Do you even know what a Neocon is?

[Overpaid Slacker]

Thom - complete agreement; the labels and attitudes change to fit the times, which is one of the things I was trying to convey.

Joel - I think it was the Daily Show where, in sophomorically mocking a W policy, they showed a photo from the 60's in which black protesters in the South were being attacked with a blast from a firehose. Funny thing is that the guys wielding the firehose were, in all likelihood, Democrats.

JP

[island911]

Originally posted by lendaddy
. . ., fine by me as a non religious person. But......we must be careful that our moral compass as a country doesn't get jacked in the process.
. . ..

Exactly! . . .and THAT is the "baby" which the Lib's are all to quick to throw-out with thw bath-water.

Anything "anti-moralility" seems to be a quick sell with the simple-minded lib's.

Now were is that thread on the legal-prostitutes in Germany? There is a fine example; 'you want to keep your benifits? . ..spread your legs and open . ..'

[widebody911]

Originally posted by lendaddy
As a side note, I cannot help but laugh when libs try to take credit for civil rights, especially regarding slavery! Hillariously backwards.

Nope. Liberals - irrespective of political party (and that's an important point) pushed for change. Conservatives wanted things to stay the way they were.

As bitter a pill as it is for you to swallow, Lincoln was a liberal. He was a Republican, but he was a liberal.

Uh-oh, liberal and republican in the same sentence! Quick, get the NeoCon defillibrator kit... CLEAR... (*zap*) Damn, nothing...

[island911]

Puh'lease

Lincoln wanted to keep the union together! . . .as it had been. . . . "wanted things to stay the way they were."

A liberal would say 'yeah, lets do something different . .. let's make our own rules . .. split-off from the free north. . . we're soo smart . . this slavery thing may be new to us, but is kinda cool . .. lets keep it.

[skipdup]

Marriage became a civil act as soon as "marriage" was required for health benefits. Change that discrepancy and maybe the Sacrament of Marriage can be restored to the church which also means doing away with civil marriages and any government marriage licenses.

Huh? I thought the whole deal was about "love & marriage".

I had no idea this whole thing is about health benefits!!! Now I'm really against gay marriage!

- Skip

[ubiquity0]

Originally posted by lendaddy


As a side note, I cannot help but laugh when libs try to take credit for civil rights, especially regarding slavery! Hillariously backwards.

Aren't you confusing 'Republican' with 'conservative'?

Ending slavery was a Free Soil Party, then Republican party movement, but not a 'conservative' one. Likewise for the early suffrage movement.

Interestingly the term 'conservative' was first used in a political sense by the French

[stevepaa]

Originally posted by Overpaid Slacker
Nobody "takes away" from the church what constitues a Sacrament and it's wihtin nobody's (no secularbody's) power to define what one is, much less restore what they couldn't have taken in the first place.

If you can't (or refuse to) understand that, you skipped more Sunday school than I did.
JP

Well, the idea of marriage as only a Sacred Sacrament from the Church has indeed been lost, and has been lost for decades. Civil marriages are not part of the Sacraments. Why does one need a marriage license from a civil authority to perform a Sacrament? I think it is you who can't understand the situation.
And if you think that most people take marriage as a Sacrament, you are really out to lunch. If they did, we would not have so many divorces. And if we try to return to the idea of marriage as a Sacrament, is that something only Christians can do, as the word Sacrament is commonly defined as purely a Christian rite?

I do think that if death benefits, hospital visitation rights, medical benefits were not tied to the term "marriage", we would be better off. As it is, two Catholic Sisters, nuns, living together for years could not legally visit each other in hospital as they are not "immediate family".


Sent from a remote site sitting next to Island911 with JP's scepter in hand.

[dd74]

Originally posted by Overpaid Slacker
FWIW, dd; I didn't mention the religious right ab initio, I was responding to its mention.

You can be sold on the notion that the RR is driving the conservative bus; in fact you evidently are ... and you're scared. Which is how you're supposed to be. Rather than look into detail, which you're never presented, you see the superficial and often fatuous overlaps of the RR and conservatism and told that's a reason to fear and loathe them. You're being duped.

