You just missed him. He left Hurlburt to go to Kadena in May of '98, and was at Tinker from '94 to '96. He was at Kirtland while you were at Tinker. He retired about a year and a half ago, and they now live in Ft. Walton Beach.

So enlighten me, snarky one. What's the point of asking in what military unit a supporter of the war has served?

Your example is a perfect illustration of your flawed ethical framework. If you suspect your neighbor of killing your kids, you would not go over there with a shotgun, shoot him, and take over his house and custody of his kids until they reached the age where they could take care of themselves. You would call the police, who would arrest him if they had probably cause. The DA would then prosecute the case and his fate would be determined by a judge and jury of his peers.

You apparently want to be judge, jury, and executioner of the entire world (with someone else doing the dirty work, obviously). But that's not how you view things domestically. Why you don't apply the same ethic to an international standing boggles the imagination.

yessssssss.........

I never mentioned police, nor did I mention American society. My example was society neutral and made no assumption about law enforcement. Surely, in a generic society, (Or, if you will, the State of Nature, or the country with an absence of law enforcement or what have you), you'd want me or anyone to stop senseless murder of innocents.

You'll note that your analogy of law enforcement is inexact since the only international institution we have is hamstrung my having too many cooks and too much politics. We don't have international police to go to. All we have is our own ethics.

-Anxiety

That sounds great, but the difference is that it is reasonable to expect that the local and state justice system would actually do something about it. It is completely unreasonable to think that the "international justice system" (I assume you mean that the UN should be contacted....) will ever do anything whatsoever.

What about the first Gulf War? That had the UN's backing, and it had manpower from half the nations on Earth. People were with us because it was the right thing to do. Saddam was an obvious threat. Now nobody is with us, and it's not because there are too much politics in the UN or because France was economically linked to Iraq, it's because it's a BAD idea.

That's quite funny.

Are you sure about that? :rolleyes:

Yes, it certainly did. But, if the UN were as you said, international police to clean up messes when genocide and death is being dished out en masse against innocents (as opposed to carefully attacking military targets in a war), then why aren't they doing so now? I could list numerous cases where we could go in a clean out a nest of evils like Darfur, and yet, where is this supposedly apolitical police like UN?

-Anxiety

Your whole example is flawed. You are contriving everything to make your answer correct. Back in the real world, we don't live in a state of nature for one thing, nor do we lack law enforcement, even on a global level. You may think we do, which is one reason why the entire world hates us right now.

Secondly, you are completely ignoring any kind of cost/benefit analysis. Taking out dictators is great and all, but how many lives did it end up saving? By some estimates, it may have cost more lives than Saddam would ever take in the future. And what about that $300b? That much spent on medicine and immunizations in Africa would save hundreds of thousands. Taking your rediculous example, it's like you saw a neighbor kill his kid, so you sent your kid to die killing his kid, while taking the food from the next door family so they starve to death. You just can't justify Iraq morally from that perspective.

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
"All in all, do you think it was worth going to war in Iraq, or not?"
Date = Yes = No
1/6-8/06 = 46 = 52

"Next, we'd like to ask you some questions about Iraq. First: In view of the developments since we first sent our troops to Iraq, do you think the United States made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq, or not?"

Date = Made a Mistake = Did Not Make a Mistake
1/20-22/06 = 51 = 46



Not only the rest of the world, but a majority of Americans believe it was a BAD idea.

I believe that there is a moral imperative to assist those less fortunate than oneself. When I have more money than I need, I give it away. When someone on the street comes to me and asks for money for food, I take him to a restaurant, when one of my students has problems paying for school, I give them a donation and tell them its from an anonymous donor.

That same moral imperative applies to safety. If I see a man killing innocents, and nobody else is available to jump in and save them, then I have a moral imperative to risk my safety, health and very life to do so.

I don't believe that groups of people have different ethics than individuals. We would never tolerate genocide in Alaska because it is taking place in America. Why turn a blind eye agaisnt genocide when practiced elsewhere?

Of course we can't save everybody, and of course it will cost us money and of course it requires a desire to sacrifice. Lives are simply more valuable, and even if you think Iraq is waste of time and resources, what about other countries where they cry for help and we pretend we are deaf? Where few lifes would be needed to save thousands, tens of thousands, and sometimes, hundreds of thousands.

