"Michael Bryant" wrote in message
...
From: "T. Early"
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.
No, I'm pointing out that your constant use of the term "liberal" is
even less
preceisely-defined. Why do you neo-cons always invent or create
words when you
can't defend your original concepts?
Do me a favor here MB, and I'm going to follow up on it. Google T.
Early as author in rec.radio. shortwave, and search for the term
liberal. See how many times I've used the term (not how many times
posts that I've replied to have used it), and then let's discuss
"constant use." Maybe then we can discuss your consistent
misstatements here (such as that whopper). BTW, I acknowledge calling
Al Franken a liberal and referring to NPR, the Washington Post, and NY
Times as liberal--- over the course of -lots- of posts. Mea Culpa on
those controversial statements.
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.
Duh. Neo is a prefix meaning "near." Has zip, nada, zillch to do
with Jews.
More invention for dramatic license? You can really spin those
homilies....
It's a Joke!!!!! Doh!
BTW, "neo" as a prefix means "new." Most of these folks were liberals
in the 70s and early 80s. You might want to reassess your view on the
"neo-con" concept.
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.
So your argument boils down to "It's not torture"?
No, my "argument" on this issue has pretty consistently been that the
use of the word "torture" in this newsgroup (mostly, I think, by you)
is designed to be politically inflammatory and is directly at odds
with most reputable coverage of the situation-- which consistently
uses terms like "abuse" as opposed to "torture," even where the
sources are not that administration-friendly. From what I have read
recently, there is stuff on the way that comes a lot closer to what I
would consider torture.
Geez, whatever you want to call it, how do you feel about this quote
from
Bush's press secretary:
"The president's reaction was one of deep disgust and disbelief that
anyone who
wears our uniform would engage in such shameful and appalling acts,"
White
House spokesman Scott McClellan said. "It does not represent our
United States
military and it does not represent the United States of America."
Why are you neocons so out of sync with your own leader? Do you
think he's just
sucking up to the Arabs and the liberal press? What does that say
about his
"integrity"?
Good luck figuring it out.
I do have it figured out; it's a highly appropriate statement. You
also appear to have me confused with someone else. I continue to
wonder how someone who does not know what a "neo-con" -is- can
classify anyone -as- one.