As a conservative, I can assure you that the RR is nothing new and is not driving the conservative bus. Republican bus, maybe moreso. But we neocons are a cryptofascist conspiracy -- run mostly by Jews -- who have the Christian RR guiding our every move. Do you not see how lame this is? Whatever the uncompromising principle in the path of secularists today might be, well that is what's really behind conservatives!!!! It's really pathetic on so many levels.

Neocons WERE founded principally as an economic school; like it or not, believe it or not, it's true. Conservatives now are not the same as conservatives then, but NOT EVERYONE HAPHAZARDLY BRANDED AS A NEOCON BY OUR MEDIA OR LOCAL PINHEADS ACTUALLY IS A NEOCON. Please re-read the prior sentence. Your etymology of neocon is just wrong. It's the current media spin, but it's wrong.

It's getting so tiresome to have to repeat the fact that b/c it's now supposed to be a pejorative, it's become a proxy label to slap on anyone with whom MSM, Lefties, etc. disagree, so as to preclude a debate such parties are unfit to win.

If our Presidents/Commanders-in-Chief having communications with the almighty is deviant to you, I suggest you don't know or choose not to believe in the piety and devoutness many of our Presidents have had. It's simply that it was commonplace and did not receive the kind of derogation it does today. In that blinkered context, you might as well condemn W for sleeping in a bed with sheets! Or brushing his teeth! Or eating red meat!!!

JP

No, you didn't mention the religious right, but I did, because that's what's most closely identified with neocon these days.

And anyway, what brings all this "history," JP? Do you have a guilt problem about how you guys are truly look more fascist each day, but hope to mitigate it by leading us along some pathetic decades' old trip down memory lane about what once made up a neocon. Who the hell cares? What counts is what makes up a neocon NOW.

BTW, friend: I ain't liberal. How's that rock your economically-founded conservative party nostalgia?

Oh, and "scared." Interesting word. How do I sound scared? Scared of whom? If I were you, I'd be scared my party's falling apart after the latest Schiavo/DeLay fiasco. How many neocons want DeLay's head for that first, and his ethics afterward? Reverse psychology tells me you're scared.

You know what, if your party was worth a damn these days, it'd stick to whatever you're peddling about conservatism being founded on economic principles. That way we'd move our "fear" of you people being in our bedrooms, textbooks and overall private lives, to the hope you can enlighten us to a stronger dollar.

Anyway, go ahead and spread the word of what
used to be known as a neocon. Live the fantasy that it makes you people look less invasive and revolting than you already are.

[skipdup]

... That way we'd move our "fear" of you people being in our bedrooms, textbooks and overall private lives, to the hope you can enlighten us to a stronger dollar. ...

dd- What are you doing in your bedroom that you're afraid "I" want to control? Or, what is it exactly that "we" want to control there? I must have missed that memo...

The text books have been under assault by the left for a long time now. If anything, "we" are trying to keep "you" from revising them or change the revision that's recently taken place. If anything, the Left is feared for being in "our" text books.

How else are "we" trying to control your private life? I simply don't buy what your telling me about "our" motives.

- Skip

[skipdup]

Oh, and anyone want to defend partial birth abortion? The lefties love that little barbaric procedure, right???

Or, is it just another way the conservatives are trying to "control" your body?

- Skip

[dd74]

Skip - thank you for your typical right of nowhere addage. Oh, anyone here want to defend "contrived and cliched" responses?
Or is it just another way to say, "I've got nothing to say."

Here's an idea. I'll give you the right to take away partial birth abortions. In return, let's tax your house of worship.

[skipdup]

Huh? That's a funny response. Considering, I was responding to your "contrived and clichéd" statements about the rights objectives! And, no need to get personal.

Besides, wouldn't be more appropriate to give me partial birth and then I give you something like "morning after", for cases of rape in incest?

- Skip

[dd74]

No deal, Skip. Partial birth for tax dollars. If you want to mix church and state, you have to pay the state just like anyone else. No free rides.

[fintstone]

Originally posted by stevepaa
...
I do think that if death benefits, hospital visitation rights, medical benefits were not tied to the term "marriage", we would be better off. As it is, two Catholic Sisters, nuns, living together for years could not legally visit each other in hospital as they are not "immediate family".

heck, they will let strangers visit you in the hospital....of course they let sisters.

