The Party of Brownshirts

[Bro. Curtis]

I agree. It's not the Clintons who called for wiretaps without warrants, indefinite detention without charges, defended the use of torture, or believed in a "unitary executive" which claims that the President is entitled to the powers of a king. And it is certainly not the Clintons who would attempt to break down the separation of church and state, which is a doctrine that Baptists traditionally upheld until recent decades.

Clinton put Gotti in jail with illegal wiretaps. Clintons seperated church & state allright, at Waco.

And if Bush was acting like a king, like say F.D.R., the entire N.Y. Times staff would be in jail. The truth is, Bush has turned every cheek he owns, has let his enemies run all over him.

 

[Rooselk]

Well, Bro. Curtis, I'll leave it to you to defend cult leaders who murder federal officials serving a lawful warrant. While I certainly feel compassion for the children who died in the Camp Davidian compound, I simply have no time to shed any tears for the likes of David Koresh. I hope, too, that you have just as much concern for the tens of thousands of people who have died in Iraq as a result of Bush's unnecessary war of choice in Iraq as you do for those who perished in Waco.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Well, Bro. Curtis, I'll leave it to you to defend cult leaders who murder federal officials serving a lawful warrant. While I certainly feel compassion for the children who died in the Camp Davidian compound, I simply have no time to shed any tears for the likes of David Koresh. I hope, too, that you have just as much concern for the tens of thousands of people who have died in Iraq as a result of Bush's unnecessary war of choice in Iraq as you do for those who perished in Waco.

I'm not defending anyone. Just pointing out that you had a few things wrong with the info.

I've been to the Persian Gulf 3 times, as has my brother, who is most likely going back soon. You bet I'm concerned. And the word unenecessary is an opinion. Praise God for the folks who do think it's necessary. (My opinion)

 

[Rooselk]

When every single reason that the President gave for going to Iraq turn out not to be true, I would firmly disagree that it's a matter of opinion as to whether or not this war was necessary.

Even so, those called to fight in Iraq are in no way responsible for the President's decision to go war. I salute those like you who have served there with honor, dignity, and courage. I wish nothing but the best for your brother. My prayers are with him.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Thank you for the kind words. I did my hitch, my brother decided to stay in. God bless him.

Second, it wasn't just Bush. Hillary said she did her own research and wanted Sadaam gone, we weent to war with bi-partisian support. Bill Clinton himself signed regieme change papers when he was in. There was a drumbeat against Iraq for years before Bush came around.

 

[carpro]

Clinton put Gotti in jail with illegal wiretaps.

And the Clintion Justice Dept. did the only warrantless search of a domicile in modern history.

 

[JDale]

I agree. It's not the Clintons who called for wiretaps without warrants, indefinite detention without charges, defended the use of torture, or believed in a "unitary executive" which claims that the President is entitled to the powers of a king. And it is certainly not the Clintons who would attempt to break down the separation of church and state, which is a doctrine that Baptists traditionally upheld until recent decades.

The Clintons stole over 900 FBI files of their political opponents and refused to return them -- as insurance.

WASHINGTON, DC--The Clinton Administration has sharply increased use of federal telephone wiretaps and other electronic surveillance in the United States since taking office, and official estimates foresee that the growth will continue in coming years (7 July, 1996 By Jim McGee Washington Post).

Illegal combatants during wartime (and, even POW's who are "legal combatants) have NO rights to counsel, trial, or considerations beyond humane treatment. Though -- lawyers and liberals want to give them more rights than, oh, REAL American citizens.

The Bush administration NEVER defended the use of torture. Please, re-read the ninth commandment.

The Bush Administration NEVER claimed monarchical powers or authority. In wartime, the Executive Branch -- under that inconvenient (for liberals) document has certain powers and privileges not granted in peace time. The biggest mistake Bush made was not asking Congress to declare war CONSTITUTIONALLY in 2001. This would have saved him from at least some foolish charges such as this one.

And finally, don't poke out this red herring argument that those Baptists who don't agree with YOUR view of politics must not believe in "separation of Church and State." It's old, warn out, and simply NOT TRUE. I am a strong advocate of separation of Church and state -- but not separation of God and State, or morality and state, or ethics and state.

