juansavage1

It doesn't really matter to the point I was making and maybe we're talking about different things. I'm sure you're right in what you're saying. Smoking might cost your company more because you're insuring them during their working life and not their medicare years?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/03/22/alcohol-obesity-and-smoking-do-not-cost-health-care-systems-money/

I don't see it as being right or wrong. I see it as competing values. If your value is that people make more or less the same amount of money, then your policies will reflect this and others who prefer more economic freedom would be "wrong." And, democracies get the leadership they deserve.

I'm not motivated to disagree with this and I'd gladly change my mind, but can you provide a source? Everybody dies and nearly everybody tries to delay death, and that usually costs money. Sorry for being skeptical, but i never trust these kinds of statistics and I'm almost always right to do so.

First, almost all people have very expensive health care costs before they die, unless they die suddenly or in an accident. It's a fact that GENERALLY, smokers die earlier. What about my other example, the one without a physical component? Are all teens bad drivers or just generally bad drivers?

Some generalizations are more true, based on facts. Here's one fact: Now, can we generalize from this graphic that people who attend Church often are more likely to vote a certain way?

I just meant that they use statistics to generalize about people. Not every teen boy is an unsafe driver. Not every smoker dies early. Right now, we have laws that prevent insurance companies from using certain statistics, but if they could, they'd screen for many more categories. It just so happens that right now smoking is very un-PC.

He's very popular among very ideological leftists (Marxists. You may not know that almost all of the power/priviledge talk and the ______studies courses are based on Marxist theory), mostly on college campuses. His books were found with Bin Laden and he was/is read by the international left like former president of Venezuela Chavez. I use him and Zinn because he's well-known. People on the left usually bring up Rush Limbaugh or the anchor on Fox as examples of conservatives. Most people who vote for liberals aren't ideologues- they're public employees (I'm a public employee, twice over), people who vote based on ethnic/racial loyalty, single moms (married women tend to vote GOP), people on assistance. Left ideologues would be college professors and their students (mostly humanities and social studies), environmentalists, Hollywood and the social liberal (Silicon Valley) and the irreligious.

I just stop by for the wings and to watch the game.

Yes. People do it all the time. Think of the insurance and advertising industry who make money from generalizations. Generally speaking, guys like to watch sports, drink beer, hand out with friends, and look at girls. Those things correlate. That's why we have certain beer commercials during games. Baseball fans are like this, basketball fans are like that. Angel fans are like this, Dodger fans are like that. Political consultants do the same thing. Conservatives like this. Liberals like that. You probably won't find a lot of Chomsky fans at American Sniper and you won't find a lot of conservatives at Brokeback Mountain. The trick to generalizing accurately is basing it on facts and research and not to oversimplify.

I generalize from facts.

Fair enough guys. Things are always more complicated, but if we can't generalize, we can't discuss anything. A communist believes certain things. Not everybody who wants a smaller military or wants the US to intervene less in the world is a communist, but most people who think like Zinn and Chomsky, do.

Funny this quote thing doesn't work in IE. Anyways, I didn't say that Seeger supported Nazis. He supported the Soviet Union. When the Soviets agreed with the Nazis to partition Poland and the Baltics, the Soviets told Seeger and other Communists to cool it about Germany and resist American intervention (and, the Soviets didn't release a famous anti-German movie), which he did, as a loyal Communist. When the Nazis attacked the Soviets (like the Yankees playing the As), the Soviets told American Communists to agitate for intervention, which they did. I bring this up because I think for many their stance on the American power has to do with their perception of the US and its enemies. Seeger saw the US as intervening for corporate interests when it hurt the Soviets and then as Crusaders against the evil Nazis when it helped the Soviet Union.

It's very sneaky of DiPoto to stock his team with Latin blacks so that people can defend his racism.

1: Most of you were much, much better than the average internet discussion partner, so thanks. 2. My main thesis is that people's attitude towards the military has to do with what they think of those countries generally opposed to the US (Communists, Nazis, terrorists in the 20th century) and the role the US plays in the world. Chomsky would be famous examples of the kind of person I'm talking about. There are others, like strict pacifists and Libertarians, but these are rare now and practically non-existent historically. AS you know, Chomsky tried to minimize the Cambodian genocide until the Vietnamese invaded. He tried to maximize US misdeeds. The best story in connection with thesis is Pete Seeger. Seeger, as you know was a folk musician and a Communist. When the Soviets signed a treaty with Hitler, Seeger released an anti-war album. As soon as the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union, Seeger recalled the album. I think if you correlate what I've discussed, you'll see that my thesis is supportable by facts. Unless there are specific questions addressed to me, I'd like to quietly leave the thread.

