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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (170947)	6/10/2003 6:19:23 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1579962

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. Well, according to a 2001 poll, 53% of Reps. and 68% of Conservatives felt "Abortions should be all or mostly illegal". Those percentages, 53% and 68% look to be majorities to me. religioustolerance.org "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". Just because something is not at the heart of one's ideology does not mean that that person doesn't have strong feelings on an issue. I think that's the case with homosexuality. Let me cut this off here. You're telling yourself a fairy tale. EOM Every single point I mentioned was 100% verifiable historical fact. I have no question as to their accuracy but to say that Bush was continuing a war from 10 years ago is the equivalent of telling a fairy tale. This war may have been prompted by past issues but it was a whole new ballgame. 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? No! And that's because Japan attacked us first and the countries of Germany and Italy attacked our allies first. The Taliban did not attack us but rather a terrorist group operating in their country were suspected of perpetrating 9/11 and for that reason we attacked them. Those were not considered wars. "We took control of both countries by force. That isn't a war?" I guess you're right; they're additional examples of Rep. presidencies performing preemptive strikes.<g> But in reality, they were more police actions than full scale wars. Although Iraq is turning into more of a police action. 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. You're right but I still contend the concept started with a Rep. president. ted