One other thing – if you don’t like the textbooks the consevative State Education System is picking, then stop voting for the consevatives who pick them.

Comment by I-RIGHT-I — December 23, 2005 @ 2:52 pm

Moral people? Who? Your side is filled with pedophiles, Gluttonous pigs, perverts, war mongers, rapists and thugs. Don’t you understand that by forbidding people to do something, you insure that they will do it. By allowing people the freedom to choose for themselves, aside form those with innate psychosis, people will invariably choose wisely. It’s a fact. We’re smarter than all other living beings who don’t have any moral guidelines and are actually behaving better than we are.

Religion stole its sense of morality from humans, as humans existed prior to religion – not the other way around. As usual your argument is devoid of reality and rationality.

I am far more moral than you. And I have no religion.

What part of my writing This is from a consevative source. from #95 did you not understand? I’ve never heard your definition. No one I know has ever heard your definition, and I asked some conservatives. You claim that you got it from a person? You, the same guy who believes a mythical god also speaks to you? Sorry, your sources are suspect.

the first thing I’d do is toss out your re-written history books and the smut that passes for civics and start over. IRI

Your ignorance in regard to the Education system is astounding. No wonder you have so much to say about it. People with the least amount of knowledge are usually the first ones to offer their hair-brained schemes. Teachers don’t pick the books, they are approved and sanctioned by the state Board of Education. Teachers are bound to them by the school Districts for whom they work. So, you couldn’t throw out anything, unless you wanted to lose your credentials. That’s the reality of hierarchy for you. And why you people should stop blaming teachers for the mindless drivel your kids get taught.

On day two I’d take them down to the Black part of town and let them see first hand what 50 years of Liberalism does to a once proud and self sufficient people.

Don’t you mean what kidnapping them from their country, forcing them to abandon their culture while picking cotton or clearing the mansions of rich white Americans while being beaten and degraded for their skin color did to them? And don’t forget the racism of forcing them to sit in the back of the bus, or drink from a different water fountain, or denying them equal jobs with equal pay, or teaching your white children to fear them did to them. Not only should you not be selecting textbooks, you should definitely not be allowed anywhere near history class as you know so little of it youself.

On day three we’d go to a state prison and take a look at what happens to those who didn’t do their homework.

A little drastic? For not doing their homework? See, you neocons ARE all about fear mongering in order to get obedience. Taking them there to show them what happens if they commit crimes is one thing that I have seen work. But for not doing their homework? Part of teaching them to be good little fascist slaves?

I know you need to think you are right. But you haven’t experienced life, how can you possibly teach anyone anything about it? Life is not about how much theory you comprehend – it’s about how much experience you acquire. Clearly you have none. Have you ever even left Texas?

Again, good thing your job is to troll. You’re not fooling anyone.

Comment by unbelievable

You got your definition out of a liberal textbook. I got my definition out of the mouth of the first men identified as a neo-cons.

If I was in your stead the first thing I’d do is toss out your re-written history books and the smut that passes for civics and start over. In addition, I’d make sure that those in my care didn’t grow up believing anyone who didn’t follow the Progressive/Communist line was a Nazi, that homosexuals are gay and that poor people deserve the money they earn. That would be day one.

On day two I’d take them down to the Black part of town and let them see first hand what 50 years of Liberalism does to a once proud and self sufficient people. On day three we’d go to a state prison and take a look at what happens to those who didn’t do their homework. That’s what I’d do.

Comment by Dave

Nonsense. The Christian conservatives have been raising hell long before mental midgets like you ever learned to use the catchy phrase “neo-con” in a sentence. Religious people and even great Americans who were not particularly religious have known for the better part of two centuries that Liberalism is antithetical to the Christian faith and to a nation that is dependent upon a moral people.

Thanks for the laugh… I think of Dick Cheney, Chimp, et al and how hypocritical the neocons all are. Makes me proud to be a liberal Atheist!

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/000tzmlw.asp

Viewed in this way, one can say that the historical task and political purpose of neoconservatism would seem to be this: to convert the Republican party, and American conservatism in general, against

their respective wills, into a new kind of conservative politics suitable to governing a modern democracy. That this new conservative politics is distinctly American is beyond doubt. There is nothing like neoconservatism in Europe, and most European conservatives are highly skeptical of its legitimacy. The fact that conservatism in the United States is so much healthier than in Europe, so much more politically effective, surely has something to do with the existence of neoconservatism. But Europeans, who think it absurd to look to the United States for lessons in political innovation, resolutely refuse to consider this possibility.

Neoconservatism is the first variant of American conservatism in the past century that is in the “American grain.” It is hopeful, not lugubrious; forward-looking, not nostalgic; and its general tone is cheerful, not grim or dyspeptic. Its 20th-century heroes tend to be TR, FDR, and Ronald Reagan. Such Republican and conservative worthies as Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, Dwight Eisenhower, and Barry Goldwater are politely overlooked. Of course, those worthies are in no way overlooked by a large, probably the largest, segment of the Republican party, with the result that most Republican politicians know nothing and could not care less about neoconservatism. Nevertheless, they cannot be blind to the fact that neoconservative policies, reaching out beyond the traditional political and financial base, have helped make the very idea of political conservatism more acceptable to a majority of American voters. Nor has it passed official notice that it is the neoconservative public policies, not the traditional Republican ones, that result in popular Republican presidencies.