JDale

 

[JDale]

Well, Bro. Curtis, I'll leave it to you to defend cult leaders who murder federal officials serving a lawful warrant. While I certainly feel compassion for the children who died in the Camp Davidian compound, I simply have no time to shed any tears for the likes of David Koresh. I hope, too, that you have just as much concern for the tens of thousands of people who have died in Iraq as a result of Bush's unnecessary war of choice in Iraq as you do for those who perished in Waco.

It's a privilege to respond to this post - though it wasn't meant for me. I shed no tears for David Koresh personally -- but I shed tears for the innocents who were - directly or indirectly - MURDERED by the Federal Government...Under Atty. General Janet Reno's orders...DURING the Clinton Regime.

And, I shed tears for the loss of freedoms under people the likes of Bill Clinton -- and the very real danger that they pose to our Constitution and our Principles as a nation, not to mention as believers in Christ.

And I certainly have as much concern for those who have died since the Iraq war began as I'm SURE you do for those HUNDRED'S of THOUSANDS MURDERED by Saddam Hussein and his regime in the prior 30 years.

With nods to Bro. Curtis, whom I express my thanks to, and appreciation for.

JDale

 

[poncho]

The Clinton/Bush tag team is beating America to death.

It's not that I am unable to debate the evidence. It is that you rarely actually address the evidence. You referenced some document as a plan to give up America's sovereignty. I actually went and read the document (from your link as I recall) and it said nothing of the kind. You were simply dead wrong. There was nothing to debate.

Pastor Larry and

John Hawkins apparently has taken on a mission to prove that the Bush Administration is not creating a North American Union to replace the United States, or a new currency -- the Amero -- to replace the U.S. dollar.

It seems they even favor the same tactic

The tactic was well described by radical socialist Saul D. Alinsky whose 1971 book “Rules for Radicals” asserted that: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule.” Mr. Alinsky was wrong on this, as he was on many political arguments. Ridicule can be countered by pointing out that ad hominem articles are usually all that is left for those who cannot muster the arguments to defeat a debate opponent on point.

Pastor Larry and,

Mr. Hawkins, you do not have to characterize statements by those of us who advance the NAU argument as “hysterical quotes” or arguments that are “not true at all” in order to position yourself to make the arguments you want to make.

For the rest of this little side debate you're trying to start you can argue with Jerome Corsi.

I encourage Mr. Hawkins (and PL) to rely less on personal testimony derived from involved participants and to spend more time studying and arguing from the extensive evidentiary body of SPP documents which many of us who are examining these questions have linked to in our various articles.

And posts.

 

[Rooselk]

It's a privilege to respond to this post - though it wasn't meant for me. I shed no tears for David Koresh personally -- but I shed tears for the innocents who were - directly or indirectly - MURDERED by the Federal Government...Under Atty. General Janet Reno's orders...DURING the Clinton Regime.

That you shed no tears for the Federal agents who were murdered by Koresh says much. Again, by your logic it's apparently acceptable for cultists to shoot and kill Federal agents serving a lawful warrant so long as it is a Democrat that controls the White House and heads the Department of Justice. Is the hatred you and others like you feel for the Clintons really so bitter that you can actually side with a madman David Koresh?

And, I shed tears for the loss of freedoms under people the likes of Bill Clinton -- and the very real danger that they pose to our Constitution and our Principles as a nation, not to mention as believers in Christ.

Sorry, but I don't accept your politics of paranoia. This is exactly the same type of delusional nonsense that Republican theocrats like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson have spoonfed to their guilible followers for decades. Truth is that Bill Clinton was President for eight years and our liberties were still intact when he left office. That said, I stand by what I said regarding the Bush administration.

And I certainly have as much concern for those who have died since the Iraq war began as I'm SURE you do for those HUNDRED'S of THOUSANDS MURDERED by Saddam Hussein and his regime in the prior 30 years.

First of all, in making his case for war with Iraq at no time did President Bush make the argument that our intervention was for humanitarian reasons. To now make that claim is nothing less than a dishonest attempt to re-write history after the fact. The truth is that this humanitarian argument was only raised following the invasion after it had became abundantly clear that all the actual reasons given turned out not to be true.

