Comments Posted By Kenneth Almquist
Displaying 11 To 13 Of 13 Comments
ENEMIES OF AMERICA! BE OF GOOD CHEER - HOPE IS ON THE WAY!
retire05 asserts that McCain "understands the threat posed by radical Islam."
I doubt that McCain understands the threat very well, given that he seems to have trouble with such basic distinctions as the difference between Sunni and Shiite.
Yeah right. And Obama can't govern a country he doesn't know how many states there are. How can we possibly elect someone who actually believes there are 57 states?
Or was that a misstatement...like McCain?
ed.
Comment Posted By Kenneth Almquist On 11.06.2008 @ 03:41
WAS MATTHEW MURRAY ENABLED BY THE CHRISTIAN BASHERS?
"Given the spate of lawsuits brought by atheists and others who seek to remove Christian symbols and the outward manifestations of Christian beliefs from the public square along with attacks in media and on the internet, is it any wonder that Christians feel themselves besieged?"
I'm not aware that Christians feel besieged. I think people on the political right tend to feel besieged.
The Washington Times article you cite illustrates this. It quotes a number of Christians who are on the political right who, to varying degrees suggest that Christianity is under siege. Harold Brown goes so far as to compare the present situation in America to the persecution of Christians by the Romans. But this perspective is not shared by the one Christian quoted who is not on the political right (the Rev. C. Welton Gaddy).
Comment Posted By Kenneth Almquist On 13.12.2007 @ 11:13
Might I humbly suggest that anyone who can write that "only Democrats are stupid enough to think George Bush had anything to do with 9/11", and then, in the very next sentence, quote statistics showing that significant numbers of Republicans and independents believe the same thing, ought to be a bit careful about saying other people "have lost touch with reality and should be declared certifiably insane." I will also mention that the first sentence of the blog indicates that the poll question concerns whether George Bush "had foreknowledge of 9/11", which is not the same thing as asking whether Bush "had anything to do with 9/11."
Comment Posted By Kenneth Almquist On 5.05.2007 @ 22:32
OK, the preceding paragraph is somewhat of a cheap shot, but so is the blog entry I am responding to. People hold all sorts of beliefs that aren't supported by the evidence. It's hardly surprising that a belief which reflected negatively on Republicans would be more widely held among Democrats than Republicans. (I'm curious about the 14% of Republicans who believe that Bush knew about 9/11 in advance. Why are they still Republicans?) If you were to conduct a poll asking people whether the Clintons murdered Vincent Foster, I expect that you'd find that more Republicans than Democrats believe that particular piece of nonsense.
I think that pointing to the justification for invading Iraq that Bush gave in his March 17, 2003 address to the nation is not a cheap shot. As nonsense goes, there is nothing particularly spectacular about it. If someone composed a list of the 100 stupidest things posted to the internet in 2003, Bush's address probably wouldn't make the list. But two days after that address, Bush gave the order to attack Iraq, and because Bush was president of the United States rather than some semi-anonymous blogger writing on the internet, that order was obeyed. That is why Suskind's article had such resonance. The concern isn't what people are posting on the internet or telling polsters. The concern is about how the country is being run.
Bottom line: If the Democratic party nominates a presidential candidate who believes that Bush had specific advanced knowledge of the 9/11 attacks, then those of us who consider ourselves to be part of the reality based community would have to reconsider our support of the Democratic party.
