If you don't like sex then don't have it and don't force us not to have it

[Deja Q]

There. That ends the Fundie whinging once and for all. Especially when the latter half is a reminder that the repukes want to think that government should stay out of peoples' lives.

Edited via request: Replaced 'neocon' with a far more apropos 'fundie'. :D

[HEIL PRESIDENT GOD]

1. Wrong target...

The FUNDIES want us to stop having sex. The NEOCONS need babies for the war!

[Technowitch]

5. No no no...

The Fundies want there to be sex -- but only for the purpose of procreation and to "be fruitful and multiply" as their god says they're supposed to.

The neocons? They just want cannon fodder.

[Huckebein the Raven]

11. they also want no "mixing"

[Nestea]

2. Neocons usually don't care about shit like that

Neocons are mostly former Democrats who became Republicans because they wanted a more proactive, preemptive, and in general more ACTIVE foreign policy(Wolfowitz, Perle, etc.)

Neoconservatism has nothing to do with Evangelical Republicanism, which is what you're describing.

[laheina]

3. How many times do I have to say this?!

The Neocons are not former Dems or Liberals!!

They are primarily refugees from extremist fringe groups. Get your facts straight. See: The Republican Noise Machine by David Brock.

[Nestea]

4. I'm sorry, but that's just not true

Wolfowitz and Perle are both former Democrats. In fact, Perle is still a registered Democrat. He used to work for Senator Scoop Jackson, a Democratic senator who probably helped cement Perle's neocon views. Scoop Jackson was an avid Cold Warrior and this probably turned Perle into a Republican.

Wolfowitz is also a former Democrat.

Both of them hold social views which most people would consider liberal. Pro-choice, etc.

From June 30, 2004:
http://www.conservativeusa.org/abortion.htm
BUSH’S DEPUTY DEFENSE SECRETARY CONSIDERS U.S. MILITARY PAYMENTS FOR ABORTION

"Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz stunned social conservatives Tuesday when he told Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer of California he would ‘consider’ allowing the U.S. military to pay for abortions of female military personnel who are raped.

"Boxer, an ardent advocate of abortion rights, at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing asked Wolfowitz if ‘you would consider supporting’ her bill funding abortions in military rape cases. ‘I would certainly consider that, Senator,’ replied Wolfowitz." Source: Robert Novak, New York Post, 5/22/04, p. 17

Hate them all you want(I certainly can't stand their foreign policy views), but please, let's not be disingenous about their former political affiliations, etc.

[laheina]

6. Firstly, I don't hate anybody.

2) Economic Conservatives and Libertarians hold some views that have been pigeonholed as "Liberal", but that doesn't make them Liberal.

3) I can register as a Republican, but that doesn't mean anything. You didn't state a source for this, and frankly, your post history leads me to disbelieve it.

4) Dude, your using Robert Novak as a source on anything? Get a grip.

[Nestea]

7. They're not economic conservatives either.

At least not Wolfowitz. He's been outspoken in his support for domestic programs, which is directly opposite Bush.

He's a Democratic superhawk.


And the source is not the important thing.

[laheina]

9. so says the poster

who makes another interesting claim with no evidence.

Robert Novak is a paid propagandist for the right. He doesn't say anything without an ulterior motive, and there was no context to discern what that was. He also is less than truthful, so if you are going to use him as a source to back up your claims, than YES, sources are important.

[Nestea]

12. Robert Novak lists his source

It's in the Senate record from that day. Look it up yourself.

Don't be so intellectually lazy. It's not becoming.

For someone who's only been here 6 days longer than me, you have a lot of nerve.

[laheina]

13. Ummm...

>It's in the Senate record from that day. Look it up yourself.

Your argument, your job.

>Don't be so intellectually lazy. It's not becoming.

Coming from someone who is using ad hominem attacks to detract from the fact that he posts sub-par arguments, that's quite funny.

>For someone who's only been here 6 days longer than me, you have a >lot of nerve.

Now what does that have to do with anything?

[Nestea]

14. These aren't arguments

They're facts. And you've bothered to post no sources at all yet you contend that you can challenge my facts. That's chutzpah.

So come on, show me a link where it says Wolfowitz and Perle are economic conservatives and Republicans.

I'm waiting.

[laheina]

15. I posted a book.

Fact (singular) according to who (no context)?

Source: book: see above, but if you prefer, you are more than welcome to use the search engine. You were, after all accusing me of intellectual laziness for not doing the same.

Argument: A statement or statements providing proof for a claim. "The Structure of Argument" Annette t. Rottenberg. (Another book.)

My bad. You are right. You have presented CLAIMS without support.

Go ahead and wait. I have more interesting threads to read.


Editted due to my HTML retardedness.:P

[Nestea]

16. LMAO

Looks like someone needs a lesson on bolding. It's and .

But your post does look funny.

[laheina]

17. yes it does, Straw Man.

But I'm still done with you anyway.

[Nestea]

18. Haha okay

Au revoir.

[AndyTiedye]

8. That Just Means They Are Opportunists

They were always hawks, but gravitate to whichever party is in power.

[laheina]

10. Yeah.

Wasn't that the camp that used to want "the government to stay out of my bedroom." Or am I wrong?