| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
May 11th 04, 05:45 AM
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Here is My Resume. Who Am I? | General | |||
| Here is My Resume. Who Am I? | Scanner | |||
| Here is My Resume. Who Am I? | Shortwave | |||
Hybrid Mode
