Does anyone on the right think Bush and company has ever done anything wrong? It doesn’t seem so.
Regarding gay marriage…why do you care? How does it lessen the sanctity of your marriage? Is it the anal sex? oral? Do you do that with your wife? What’s it all matter.
Regarding abortion, obviously we all want to see rates decline (which they haven’t done under W.), but that doesn’t mean it should be outlawed. How many of you pious people out there would want your wife to have a rapists seed in her? How many would want your daughter to not at least have the option available if she got knocked up in her teens?
I’ve known a lot of holier than thou a-holes who are the first in line at the clinic when it happens at their house.
As far as the support from churches Bush got, it is almost fanatical. Walk into an evangelical church and they will preach God put him in the Whitehouse.
Thats why when Bush was asked if he sought any advice or council from Bush sr. before the Iraq war, he replied, “he is the wrong father to appeal to in terms of strength; there is a higher Father that I appeal to.”
That is one to have a strong spriritual relationship, but to not ask a former president with experience in the field, the exact same enemy, about ANYTHING? He does this stuff because it supports his base who believes God put him there.
But come on, if that is the case, at least don’t tell me about it. I would like to think foreign policy decisions are based on more than just prayer.
[It is great that so many are spiritual and have faith, but it must be separate from public policy. That’s why when you are sick, you go to the hospital, but some (Christ. Scientists) believe the only answer is prayer. And in some states, they aren’t liable if they’re kid dies, but I would get my ass in jail]
[quote]rangertab75 wrote:
ILOVEGWBUSH3 wrote:
One hundred thousand Iraqis (more than half non-combatants) dead in a dubious war? Fine.
You are a moron if you truly believe that. RLTW
rangertab75
[/quote]
You’re sort of right about one thing- the number is an estimate, not confirmed. Why? The Pentagon isn’t interested in the enemy and non-combatant kill count. It makes bad press. And who cares about those rag-heads anyway? That seems to be the prevalant attitude in 51% of Americans.
You are a moron if you slavishly believe everything your government is telling you, Ranger.
[quote]anubis12 wrote:
ILOVEGWBUSH3 wrote:
Apparently Bush gathered 80% of the Christian vote. Gay marriage- bad. Abortion- bad. One hundred thousand Iraqis (more than half non-combatants) dead in a dubious war? Fine. They aren’t Christians, those Iraqis, are they? The priorities of America’s Christians seem pretty fucked up if you ask me. Killing fundamentalists in Afghanistan who want you dead- hey I have no problem with that, but the support of America’s Christians for this war sticks in my craw.
The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq do have one thing in common with the crusades: they are both responses to muslim agression. At least the Christians are n’t strapping TNT to themselves and running into cafes.
[/quote]
You don’t respond to the actions of one group of people (Al Qaeda) by attacking an unrelated group (the Iraqi people), Anubis.
[quote]ILOVEGWBUSH3 wrote:
rangertab75 wrote:
ILOVEGWBUSH3 wrote:
One hundred thousand Iraqis (more than half non-combatants) dead in a dubious war? Fine.
You are a moron if you truly believe that. RLTW
rangertab75
You’re sort of right about one thing- the number is an estimate, not confirmed. Why? The Pentagon isn’t interested in the enemy and non-combatant kill count. It makes bad press. And who cares about those rag-heads anyway? That seems to be the prevalant attitude in 51% of Americans.
You are a moron if you slavishly believe everything your government is telling you, Ranger.
[/quote]
The number is an estimate all right. It comes from the Lancet, which is a UK medical journal. If you read the article, you’ll see the margin for error is +/- 92,000. No, that’s not a typo. The Lancet’s estimate of casulties is anywhere between 8000 and 192,000, which is as good as saying it’s somewhere between zero and infinity as far as I’m concerned. So I would n’t be relying on that 100,000 figure too heavily in critisizing US action…
Re the concept of civilian casulties generally, these are obviously very distressing and must be minimised. But I think they have to be weighed against the number of people who would have been killed had Saddam stayed in power. Does it exceed the number of Saddam’s own citizens he would have killed had he remained in power? I very much doubt the number exceeds the number of Kurds Saddam gassed, and it certainly does n’t exceed the number killed in the Iran Iraq war which he started.
One of my principle objections to the convential leftwing position is that they accuse the US government of not caring about the civilian dead of the opposing side, yet they themselves don’t seem to care about civilian dead in cases where America or some other western nation cannot be blamed for them. The silence from the left about Stalin’s mass-murders is a particularly appalling example, though a little dated. A rather more apt one is the failure of anti-war commentators to acknowledge the casulties of Saddam’s own regime in condemning American action.
[quote]ILOVEGWBUSH3 wrote:
The point of my original post was not to say that I particularly support abortion or gay marriage, but that America’s Christians seem quite outraged by these two things, which, it could be argued, are nobody’s business but the people concerned, but are not outraged by death on a massive scale.
How can you be ‘pro-life’ and pro-war?
I am not a starry eyed idealist. I recognise that sometimes war is inevitable or necessary. But the war in Iraq does not fall into that category. Yet many church leaders actively supported Bush and most church-goers voted for him. It’s amazing how little they care for the individuals in other countries, innocent children and women who are getting killed, mistakenly or not, but would deny a rape victim the ability to abort a fetus with no self-awareness, or two harmless homos the chance to properly pledge their commitment to each other.
[/quote]
What I don’t really understand is how people can be pro abortion but anti death penalty. It seems to be logically inconsistent. It seems strange to think that savage murderers and rapists have a right to life but not unborn childern. I know there are arguments about when a foetus is actually a person, and about whether the people on death row are guilty, but I’d have thought that the more ‘relaxed’ approach to human life which would seem to justify abortion would more than justify the death penalty as well.