Second, when I make reference to the "tens of thousands" of people that have died as a result of this war I am being deliberately conservative in my numbers. Recent estimates put the actual number as high as 650,000. Pro-rated, this number is the equivelant of seven million dead in a country the size of the United States. If you want to claim that the killing of tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands is justified because Saddam killed an even greater number then that is between you and your conscience, not mine. Instead, I chose to continue holding to the old Christian standard which states war is only just when a) after all other avenues have been exhausted it is a measure of last resort and b) when there is a "reasonable proportion between the injury suffered and the pain and death caused by war." Sorry, but the Iraq war does not meet either of these standards.


(A PDF file of a study of Iraqi deaths is available at the following link:

http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s0140673606694919.pdf )

 

[carpro]

The Lancet study has been discredited so many times I can't keep count anymore.

 

[poncho]

The Lancet study has been discredited so many times I can't keep count anymore.

About the only "discrediting" it's ever gotten was from people like O'Rielly who simply claims it came from the 'far left'. That seems to be enough "proof" for the 30 percenters though.

 

[Rooselk]

I've found that political zealots are rarely concerned about truth if it contradicts ideology or a pre-conceived notions of the world. For instance, if there were no WMD's found in Iraq the reason cannot be that those WMD's didn't exist. Rather, it must be that the weapons were transported to Syria or somesuch place. Likewise, if a study shows that the number of civilian dead is greater than has been previously believed, then the answer has to be that the study was flawed and that Saddam was a mass murderer. Even when faced with clear evidence that refutes the justification for the war, the zealot true believer will jump through hoops to justify the unjustifiable.

 

[carpro]

I've found that political zealots are rarely concerned about truth if it contradicts ideology or a pre-conceived notions of the world.

So have I and you're a pretty good example of it.

You choose to believe a flawed study because it matches your ideology and choose to ignore other credible sources that disagree with yours by 1000% and more. Even the Lancet study admits it has a plus or minus 50% margin of error, making it almost laughable from a statisticians viewpoint.

When one lives in a glass house...

 

[Pastor Larry]

The Clinton/Bush tag team is beating America to death.




Pastor Larry and
It seems they even favor the same tactic


For the rest of this little side debate you're trying to start you can argue with Jerome Corsi.

And posts.

What in tarnation is this about? This seems totally irrelevant to any discussion here.

 

[Rooselk]

So have I and you're a pretty good example of it.

You choose to believe a flawed study because it matches your ideology and choose to ignore other credible sources that disagree with yours by 1000% and more. Even the Lancet study admits it has a plus or minus 50% margin of error, making it almost laughable from a statisticians viewpoint.

When one lives in a glass house...

If you will bother to read what I wrote I'm certain that you will find that I personally used the conservative "tens of thousands" term when making specific reference to the number killed in Iraq as a result of this war. My only point in bringing up the Lancet report was to say that there are those that put the number of dead at a far greater number than the "tens of thousands" that I mention.

Frankly, I have not said one way or another whether or not I believe the Lancet report is true. Even so, I would suspect that it is ideology that would explain why it is that you seem to have an automatic knee-jerk response that would dismiss out-of-hand any study that would seem to refute your pre-conceived notions.

And if the sources on this subject that you mention are so credible, then why is it that the Bush administration is bending over backwards to supress any report that would dispute the numbers that the administration gives?

 

[carpro]

I

And if the sources on this subject that you mention are so credible, then why is it that the Bush administration is bending over backwards to supress any report that would dispute the numbers that the administration gives?

To my knowledge, the administration does not have any "numbers" of their own.

Do you have evidence of such "suppression?

 

[Rooselk]

By the way, 50% of 650,000 is 325,000. If this number is closer to the actual number of people killed in Iraq, are we somehow supposed to take some comfort in this?

 

[carpro]

By the way, 50% of 650,000 is 325,000. If this number is closer to the actual number of people killed in Iraq, are we somehow supposed to take some comfort in this?

You can if you wish, but

it's really irrelevant to the subject at hand. Such a large margin of error does, however, illustrate a stunning lack of confidence in their own methodology.

 

[poncho]

To my knowledge, the administration does not have any "numbers" of their own.

Do you have evidence of such "suppression?

Do you have any credible evidence that this report is not accurate? I mean aside from shallow undocumented claims by neocon tv and radio personalites and personal opinions from individuals who may benefit from hiding the numbers?