"Diversity is not our strength": Cincy's own Ramaswamy 2024!

[Dill]

(08-09-2023, 10:27 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This one right here, or the one after that?  Inquiring minds want to know.
Interesting, doubling down on actual liberals supporting the Vietnam war.  This is going to be entertaining.
Your posts are often non-sensical, so the concept isn't that farfetched.
I'll make it easy for you.  When I refer to liberals I'm talking about actual liberals.

Oh, so you are just referring to the Democratic party, which not only started US involvement in the Vietnam war but consistently expanded it.  See, I was confused as you said earlier in this very post that you weren't only referring to the Democratic part, but liberals in general.  I guess those hundreds of thousands of anti-war protestors were conservative then.  My bad.

Heavens forbid.  As Napoleon stated, never interrupt your enemy when they're making a mistake.  Do carry on.

Nervous quippery. Are you up to this? 

The claim is that "liberals" supported the Vietnam War: "Liberals in general" to use your formulation. 

The claim is not that liberals (some) never protested the war, which could be refuted by a picture of thousands of protestors

As I am using the term "liberal," it would include leaders of the Democratic party, who were indeed BIG GOVERMENT liberals, as the Right has used that term for generations. It would not exclude liberals outside the Dem party though, like liberal Republicans Clifford Case or Mark Hatfield or Rockefeller Republicans, though these later came to oppose the war. And it would not exclude independents. It would not deny that some liberals never supported the war, or that many liberals stopped supporting the war as it dragged on. But it is stronger than a claim that "some" or "many" supported the war. The majority did for most of the war. 

So, to repeat from my earlier post, if the claim is wrong, then you want to show 1) that "liberals" did not support the war at least in any great 
numbers. Or 2) show that the people I've described as leading/supporting the war (Johnson, Rusk, McNamara et al.) were not liberals, along with the majorities who voted them into power and supported the war. In 1968 an anti-war candidate could not even win the Dem presidential primary from a predominately liberal constituency. 

Your counter claim is simply that "hundreds of thousands" protested, and those protestors couldn't be "conservatives," 
therefore, it's a "mistake" to think liberals supported the war.  And "entertaining." 

That formulation implicitly limits the reference of "actual liberals" to protestors, not the millions who supported the war. A circular argument.

Nevermind that for most of the war, most of the nation, including liberals, protested the protestors. Nevermind that the Democrats and party who were objects of protest at the '68 convention also were not "conservatives."  

So yes, I'm doubling down on the historical record vs historical stereotypes from movies and media.