Do you even know what a Neocon is?

[pwd72s]

I'm non religious...and I feel that partial birth abortion...is MURDER! Period! Any difference between killing a viable fetus, one that could live outside the womb, and sticking a knife in the back of a 4 week old baby's skull? Not in my book...IMHO, a partial birth abortion is simply killing a kid because his mother would prefer a lifestyle other than mother. Just maybe she should have taken the pill...or at least slipped a rubber on her horney boyfriend?

[dd74]

JP - the fact you can't look at what your party has become in its current state, and choose to pass it off as something maybe, at best, an old man remembers as its founding roots (economy), makes almost any diatribe you post on the subject remarkably inadequate, and really not worth reading. Sorry to tell you that despite your research.

Skip - answer my question. Tax dollars, Skip. Tax dollars. It's only fair, isn't it? You want to dictate, pay up.

Again, the collective narrow-mindedness and self-denial of this group does not fail to astound me. More of the same crap, I'm afraid.

[Overpaid Slacker]

keep telling me what my ideology is about, and who runs it, dd. As long as you and you alone, as a non neocon, get to define what that term means, you can console yourself with being right.

I can take a stab at what "narrow-minded" means...

JP

EDIT: When did "neoconservatism" become a "party"? I'm not surprised about the convenient mis-use and re-definition of terms.

[CamB]

Been thinking about it a while and read the wikipedia thing a coupla times.

Neocon seems to me to mean those who see maintaining America's dominant place in the world as the most important factor, and more or less to hell with the cost or consequences. Further, it seems that this is seen as best accomplished through maintaining and projecting strength. Its foundation appears to be moral certainty in what is being done (and inflexibility on this moral certainty).

To give my own thoughts, it is an arrogant viewpoint which assumes that the American way is the best way, and doesn't hesitate to trample roughshod over the feelings or bodies of those which get in the way. I agree with steve that "the end justifies the means" can also be applied.

To be fair, "the end justifies the means" can also be attached to the behaviour of many liberals and Democrats, and there is probably more NIMBY (not in my back yard) in this group.

[350HP930]

neocons = jingoistic idiots

[fintstone]

Neocon is just a boogey man term used by the left to demonize anyone with the nerve to publicly disagree with them.

[dd74]

Originally posted by Overpaid Slacker
keep telling me what my ideology is about, and who runs it, dd. As long as you and you alone, as a non neocon, get to define what that term means, you can console yourself with being right.

I can take a stab at what "narrow-minded" means...

JP

EDIT: When did "neoconservatism" become a "party"? I'm not surprised about the convenient mis-use and re-definition of terms.

Please, JP, don't run away mad. I read what you posted, yet received no enlightenment toward what it was trying to prove. That's being "open minded." Your argument was ill-formed from the outset. It happens...

[skipdup]

Originally posted by dd74
Skip - answer my question. ...

What question??? I've re-read your post but still don't see a question. Throw me a hint, and I will answer.

I do see several questions from me that you seem to have ignored.

What point you're trying to make:"Tax dollars, Skip. Tax dollars. It's only fair, isn't it? You want to dictate, pay up." Are you saying that if Christians want their principles legislated, then Church's should be taxed? How do you distinguish Christian principles from everyone else (ref: pwd72s post)?

Are you also in favor of taxing the NAACP? ACLU? Etc? Or, is this special treatment you'd like just for all those evil Christians?

- Skip

[dd74]

Originally posted by fintstone
Neocon is just a boogey man term used by the left to demonize anyone with the nerve to publicly disagree with them.

And if you disagree with the neocons, you're somehow labeled "unpatriotic" - or is that also a boogey man term?

[fintstone]

Only when it is a patriotic issue and you take the side that aids or benefits the enemy.

[dd74]

Originally posted by skipdup
What question??? I've re-read your post but still don't see a question. Throw me a hint, and I will answer.

I do see several questions from me that you seem to have ignored.

What point you're trying to make:"Tax dollars, Skip. Tax dollars. It's only fair, isn't it? You want to dictate, pay up." Are you saying that if Christians want their principles legislated, then Church's should be taxed? How do you distinguish Christian principles from everyone else (ref: pwd72s post)?

Are you also in favor of taxing the NAACP? ACLU? Etc? Or, is this special treatment you'd like just for all those evil Christians?

- Skip

You're sounding defensive, Skip. Or evasive. It's not becoming one way or the other. And why bring in the NAACP, ACLU, Etc? Do you think mention of those liberal groups raises my liberal ire when I have none to begin with? If you haven't heard, individuals who pay personal income taxes, for the most part, make up the bulk of the NAACP and ACLU. Preachers? Now, I wonder...

Anyway, yes, when your right-wing politicos become a tool of your right-angled churches, both of whom work in consort to push an agenda, absolutely - it's time to pay up. If there is no separation of church and state in telling people they cannot control their own bodies, read literature of their choosing, or marry whom they want, it actively violates the constitutional rule of a separation of church and state, and becomes more an agency of its own agenda than a house of worship. And as far as I know, agencies pay taxes...

