May 11th 04, 04:49 AM
|
|
|
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?
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....
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"?
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.
Michael Bryant, WA4009SWL
Louisville, KY
R75, S800, RX320, SW77, ICF2010K,
DX398, 7600G, 6800W, RF2200, 7600A
GE SRll, Pro-2006, Pro-2010, Pro-76
(remove "nojunk" to reply)
|