IRI

You’re just jealous that I dated a guy who graduated from Harvard.

And here’s the actual definition (ask Santa for a secular dictionary) courtesy of http://www.dictionary.com:

ne·o·con·ser·va·tism also ne·o-con·ser·va·tism
Pronunciation Key (n-kn-sûrv-tzm)
n.
An intellectual and political movement in favor of political, economic, and social conservatism that arose in opposition to the perceived liberalism of the 1960s: “The neo-conservatism of the 1980s is a replay of the New Conservatism of the 1950s, which was itself a replay of the New Era philosophy of the 1920s” (Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.).

Also:

evangelical

adj 1: relating to or being a Christian church believing in personal conversion and the inerrancy of the Bible especially the 4 Gospels; “evangelical Christianity”; “an ultraconservative evangelical message” 2: of or pertaining to or in keeping with the Christian gospel especially as in the first 4 books of the New Testament 3: marked by ardent or zealous enthusiasm for a cause

,
Good thing I’m teaching and not you! I shutter to think what you would actually teach. What Nazi gave you your dictionary?

Comment by unbelievable

You don’t even know what a neo-con is. Look it up. Dear Lord woman! A neo-con is a former left wing Jew turned conservative to meet the threat of the Left to Israel. That’s very simple but essentially correct. David Horowitz former Red Diaper Jew Baby from the NYC communist communes says he saw the light when his idealistic comrades turned bloodthirsty apologists for every vice and crime perpetuated in the service of the Soviet. There’s a lot of different ground to cover with these guys but none of it gets near evangelical Christianity. You don’t know what words mean anymore. The scary part to me is I know there are tens of thousands of numbnuts like you teaching America’s children.

Because he is a bully and an abuser, and this is where he can find people to abuse. I’m sure he has other sites where he does the same. Civil discourse in unmistakable, abuse is likewise. My guess is that this guy doesn’t have anyone in his life to kick around, so he does it on the net. I think it has a pathology, and truthfully, I am really tired of the sicko types taking advantage of everyone else’s kind and forgiving nature.

Comment by Solitaire — December 22, 2005 @ 1:20 pm

I do understand your point. Very well. I had a rough childhood. But, I also believe that you have to give someone your permission to abuse you. I know he has tried with me, but because I didn’t let his feministic remarks get to me, he’s mostly stopped doing it (the intentional stuff anyway). I do not think my conversations with him are abusive on either end anymore (except for those occasional moments when he realizes that he actually likes a liberal atheist feminist :).

And I think that’s the thing with a lot of the trolls in here they are paid to frustrate us. We started ignoring wwallace and he changed his screen name. IRI has several identities and the same seems true for most of them. They aren’t worth worrying about. It’s the Dick Cheneys and Tom Delays we should be worried about…

And yes, IRI, I know you read this. It wasn’t personal.

Now that was a nice thing to say in a left handed compliment sort of way. On thing though, I’m no fan of neo-conservatives. A faithless man of the Left or the Right is no asset to a free people.

Comment by I-RIGHT-I — December 22, 2005 @ 2:25 pm

You should be glad I don’t take your comments to me personally, seeing as I’m the only woman speaking to you at present – and probably for quite a while now…

The neo-cons are evangelical. That’s not faithless. It’s uber-faithful in a demented sort of way.

Faith in anything is dangerous to a free people. Thinking for yourself is all the self-defense you will ever need. Check out Prague v. USSR, or Gandhi v. British Empire…

Comment by unbelievable

Now that was a nice thing to say in a left handed compliment sort of way. On thing though, I’m no fan of neo-conservatives. A faithless man of the Left or the Right is no asset to a free people.

I’ve read several studies that indicate people who are abusive have been or are being abused. Just like the little boy who got a spanking then went and kicked the dog…

Republicans are being abused by their own party. I’m hardly surprised abuse is all most of them offer us. Especially as they are self-destructively imploding.

I don’t take IRI personally. I don’t think he’s a bad person, he is just obliviously loyal to a religious sect and a political party that teach him hatred and violence to solve problems. Why else would he be in here hanging out with tree-huggers, hippies, vegans and our peace-mongering types if we weren’t preferable to his chosen neocons? :)

Not near as funny as when I first said it.

Comment by I-RIGHT-I — December 22, 2005 @ 10:00 am

Actually… you didn’t say it, you posted a copy of an email that someone else sent you… :)

Comment by Gregor Samsa — December 21, 2005 @ 7:09 pm

See IRI, that was funny…

Comment by unbelievable

Not near as funny as when I first said it.

I’ve noticed many liberal political shows on Comedy Central over the years, but ZERO reicht-wing political shows. And for very good reasons…