"Michael Bryant" wrote in message
...
From: "T. Early"
You toss the word "neocon" about like a frisbee. Would you mind
saying what/who you think it refers to? I'm always wondering who's
in
that box and who isn't as far as you're concerned. For most
conservatives, it has a very definite meaning.
You're one. Not really conservative, but willing to support anyone
that gives
you a chance to strike back at your even less precisely-defined
notion of a
liberal/leftist.
In short, you're not going to answer my question but are going to
defer the answer by striking back with your own less precisely-defined
notion of a neo-conservative.
Here's a pretty good line (told to me by a Jewish friend BTW) that may
help: "con" is short for conservative, and "neo" is short for Jewish.
Not exact, but true in a lot of instances since the original
neo-conservatives were largely Jewish former liberals who jumped ship
when the excesses at that end of the spectrum became too much to bear.
But eschewing your diversionary question, what do you think of
Bush's stand on
the digusting depravity he's seen in the photos?
I realize that I'm feeding a straight line here, but isn't his stand
on this a no-brainer? But my opinion may not count since you'd have
a hard time finding me rationalizing true torture. I stick to
questioning your fast and loose definition of what constitutes
torture.