If your UN is really a police force, then why didn't it end Rwanda?

In my estimation, all human life has intrinsic value. Not just American life.

-Anxiety

Cost/benefit. It's simply more cost effective (in terms of both money and lives) most of the time to have diplomatic resolutions to problems instead of going in guns blazing. From Iraq you should realize that countries do not like foreign troops on their soil, no matter how bad things were before they arrived. The UN is and has been actively engaging in talks with Darfur. The UN is not perfect by any means, but at any given time they have 15-20 peacekeeping operations ongoing throughout the world. That put's them in about 10% of the countries in the world at any given time.

That's right. After all, there's always Poland.

I'll note that you didn't answer my Rwanda question. That's one of the blackest stains on recent international history as essentially the entire world turned a blind eye to it. Tears fill my eyes at the concept of the tragedy that resulted from people with something doing nothing for people who had nothing and just wanted to live.

-Anxiety

And???

Yeah, aren't the Peacekeepers still in Bosnia BTW?
:rolleyes:

That's great, but you lost all perspective. We have spent $240B or so so far in Iraq. That amount could have:

- funded all global anti-hunger efforst for 9 years
- given health insurance to 140,000,000 children for one year
- given basic immunizations to every child in the world for 78 years
- fully funded global anti-AIDS programs for 23 years

etc...

Plus we killed tens of thousands of people. For what? It's like taking the tuition money from two students and giving it to one. It's a net loss. Or taking the meals you were going to give two homeless people, giving one of the meals out and throwing the other one away. It doesn't make sense. That's why the 'moral' reason for going to war in Iraq was always bunk.

I don't know what you are getting at here. The entire world including your own countrymen think that it was a bad idea, but you think it's funny, implying that it is a ludicrous idea, that I say that it is a bad idea?

OJ is on a golf course somewhere, doesn't mean our justice system doesn't exist.

NATO is another international 'law enforcement type' organization.

And the UK, Australia, Japan, etc.

Edit--- here is the actual list of countries:

Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom and Uzbekistan.

There you go just throwing out phrases you know you can't back up.

I hear where you're coming from, but the fact of the matter is that the populaces of the Western powers (including the U.S.) have shown time and time again they're not interested in expending substantial military energies to combat solely humanitarian problems. If they were, the Iraq War wouldn't have had to been sold on a cocktail of WMD, 9/11 terror links, and oppression, 2/3rds of which turned out to be false.

As our experience in Iraq has taught us, the Powell Doctrine is alive and well. If we hope to provide security for a state we've "liberated", we must do it with appropriate troops levels. Given this, any one of these interventions would require the deployment of hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops, with commensurate casualty levels. The U.S. public simply isn't willing to bear that price for that effort. If it was, you wouldn't see a majority of Americans now against the Iraq War, now that it's clear we aren't there for the reasons that were given to us.

So, your objetion to Iraw is that it costs too much money, as opposed to being a bad idea from an ethical standpoint or whatnot. So you'd be fine with us invading a small country where a dictator is killing thousands of people if it cost us less money, was over quickly, and didn't cause a loss of too much life. Is that a correct restatement of your view?

-Anxiety

Let's look at the three you mentioned:

Australia 66% believe not worth going to war:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...%5E601,00.html

Japan 70% want troops out now:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems...2/s1538953.htm

Britian 60%-19% in favor of bringing troops home:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0426-03.htm

I think that backs it up.

A minority of Americans support the war. Fifty-six percent of Active-Duty troops support the war. Both numbers continue to decline. This is not a popular war, fought for goals upon which everyone can agree or support. Furthermore, this is a war in which many thousands of people, including Americans, suffer death and dismemberment.

Given all this I think it's only fair to ask the remaining war supporters about the depth of their convictions. And asking if they'd serve in this war is a perfectly legitimate way to do so.

Are you willing to die for whatever it is we're fighting for in Iraq?

I object to Iraq from many standpoints. Economically, morally, and practically. If it cost little, was over quickly, and didn't cause a loss of life the international community would be behind it. I don't know any country that wouldn't wave a magic wand if that's all it took. Back in the real world, it costs a lot of money, it takes forever, and it kills a lot of people.

