On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 08:27:35 -0500, "Stephen M"
wrote:

No, but I certainly don't think that they are 90 year old grandmothers
in
wheelchairs; or for that matter, 70 or 80 year old able-bodied gray-haired
women, or even 40 something, middle-aged, balding white guys. TSA stops
and frisks more of them than 18 to 40 year-old middle-eastern appearing
men. That make sense to you? Does that seem like a good use of
resources?

To a certain degree, Yes. No group should ever draw a bye (sp?). If you
*never* search 8-year old girls (or insert grand mothers, or any other
low-risk group) terrorists will recognize this hole in the system and start
using 8-year-old girls as mules for weapons.

Sure concentrate your resources on high-risk targets, but no group gets a
complete pass. This good policy.

Therefore complaining about the statistically mimimal grandmother who gets
"secondary inspection" is a not a very well-thought out point of view.


Have you actually watched TSA at an airport? As one of the
"statistically insignificant" 40-something, balding, middle-aged white
guys, my statistical insignificance has achieved an 80% secondary screening
rate when I fly. No, my ticket buying pattern is not unusual, there is
nothing in my profile that should trigger such a high amount of screening
for a truly "random" process. My cynical side says that this is because by
screening enough persons such as myself, they can then screen 1 or 2 people
they believe are real threats. It has gotten to the point that if I can
drive to my destination in 10 hours or less, I'd much rather drive than
fuss with the hassle of getting to the airplane.

-Steve




+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety

Army General Richard Cody

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

On 2 Feb 2005 12:35:52 -0800, wrote:

Note crossposting and follow-ups.

and fixed again, since it is the rec.ww folks who've been doing this
discussion.

wrote:
On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 21:31:00 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article , take out
'takeout' to reply wrote:

But on the original question: What do you think the impact would be
if
every Arab or Muslim were pulled out of line at the airport and
given
a special search?

One obvious result is that we'd catch more terrorists....

Considering that the terrorists are somewhat smarter than
cherrystone
clams, I doubt it.

Among other things, how do you tell the difference between Yussif al
Ibrahim and Jose Gonzales just by looking at them?


Precisely. If all Muslim men between the ages of 17 and 40 are
searched befor bording airplanes then any Muslim men between the
ages of 17 and 40 who plan to hijack the plane will simply grow
a beard, wear a turban, and claim to be a Sihk, or some such
other ethnic person not subject to mandatory searching.

Well, assuming that the folks doing the profiling are somewhat smarter
than cherrystone clams, they should be able to distinguish between those
who at least partially fit the profile vs. graying grandmothers,
middle-aged, balding caucasian males, or old guys in walkers.




+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety

Army General Richard Cody

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 12:46:11 -0500, "George" george@least wrote:

Are you saying if it looks, walks, quacks, we shouldn't stereotype it as a
duck? Sure would make all experience brand new.

All I can say about it is:

If I happen to be walking along a jungle trail where there have been persons
eaten by tigers, and a big black and yellow striped kitty cat jumps out of the
bushes, you ain't gonna find me walking up to it to do any ear scratching or
tummy rubbing.

And if that be profiling, or stereotyping, etc., then so be it.


Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS USA

On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 13:39:11 -0800, "AAvK" wrote:

"actual" compared to what
the Nazis merely "thought" (and still think) of the Jews

Seems to me like about 6,000,000 dead men, women, and children is a little more
than 'merely "thought"', unless I've entirely missed the sense of the statement.


Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS USA

Abe wrote:

...the Muslim extremist Jihad against
America began when Israel was formed, and the US became an official
ally.

And by "formed" you mean "stole the land from existing tenants".

I think it's important that we're an ally of Israel, the one
sane and democratic country in that part of the world.

And by "...sane and democratic..." you mean a country which believes
it's existence is God's will, their God of course, and unless you
believe in their God you don't get to vote or enjoy full citizenship.

Guess you liked the Taliban too.

The only reason we NEED Israel as an ally is BECAUSE we have Israel as
an ally.

Why is the entire Arab world ****ed of at us? Ask yourself when was the
last time we bombed Tel Aviv for ignoring/violating a U.N. resolution.

I think it's important that we're an ally of Israel, the one
sane and democratic country in that part of the world.

Ah, yes. A true racist state. Brutally oppressive too. Just ask any
Palestinian.

