Is Al Gore running for something?
What support does this person mean?

This anonymous poster must hail from the inner city, juding from this
paragraph:

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.

Suppose that's why when Al Gore went head to head with GWB in the last election
he got the most votes? According to the "artical" there must have been an
"illigentamate" vote count in "AlGore's"
favor. Either the greatest number of people in America are inner-city high
school dropouts, or the poster should consider going "pack" to the source of
this drivel with some serious questions.

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.

Gould 0738 wrote:
Is Al Gore running for something?
What support does this person mean?

This anonymous poster must hail from the inner city, juding from this
paragraph:

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.

Suppose that's why when Al Gore went head to head with GWB in the last election
he got the most votes? According to the "artical" there must have been an
"illigentamate" vote count in "AlGore's"
favor. Either the greatest number of people in America are inner-city high
school dropouts, or the poster should consider going "pack" to the source of
this drivel with some serious questions.




I really wonder sometimes what the future of this country will be, with
so many simple-minded, semi-literate right-wingers running loose.

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

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.

On 23 Jun 2004 15:09:55 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

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! :-)

And your point is?

I see you failed to address the questions that I posed, or bothered to
counter the idea that a liberal calling a conservative "rigid" or of
"binary thinking" is no more credible than a conservative claiming
that liberals are incapable of making decisions because they become
mired in the infinite shades of gray that they assign to most
situations.

It's all a matter of perspective.

Dave

Binary thinking at its finest. Only two possibilities to consider.


Are you sure you want to describe this process as "thinking?"

Dave Hall wrote:
Sometimes that's all there is. Are you familiar with Occam's razor?

Yep. Very good Dave. Either you're with us, or you're against us...
intensely paranoid psychosis, logically justified.

DSK

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". We've lost more lives in one campaign in WWII than
we have in the whole Iraq war to date. Yet by the logic of some of you
guys on the left, we probably should have abandoned our effort in WWII
as well.

No one (At least no one with an ounce of realism) claimed going into
this war on terrorism, that it would be easy. Our enemy is hard to
identify, and hides behind the protection of many contributors. Should
this mean that we should do nothing? Or should we try to "reason" with
people who have openly stated that their goal is to drive western
culture from their lands, and ultimately from the face of the earth?
What bargaining chip could we hold for them? What concessions could we
offer? What other course of action would be preferable to the one
which our leader has selected?

Did you even think that we might need to establish a base of operation
so that we can carry on the next phase of this campaign? There are a
lot of smoking guns in Saudi Arabia, and in Iran. If we were to
seriously pursue this, we would jeopardize our oil imports as well as
present a logistical problem. Having Iraq for both substitute oil and
as a point of deployment makes strategic and tactical sense.

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.

Rigid personality disorder, eh?

No, it's called doing what's right, even if it makes some people
uncomfortable in the short term. If we don't fight the battle now, our
children will have to, and the odds will be less in our favor.


Dave

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.


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?





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.

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.

Webster is the one with the two possibilities.

John H

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