Harry,
One day you will figure out that no one is interested in your opinion or
advice. As far as I am concerned you are a low-brain output buttwipe. Save
your opinions and advice for those who care what you think.


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
jim-- wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
jim-- wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
John H wrote:
a J.
Just inside the gate, on the right, on a trailer, was a Parker
2520XL
named the
"Yo Ho." Don't know if it's yours or not, but it looks much like
it.

I know where my boats are.


Parked
where it is, it's going to collect a lot of dust from the
limestone
and
clay as
people drive around there. I'd be tempted to put it further away
from
the main
drag.

What tempts you doesn't interest me.

Tell me, John, do you post this kind of information in the hopes
that
one of the lesser brain output types here will engage in a bit of
vandalism?

Perhaps I should publish your home address, telephone number,
license
plate numbers (on your motorbike, too), and your SSN. Would you like
that?

The thing is, I wouldn't do that to you. But you would do it to me.

And that's one of the big differences between us. I keep my disputes
here here. You, on the other hand, are out to cause damage.

You're a lowlife, John Herring.



Basskisser, where are you when you are needed? Talk about wild
assumptions....Krause is making some doozies.

Krause, you are one hell of a paranoid screwed up human. I truly
hope
you
get help....and soon.



How's your wife, Dennis?

I rest my case.




Dennis, one of these days you may figure out that I simply am not
interested in your opinions of me or your advice to me. As far as I am
concerned, you are a low-brain output, right-wing buttwiper. Save your
opinions and advice for those who care what you think.

It is so much fun to watch you, NYOB and jim-- make him jump around like a
brainless marionette. One would think he would catch on, but no, he just
keeps on jumping.

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 19:17:15 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote:

Harry is desperately seeking attention, even if some calls him a
cocksucker,
he still likes it because he is getting the attention he doesn't get in
the
real world.

What kind of person would fabricate a fictious degree for the woman he
married? Medically speaking, it would have to be one sick puppy. ; )


"John H" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 14:40:48 -0400, Harry Krause

wrote:

John H wrote:
a J.
Just inside the gate, on the right, on a trailer, was a Parker
2520XL
named the
"Yo Ho." Don't know if it's yours or not, but it looks much like it.

I know where my boats are.


Parked
where it is, it's going to collect a lot of dust from the limestone
and
clay as
people drive around there. I'd be tempted to put it further away
from
the main
drag.

What tempts you doesn't interest me.

Tell me, John, do you post this kind of information in the hopes that
one of the lesser brain output types here will engage in a bit of
vandalism?

Perhaps I should publish your home address, telephone number, license
plate numbers (on your motorbike, too), and your SSN. Would you like
that?

The thing is, I wouldn't do that to you. But you would do it to me.

And that's one of the big differences between us. I keep my disputes
here here. You, on the other hand, are out to cause damage.

You're a lowlife, John Herring.

Are we a little paranoid, Harry? You seemed to have no problem with the
common
knowledge of where your boat was last year. If I uncovered a big
secret,
unintentionally, then I apologize.

I honestly believe there is no one here, at least amongst those whom
you
call
names, who gives a rat's ass about where 'either' of your boats are
parked.

I'll ask my buddy, the 'Linda J' owner, to keep an eye on it. He goes
out
of
Breezy about three times a week. If it gets vandalized, I'll tell you.
If
you
are honestly worried about it, then you've got it in a good place. The
folks
doing the bottom painting and cleaning are right close.

Lastly, it seems that the 'lesser brain output types' to whom you refer
are very
supportive of you. Why would they want to vandalize your boat?

Maybe, if you feel people hate you so much, you could try being a
little
nicer -
you know, not call so many people so many horrid names.

Just an idea.

John H

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

Notice his lack of response.

John H

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

Please Chuckie, whats your definition of a neocon?

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
FASCINATING DEMONSTRATION

of conservbative logic.

1. Make an assumption
2. Declare you own assumption "true"
2. (a) Make additional assumptions that rely on the truth of the previous
assumption.
3. Decide your newly discovered truth is holy writ and become self
righteous in
its promulgation.

Thanks for sharing!

Dave Hall wrote:

So, judging from your definition, a "new" conservative is someone who
used to be something else but is now conservative. Since the
ideological opposite of conservative is liberal, then following that
logic, the conclusion can be drawn that a "new" conservative is most
likely an "old" liberal. A former liberal who now, after having to
move out of their parent's house, getting a job of their own,
starting a family, and realizing how the world really works, has now
matured and come to the realization that liberal idealism is a joke,
which tries to force equality where it can't exist naturally.
Consequently, their viewpoint have changed to embrace what traditional
conservative values are.