Have you actually watched TSA at an airport? As one of the
"statistically insignificant" 40-something, balding, middle-aged white
guys, my statistical insignificance has achieved an 80% secondary
screening
rate when I fly. No, my ticket buying pattern is not unusual, there is
nothing in my profile that should trigger such a high amount of screening
for a truly "random" process.

Maybe they've been reading your posts on this newsgroup (he says, running
and ducking for cover).

On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 21:31:46 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

On 2 Feb 2005 12:35:52 -0800, wrote:

Note crossposting and follow-ups.

and fixed again, since it is the rec.ww folks who've been doing this
discussion.

wrote:
On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 21:31:00 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article , take out
'takeout' to reply wrote:

But on the original question: What do you think the impact would be
if
every Arab or Muslim were pulled out of line at the airport and
given
a special search?

One obvious result is that we'd catch more terrorists....

Considering that the terrorists are somewhat smarter than
cherrystone
clams, I doubt it.

Among other things, how do you tell the difference between Yussif al
Ibrahim and Jose Gonzales just by looking at them?


Precisely. If all Muslim men between the ages of 17 and 40 are
searched befor bording airplanes then any Muslim men between the
ages of 17 and 40 who plan to hijack the plane will simply grow
a beard, wear a turban, and claim to be a Sihk, or some such
other ethnic person not subject to mandatory searching.

Well, assuming that the folks doing the profiling are somewhat smarter
than cherrystone clams, they should be able to distinguish between those
who at least partially fit the profile vs. graying grandmothers,
middle-aged, balding caucasian males, or old guys in walkers.

At which point the terrorists start using graying grandmothers,
middle-aged balding causasian males (hint: What country is right next
door to the Caucasus?) etc.

I repeat. We need to use a sense of proportion in profiling.

--RC




+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety

Army General Richard Cody

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

"Sometimes history doesn't repeat itself. It just yells
'can't you remember anything I've told you?' and lets
fly with a club.
-- John W. Cambell Jr.

In article , Kevin wrote:
Abe wrote:

...the Muslim extremist Jihad against
America began when Israel was formed, and the US became an official
ally.

And by "formed" you mean "stole the land from existing tenants".

Perhaps you mean "reclaimed it from squatters". It evidently has escaped your
notice that there were Jews living in that part of the world more than two
thousand years ago.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

In article , "mp" wrote:
I think it's important that we're an ally of Israel, the one
sane and democratic country in that part of the world.

Ah, yes. A true racist state. Brutally oppressive too. Just ask any
Palestinian.

Yes, I'm sure *that* would be an unbiased opinion. Just like yours.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

In article ,
says...
Perhaps you mean "reclaimed it from squatters". It evidently has escaped your
notice that there were Jews living in that part of the world more than two
thousand years ago.

Perhaps it has escaped yours that the Indians were living in this part
of the world 10,000 years ago.

When are you moving out?

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

wrote:
On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 21:31:46 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

On 2 Feb 2005 12:35:52 -0800, wrote:

Note crossposting and follow-ups.

and fixed again, since it is the rec.ww folks who've been doing
this
discussion.


WTF is that supposed to mean? Are you accusing people who frequent
rec.woodworking of being too stupid to be able to follow a discusion
to a newsgroup where it belongs?

--

FF

"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
...
In article ,

Perhaps it has escaped yours that the Indians were living in this part
of the world 10,000 years ago.

When are you moving out?

--

Who were themselves alternately squatters and invaders. Not even pertinent
to talk about who was where when. What counts is who now figuring out how
to leave each other alone or get together.

On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 11:47:48 -0800, Larry Blanchard
wrote:

You really cannot win this argument, "They" are the chosen people, and
God gave the Promised Land to them.

Ultimately, the woodworker (or whoever) with the biggest hammer win.

In article ,
says...
Perhaps you mean "reclaimed it from squatters". It evidently has escaped your
notice that there were Jews living in that part of the world more than two
thousand years ago.

Perhaps it has escaped yours that the Indians were living in this part
of the world 10,000 years ago.

When are you moving out?

On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 23:15:02 GMT, Kevin wrote:

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , Kevin wrote:

Abe wrote:


...the Muslim extremist Jihad against
America began when Israel was formed, and the US became an official
ally.

