On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 13:16:27 -0400, Dave Hall wrote:

Much snipped

Maybe you're right. We should probably just develop a genetic virus
that kills only arabs. Is that high enough a standard for you?

This was the subject of a novel I read a few months ago. Don't remember the
name, but the premise was the same.

John H

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

John H wrote:

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 13:16:27 -0400, Dave Hall wrote:

Much snipped

Maybe you're right. We should probably just develop a genetic virus
that kills only arabs. Is that high enough a standard for you?

This was the subject of a novel I read a few months ago. Don't remember the
name, but the premise was the same.

John H

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


Gosh, Herring, I had no idea Classic Comix had expanded its coverage.

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 13:45:47 -0400, Dave Hall wrote:

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

If Chuck were not overly biased, even he would have to agree that your post was
well done.

John H

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

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 07:40:40 -0400, Dave Hall wrote:


You make a good point here. We probably should re-evauate our tactics.
Tanks and bombs probably aren't the answer. But some form of force is.
Before we can do that though, we have to loosen up on the idea that covert
operations are "sneaky" or "underhanded".

Not underhanded, just incredibly stupid. How do you think Saddam came to
power in the first place?

http://www.muslimedia.com/archives/f...s98/saddam.htm

Once Iraq becomes stable and the people taste what it's like to be self
governing, I can't see why they would prefer to be oppressed by a
fanatical fundamentalist religious fanatic. The terrorists are running
scared. They know as well as we do, that once their people taste freedom,
there will be no turning back, and their power base will evaporate.

And when Iran was once a democracy? What happened?

http://www.angelfire.com/home/iran/1953coup.html


We support a cadre of ruthless dictators as long as they share our
interests.

Like who?

Too numerous to name here, so a link:

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US...dictators.html


At the same time we talk about democracy and free
elections. The hypocracy is so shameful as to render our proclamations of
freedom utter nonsense.

We would prefer that all dictatorships go away and be replaced by
democratic governments. Unfortunately we don't have the right to force
this on people unless (as in the case in Iraq) that government poses a
potential threat to world stability and our safety. If the oppressive
dictatorship is relatively benign (They aren't researching WMD, killing
thousands of it's own citizens, or invading a neighboring country)

When did our foreign policy change?

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Bl...Hope_page.html

"thunder" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 11:01:46 -0400, mono sect wrote:

Looking at these numbers helps one to understand the wisdom of our
forefathers in creating the Electoral College system. The difference in
the vote count in just New York City might have elected Al Gore, in a
popular vote only system.

http://www.rosecity.net/al_gore/election_map.html

There's considerable blue on that map. If land could vote, but it can't,
so what's your point?

Inner city dwellers have are disproportionately Democrat and may be more
inclined to vote democrat due to being poor or an immigent. Then there is
Democrat run Preciencts that cannot account for missing ballots or why a
superviser was found with a voting machine in the trunk of her car!

What's my point? Inner city dwellers do not represent America, nor should
their vote have more influence than rural area's

There were several reasons our founding fathers set
up the Electoral College. One of them was to avoid partisan politics.

http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 07:33:59 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:


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.

The difference is we don't kill people for no reason.


Thus, you enunciate the basic flaw in your logic and thinking. You
assume that the terrorists who were involved in 9-11 "killed people for
no reason." That is not correct. The terrorists did (and do) kill for a
reason or reasons. That reason may not be justifed and rational to you
or me, but I assure you, it is to them.

They have an agenda. They have demands. But to kill innocent people to
get our attention to those demands is, IMHO barbaric and excessive.
Common sense should also tell you that if we let things like 9/11 give
them the attention that they demand, that it only validates their
methods, and empowers others to do the same thing.


Further, we do kill people for no reason, or at least, no acceptable
reason. If you think otherwise, you are very, very naive.

Cite examples please.


We didn't fly
airplanes into tall buildings to make a political point.

We don't have to; we have missiles and bombs we can fire off or drop
from altitude.

When have we ever fired missiles or dropped bombs to make the world
sit up and take notice to our political agenda?


If the
terrorists refuse to follow the terms of war as defined by the Geneva
convention, then they should be the ones responsible for the lives of
the people that they willingly place in harm's way.

Well, that's certainly an easy way out for us and a nice rationalization.

What other alternative is there? Either we both play by the same rules
or one of us is at a serious tactical disadvantage.


What your kind of thinking leads to is...more killing...on both sides.

The difference is, when we're done killing the enemy and making them
cry "uncle" the killing will stop. They will not stop killing until
they meet their objectives, which is the extermination of "infidels".
If we give in (weakness) to their demands, they will only make more.


It's so unfortunate we don't seem to have reliable intel or even
reliable Iraqis on the ground in their country, eh?


I wouldn't know, and neither do you. Neither one of us has a "need to
know".

