He is naive at points and does not understand all that is going on. But his primal sense is quite correct. And the truths that he does hit upon touches people at a primal level.

Women should not view this. (The same goes for children. But if their parents are so derelict that they allow their children to surf the internet, a warning will be of no use to them.)

And while I am commenting on an old post, let me remind everybody what TurretinFan said on comment #27:

“On the sexual morality front, do you think that the recently revealed infidelity by Sodom SF’s democrat mayor will either dissuade him from continuing his reelection campaign or dissuade SF’s democrats from reelecting him? Do you think that the answer would be different if he were a Republican in Idaho?”

The answer to the last question seems to be “no”.  After Larry Craig, Senator from Idaho, was arrested for lewd behavior (soliciting fag sex), The Idaho Statesman reported: “among conservatives, 42 percent say he should resign, 43 percent say he should stay.”

It is a shame that the vast majority of Fundamentalists and Evangelicals who get in a sweaty lather whenever Republicans speak don’t understand this simple principle.

Brother Ed

His claim that the Eleven was genocide is preposterous. Why does he do this? In order to claim the N-word as the catch-all justfication. He resorted to it time and again. He makes statements such as,

“In response to the destruction of Coventry, we took out cities like Dresden.”

“In response to the bombing of London, we fire-bombed Tokyo.”

These statements are both false; and the second is absurd even as an abstraction.

The truth is, however, that the US had no business declaring war on Germany in 1941. I would like to see just once someone explain this position without reverting to the N-word.

Carson is a good man, I think. But this speech was just another typical tenured-academic mouth full of mush.

c) The vast majority of the 600,000 deaths were not “caused” by the coalition, at least not in the usual sense of the word “caused.”
d) There’s nothing “unjust” about killing enemies of one’s nation in a war.
e) Sadaam’s Iraq was clearly our enemy.
f) If you find a Biblical standard for “just war,” please let us know.
g) When you do, I’ll find you a less reasonably debateable standard for both “adultery” and “perjury.”
h) In fact, I’ll go further and find you Biblical support for Congress nearly unanimous action in engaging in war against nations like Iraq.

Here is somebody who has no clue about biblical just war theory. He has no idea that the Bible distinguishes between combatants and non-combatants. He thinks that he can find biblical justification for the war even though he is ignorant about just war theory.

We live in a day in which ignorance reigns among those who call themselves Christians. Many are more familiar with the latest spin on Fox News than the contents of Foxe’s Book of Martyrs. Until the church returns to the basics, we will continue to see her cheer her adversaries and gulp state-approved Victory Gin.

For each proffered reason R, {(R is FALSE) OR (R fails to justify waging war) OR (R is a lie — in the sense that R is not Bush’s actual justification for waging war, though he presents it as such)}.

That is why the “burden of proof” that some people are demanding is misconstruing the nature of the case.

The reasons were certainly given seriatim, with discussion and rebuttal ensuing after each one. It therefore looks an awful lot like the changing alibi.

Note that I’m not even claiming that each of his reasons {R1, R2, …} is a false assertion. What is false is the complex, “Rn is a valid justifiction for waging war, and Rn is my justification for doing it.”

What I tried to assert in point 5 of #18, is that for each proffered reason R, (R fails to justify waging war) OR (R is a lie — in the sense that R is not Bush’s actual justification for waging war, though he presents it as such).

Inclusive OR is used (i.e. any reason R could be both inadequate and ungenuine).