And by "formed" you mean "stole the land from existing tenants".


Perhaps you mean "reclaimed it from squatters". It evidently has escaped your
notice that there were Jews living in that part of the world more than two
thousand years ago.

I do so love people who make my point while "thinking" they are
rebutting it. The operative part of your reply which you somehow
overlooked is "...two thousand years ago." Enough of them left so that
it was no longer a Jewish, or more correctly, a Hebrew state.


umm, left? Try, "were exterminated or deported." Ever hear of Rome's
siege of Jerusalem somewhere around 100 AD? After the seige was over, Rome
basically deported all of the Jews throughout the Roman world.





+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety

Army General Richard Cody

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 10:26:05 GMT, wrote:

On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 21:31:46 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

.... snip
Well, assuming that the folks doing the profiling are somewhat smarter
than cherrystone clams, they should be able to distinguish between those
who at least partially fit the profile vs. graying grandmothers,
middle-aged, balding caucasian males, or old guys in walkers.

At which point the terrorists start using graying grandmothers,
middle-aged balding causasian males (hint: What country is right next
door to the Caucasus?) etc.

I repeat. We need to use a sense of proportion in profiling.


While I agree that we need a sense of proportion, I ask what is
"proportionate" about spending the bulk of their time screening people who
"may" someday be used "if" they were being more heavily screened vs. the
absolutely silly way-disproportionate screening of those who obviously
aren't a threat now, while barely even sampling those who most closely fit
the profile of those who have been committing these acts? Does it make you
feel safer knowing that TSA is screening a huge number of people who are
obviously no threat and only a small sampling of people who are more likely
to be terrorists?




+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety

Army General Richard Cody

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Timmy wrote:

On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 11:47:48 -0800, Larry Blanchard
wrote:

You really cannot win this argument, "They" are the chosen people, and
God gave the Promised Land to them.

Ultimately, the woodworker (or whoever) with the biggest hammer win.

Well, now, I don't think you'll find a woodworker with more "pull" than
Jesus . . .

In article ,
says...
Perhaps you mean "reclaimed it from squatters". It evidently has escaped
your notice that there were Jews living in that part of the world more
than two thousand years ago.

Perhaps it has escaped yours that the Indians were living in this part
of the world 10,000 years ago.

When are you moving out?

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

wrote:

On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 23:37:47 -0800, (Glenna Rose)
wrote:

Whatever happened to the good guys wearing white hats and the bad guys
wearing black hats? And the good guys entered from the left and the bad
guys entered from the right. It was so easy to tell them apart.

What has this world come to?! No one ever follows the rules anymore.

Glenna

Yeah. The least they could do is wear swastikas, like in the good old
days!

Sneaky little so-and-sos.

Yeah but look at Schindler--he wore a swastika and even the Israelis agree
that he was one of the good guys.

--RC

"Sometimes history doesn't repeat itself. It just yells
'can't you remember anything I've told you?' and lets
fly with a club.
-- John W. Cambell Jr.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"mp" wrote in message
...
I don't think we should ask why they are what they are or why they do
what they do, I think that rather than calling them "terrorists", we
should call them "Murderous assholes" and we should strive with all
haste
to eradicate them, where ever they can be found. They are a cancer on
the
human condition. Sorry if this isn't "PC" enough.

One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.


But this cute phrase doesn't mean that they are both right.

You simply cannot eradicate terrorism without first eliminating the root
causes.


You get it! This is exactly why Bush is trying to spread freedom in the
Middle East. All people yearn to be free. Bad things always happen
eventually when they are suppressed.

dwhite

Kevin wrote in news:3pjMd.191$ng6.66
@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com:

....
And by "...sane and democratic..." you mean a country which believes
it's existence is God's will, their God of course, and unless you
believe in their God you don't get to vote or enjoy full citizenship.

Now don't go bringing John Ashcroft into this.

On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 22:51:48 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

wrote:

On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 23:37:47 -0800, (Glenna Rose)
wrote:

Whatever happened to the good guys wearing white hats and the bad guys
wearing black hats? And the good guys entered from the left and the bad
guys entered from the right. It was so easy to tell them apart.

What has this world come to?! No one ever follows the rules anymore.

Glenna

Yeah. The least they could do is wear swastikas, like in the good old
days!