Dave


Yeah, we do. We may not need to know "the intel," but we sure as hell
need to know if the intel our supposed leaders get is reliable and, if
it is, whether they pay attention to it, or whether they pursue an
idiotic political agenda in spite of reliable intel.

Just think what might have happened if we have the mass media network,
the internet, and satellite technology during WWII. There would 've
been the same uninformed civilian armchair quarterbacking. Sometimes,
we (think we) know too much. Maybe we should just let the people
involved do their jobs instead of throwing out constant criticism and
making false or inaccurate conjectures which do nothing by undermine
our ability.


You know, sort of
like the idiotic political agenda and warmongering the Bush
administration is pursuing.

When you don't know all the facts, and fall victim to the biased
ramblings of opposing sides with their own agendas, it's not hard to
come to that conclusion.

Dave

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 07:37:07 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 14:42:10 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

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.

Anyone can say that. No one is 100% in lock step with anyone's
political party.

As for the emotionally driven "writer
hacks," I suspect you are just jealous, as your writing skills are
rudimentary.

I am hardly "jealous". I at least have the integrity to report facts,


Dave, you wouldn't know a fact if it bit you on the ass.

Really? I'm not the one cutting and pasting biased political tripe and
passing it off as fact.

Your
simple-minded, right-wing pronouncements from "on the mount"
are the epitome of silliness.

Only because you are so rigid in your thinking that you refuse to
consider the other side. The difference is that I can cite logical,
economical, and psychological reasoning to support my side. All you
can do is offer up even more cut and paste vitriol laced opinions from
other morally bankrupt and intellectually dishonest writer hacks.


Dave

Harry,
Keep up the good work, you have Dave in the corner. I think I love you, you
are so witty and kewl, not stupid and ignorant like the right wing borg that
pollute this ng.


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 07:33:59 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:


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.

The difference is we don't kill people for no reason.


Thus, you enunciate the basic flaw in your logic and thinking. You
assume that the terrorists who were involved in 9-11 "killed people for
no reason." That is not correct. The terrorists did (and do) kill for a
reason or reasons. That reason may not be justifed and rational to you
or me, but I assure you, it is to them.

They have an agenda. They have demands. But to kill innocent people to
get our attention to those demands is, IMHO barbaric and excessive.
Common sense should also tell you that if we let things like 9/11 give
them the attention that they demand, that it only validates their
methods, and empowers others to do the same thing.


Further, we do kill people for no reason, or at least, no acceptable
reason. If you think otherwise, you are very, very naive.

Cite examples please.


We didn't fly
airplanes into tall buildings to make a political point.

We don't have to; we have missiles and bombs we can fire off or drop
from altitude.

When have we ever fired missiles or dropped bombs to make the world
sit up and take notice to our political agenda?


If the
terrorists refuse to follow the terms of war as defined by the Geneva
convention, then they should be the ones responsible for the lives of
the people that they willingly place in harm's way.

Well, that's certainly an easy way out for us and a nice rationalization.

What other alternative is there? Either we both play by the same rules
or one of us is at a serious tactical disadvantage.


What your kind of thinking leads to is...more killing...on both sides.

The difference is, when we're done killing the enemy and making them
cry "uncle" the killing will stop. They will not stop killing until
they meet their objectives, which is the extermination of "infidels".
If we give in (weakness) to their demands, they will only make more.


It's so unfortunate we don't seem to have reliable intel or even
reliable Iraqis on the ground in their country, eh?


I wouldn't know, and neither do you. Neither one of us has a "need to
know".

Dave


Yeah, we do. We may not need to know "the intel," but we sure as hell
need to know if the intel our supposed leaders get is reliable and, if
it is, whether they pay attention to it, or whether they pursue an
idiotic political agenda in spite of reliable intel.

Just think what might have happened if we have the mass media network,
the internet, and satellite technology during WWII. There would 've
been the same uninformed civilian armchair quarterbacking. Sometimes,
we (think we) know too much. Maybe we should just let the people
involved do their jobs instead of throwing out constant criticism and
making false or inaccurate conjectures which do nothing by undermine
our ability.


You know, sort of
like the idiotic political agenda and warmongering the Bush
administration is pursuing.

When you don't know all the facts, and fall victim to the biased
ramblings of opposing sides with their own agendas, it's not hard to
come to that conclusion.

Dave

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 12:08:27 -0400, thunder
wrote:

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 07:40:40 -0400, Dave Hall wrote:


You make a good point here. We probably should re-evauate our tactics.
Tanks and bombs probably aren't the answer. But some form of force is.
Before we can do that though, we have to loosen up on the idea that covert
operations are "sneaky" or "underhanded".

Not underhanded, just incredibly stupid. How do you think Saddam came to
power in the first place?

http://www.muslimedia.com/archives/f...s98/saddam.htm

Well, we have people here opposed to overt military action. The
alternative is covert military action.