That just because people *think* it is a bad idea doesn't mean that it is a bad idea. Hellooooooo!

Without those 380 troops from El Salvador, the war would be lost.

From the Christian Science Monitor, now I know it isn't Newsmax or WorldNetDaily....

As member nations consider another calendar year in Iraq, the Bush administration's "coalition of the willing" appears increasingly unwilling to commit to the cause indefinitely.

Last week, two countries finished withdrawing the last of their troops from Iraq, and two others decided to cut their forces by about a third. In all, the coalition has declined from a 2003 high of 38 nations and 50,000 troops to 28 nations and about 20,000 soldiers today.

In terms of military operations on the ground, the withdrawals mean little, analysts say. Only Britain has a substantial security role, and so far it has remained steadfast.....

....The coalition is perhaps the first sketch of that new security structure, but recent months in particular have altered the face of it. Bulgaria and Ukraine withdrew the last of their roughly 1,200 troops from Iraq last month. Last week, Poland announced it would remove 600 of its 1,500 troops by March, and the South Korean parliament voted to pull out 1,000 of its 3,200 soldiers - with the rest leaving next year.

The news comes as the coalition was already shrinking. Italy will withdraw 300 of its 2,800 troops this month as part of a phased pullout, and other nations - most notably Spain and the Netherlands - have already withdrawn either all or virtually all their troops.

So far, the Pentagon has looked at the fluctuations without great consternation. "We don't set any conditions on coalition members," says Lt. Col. Barry Venable, a spokesman. "Certainly, we'd like more, but we're grateful for what each and every nation feels it can contribute."

The ambivalence is born of the fact that - with the exception of Britain - coalition nations have not done the heavy lifting of fighting insurgents.

I never said that. You laughed when I said it was a bad idea, implying that it was a ludicrous suggestion. I'm wondering why you think that, since you offered no analysis of any kind.

Once again, flere, your reading comprehension skills leave much to be desired. The question wasn't "are you willing to serve?" The question was "what unit were you in when you were in Iraq?" There's a difference.

I laughed (and literally I laughed out loud at two of your posts sitting at my desk) because:

1. you think that "no one" backed us because it was a "bad idea"
2. you offered polls of general populations as evidence that it was a "bad idea"
3. I found the above two things quite funny.

LOL, arguing with semantics. Thanks for the laugh. :D

Arguing about semantics - Step One. I think next on the right wing playlist is blaming Clinton or calling all liberals traitors....

While it's tough to get 100% of countries behind anything, a clear majority of the major countries of the world were against the war from the start, and nearly every country is against it now. Why is it that you think that is, if it isn't because it was a bad idea to begin with? Furthermore, I've made about a dozen or so posts in this thread alone detailing why it was a bad idea. I don't think I've seen a single post from you describing the opposite, but I could be wrong, it's a long thread.

Since we're throwing out (useless) polls, only 14% of Americans think we should immediately pull out of Iraq.

http://www.latimes.com/media/acrobat...1/21641853.pdf

What's that supposed to prove? I don't even support pulling out immediately, and I think Iraq was one of the worst ideas ever. Since 52% of Americans think Iraq was a bad idea, that just lends evidence to the suggestion that even more than two thirds of Britians/Japanese/etc think the war was a bad idea.

Well....duh. Even I don't think we should leave tomorrow. But people do believe we should have a timetable...

"Do you think the U.S. should keep military troops in Iraq until the situation has stabilized, or do you think the U.S. should bring its troops home as soon as possible?"


.
Keep
Troops Bring
Home Unsure
% % %
1/4-8/06 48 48 4
12/7-11/05 49 46 5

"Do you think the U.S. should or should not set a timetable for when troops will be withdrawn from Iraq?"


.
Should Should
Not Should Get
Out Now
(vol.) Unsure
% % % %
1/4-8/06 50 42 2 6
12/7-11/05 56 38 1 5

"Should the United States troops stay in Iraq as long as it takes to make sure Iraq is a stable democracy, even if it takes a long time, or should U.S. troops leave Iraq as soon as possible, even if Iraq is not completely stable?"
Prior to 6/04: "Should the United States troops stay in Iraq as long as it takes to make sure Iraq is a stable democracy, even if that takes a long time, or should U.S. troops turn over control to Iraqis as soon as possible, even if Iraq is not completely stable?"