Sneaky little so-and-sos.

Yeah but look at Schindler--he wore a swastika and even the Israelis agree
that he was one of the good guys.

Okay, so sometimes it doesn't work. :-)
(Schindler is a figure of awe and admiration to me. The guy spent his
life being a jerk and a sycophant and a lowlife and then -- for one
shining moment -- he rises utterly above himself to do something
astoundingly selfless and noble. I don't pretend to understand him,
but, damn! I am impressed.)

Reminds me of something I saw on the wall of a vegetarian Chinese
restaurant once:

"Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future."

--RC



--RC

"Sometimes history doesn't repeat itself. It just yells
'can't you remember anything I've told you?' and lets
fly with a club.
-- John W. Cambell Jr.

"Sometimes history doesn't repeat itself. It just yells
'can't you remember anything I've told you?' and lets
fly with a club.
-- John W. Cambell Jr.

On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 17:08:49 -0600, "Matthew"
wrote:

If memory serves correctly, Timothy McVeigh, who was responsible for an
awful lot of deaths, was neither Muslim or from the Middle East.


Timothy was a white Christian terrorist betw the ages of 17 and
40.... along with a lot of other murderers....

As I waded through this thread, 114 post ago, all I can say is gee,
where's the love???....what ever happened to peace, love and
understanding......

Everybody hates somebody, or so it seems. National, ethnic or tribal
socioeconomic/ethnic/religiosity (whatever) history seems to consume
some people, and blind them, to the fact that we're all just folks and
only here for a little while, and nobody gets off this Planet alive, so
lets try and get along without killing each other. Then one side says
the hell with it and starts the cycle of killing, forcing the other to
say "we can't put up with this" and provoking the reaction, and its
always the noncombatants that do all the suffering. Why do Serbs hate
Bosnians, or Irish Protestants hate Irish Catholics, or Jews hate Arabs
and vice versa.....and the list could go on and on...people fighting
and hating about what happend 10, 20 or 200 years ago.

All I know is that I don't have any answers to any of this, except to
apply to the noncombatants my own ability to try and understand
everyone's point of view, and to be tolerant of everyone's differences.
After all, we all squat to sh*t, don't we?

Mutt

On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 11:57:55 -0500, GregP wrote:

On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 17:08:49 -0600, "Matthew"
wrote:

If memory serves correctly, Timothy McVeigh, who was responsible for an
awful lot of deaths, was neither Muslim or from the Middle East.


Timothy was a white Christian terrorist betw the ages of 17 and
40.... along with a lot of other murderers....

No, he was not a "Christian" terrorist. His choice for his last words are
proof of that. Greg, you really seem to have a thing against Christians,
several of your previous posts have tried to create moral equivalence
between Christian thoughts expressed by various fundamentalists with the
Islamic extremists who are slicing peoples' heads off. I don't understand
where the animosity comes from, but hatred is not a good thing, regardless
of who is practicing it.






+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety

Army General Richard Cody

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

On 4 Feb 2005 09:24:54 -0800, wrote:

Why can't we all be neighborly, live and lets live rather than
imposing our ways and ideas on others? Your god my god does it matters
whose gods? Am I a liberal?

As I waded through this thread, 114 post ago, all I can say is gee,
where's the love???....what ever happened to peace, love and
understanding......

Everybody hates somebody, or so it seems. National, ethnic or tribal
socioeconomic/ethnic/religiosity (whatever) history seems to consume
some people, and blind them, to the fact that we're all just folks and
only here for a little while, and nobody gets off this Planet alive, so
lets try and get along without killing each other. Then one side says
the hell with it and starts the cycle of killing, forcing the other to
say "we can't put up with this" and provoking the reaction, and its
always the noncombatants that do all the suffering. Why do Serbs hate
Bosnians, or Irish Protestants hate Irish Catholics, or Jews hate Arabs
and vice versa.....and the list could go on and on...people fighting
and hating about what happend 10, 20 or 200 years ago.

All I know is that I don't have any answers to any of this, except to
apply to the noncombatants my own ability to try and understand
everyone's point of view, and to be tolerant of everyone's differences.
After all, we all squat to sh*t, don't we?

