Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#131
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#133
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 07:28:43 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote: 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. Who are you to declare that these policies are "wrong" By what objective criteria do you make this judgement call? Dave |
#134
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#135
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Dave Hall wrote:
I would not want to carpet bomb innocents either. But when the terrorists are so gutless as to hide behind them as human shields, what choice would we have? Some other choice, perhaps? By oozing down to the level of the terrorists (killing innocent civilians), we're no better than they are, and we certainly cannot claim any higher moral ground. If that's what we're left with, and if in terms of practicality, we kill lots of innocent civilians, too, we're not demonstrating much difference between us and those we go after. It's so unfortunate we don't seem to have reliable intel or even reliable Iraqis on the ground in their country, eh? |
#136
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Dave Hall wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 07:26:29 -0400, Harry Krause wrote: Dave Hall wrote: On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 22:27:18 -0400, "Bert Robbins" wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Dave Hall wrote: On 23 Jun 2004 15:22:13 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote: It was even simpler than that. I just applied a chain of simple logic based on the definitions previously provided. If "neo" is new, then if someone is a "neo"conservative, that implies that they were previously something else. The most common "other" ideology would be a liberal. Therefore, a "new" conservative would most likely be an "old" liberal. Binary thinking at its finest. Only two possibilities to consider. Sometimes that's all there is. Are you familiar with Occam's razor? Dave I am. Old William called for a minimum number of points *necessary*. For issues as complex as a worldwide Islamist insurgency, black or white ain't enough. 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 You mean, we should become what they are? No, we should be better at it. Dave Yeah, well, when you are trying to win the hearts and minds, as Bush keeps saying, that is NOT how you do it. |
#137
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Dave Hall wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 07:28:43 -0400, Harry Krause wrote: 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. Who are you to declare that these policies are "wrong" By what objective criteria do you make this judgement call? Dave You've been living in a cave the last year? |
#138
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#139
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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? 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". Dave |
#140
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|