See what I'm saying?

[Overpaid Slacker]

On another thread yesterday, that you contributed to more than once, I wrote the following:

Liberalism is in no way irrelevant, though I agree it is dormant in its purer, more useful form. Neoconservatism, which began primarily as an economic movement, has adopted many of the foreign policy principles of Liberalism (as alluded to in the 2nd. para of the piece I quoted).

To then insist that I believe that neoconservatism is still only an economic viewpoint is plainly contrary to what I've said I believe. To so deliberately mischaracterize what I've written about what I believe in order to ascribe nefarious motive is juvenile and cowardly. Evidently in the absence of any argument (other than the "neocons are evil" gem) you continue to insist that I believe that neoconservatism remains solely an economic discipline, when in fact I've stated flatly that it has grown beyond that area.

So I can see how you, being impervious to fact, as set forth in black and white above, could read what I write and not be enlightened.

I await your detailed thread on how the Schiavo matter was solely a Republican matter (or "neocon" since that's a "party" in your world) and a detailed exegesis as to the facts of the DeLay matter.

JP

[skipdup]

You're sounding defensive, Skip. Or evasive. It's not becoming one way or the other.

Dude, nice try...

Initially, You asked me to "answer [your] question.", like you were calling me out... I responded that I couldn't see where you had asked a question. This is NOT defensive, it IS confused. And, I still am, as you still haven't clarified what question you want(ed) me to answer.

I will answer any question that I can, you just have to ask, as my mind reading is a little rusty. Not being evasive at all.

Bro, when you look as good as me, EVERYTHING is "becoming".

And why bring in the NAACP, ACLU, Etc? Do you think mention of those liberal groups raises my liberal ire when I have none to begin with?

No dd, I don't know your love level for either org. I wanted to know if your belief was such that all groups that take part in politics should be taxed, or just churches. I wanted representative examples - NAACP & ACLU were the first liberal tax-exempt ones that come to mind.

... make up the bulk of the NAACP and ACLU. Preachers? Now, I wonder...

Why would you make a comment like this if you have no idea what the truth was? THIS is not becoming of YOU!

[SCHOOL] Preachers pay personal income tax! [/SCHOOL]

I suggest that (like your knowledge of tax law & ministry) you are in need of remedial review on the rule of "separation".

No special punishments for my churches just b/c you don't like them or the views of some of their members.

Try putting your biases aside for a bit. You might be surprised what you find...

AND, I've never heard any political agenda being pushed in my church or any church I've visited.

The evil Christians are coming!! The evil Christians are coming!! The evil Christians are coming!!

- Skip

[stevepaa]

Although today's Republican/conservatives would like to claim Lincoln, you really can't. He was a liberal. The Confederacy was the conservatives who wanted to preserve their status quo.

Although today’s conservative would like to claim the founding fathers as their forebears, you can’t, they were revolutionaries, liberals. The conservative were the Tories.

The ideas of not changing the status quo and preserving
“two millenia of culture and ethos -- which were a pillar of this country's founding -” really indicates you are the idealogical descendants of the Tories.

[lendaddy]

So once you want to maintain ...say Roe vs Wade, does that make you a conservative? I mean it is the status quo. Like I said your trying to use dictionary definitions on labels that won't have it.

[stevepaa]

Skip
You may not have heard political agendas being preached, but I certainly have. We have groups in the Church soley organized to make political change. Just last week we had a speaker asking for people to join him to go to coffee houses and ask for Fair Trade coffee versus Free Trade coffee.

[ubiquity0]

Originally posted by lendaddy
So once you want to maintain ...say Roe vs Wade, does that make you a conservative? I mean it is the status quo. Like I said your trying to use dictionary definitions on labels that won't have it.

You seem to be arguing that 'conservative' refers to anyone in agreement with Republican policy, and 'liberal' refers to anyone against it?

In other words 'conservative' = Republican?

[widebody911]

Originally posted by stevepaa
The ideas of not changing the status quo and preserving
“two millenia of culture and ethos -- which were a pillar of this country's founding -” really indicates you are the idealogical descendants of the Tories.

You could have saved a lot of electrons by saying "American Taliban" instead.

[stevepaa]

A right or liberty gained by liberal action may be discrete, such as sufferage, but the underlying right of equality for all, continues. The elimination of poll taxes was a continuation of this. Non-discrimination laws continue this effort. It may take years for full acceptance of such changes. Until full acceptance, I see conservatives trying to reign in the expansion of a particluar liberty and liberals trying to push the envelope.

If we can't use dictionary terms, then we just have words without meanings. My use of the term status quo is inappropriate to describe the situation as clearly evident in Roe vs Wade being status quo, but not having full acceptance and may not be status quo in the near future.

[skipdup]

Just last week we had a speaker asking for people to join him to go to coffee houses and ask for Fair Trade coffee versus Free Trade coffee.

Oh my gosh!!! Now "they" want to control the coffee I drink too!

- Skip