Mutt

"Timmy" wrote in message
...
On 4 Feb 2005 09:24:54 -0800, wrote:

Why can't we all be neighborly, live and lets live rather than
imposing our ways and ideas on others? Your god my god does it matters
whose gods? Am I a liberal?

Works great until your ox is gored.

Love the RK paraphrase.

Let's call it quits, Nate. I can see from your party affiliation that
you can't/won't be convinced of anything because you can't get past the
"hate Bush" thing (and don't tell me you liked Bush before the war, I
know you didn't vote for him). As far as googling you, why on Earth
would I bother? I don't want to know your life history, we are just
having a discussion. Online, anybody who says things like "funny,
that" has a good chance of being a Brit. The idea that Bush was
justifying the war based on Saddam taking part in 9/11 is simply
foolish and I put 2 and 2 together and figured you must be getting
filtered news in Britan.

I'm not going to try and convince you of anything. I have to figure
someday in the far, far future a light bulb will go on somewhere in CO.

Oh, last thing. I have no relatives in the military so I guess I'm
incapable of having a reasoned position. You are starting to look like
a Micheal Moore type. 1400 dead? Even 1 is a sad day for that's
person's family, but 1400 is less than half of the number who died on
9/11. I'd also like to know the normal casualty rate over a two year
period for military personnel. They do die even in peacetime. Odd,
that.

dwhite

Nate Perkins wrote:
"Dan White" wrote in

As far as googling you, why on Earth
would I bother?

So you don't embarrass yourself by first assuming I'm British and
then
having to ask?

Embarrass?


I don't want to know your life history, we are just
having a discussion. Online, anybody who says things like "funny,
that" has a good chance of being a Brit. The idea that Bush was
justifying the war based on Saddam taking part in 9/11 is simply
foolish and I put 2 and 2 together and figured you must be getting
filtered news in Britan.

I wonder what our British posters will think of your assertion that
they
get "filtered news."

Do you really think Brits get the full range of views of an American
news event that we get, and vice versa?


Light bulbs are going off all the time in CO. But it's not likely
that
I will have an epiphany that will cause me to convert to the neo-con
cause anytime soon, though.

Neo-con? You've got your talking points down pat!


Oh, last thing. I have no relatives in the military so I guess I'm
incapable of having a reasoned position. You are starting to look
like a Micheal Moore type. 1400 dead? Even 1 is a sad day for
that's
person's family, but 1400 is less than half of the number who died
on
9/11. I'd also like to know the normal casualty rate over a two
year
period for military personnel. They do die even in peacetime.
Odd,
that.

No, I don't claim that you are *incapable* of having a reasoned
position, just that in this case the black and white statements
refute
your claim.


And having a relative in the military does not give you a more
reasoned
position, but it certainly puts a personal stake on it. You see, if
my
brother in law is number 1401, then it's a big deal to my family. To
you, it will just be 1400+1 -- no skin off your apple.

But as you say this fact does not mean your position is more reasoned
than mine and therefore is irrelevant.

dwhite

Can you tell me if Al Jazeera, and other M.E. stations are available in
the US?

I don't think on cable, though perhaps on some satellite channels.

"Dan White" wrote in
oups.com:


Nate Perkins wrote:
....
I wonder what our British posters will think of your assertion that
they
get "filtered news."

Do you really think Brits get the full range of views of an American
news event that we get, and vice versa?

I think they do get better news than we do. More in depth. More
evenhanded. If more American news were like BBC World News I would like
it a lot better. I think the news in America is really superficial.


Light bulbs are going off all the time in CO. But it's not likely
that
I will have an epiphany that will cause me to convert to the neo-con
cause anytime soon, though.

Neo-con? You've got your talking points down pat!

"Neo-con" is not meant to be a talking point. It's a distinguishing
philosophy of neoconservatism, which is different from traditional
conservatism. One definition characterizes the difference as "Compared
to other U.S. conservatives, neoconservatives are characterized by an
aggressive stance on foreign policy, a lesser social conservatism, and
weaker dedication to a policy of minimal government."

I can use a more politically correct term if you want. Since I am not a
neo-con, I don't mind using PC terms if needed ;-P

....

"Nate Perkins" wrote in message
. 125.201...


