no point of reference to determine "good"), so it's all too easy for
you to dismiss this as simpleton thinking. I just wonder what it will
take to change your mind.......

In the meantime, your assignment is to provide those "choices", so
that we can consider their practicality and chance for success.


Dave