.
Stay as
Long as
It Takes Leave
ASAP Unsure
% % %
1/5-8/06 49 44 7

"If you had to choose, which do you think is better for the U.S. -- to set a timetable for removing troops from Iraq and remove them regardless of whether the U.S. goals are achieved by that time, or to keep a significant number of troops in Iraq until the U.S. achieves its goals there, regardless of how long that takes?" Options rotated. N=1,003, MoE ± 3.


.
Set
Timetable Stay Until
Achieve Goals Unsure
% % %
1/6-8/06 49 47 4



BTW...http://abcnews.go.com/International/...ory?id=1378209

Only after the fact. It's only a "bad idea" now that people are dying. Just like SkyDog said, just because people think it's a bad doesn't actually make it a bad. There was once a vast majority that interracial marriage was a sin. Now, it's becoming more widely accepted. I realize that it's a smaller scale than a war, but I think you'll get the idea.

Besides, I was attacking (if want to call it that) your choice of words and not so much your political ideals. If everyone didn't like the war, the polls would read 100% against it and not 66.758955355%. It waters down your whole argument making those statements.

If you can't see the difference between "are you willing to serve" and a "what unit were you in while you were in Iraq", then there's really no point in continuing the conversation. One in a hypothetical that could make some conservatives (including myself) a bit uncomfortable in answering, the other is a snarky way of stating that if you haven't worn the uniform, you have no business supporting the war.

I'm starting to realize that with you, it's always blame someone else for your inability to carry on a meaningful conversation. And when in doubt, just make shit up. If I ever stop responding to your increasingly bizarre statements, you can just triumphantly say you got the last word and therefore "won" the argument.

I've stated my reasons in the past, and have neither the need nor the desire to go over the same ground again and again and again.

I wondered how this thread went on for 3 pages...

People think what they want to think; the magic of the United States (apologies to those boardmembers from other countries).

What date would you expect the armistace to be signed? And who do you expect to sign it?

Cause I did this correctly :D.

Aggressionist!

Hey, I just started the ball rolling. Not my fault if you can't stop ;).

Evil aggressionist!

Now I'm just posting to find out what word gets added to the front of "Evil aggressionist!" :D

Ludacris-speed evil aggressionist!

Sorry, I watched Space Balls last night...

My final thought on this subject:

I might possibly be interested in studying/taking seriously bin Laden's "ideas" or "complaints about the west" or comparing his ideology to other fruitcakes AFTER his dead body has completely decomposed and the last of his soldiers/supporters has gone from the Earth. I am not a Republican or a right-winger; I am a political centrist who spent 6 years working enlisted working with the Jsoc, deploying to actual hot spots on a regular basis, who lost many close friends (including a brother and a business partner) on 9/11. I think it is beyond horrific that people want to use bin Laden to score cheap political points. It literally makes me nauseated.

Taken in isolation, maybe. That's the problem I have with you, Cam, you never take context into account. In context, Anxiety had been making statements about "glad we went in, could have gone in sooner" and "go down the list of dictators, taking them out" (I'm paraphrasing). Given the strength of his convictions, it's reasonable to ask if he's already put actions to words, or if he would in the future. A single snarky sentence can, contrary to your belief, carry multiple meanings.

But perhaps in your world we all need to be extra extra careful about the exact words we choose, eh?


You've been in talk radio too long. It is you who has an inability to carry on a meaningful conversation. It's abundantly clear that if things aren't broken down into simple black-and-white platitudes, there's not a lot of intellectual cut-and-thrust in which you can participate.

If that is going to be your attitude, it really doesn't add anything of value to a thread to make posts like you did. If you want to stay out, stay out, but it's rather lame to post one word mocking posts then run away when someone challenges you on it.

You'll notice that interracial dating is a bad idea, and slavery is a bad idea, and as time goes on, the number of people that approve of both goes down. That's a general trend for bad ideas, except for some blips here and there (torture). Support for Iraq is going down. Hence, good statistical support that Iraq was a bad idea.