"Neo-con" is not meant to be a talking point. It's a distinguishing
philosophy of neoconservatism, which is different from traditional
conservatism. One definition characterizes the difference as "Compared
to other U.S. conservatives, neoconservatives are characterized by an
aggressive stance on foreign policy, a lesser social conservatism, and
weaker dedication to a policy of minimal government."

I can use a more politically correct term if you want. Since I am not a
neo-con, I don't mind using PC terms if needed ;-P


It isn't that big a deal, really, but I think most liberals who use the
neo-con term do so to put the current admin into some sort of labeled box so
they can point them out as not "real" conservatives -- more like something
new that isn't to be trusted. Until the conservatives in question begin
calling themselves neo-cons, I don't think it is up to their political
opponents to do it for them and say there is no harm intended.

dwhite

Nate Perkins wrote:
"Dan White" wrote in
oups.com:


Nate Perkins wrote:

...

I wonder what our British posters will think of your assertion that

they

get "filtered news."

Do you really think Brits get the full range of views of an American
news event that we get, and vice versa?


I think they do get better news than we do.

Having lived in a country where the main source of news was British, I
think you're seriously wrong. If you think Fox and CNN are bad for
slanting the news, you should see what British journalists do. They
don't even maintain the degree of separation between fact and opinion
that you find in American television.

There are also some legal issues that make it anywhere from harder to
flat impossible for the British media to cover some matters. When I was
there there was a big flap about a British defense official misusing
press censorship ("D notices") to protect his family.


More in depth. More
evenhanded. If more American news were like BBC World News I would like
it a lot better.

The BBS World News service is rather an exception to the above.

I think the news in America is really superficial.

Nate, you have _no_ idea. (As Jeremy Irons said in a couple of different
contexts.) There is a reason we call them 'news gerbils.'

--RC

"Dan White" wrote in
:

"Nate Perkins" wrote in message
. 125.201...


"Neo-con" is not meant to be a talking point. It's a distinguishing
philosophy of neoconservatism, which is different from traditional
conservatism. One definition characterizes the difference as
"Compared to other U.S. conservatives, neoconservatives are
characterized by an aggressive stance on foreign policy, a lesser
social conservatism, and weaker dedication to a policy of minimal
government."

I can use a more politically correct term if you want. Since I am
not a neo-con, I don't mind using PC terms if needed ;-P


It isn't that big a deal, really, but I think most liberals who use
the neo-con term do so to put the current admin into some sort of
labeled box so they can point them out as not "real" conservatives --
more like something new that isn't to be trusted. Until the
conservatives in question begin calling themselves neo-cons, I don't
think it is up to their political opponents to do it for them and say
there is no harm intended.

Right, but surely you realize that the current leadership is not reflective
of traditional Republican conservative ideology? Particularly with respect
to a more aggressive foreign policy and a weaker committment to small
government and fiscal responsibility.

I remember voting for Reagan. Reagan was a conservative. But GWB is not
very much like Reagan.

Rick Cook wrote in
ink.net:

Nate Perkins wrote:
"Dan White" wrote in
oups.com:


Nate Perkins wrote:

...

I wonder what our British posters will think of your assertion that

they

get "filtered news."

Do you really think Brits get the full range of views of an American
news event that we get, and vice versa?


I think they do get better news than we do.

Having lived in a country where the main source of news was British, I
think you're seriously wrong. If you think Fox and CNN are bad for
slanting the news, you should see what British journalists do. They
don't even maintain the degree of separation between fact and opinion
that you find in American television.

There are also some legal issues that make it anywhere from harder to
flat impossible for the British media to cover some matters. When I
was there there was a big flap about a British defense official
misusing press censorship ("D notices") to protect his family.

More in depth. More
evenhanded. If more American news were like BBC World News I would
like it a lot better.

The BBS World News service is rather an exception to the above.

I think the news in America is really superficial.

Might be right. I am basing my opinion mostly on BBC World News. I've
also seen some very good BBC segments done on the PBS show "Frontline."
Perhaps I just think the British news is better because I'm seeing an
above-average portion of it.

The only news show that I really enjoy here is "Meet the Press."

"Nate Perkins" wrote in message
25.201...
"Dan White" wrote in
:

"Nate Perkins" wrote in message
. 125.201...