So a "neo conservative" is a liberal convert. Seems to be a lot of
those lately. Liberalism is having a tough time holding on to people
over the age of 30. Unless, of course, they haven't yet achieved
anything, and still look to the government for "help"......

Dave

Please Chuckie, whats your definition of a neocon?

(Since you asked)

Rather than a person who is newly conservative, (which a neocon may or may not
be), a neocon is a person who subscribes to the "new" conservatism.

The new conseratism is a black vs. white philosophy. All things are either very
good, or very wicked. The new conservatism, like all philosophies, defines its
own values as the "very good" values and all others as the "very wicked". All
values are extreme in neoconservatism. The Commander in Chief (they seldom
refer to him anymore as the president) is God's Chosen Leader for the American
People, and those who oppose or even question Him are aiding and abetting our
rapidly increasing number of enemies.

Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, Savage, and others epitomize the voices of
neoconservatism. It is a narrow minded and hateful, self congratulatory and
autovindicated system of belief.

However, before all four conservatives who will even bother to read this pick
up the nearest flame-thrower and come back with the moral-equivalency excuses
about liberals do this, this, and this.......

Not all conservatives are neocons. There are a handful of traditional
conservatives left in the world. The traditional conservatives are shocked at
the current size of the federal government and the dismal state of government
fiscal affairs. The traditional conservatives respect dissent, (recognizing
that at times it is their own voices that will be those of dissent, rather than
majority) and are not trapped by binary thinking. I have a very high regard for
traditonal, thoughtful, contemplative, rational conservatives.

The neo con says, "You're either with me, or against me!" The traditional
conservative says, "We either agree, or we need to work out a solution that
will be at least somewhat acceptable to all sides. It could be that neither of
us is *absolutely* right, and that there is more truth in the middle than on
either extreme."

So, no. A neocon isn't somebody who "used to be a liberal but saw the light".
(That's a fairly binary concept, that all people are either liberal or
conservative, anyway). A neocon is a binary thinker who used to be a liberal,
moderate, or traditional conservative but who has been blinded by the
propaganda and bulldung. Not exactly the same thing. :-)

(You asked)

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 13:41:27 -0400, John H
wrote:

On 22 Jun 2004 14:39:14 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

FASCINATING DEMONSTRATION

of conservbative logic.

1. Make an assumption
2. Declare you own assumption "true"
2. (a) Make additional assumptions that rely on the truth of the previous
assumption.
3. Decide your newly discovered truth is holy writ and become self righteous in
its promulgation.

Thanks for sharing!

Dave Hall wrote:

So, judging from your definition, a "new" conservative is someone who
used to be something else but is now conservative. Since the
ideological opposite of conservative is liberal, then following that
logic, the conclusion can be drawn that a "new" conservative is most
likely an "old" liberal. A former liberal who now, after having to
move out of their parent's house, getting a job of their own,
starting a family, and realizing how the world really works, has now
matured and come to the realization that liberal idealism is a joke,
which tries to force equality where it can't exist naturally.
Consequently, their viewpoint have changed to embrace what traditional
conservative values are.

So a "neo conservative" is a liberal convert. Seems to be a lot of
those lately. Liberalism is having a tough time holding on to people
over the age of 30. Unless, of course, they haven't yet achieved
anything, and still look to the government for "help"......

Dave

Maybe Dave just used a fairly standard and respected source for his definition,
Meriam-Webster's dictionary, which defines a neoconservative: a former liberal
espousing political conservatism.


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.

Of course there is always a few exceptions to this (A disclaimer for
guys like Doug K, who like to construct strawman rebuttals to prove
those few exceptions, as if that invalidates the rule).


So, his initial assumption was pretty darn correct. However, since Webster's
does not put any time reference in its definition, the assumption that the
liberal who switched must be old is just that - an assumption.

The term "old" does not refer so much to a particular age, as it does
to a previous position.


There are both young and old neoconservatives.

It's never too late to wake up and smell the coffee ;-)


Many of us, during high school
and college, considered ourselves "liberal," but woke up and realized that the
rhetoric dealing with helping the poor was just that. The name of the game is
power, whether the clothing is sheep's or not.

Experience and cynicism will do that to a person. I was very
idealistic when I was in school. Life's hard lessons soon evaporated
that.