Your problem (probably a bad choice of words, but I'm too tired to think of anything better) is that you are incapable of looking at it like an impassioned observer. For example, what penalty do I think a rapist should get? Probably 30-40 years. What should someone who rapes my daughter get? He deserves to be strangled with my bare hands. OBL is a bad guy, but he isn't the worst guy in American history, he isn't the gravest threat to our country.

Furthermore, there are no cheap political points being scored. You admitted yourself that they share the same ideology. The quiz and 'intellectually bankrupt liberal' are pointing out what you in fact know to be true. That's not cheap political points, nobody here is doing it to win an election, it's identifying a pernicious element in our culture.

Boy, you're getting more and more impressive by the minute.

As evidenced by your most recent ridiculous statement (that the number of people who approve of interracial dating is going down over time), your posts richly deserve to be mocked.

Fixed it.

Dutch brings out Conservative Gameplan #2: When you can't attack the message, attack the person bringing the message.

BTW Skydog, I'm pretty sure Biggles had a grammar boo-boo there and meant disapproval of interracial marriage and approval of slavery both went down, much like approval of the Iraq War is.

Fine. Conservative Gameplan #2 now in effect.

Jessie, you're an idiot.

:D

Fixed.

Skydog, if anyone is trolling here it is you and Dutch. Like Jesse said I obviously had a grammar mistake in saying that support for interracial dating is going down. Dutch was obviously just going for ad hominem attacks. You were going for ad hominem attacks as well. I've explained my points repeatedly. In this thread alone I've been called a traitor, on the side of Saddam, intellectually bankrupt, accused of just not giving a shit, and someone deserving to be mocked for a grammar mistake. I have patiently explained my positions and attacked the arguments of others that I disagree with. From what I remember, Jesse has done the same.

Those that live in glass houses, shouldn't throw stones.

First off, it wasn't a grammar mistake. A grammar mistake is subject-verb agreement, a dangling participle, a sentence fragment, or something of that ilk. It was a factual error. Second, given the information I have gleaned from reading your posts in this thread about how outlandishly wrong you're capable of being, it was perfectly reasonable to expect that you were merely wrong again. As for the other stuff, when you call the tune...

It wasn't a factual error, it was obviously a forum version of misspeaking. But fine, point out where I was factually wrong in the rest of the thread, outlandishly wrong even. Because right now all you are being is SkyTroll or DutchDog.

You're wrong, I don't think you're a traitor at all. ;)

Thanks, that's the nicest thing you've ever said to me :)

I know. :)

In the wise words of someone I forget, I've been called worse by better. Also, as Biggles noted, I haven't trolled. Yes, when Dutch decided to quit debating the points and simply started to attack the person, I called him on it. I have no doubts I'm one of the two or three most liberal people on this board, so I've got no problems when I get dogpiled. I expect it. But at least have the creativity to attack the idea, and not the person.

You asked for it, so here it is.

Zero chance of that, but I'll give you a pass on incorrect theology.
Wrong again. OBL is not remotely evangelical. His solution for non-Muslims is to kill them. Robertson and Falwell are both aggressively evangelical. They're too political, but they're definitely evangelical.
He IS a murderous sociopath.
Actually, it is.
It does in my book.
No, that underscores the point that the quiz is woefully flawed.
I'm fairly certain you're dead wrong here. The economic principles of fascism seem to be soundly rejected by both.
I've already pointed out the ridiculous nature of this one.

...and then there's that silliness of just because people think it is a bad idea, that it is a bad idea.

There's probably more, but those jumped out at me.

Soooo...you disagree with my opinions, which makes me factually inaccurate? :confused:

But Bin Laden is a murderous sociopath.

I don't see how any of that describes bin Laden. I've seen him emotional, I've seen him sympathetic to the struggles of Muslims, and I see no evidence to say that he is without fear.

Being a sociopath doesn't mean you are without fear, it is, according to Psycholoy Today is: A pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others and inability or unwillingness to conform to what are considered to be the norms of society. It makes no mention of a lack of fear.

Wikipedia is, BIG SURPRISE, incorrect.