"Neo-con" is not meant to be a talking point. It's a distinguishing
philosophy of neoconservatism, which is different from traditional
conservatism. One definition characterizes the difference as
"Compared to other U.S. conservatives, neoconservatives are
characterized by an aggressive stance on foreign policy, a lesser
social conservatism, and weaker dedication to a policy of minimal
government."

I can use a more politically correct term if you want. Since I am
not a neo-con, I don't mind using PC terms if needed ;-P


It isn't that big a deal, really, but I think most liberals who use
the neo-con term do so to put the current admin into some sort of
labeled box so they can point them out as not "real" conservatives --
more like something new that isn't to be trusted. Until the
conservatives in question begin calling themselves neo-cons, I don't
think it is up to their political opponents to do it for them and say
there is no harm intended.

Right, but surely you realize that the current leadership is not
reflective
of traditional Republican conservative ideology? Particularly with
respect
to a more aggressive foreign policy and a weaker committment to small
government and fiscal responsibility.

I remember voting for Reagan. Reagan was a conservative. But GWB is not
very much like Reagan.

But we still call Lincoln a Republican, not a "pseudo republican." Remember
also that JFK, who was for cutting taxes and was certainly more conservative
than democrats today, is still a democrat. In the same way that the dems
are trying to label conservatives as "neo cons" they are trying to hide
their extremism and call themselves "progressives." So far I don't think it
is working.

dwhite

"Nate Perkins" wrote in message
25.201...
Might be right. I am basing my opinion mostly on BBC World News. I've
also seen some very good BBC segments done on the PBS show "Frontline."
Perhaps I just think the British news is better because I'm seeing an
above-average portion of it.


It's probably also because they sound so much more intelligent with those
British accents.

dwhite

DirecTV offers a bunch of international channel packages. Takes a separate
dish and subscription. I don't know what others offer.

Steve

"mp" wrote in message ...
Can you tell me if Al Jazeera, and other M.E. stations are available in
the US?

I don't think on cable, though perhaps on some satellite channels.

How many sought sanctuary under Saddam?
DAGS.

Nice cop out. I know you're wrong and you know you're wrong. Too bad you
have nothing to back up your false allegations.

mp wrote:
How many sought sanctuary under Saddam?

DAGS.


Nice cop out. I know you're wrong and you know you're wrong. Too bad you
have nothing to back up your false allegations.


If they're false, demonstrate it. I'm tired of doing all the work to dig
up citations and having you ignore all the evidence in favor of your
preconceptions.

So okay, let's see some proof from you for a change.

I repeat: DAGS. You do know how, don't you?

--RC

"Dan White" wrote in
:

"Nate Perkins" wrote in message
25.201...
"Dan White" wrote in
:

"Nate Perkins" wrote in message
. 125.201...


"Neo-con" is not meant to be a talking point. It's a
distinguishing philosophy of neoconservatism, which is different
from traditional conservatism. One definition characterizes the
difference as "Compared to other U.S. conservatives,
neoconservatives are characterized by an aggressive stance on
foreign policy, a lesser social conservatism, and weaker
dedication to a policy of minimal government."

I can use a more politically correct term if you want. Since I am
not a neo-con, I don't mind using PC terms if needed ;-P


It isn't that big a deal, really, but I think most liberals who use
the neo-con term do so to put the current admin into some sort of
labeled box so they can point them out as not "real" conservatives
-- more like something new that isn't to be trusted. Until the
conservatives in question begin calling themselves neo-cons, I
don't think it is up to their political opponents to do it for them
and say there is no harm intended.

Right, but surely you realize that the current leadership is not
reflective
of traditional Republican conservative ideology? Particularly with
respect
to a more aggressive foreign policy and a weaker committment to small
government and fiscal responsibility.

I remember voting for Reagan. Reagan was a conservative. But GWB is
not very much like Reagan.

But we still call Lincoln a Republican, not a "pseudo republican."
Remember also that JFK, who was for cutting taxes and was certainly
more conservative than democrats today, is still a democrat. In the
same way that the dems are trying to label conservatives as "neo cons"
they are trying to hide their extremism and call themselves
"progressives." So far I don't think it is working.

Yes, both parties love to use labels that they think will gain them an
advantage.

However, you seem to have assumed that the term neo-con is a negative
slur. I did not mean for it to be.

If you prefer, I could refer to the neo-cons as "progressively
challenged" - or whatever term you would find more politically correct.