Being pro-life may in fact require you to be pro war in some cases, as in WWII. You’re right though that warmongering is n’t particularly Christian, but then the attitudes of Christians or Muslims or any other worshippers are never wholly determined by the literal words of their holy texts in practice. Religion is only one influence, albeit a strong one, on a person’s worldview. Cultural factors contribute to the worldview, and can override the explicit religious directions. The radical muslims are a case in point, as Islaam, while not being quite the religion of peace it is sometimes made out to be, certainly prohibits their terrorist activities.
What I don’t really understand is how people can be pro abortion but anti death penalty. It seems to be logically inconsistent.[/quote]
This is easy enough. Find a fetus that raped and murdered 5 children, and these people would support that abortion.
It is illogical to attempt to compare an adult murderer to a fetus. What crime has that fetus committed?
Your logic is as fallible as saying it is illogical to say it?s ok to fuck 20 year old women, but not 5 year old girls.
Oh yeah, I personally am on the fence concerning the death penalty. If I were sentenced to 20 years or more, I would prefer the death penalty myself. I believe the death penalty is too easy. Then again prison can be too easy for some people. If you know how to work the system, (and are the one having bitches, not being the bitch,) then it can be too easy.
[quote]ILOVEGWBUSH3 wrote:
Apparently Bush gathered 80% of the Christian vote. Gay marriage- bad. Abortion- bad. One hundred thousand Iraqis (more than half non-combatants) dead in a dubious war? Fine. They aren’t Christians, those Iraqis, are they? The priorities of America’s Christians seem pretty fucked up if you ask me. Killing fundamentalists in Afghanistan who want you dead- hey I have no problem with that, but the support of America’s Christians for this war sticks in my craw.[/quote]
This certainly seems strange. I just don’t think Christians are really thinking this through. They listen to W. invoke the name of Christ and all of the sudden he must be doing God’s work. It is absolutely lazy and disgaceful thinking. Of course they are bombared by U.S. propaganda on a daily basis like everyone else here so that certainly explains alot. Topics like abortion are very real and I believe have devastaing consequences but it shouldn’t make one a slave to whoever votes pro-life.
ILGB3 -“It’s amazing how little they care for the individuals in other countries, innocent children and women who are getting killed, mistakenly or not, but would deny a rape victim the ability to abort a fetus with no self-awareness, or two harmless homos the chance to properly pledge their commitment to each other.”
Right like they werent dying at the hands of saddam before we went in. How many mass graves did we find so far?
You know how if your friend gets to hanging with the wrong crowd and starts doing some bad things and bad drugs it is your responsibility as a friend to snap him out of it? Well If you have to kick the shit out of him to do so then I’d say you have served the greater good, even though you used violence to get the outcome you desired.
I understand the iraq war cant be that simplified, but our moral choice to go in there can be viewed in that light.
Also say your friend was hanging around with some bad people, you had never seen them do anything bad, but rumor on the street was that these guys packed heat and were not afraid to use it if they didn’t like you. (wmds?)
Vegita,
We did not use violence for the greater good, though, in this situation. Stopping Iraq from invading Kuwait, yes, that was most definitely necessary, and it was obvious to the rest of the world. We had a REAL coalition, we had most if not all of Europe, we even had Syria and Egypt.
We get attacked by a bunch of Saudis, they are led by Osama who we knew was in Afghanistan, and we briefly go in there before moving to Iraq. Was Saddam bad, yes, but there are lots of bad people in the world. Being “bad” or evil wasn’t even Bush’s reason. Weapons and the threat to use them against the U.S. was.
Instead of letting them finish their investigations, we attack. Had they finished, they would’ve found nothing.
I keep hearing people refer to those of us against the war in Iraq as pussies or anti-war freaks. Its not that I’m anti-war, I am against this unnecessary war. We should be at war with Osama right now. We should have found him, we should have our troops over there and we should be attacking him.
For political reasons and because of ideology, we are wasting lives and resources. We are not protecting our way of life, nor making progress on the war on terror. I don’t know how much more evidence it takes to get people to realize that Iraq and 9/11 are completely different subjects.
You, along with most Democrats are missing the point. Your candidate STUNK.
Your party has no coherent message.
It offers most of us EXACTLY NOTHING.
Hot air doesn’t protect the country or pay the bills.
If you, and your pals, don’t think this through, you’ll be an unelected observer standing in the rain at a Presidential library dedication (like Kerry today).
Jeff, where you been homes? It’s been a while since you chimed in with your particular brand of simplistic argument and it’s been a while since I poked fun at you : )
It’s nice to see W’s cabinet bailing out on him- obviously they did a good job of paving over the cracks in the lead-up to the election, but now it’s over they don’t need to keep up the pretense that they agree with W’s worldview. It’s interesting when your administration’s most senior ex-military man is against your military actions, isn’t it?
Deano
You, along with most Democrats are missing the point. Your candidate STUNK.
Your party has no coherent message.
It offers most of us EXACTLY NOTHING.
Hot air doesn’t protect the country or pay the bills.
If you, and your pals, don’t think this through, you’ll be an unelected observer standing in the rain at a Presidential library dedication (like Kerry today).
Good luck!!!
JeffR[/quote]
Hmmm… me a democrat. That’s funny, seeing how I never voted for one before. Maybe I’m mistaken, but I believe I told you that oh…100 times. I’ve voted libertarian the last three elections and would have voted Green this time but Cobb wasn’t on my states ballot.