Once Iraq becomes stable and the people taste what it's like to be self
governing, I can't see why they would prefer to be oppressed by a
fanatical fundamentalist religious fanatic. The terrorists are running
scared. They know as well as we do, that once their people taste freedom,
there will be no turning back, and their power base will evaporate.

And when Iran was once a democracy? What happened?

When you have a society which does not allow the right to own arms or
some other means to defend itself, it can easily be taken over by an
ambitious person with charisma, and the inside track to the military.
Many people can also be swayed to support someone by the promises of a
better life. Once that person seizes power, they are free to oppress
the people, establish a police state and rule by fear and intimidation



http://www.angelfire.com/home/iran/1953coup.html


We support a cadre of ruthless dictators as long as they share our
interests.

Like who?

Too numerous to name here, so a link:

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US...dictators.html


At the same time we talk about democracy and free
elections. The hypocracy is so shameful as to render our proclamations of
freedom utter nonsense.

We would prefer that all dictatorships go away and be replaced by
democratic governments. Unfortunately we don't have the right to force
this on people unless (as in the case in Iraq) that government poses a
potential threat to world stability and our safety. If the oppressive
dictatorship is relatively benign (They aren't researching WMD, killing
thousands of it's own citizens, or invading a neighboring country)

When did our foreign policy change?

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Bl...Hope_page.html

This site features the writing of someone who is so obviously left
biased that their objectivity is highly questionable. The author
borders on paranoid schizophrenia, as he tried to paint the picture of
the U.S. government looking for imaginary communists under every stone
in every country.

Communism WAS a legitimate threat. The human rights and economic
freedoms of the people under those rules were significantl;y less than
under our system of freedom and an open economy.

While we have historically adopted an "enemy of my enemy is my friend"
philosophy with regard to foreign relations, which has backfired in
our face (Iraq for example) no country in the world has done more to
advance the ideals of freedom and self determination than the U.S. I
challenge you to find any FACTUAL accounts to the contrary. The
democratic free market model is far superior to a socialist one, no
matter what Mr. Blum seems to think.

Dave

Dave Hall wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 07:33:59 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:


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.

The difference is we don't kill people for no reason.


Thus, you enunciate the basic flaw in your logic and thinking. You
assume that the terrorists who were involved in 9-11 "killed people for
no reason." That is not correct. The terrorists did (and do) kill for a
reason or reasons. That reason may not be justifed and rational to you
or me, but I assure you, it is to them.

They have an agenda. They have demands. But to kill innocent people to
get our attention to those demands is, IMHO barbaric and excessive.
Common sense should also tell you that if we let things like 9/11 give
them the attention that they demand, that it only validates their
methods, and empowers others to do the same thing.


Further, we do kill people for no reason, or at least, no acceptable
reason. If you think otherwise, you are very, very naive.

Cite examples please.


We didn't fly
airplanes into tall buildings to make a political point.

We don't have to; we have missiles and bombs we can fire off or drop
from altitude.

When have we ever fired missiles or dropped bombs to make the world
sit up and take notice to our political agenda?


If the
terrorists refuse to follow the terms of war as defined by the Geneva
convention, then they should be the ones responsible for the lives of
the people that they willingly place in harm's way.

Well, that's certainly an easy way out for us and a nice rationalization.

What other alternative is there? Either we both play by the same rules
or one of us is at a serious tactical disadvantage.


What your kind of thinking leads to is...more killing...on both sides.

The difference is, when we're done killing the enemy and making them
cry "uncle" the killing will stop. They will not stop killing until
they meet their objectives, which is the extermination of "infidels".
If we give in (weakness) to their demands, they will only make more.


It's so unfortunate we don't seem to have reliable intel or even
reliable Iraqis on the ground in their country, eh?


I wouldn't know, and neither do you. Neither one of us has a "need to
know".

Dave


Yeah, we do. We may not need to know "the intel," but we sure as hell
need to know if the intel our supposed leaders get is reliable and, if
it is, whether they pay attention to it, or whether they pursue an
idiotic political agenda in spite of reliable intel.

Just think what might have happened if we have the mass media network,
the internet, and satellite technology during WWII. There would 've
been the same uninformed civilian armchair quarterbacking. Sometimes,
we (think we) know too much. Maybe we should just let the people
involved do their jobs instead of throwing out constant criticism and
making false or inaccurate conjectures which do nothing by undermine
our ability.


Are you actually advocating that we should simply sit back and allow the
idiots and lunatics in the Bush Administration "carry on" with their
insane agenda without questioning or criticizing them? You're in a real
time warp here, Dave...you would have preferred to live in the old
Soviet Union.

One of the basic problems of the Bush Administration is that it does not
know how to do its job. It is incompetent.