First, politics were a little different in the 70s. There were many conservative Dems in the south and the GOP had liberals (GOP was still pro choice). It was when the "New Left" took over the Dems that conservative Dems moved to the GOP, so it was really right versus left. Still, here's some background including a final vote on whether to support the South militarily. If I had time, I'd look up each congressman and divide between liberal and conservative. I'd correlate that with whether they voted for a strong military or not. The classic case of a Congress voting to override a presidential assurance to a foreign leader came in 1975. When President Nixon signed the Paris Peace Accords with North Vietnam in 1972, the spirit and letter of the agreement guaranteed South Vietnam’s independence; what’s more, President Nixon promised Nguyen Van Thieu, President of South Vietnam at the time, that the United States would come to the South’s rescue if the North broke the agreement and attacked. But the PPA was not a treaty, and the Senate did not ratify it. Nixon was later forced to resign because of his role in the Watergate scandal, and in early 1975 North Vietnam attacked the South. President Ford, seeking to honor both the spirit of President Nixon’s signature to the Paris Peace Accords and his promise to Thieu, asked Congress for money for military aid for South Vietnam. With overwhelming Democratic support, Congress refused to provide aid and South Vietnam went down the tubes. As the embittered Thieu said in a final address as his country collapsed, “At the time of the peace agreement the United States agreed to replace equipment on a one-by-one basis. But the United States did not keep its word. Is an American’s word reliable these days? The United States did not keep its promise to help us fight for freedom and it was in the same fight that the United States lost 50,000 of its young men.” One can agree or disagree with Congress’ decision in that case, but there is no doubt that Congress had every right and even a duty to consider the matter of aid to South Vietnam for itself. Just because Nixon wrote Thieu that, as quoted by Richard Holbrooke in The New Republic, “You have my absolute assurance that if Hanoi fails to abide by the terms of this agreement it is my intention to take swift and severe retaliatory action,” did not mean that Congress was bound by these empty words. Nor did the promise of independence in the PPA create a US treaty obligation. In 1975, South Vietnam was going down in flames and the Ford Administration was fighting to get aid from Congress. In the process, it suggested strongly that Congress was bound to honor what were essentially a series of formal and informal executive undertakings in foreign policy. Senator Jackson took on the Administration’s claims that the United States was bound by Nixon’s promise to support South Vietnam: Jackson said the Ford administration had intimated that Congress had reneged on “commitments” and “obligations” to the Saigon government. “The fact is,” he continued, “that Congress is being accused of violating commitments and obligations it never heard of…. I call upon the President now to make public and to provide to Congress all documents embodying or reflecting these secret agreements…. We in the Congress cannot play our constitutional role in constructing a coherent foreign policy so long as information to which we are entitled is kept from us.”The White House responded in a statement issued April 9 that former President Nixon had assured South Vietnamese President Thieu in private correspondence that the United States would “react vigorously to major violations” of the Paris peace accords. The “confidential exchanges” between Thieu and Nixon did not differ in substance from what was stated publicly when the accords were signed in January 1973, the statement said, when the U.S. intentions to provide adequate economic and military assistance and to enforce the Paris agreements “were stated clearly and publicly by President Nixon.” In the final House vote on military aid, 90 Republicans and 46 Democrats voted to uphold Nixon’s agreements with Thieu; 46 Republicans and 200 Democrats voted to repudiate them.

There I go again, stating facts. Why is it hard for you to just accept reality? Maybe you agree with them. Fine, but just be honest.

I asked you first. It was one party that refused to honor our treaty with South Vietnam. They had a super majority because of Watergate. I've never heard any liberal regret that. I think almost all Republicans supported South Vietnam.

First, is anything I said not true? Second, please name the leftists who regret not helping the south fight back against the north or who criticized Minh for breaking the treaty. You can include family members.

Yes. Now you're getting it. In 1973, Nixon had bombed the North into submission and the North agreed to a partitioned Vietnam. The Americans agreed to protect the South from the North and it's communist supporters. When the North did attack, the Democrats in Congress refused to follow Ford and help the South. That's when you got the helicopters, to the delight of the left.

Here's my assertion, step by step. I can waste time finding polls supporting each one, but I'd rather you just accept the obvious. I'm not even saying which position is correct and I won't argue it because arguing these things is a waste of time-different values. So, tell me where I'm wrong: Leftists have minimized the communist/terrorist threat through the years. True or false? Leftists have tended to want less military spending over the years. True or false? Leftists have sometimes extolled the virtues of communists like Castro, Minh, and Mao while excusing terrorist behavior as caused by imperialism or economics. Yes or no? I think these three are related, logically. Yes, there are now Libertarians and your grandfather this or that and your conservative neighbor loves Minh and your commie neighbor wants more B2 bombers, but we're generalizing. Are these things generally true?

Nixon bombed North Vietnam, a popular move at the time, He also promised that he would leave a Vietnam free from Soviet and Chinese influence, which he did. I'd say if you name your affectionately name your pets after communists, you might be one, in the same way I'd assume somebody who named their dogs Hitler and Eva were Nazis. There are many Che supporters who are just ignorant kids (My parents are Cuban) so you might be one of those as well.

By your logic, then, leftists and conservatives both liked Minh. Would a survey of, say, the National review and the Nation from the sixties and seventies (research) show that both had the same opinion of Minh? Polls would show the same, you think? I'm making it clear, using facts like voting patterns, as well as personal experience that what people think about the need for the military is related to how they see the US and it's enemies. I didn't say you were dirty or even wrong. People who like communists like Castro and Minh and see Fox News as the locus of evil in the world are probably for reduced defense spending. You've shown neither the ability to reason nor any facts at all, with all due respect to your dads and room mates.

Did the antiwar candidate win in 1968 or 1972? Don't elections express the popular will? Did you not extoll the virtues of Ho Chi Minh and argue for the justness of his cause? But, thanks for continuing to prove my point.

This isn't true. You think that from media. Nixon was for winning the war (and did, in fact, win the war) and he won a landslide against the antiwar McGovern. [qquote name=Vladdylonglegs" post="590880" timestamp="1433030039] I think the majority of the country was against the Vietnam war, not just the "leftists". Same thing with Iraq, many of those who supported it in the beginning (who you would label as 'conservatives') are now very much against it. You are definitely the minority in not getting tired of decade long wars.