RoR: Forum

Ted,

I seem to have got you all worked up. I've defined (operationally) what it is that a NeoCon is, but I do like your trifecta, too: statist, hawkish, religious. Using your trifecta, I make the following observation:

Bush, McCain, and several other republicans recently exercising political pull or outright power are "religious, hawkish statists" (or, at least, act just like they are).

Do you disagree with this observation?

Ed

Post 21

Friday, August 29, 2008 - 3:16am

"Bush, McCain, and several other republicans recently exercising political pull or outright power are "religious, hawkish statists" (or, at least, act just like they are)."

"and several other republicans" - Why unspecified?

"exercising political pull or outright power" - Again, undefined waffling.

"or, at least, act just like they are" - Yet again, waffling. Why?

The statement is not a completed certain thought. It is like a painters study of a thought - not a painting, just a study. You can see an artist's skill in a study. Painting is methodologically complex. But the naturalist writer Flaubert's method of "spending hours, even days" on a sentence or even a word is not skill, at least not the kind of skill one would exhibit to an audience on a work in progress.

Present us with a complete sentence within a complete post, and the trouble will disapppear. The questions will answer themselves.

Post 22

Friday, August 29, 2008 - 5:34am

Ted,

============
Present us with a complete sentence within a COMPLETE post, and the trouble will disappear. The questions will answer themselves.
============
[caps added for italics]

Why isn't a "complete sentence" enough? My guess is that you are being difficult, and that you are being difficult for a reason, and that that reason has to do with you defending your own alignment with or appeasement of recent republican policies and procedures.

How come, for instance, the complete sentence ...

====================
"Bush, McCain and several other republicans are pro-life (which is evil)."
====================

... isn't good enough, Ted? Why do press me for more than just something like that? I could add a true and complete sentence about statism, too. I could add one about hawkishness. How come a simple list of 3 complete sentences (including the above) wouldn't be enough?

Ed

Post 23

Friday, August 29, 2008 - 11:09am

You asked me for my evaluation of the sentence, and my evaluation - that it waffles unnecessarily - stands. But I did not say that it was false. To waffle is to speak weakly. Mentioning unspecified targets, (and you did it again with the abortion remark) using the undefined term "pull" and adding the unnecessary caveat "or, at least, act just like they are" Your reaction to my suggestion that you can do better is the same as a truculent child who responds "but I don't wanna!" If you are satisfied with making a weak accusation, so be it. Don't blame my telling you that you could make a much stronger accusation on the fact that I supposedly don't want you to make any accusation at all. Why, rather than restating your thesis clearly, do you respond with a veiled ad hominem accusation? You are not a memeber of the Collective (nor am I an inconfident sycophant) such that I would fear your condescending remarks. You would be much better served by stating your own point as clearly and forcefully and as without qualification as you can, than by treating my advice as if it were the problem.

Post 24

Friday, August 29, 2008 - 11:51am