SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: tejek who wrote (170909)6/10/2003 3:52:38 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) of 1579983
 
Many conservatives don't care much about abortion.

Many? I don't want to call you a liar but I find that highly suspect......the only conservatives I have found who are pro choice with any regularity are usually both moderate and women.


Yes many. Not most. Not a majority but many.

"Conservatives", covers different ideas. Some people who are called conservative that and/or would call themselves that are almost libertarian, others are focused on fiscal conservatism, others are "the religious right" (who almost universally consider abortion an important issue), others are more concerned about defense and foreign policy (during the cold war their main issue was anti-communism). A significant percent of each group consider abortion an important issue but only the religious right is overwhelmingly focused on it.

"Few people are obsessed with homosexuality."

Maybe we are playing with semantics. I think that many conservatives are opposed to homosexuals. Otherwise, Sanatorum would not have felt so comfortable making his comments about gays.


You said it was "the heart of their ideology". Those that care that much about homosexuality or homosexuals as an ideological issue are few, fewer still if you exclude non conservative groups like ACT-UP, or various gay lesbian "alliances". The religious right might care about the issue in a political or ideological way, but even they rarely make it "the heart of their ideology". And it's not just a semantic issue over the phrase "the heart of their ideology", because outside of the religious right the rest of the conservatives mostly really don't care.

Let me cut this off here. You're telling yourself a fairy tale. EOM

Every single point I mentioned was 100% verifiable historical fact.

Afghanistan wasn't preemptive.

I see, the ruling body, the Taliban, invited us into the country. You call it what you want but it looks to me like a war where the ruling gov't was toppled.


I didn't say the Taliban invited us in or that that they where not toppled. I said it was not preemptive. The governments of Japan, Germany, and Italy where toppled in WWII. Was it preemptive?

Those were not considered wars.

"We took control of both countries by force. That isn't a war?"

When are you talking about? Grenada and Panama?


Yes.

Its my understanding that with Grenada and Panama, we were helping out the ruling gov'ts then much like we are doing in the Philippines today.

We toppled governments in both Grenada and Panama. We helped set up democratic governments to replace the dictators we toppled.

Don't tell me that........the whole Southeast Asia domino theory which laid out the groundwork for war in Vietnam was developed under the Eisenhower administration.

I tell you that because its the truth. Americans didn't get involved in a major way in fighting in Vietnam under Eisenhower. The "domino theory" certainly predates Kennedy, possibly Eisenhower as well. (Eisenhower was the first president to mention it but he didn't invent it). Kennedy was elected in 1960. The Gulf of Tonkin incident was in 1964. LBJ was elected in 64. "Rolling Thunder, the marines arriving at Danang, and the Ia Drang Valley fighting (the first heavy fighting between Americans and the Vietnamese communists, covered in the Book "We were soldiers once, and young", and the movie "We were soldiers"), where in 1965. The peak US troop level was in 1969.

"My statement was in a direct response to war being the last resort. The Dems are about as likely to resort to war as the GOP."

When attacked! The GOP under Bush didn't wait for that possibility.


When attacked and when not attacked. In the 20th century (and so far in the 21st) only WWII, and Afghanistan/War on Terror where in direct response to an attack on the US.

What makes you think that Grooms was referring to the GOP when he called one of them stupid? If he thinks like D.Ray, then he meant the Dems.

I don't know what Grooms was referring to. I know what people later referring backed to that quote where talking about. I really don't know much about Grooms. But at least a couple of later conservative writers have taken to calling the Republican party "the stupid party".

Tim
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext