They are Idiots

By Jack777 on 11.18.04 3:02 pm

They are Idiots

Yet another cogent, well reasoned, argument from the christian right.

By Alan Folsom on 11.18.04 3:18 pm

I don’t see any need to elaborate. I am not on the Christian Right. I am a Christian.

By Jack777 on 11.19.04 9:04 am

I am a Christian.

You may call yourself that.

And yet you support a government that has murdered 100,000 civilians in an unncessary and unjust war. See Exodus 20:13, Matthew 25:40

And yet you support a government that has driven more people into poverty than any time since the great depression. See Isaiah 1:17, or Luke 12:32

Are you a Christian? You call yourself that, but I don’t remember Christ acting with bigotry or hatred, or ignoring the poor, or condoning the murder of thousands.

Go ahead, wrap yourself in your self-righteous cloak of Christianity, but before you criticize others for their ethics or morality, you might reread Matthew 7:5

By Alan Folsom on 11.19.04 10:04 am

Thanks for the warnings.

I guess you are saying I am guilty of bigotry, hatred, ignoring the poor, and condoning the murder of thousands.

Maybe this is true, but you do not know that one way or the other.

You say I support a government that has driven more people into poverty than any since the time of the Great Depression.

That is not true.

You say I support a government that has murdered 100,000 civilians.

That is not true.

By Jack777 on 11.19.04 10:51 am

As a direct result of the Iraqi war, 100,000 civilians have died. Go read the post below which shows that.

Who made that decision? Bush and his adminstration. Go read Bob Woodward’s book, Bush at War. He was afforded unmatched access to the White House and staff, and realized that within a week after gaining office in 2000, Rumsfeld had decided to go after Iraq. We still have not proved any of the allegations of WMD, threat to the US, etc that were used to explain the Iraq war.

1,200 American soliders have died. Uncounted numbers of other countries soliders and civilians. 100,000 Iraqis. How is that not murder?

Unless you don’t support Bush (which would then be completely counter to every post you’ve made), how do you claim that "this is not true".?

By Tom Folsom on 11.19.04 11:07 am

I guess you are saying I am guilty of bigotry, hatred, ignoring the poor, and condoning the murder of thousands.

Maybe this is true, but you do not know that one way or the other.

Not a very astute reading. I said you supported a government that did those things, not that you did. And, I do know that. You’ve already admitted how you voted.

You say I support a government that has driven more people into poverty than any since the time of the Great Depression.

That is not true.
Not true that you support it, or not true that their are more people living in poverty?

The US Census Bureau report for poverty in 2003 disputes you. While poverty rates were higher in 1960 (before the liberals started sending all that money to help the rural south) the population was little more than half what it is now. I will admit that the number of people living in poverty at that time was near, and perhaps slightly over, what it is now. That’s why the Kennedy and Johnson administrations worked so hard to alleviate that situation, not drive more people into poverty.

You say I support a government that has murdered 100,000 civilians.

That is not true.
Again, not true about the murder, or not true about your support?

The British journal The Lancet is one of the premier medical journals in the world. An article in the November issue reports on deaths in Iraq. The synopsis reads, in part:
"In view of the limited availability of health information following the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Les Roberts and colleagues did a national survey of Iraqi civilian households to compare mortality rates before and after the invasion. Making conservative assumptions, they estimated that around 100 000 Iraqi civilians died as a result of the invasion–mostly violent deaths among women and children related to military activity–and that the risk of death was about 2·5-fold higher after the invasion than before."

You may make any assertions you want, but without some facts to back you up, your comments are meaningless.

By folsom on 11.19.04 11:18 am