[pwd72s]

Originally posted by skipdup
Huh? I thought the whole deal was about "love & marriage".

I had no idea this whole thing is about health benefits!!! Now I'm really against gay marriage!

- Skip

HOOT!!

[skipdup]

Originally posted by dd74
No deal, Skip. Partial birth for tax dollars. If you want to mix church and state, you have to pay the state just like anyone else. No free rides.

Bingo. And THAT is the "typical right of nowhere addage" point I was hoping to make.

PLEASE, PLEASE tell me exactly what being against pulling a baby by the feet from the mothers womb and then stabbing the baby in the back of the neck to kill it has to do with the church, religion or tax $????

- Skip
edit: If someone stabbed their dog in the neck to kill it they would go to prison.

[pwd72s]

Originally posted by skipdup
Bingo. And THAT is the "typical right of nowhere addage" point I was hoping to make.

PLEASE, PLEASE tell me exactly what being against pulling a baby by the feet from the mothers womb and then stabbing the baby in the back of the neck to kill it has to do with the church, religion or tax $????

- Skip

Planned parenthood...they get the tax $$$. I was adopted, back in '43. If the mood was as it is today, I wouldn't be here. Now the guilt trip...me thinking perhaps It would have been the better move overall. After, all, the human race is hardly an endangered species. We're not spotted owls, right?

[stevepaa]

fint
A person in critical care near death does not get anyone but immediate family. I know, I have been asked. Maybe it's different where you are.


Nice play on words, sisters or Sisters. Yes, they do let sisters in.

[Overpaid Slacker]

dd the fact that you've let our media spin the Schiavo resolutions into a Republican-only effort alone disqualifies you on the issue of who is doing what, and more importantly, why.

Ditto DeLay. The MSM is just seething for a head on a stake, and this follows the time-honored pattern of him first having "ethical issues" to face, followed by increasing howling from the usual suspects. Ignore, if you must, the fact that these events have been matters of public record for months. But the Republicans have the "attack machine". Right.

Please start another thread about the Schiavo and DeLay "fiascos" setting forth in detail the events you believe are damning to conservatives. I'll address them there. But please be very specific about your allegations.

I don't care whether you're conservative, liberal or whatever label you need or avoid. You're mistaken and/or misinformed on a number of fronts, which you only further display by saying that neocons are "most closely identified" with the RR. Really? By whom? The same parties telling you that the Schiavo issue was Republican? The same parties telling you that Republicans distributed a "talking points" memo to Republican Senators? The same parties that lead you to believe that I have or should have "guilt". You're not good at psychology, so leave the reverse psychology alone, friend.

The title of this thread is about what a neocon is, and Joel initiated it by referencing its origins. Discussion of that information is a red herring? If you think learning the history of where it began to inform what it's become is some sort of distraction, you just keep living in the absolute present, and believe what they tell you tomorrow. B/c neocons will be more evil tomorrow, even more insiduous and you can be even more righteous. And a neocon will continue to mean whatever it needs to mean in order to demonize whoever needs to be non-specifically smeared while preventing factual disputation. Your choice of language bespeaks fear, yes.

steve - can you not keep two ideas in parallel in your head simultaneously? That marriage, for example, can be a Sacrament and a civil function, and the fact that you need a license from a civil authority does nothing to dilute the Sacrament itself? It is creeping secularism writ large to conclude that b/c governmental authority requires a license, the Sacrament is somehow demeaned or less sacred.

The fact that there is a lot of divorce doesn't demean the Sacrament, it demeans those who cannot keep it. Again, the times change and many people "modernize" their views in light of the contemporary ethical laxity, but the Sacrament does not change.

This is at the crux of the issue -- mores change (generally for the looser) but the Sacraments are immutable. If you aspire to traditional religious ideas, why must you change to accommodate the fads?

I am using the term Sacrosanct in the sense of the sacred Sacraments of the Church, but I think it can be carefully expanded to analogous rites in other religions.

JP

[skipdup]

Originally posted by pwd72s
Planned parenthood...they get the tax $$$.

Yeah, I should have really left the tax $ bit out of my last post.

Now that I re-read, I may not have been clear... My point was, how is PBAbortion strictly a "religious" or separation of church & state issue. Do non-religious people find this practice acceptable?

- Skip