Dave

On 23 Jun 2004 02:44:27 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Please Chuckie, whats your definition of a neocon?

(Since you asked)

Rather than a person who is newly conservative, (which a neocon may or may not
be), a neocon is a person who subscribes to the "new" conservatism.

The new conseratism is a black vs. white philosophy. All things are either very
good, or very wicked. The new conservatism, like all philosophies, defines its
own values as the "very good" values and all others as the "very wicked". All
values are extreme in neoconservatism.

And you gave ME a lecture for making assumptions? This definition is
nothing more than liberal justification for their demonization of
those who refuse to bend before their "enlightened" viewpoint. It's
not that so-called "neocons" resort to binary thinking, it's just that
they stand firm in their resolve. They make the hard decisions rather
than engaging in endless debates from infinite angles.

Not all issues are good/bad black/white etc, but there are those which
are, and they need to be dealt with accordingly. Trying to turn an
essentially black/white issue into infinite shades of gray does
nothing more than invite endless debates on semantics, and hopelessly
bogs down the main issue with all sorts of "baggage". All of which
results in the inability to reach consensus and arrive at a definitive
decision. Guys like John Kerry who constantly waffle back and forth
and refuse to define their position by anything other than the
political winds are good examples of this.

The Commander in Chief (they seldom
refer to him anymore as the president) is God's Chosen Leader for the American
People, and those who oppose or even question Him are aiding and abetting our
rapidly increasing number of enemies.

So you are of the opinion that pundit hacks like Michael Moore(on)
spewing their ever public dissent in a world forum, does not undermine
our efforts and by extension emboldens our enemies? Do you not agree
that despite our internal differences, that we should still attempt to
present a united front? Is the idea of fighting terrorism so repugnant
to the left, that denouncing it in a public forum is more important
than defending America?

Or is it possible that you do not agree that the people responsible
for terrorism are our real enemies? Yea, I know, liberals do not
believe in true evil. Liberals believe that "bad" people are they way
they are due to some social or environmental injustice. Maybe we
should just send them money and some really good drugs and the problem
will just go away on its own.......

Dave

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. Rigid personality disorder, eh?

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On 23 Jun 2004 02:44:27 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Please Chuckie, whats your definition of a neocon?

(Since you asked)

Rather than a person who is newly conservative, (which a neocon may or
may not
be), a neocon is a person who subscribes to the "new" conservatism.

The new conseratism is a black vs. white philosophy. All things are
either very
good, or very wicked. The new conservatism, like all philosophies,
defines its
own values as the "very good" values and all others as the "very wicked".
All
values are extreme in neoconservatism.

And you gave ME a lecture for making assumptions? This definition is
nothing more than liberal justification for their demonization of
those who refuse to bend before their "enlightened" viewpoint. It's
not that so-called "neocons" resort to binary thinking, it's just that
they stand firm in their resolve. They make the hard decisions rather
than engaging in endless debates from infinite angles.

I call it taking debate into the minutia in order to bore people into losing
interest, thus becoming apathetic to what moral change is in store. The
Impeached Ones defense attorney's were great at taking each and every piece
of evidence and twisting it until interest faded. The impression would be
defeat but really it was just people tuned out. Liberals have a way with
over analyzing the obvious. At some point the obvious becomes insulting.


Not all issues are good/bad black/white etc, but there are those which
are, and they need to be dealt with accordingly. Trying to turn an
essentially black/white issue into infinite shades of gray does
nothing more than invite endless debates on semantics, and hopelessly
bogs down the main issue with all sorts of "baggage". All of which
results in the inability to reach consensus and arrive at a definitive
decision. Guys like John Kerry who constantly waffle back and forth
and refuse to define their position by anything other than the
political winds are good examples of this.

The Commander in Chief (they seldom
refer to him anymore as the president) is God's Chosen Leader for the
American
People, and those who oppose or even question Him are aiding and abetting
our
rapidly increasing number of enemies.

So you are of the opinion that pundit hacks like Michael Moore(on)
spewing their ever public dissent in a world forum, does not undermine
our efforts and by extension emboldens our enemies? Do you not agree
that despite our internal differences, that we should still attempt to
present a united front? Is the idea of fighting terrorism so repugnant
to the left, that denouncing it in a public forum is more important
than defending America?