On a side note, I find the comparison of Bin Laden to Christian conservatives disgusting. Robertson and Falwell never spearheaded the death of thousands of innocent Americans.

Those emotional strip-club pole dances were actually SNL skits.

I find it odd that Psychology Today would describe it like that, since it is officially Antisocial Personality Disorder. According to Abnormal Psychology, third edition, by Ronaly J. Comer, people with APD are "reckless and egocentric, they have little regard for their own safety or that of others." Or, in other words, don't fear for their safety.

Big surprise, this has already been dealt with. As one poster said, Charlie Chaplin and Hitler still both have moustaches, that one killed millions of people doesn't change that.

Well, it specially mentions both the words "Sociopath" and refers it to the correct term of Antisocial Personality Disorder. But thanks for splitting hairs.


Wow. One of the most inane and ridicuous analogies I've seen in awhile. Thanks for the laugh.

I bet Mr. B gets a lot of dates explaining why bin Laden isn't as bad as we all make him out to be.

What a douchebag comment.

Wow. Funny thing -- I thought the same thing when I read your analogy.

The point, of course, is that just because one person's organization has killed more people over the past couple of years doesn't mean that it is impossible to compare them in other ways. Understand now?

You need to take a logic and/or debate course.

And the counter point is that it is, in fact, NOT possible to do so without looking like a lunatic/jackass/idiot. You don't understand that - because you don't understand what it means that bin Laden would cheerfully kill you to make a point, and then brag about it to your friends, who would say, "well, he's got a point...".

Of course. Then again, you're making a comparison of someone who is a Christian Conservative in this country, and someone, to my knowlege, has never spearheaded nor personally KILLED ANYONE (Robertson and Fallwell) to someone who spearheaded the biggest terrorist attack in the United States, which lead to the death of over 3,000 people, destroyed American families and changes the very fabric of our nation.

Nothing that people here would remotely consider insulting. In addition to being clueless, you and your ilk are remarkably classless as well.

This little thread was created to do nothing less than to tear down Christianity and those the believe in it. Bully for you.

Yeah, because "What a doucebag comment" is taught as a valid comeback in a debate. Might want to take your own suggestion.

st.cronin, have you regressed in age 20 years in the past week? You sound so infantile calling names about arguments you disagree with. It's a pathetic attempt to win an argument, and your only argument is based off emotion and not logic or reason. In fact, everything that you just wrote after the "-" is completely incoherent.

You're right, that comment by st.cronin deserved a detailed response :rolleyes:

Well, I knew you wouldn't understand it - in fact, I *said* you wouldn't understand it. So I don't think I was calling names. I think it's clear I had come to the right conclusion. On that note, I'm out.

You and your ilk have been a paradigm of class so far. :rolleyes: All you have is ad hominem attacks. You have not made a single decent point since you joined the thread. Everything you have said is completely devoid of logic, and when I call you on it you just spout some other illogical nonsense to take the focus off your previous inanity. In fact, everyone is dumber for having read your comments. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

By all means, clear it up. I would like to understand it, it just doesn't make much sense. I'm not attacking the logic, I can't follow the logic because the grammar is messed up.

Of course it is. Just because the wacko right wing (yourself and WVUFAN, among others) can't see it doesn't make it somehow insulting to all. And besides Falwell and Robertson have more impact on my life than bin Laden does, as well as wanting to take away my Constitutionally guarenteed rights.

Hell, Falwell has compared homosexuality to smoking crack and bestiality:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200411080004

So comparing him to OBL is something beyond the pale? Please.

WOW... Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson = Christianity to you? I'm sorry. Then I'll admit, it was to tear down what you consider to be Christianity. For those rational Christians, who have no time of day for Falwell and Robertson, it did no such thing.

I thought he was right on the money. That's just me, of course.

Getting back to the topic: you want to claim to speak logically, yet you someone spout your pseudo-intellectual nonsense and defend a comparison of Christian Conservatives to Osama Bil Laden, using a horrible "mustache" comparison of Chaplin and Hitler. This...you honestly think any part of your argument contains a semblance of either logic or truth?

