Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (10707)	11/17/2001 5:55:38 PM
From: Poet	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Here's a surprise: I found your last paragraph particularly strong and agreed with it. -g

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (10707)	11/17/2001 7:59:12 PM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 281500

Poke your head out of the foxhole long enough for me to shake your hand for that paragraph. Then duck back again; there probably will be some less friendly fire coming if certain people or groups get wind of what you wrote!

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (10707)	11/17/2001 8:36:39 PM
From: unclewest	Respond to of 281500

DINKs, should subvert their desire for certain moral freedoms unique to their societal groupings had to chuckle at that one. in vietnam, DINKS is what American Infantrymen called NVA soldiers in the field.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (10707)	11/19/2001 7:53:38 AM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Those who are single, gay, or DINKs, should subvert their desire for certain moral freedoms unique to their societal groupings, to the needs and wants of those who deal with raising a family and instilling American values to their children. Why should the moral freedoms desired by those groups have any negative affect on those who are raising families? And isn't "live and let live" about as fundamental an American value as you can find? This has, on the surface, little or nothing to do with the topic of a thread devoted to the discussion of foreign affairs. It does raise an interesting point, though, which intrudes on all aspects of American policymaking. Americans, and American conservatives in particular, have long struggled to find a middle ground between two conflicting sets of values, each of which has an intrinsic place in our culture. We are torn between the libertarian and the puritan, between desiring to keep the state out of any issue that does not directly intrude on the rights of others and desiring to impose our own vision of virtue on those around us. The impulses are quite incompatible, but both are as American as apple pie. The resolution of the tension between these extremes will have a great deal to do with the direction our country takes both at home and abroad.