Liberals don't see the bigger picture, they live for the moment. What ever
they can do to win pack power that Bush won illigentamately from AlGore, the
sooner they can raise taxes and spend your money on them selves and their
base. I read an artical that claimed AlGore's support comes mainly from
inner city high school drop outs. If this is true, is it no wonder why the
Democrat Party is 'bluest' around the big cities?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/vote2000/cbc/map.htm


Or is it possible that you do not agree that the people responsible
for terrorism are our real enemies? Yea, I know, liberals do not
believe in true evil. Liberals believe that "bad" people are they way
they are due to some social or environmental injustice. Maybe we
should just send them money and some really good drugs and the problem
will just go away on its own.......

With Saddamn is was the fact he got away with killing a 10 year old school
mate.


Dave

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

"mono sect" wrote in message
...

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On 23 Jun 2004 02:44:27 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Please Chuckie, whats your definition of a neocon?

(Since you asked)

Rather than a person who is newly conservative, (which a neocon may or
may not
be), a neocon is a person who subscribes to the "new" conservatism.

The new conseratism is a black vs. white philosophy. All things are
either very
good, or very wicked. The new conservatism, like all philosophies,
defines its
own values as the "very good" values and all others as the "very
wicked".
All
values are extreme in neoconservatism.

And you gave ME a lecture for making assumptions? This definition is
nothing more than liberal justification for their demonization of
those who refuse to bend before their "enlightened" viewpoint. It's
not that so-called "neocons" resort to binary thinking, it's just that
they stand firm in their resolve. They make the hard decisions rather
than engaging in endless debates from infinite angles.

I call it taking debate into the minutia in order to bore people into
losing
interest, thus becoming apathetic to what moral change is in store. The
Impeached Ones defense attorney's were great at taking each and every
piece
of evidence and twisting it until interest faded. The impression would be
defeat but really it was just people tuned out. Liberals have a way with
over analyzing the obvious. At some point the obvious becomes insulting.


Not all issues are good/bad black/white etc, but there are those which
are, and they need to be dealt with accordingly. Trying to turn an
essentially black/white issue into infinite shades of gray does
nothing more than invite endless debates on semantics, and hopelessly
bogs down the main issue with all sorts of "baggage". All of which
results in the inability to reach consensus and arrive at a definitive
decision. Guys like John Kerry who constantly waffle back and forth
and refuse to define their position by anything other than the
political winds are good examples of this.

The Commander in Chief (they seldom
refer to him anymore as the president) is God's Chosen Leader for the
American
People, and those who oppose or even question Him are aiding and
abetting
our
rapidly increasing number of enemies.

So you are of the opinion that pundit hacks like Michael Moore(on)
spewing their ever public dissent in a world forum, does not undermine
our efforts and by extension emboldens our enemies? Do you not agree
that despite our internal differences, that we should still attempt to
present a united front? Is the idea of fighting terrorism so repugnant
to the left, that denouncing it in a public forum is more important
than defending America?

Liberals don't see the bigger picture, they live for the moment. What ever
they can do to win pack power that Bush won illigentamately from AlGore,
the
sooner they can raise taxes and spend your money on them selves and their
base. I read an artical that claimed AlGore's support comes mainly from
inner city high school drop outs. If this is true, is it no wonder why the
Democrat Party is 'bluest' around the big cities?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/vote2000/cbc/map.htm


Or is it possible that you do not agree that the people responsible
for terrorism are our real enemies? Yea, I know, liberals do not
believe in true evil. Liberals believe that "bad" people are they way
they are due to some social or environmental injustice. Maybe we
should just send them money and some really good drugs and the problem
will just go away on its own.......

With Saddamn is was the fact he got away with killing a 10 year old school
mate.


Dave

Too rich!

All from the same post:

It's
not that so-called "neocons" resort to binary thinking,

Followed by:

This definition is
nothing more than liberal justification for their demonization of
those who refuse to bend before their "enlightened" viewpoint.

and

They make the hard decisions rather
than engaging in endless debates from infinite angles.

and

Trying to turn an
essentially black/white issue into infinite shades of gray does
nothing more than invite endless debates on semantics, and hopelessly
bogs down the main issue with all sorts of "baggage".

and

Is the idea of fighting terrorism so repugnant
to the left, that denouncing it in a public forum is more important
than defending America?

and

Or is it possible that you do not agree that the people responsible
for terrorism are our real enemies? Yea, I know, liberals do not
believe in true evil. Liberals believe that "bad" people are they way
they are due to some social or environmental injustice. Maybe we
should just send them money and some really good drugs and the problem
will just go away on its own.......

Ta Da! :-)