Seriously? I mean, I know your a liberal, but c'mon now. I'm not trying to be insulting, nor is this an attempt at sarcasm. I cannot, in any part of me, understand how someone can make that sort of comparison. I ... I seriously struggle to grasp how much someone has to hate a group of people such as conservative christians and/or Robertson and Falwell to even stoop to a comparison like then, then get indignant when someone calls them on it.

Sigh.

I guess since you're basically attacking my original quote that was later paraphrased I will respond. First here is what I said.


Let me expand: You cannot tell the quotes in the quiz apart. These guys use similar rhetoric. There are certainly differences, though. For example: Osama Bin Laden has a beard.

Well, the link was to Mediamatters.org, a liberal website, and it further links to his DENYING EVER SAYING IT. But, obviously since you want to condemn him and people who believe like him, he's the target.

Exactly what Constitutionally Guaranteed right is Falwell and Robertson trying to take away from you again?


No, but you are comparing two well-known Christians to a murdering terrorist.

Also, describe to me what you call a "rational" Christian?

As has already been discussed, the quotes have been altered. I can take any two quotes, alter them and try to do some sort of comparison. The poster of the quiz also took (and picked out purposefully) quotes that could be altered to sound similar. Again, I can take quotes from Clinton and Bush and put in a quiz to make them sound similar as well -- doesn't make it true. There are certainly differences, though. For example: Clinton committed a felony while in office.

:rolleyes:

He denies and then they point to times where he ACTUALLY SAID IT! Push the dogma side and learn to read. It had references to shows he went on (including Wolf Blitzer Reports, Hardline, Frontline, etc) and compared them.

Free Speech is a big (and obvious) one. Falwall and Robertson are trying to ban pornography and deprive me of my rights to purchase and read certain kinds of publications. My right to privacy would affected by those two wackjobs as well. I'm sure gay people could tell you of how their plans would deny their rights to privacy in their bedrooms.

Two well-known wackjobs... see how many Christians on this thread say how nuts they are.

Btw, I wonder where the right wing is when people compare Clinton to Hitler:

http://kosovo99.tripod.com/comparis.htm

Oh wait... not their side!

Well you have a tiny penis.

Since you seem to sincerely ask, I will explain it slowly. Consider A with two properties, X and Y. Also with two properties is B, those properties being Y and Z. No matter what X and Z are, it doesn't change the fact that they both have Y.

Now, consider Charlie Chaplin with two properties, a moustache and an actor. Hitler also has two properties, a moustache and a murderer. The fact that both has moustaches does not change because Hitler was a murderer and Chaplin was an actor. It is not insane/ignorant/outlandish/intellectually bankrupt to point out that they both had moustaches.

Now, consider Falwell/Robertson with two properties, religious fascism and conservative Christian. OBL has two properties, religious fascism and organizer of terrorist attacks. The fact that both are religious fascists does not change because one is a terrorist and the other is a leader of a conservative Christian sect. It is not insane/ignorant/outlandish/intellectually bankrupt to point out that they both are religious fascists.

I think you are wasting your breath. These are people who consider Falwell and Robertson to be merely "Christians". You'll never get through their skulls with things like logic and reason.

It doesn't matter what I consider Falwell and Robertson - they could be circus clowns, or orthodontists, it doesn't matter. Comparing non-murderous lunatics with bin Laden for political purposes is, at the very least, deeply offensive to me personally. I think it makes you look incredibly cynical and foolish as well.

Wait .. HOW DID YOU FIND OUT? I haven't told ANYONE that. Keep it quiet.
:)

Sure it is. Adolf Hitler and Mother Theresa are both human. It's outlandish to compare the two. Chaplin and Hitler had moutaches. Still outlandish to compare. A person can take two things from any two people on the earth, past or present, and use them to compare -- that doesn't make the comparison's logical or valid in any respect. Clinton and a neatherthal both had hair on their heads. Ridiculous to compare, although I had thought about it from time to time. :)

ISiddiqui, you may be right, but let me just say this: st.cronin, why are you assuming this is to score cheap political points? You yourself have admitted that it is correct to say that both are religious fascists, yet for some reason you say that pointing it out is deeply offensive. I at least am pointing it out because I am afraid of what Robertson/Falwell have done/are doing to the country. If that is a cheap political reason to you, then I don't know what to say.