Vilification is over the top

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap
Truman was the one who created a department of Defense and oversaw the creation of the large standing army, and Eisenhower was the one warning of the military-industrial complex.

Calling dems. weak on defense was a canard by reps. that came during Nixon's term and after Lyndon Johnson.

Truman was the one who first reduced the army to 10 divisions, who allowed China to fall, who withdrew from South Korea.

No, it was Truman who taught is by his example that weakness invites attack.

And, just when he might have convinced us that he had learned his lesson, he fired MacArthur.

The Republicans won the next two elections because they were strong on defense. Kennedy won because he was stronger on defense.

Johnson won the election because he convinced the American people that Goldwater was a reckless radical who would ignite a nuclear war.

Nixon was narrowly elected to end the Vietnam war, but was reelected in a huge landslide when he actually delivered "Peace with Honor" while McGovern promised to withdraw almost without condition - essentially surrender.

The parties have been sharply divided on defense ever since.

[chequita guevara]

Your position to reality is so amusing, Ned.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
*chegitz plants his flag atop MrFun

Victory!

[GePap]

Truman was the one who first reduced the army to 10 divisions, who allowed China to fall, who withdrew from South Korea.

Lets see: go from the army that fought WW2 down.who would guess! BUt then in peacetime he reved the army up-firt time in US history. 2> We did Not lose china, the incompetent,m badly lead, divided Nationalist lost it, with the well organized and driven Communist won it. As for leaven Sputh korea-we did what we said we would-I guess doing what was right irks you.

Lyndon was the one who got usinto vietnam, and saying the other guy is a dangerous extremist is not, at least not in a logical mindset, the same as weak on defense-unless you are a fan of nuclear war

As for peace with honor from vietnam

Wait, why do I bother when you get into this mode? I mean, it's such an absurd waste of intelligence on my part.

[Boris Godunov]

Ah, GePap's spelling is getting exponentially worse...you can tell he's riled up!

[GePap]

Ned brings that out in me when he gets in that mood. I am slowly learning to spell well.

[GePap]

"Youo don/t like me whrn iam angty!"

[Ned]

GePap, there is a reason that Dewey almost won and that Truman's popularity dropped to 22% before he decided not to run again.

It had nothing to do with his perceived strength in the face of communism.

[Ben Kenobi]

Playing both ends against the middle, che?

Boris:

I never said it was easier for a heterosexual, than for a homosexual. And I will say it is easier to give up something you have never tried.

People can get addicted to sex, because it does affect similar pleasure centres as other drugs. From the perspective of addiction, the effects are not much different from alcoholism.

It's one thing to say, I was sober from 16-21, and quite another to say that one is sober currently. The first statement does not preclude current addiction. If it's so easy to give up, why not go back to your older life?

[GePap]

First, you seem to forget China was "lost" in 1949. There were bad economic times after WW2 that hurt Trumans popularity, you had his civil rights actions like integrating the military sap him in the south and bring forth the dixiecrats and so forth. It was Truman in '47 that dictated the Truman doctrine,and who in 1947 create the large, standing military: so if you think weakness with the Commies was what drove him down..well.....

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Playing both ends against the middle, che?

Boris:

I never said it was easier for a heterosexual, than for a homosexual. And I will say it is easier to give up something you have never tried.

Which means exactly what? That heteros' can give up homosexual sex cause they have not had it yet?

People can get addicted to sex, because it does affect similar pleasure centres as other drugs. From the perspective of addiction, the effects are not much different from alcoholism.

There are such things as sex addicts, and most are heterosexuals, because most people are heterosexuals. I assume tyou have absolutely, positively ntohing to show a higher rate of sexual addiction among gays than heteropsexuals, do you? And if you are trying to say Homosexuality is sex addiction, well, I hope you are smarter than that, cause any third grader can show the logical fallacy of saying that.

It's one thing to say, I was sober from 16-21, and quite another to say that one is sober currently. The first statement does not preclude current addiction. If it's so easy to give up, why not go back to your older life?

This make no sense. is a five month old heterosexual or homosexual? They have little concept of sex, so by your statements you seem to be indicating they can be neither-if that is true, then heterosexuality must be a choice just as much as homosexuality and the claim that hetero sex is "natural" a load of crap..unless your mode of thinking is logically flawed.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I never said it was easier for a heterosexual, than for a homosexual. And I will say it is easier to give up something you have never tried.

Then why bring it up as a means of singling out homosexuals? And I'd had sex when 16, so it wasn't something I hadn't tried--that's why I didn't say 0-21.

People can get addicted to sex, because it does affect similar pleasure centres as other drugs. From the perspective of addiction, the effects are not much different from alcoholism.

Yes, people can become sex addicts. It makes no difference if one is straight or gay, however. I'm certainly not a sex addict. I suggest you define "addict" as well. Defining sex as negative because people can abuse it isn't very good logic. To be an addict of something, in a clinical sense, involves dependency to the point of self-destructive behavior.

It's one thing to say, I was sober from 16-21, and quite another to say that one is sober currently. The first statement does not preclude current addiction. If it's so easy to give up, why not go back to your older life?

Do you think I'm a sex addict? Do you have any clue as to my sex life? Why would you assume I'm a sex addict--because I'm homosexual?

It's easy to go without sex for a long while. But your question about giving it up--and I assume you mean having sex--is rather specious, because I ask: why should I? I have a healthy sex life that I enjoy, and it doesn't hurt myself or others. What reason would I have to give it up?

More to the point, since this revolves around the whole marriage issue, why should a homosexual try to deny being homosexual when he has someone he loves, is happy with and wants to marry? What kind of stupid schmuck would chuck that aside?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


More to the point, since this revolves around the whole marriage issue, why should a homosexual try to deny being homosexual when he has someone he loves, is happy with and wants to marry? What kind of stupid schmuck would chuck that aside?

I love your rhetorical questions.

[Boris Godunov]

Truman's drop in popularity was almost entirely attributable to his civil rights actions, which pissed off the Dixiecrats who had formerly supported him. The near victory of Dewey was because there was a guy name Thurmond running as a Segregationist who sapped away what was then traditionally Democrat votes in the South. Had Thurmond not ran, Truman would have won in a walk.

[GePap]

Boris: it works better to deconstruct his "logic".