Need some short "sound bites" to prove an idiot wrong

[greenbriar]

<<Again - prove me wrong. More civilians have been killed under Democratic presidents than Republicans.>>


http://pod01.prospero.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?nav=messages...

Help me prove this idiot wrong

[Marr]

1. Killed by what...? International terrorism?

Car accidents? War? Cancer?

[greenbriar]

3. debating the war in Iraq

and this fool brings up "Kennedys vietnam"

it has already been mentioned that Vietnam started under Eisenhower

[Marr]

7. I don't understand his point.

Is he saying that, since WW2 was fought while a Democrat was in office, GW Bush is free to spend X number of military lives without criticism? I don't see where this is supposed to go.

US foreign policy has been pretty monolithic from one administration to the next over the last 60 years, regardless of which political party is in control.

[checkmate1947]

2. You need to count the Civil War when you start

you won't believe how large the number increases. Republican's hold the advantage by a large margin

[The Deacon]

4. "Two Wrongs Don't Make A Right."

If it was wrong when a Democrat did it, it is wrong when a Republican did it. If it is right for a Republican to do it, shut your piehole about Democrats.

[JHH]

6. but two Wrights do make a airplane

[jobycom]

5. I'd say he's right, if you go far enough back and are just talking numbers

FDR and Truman slaughtered millions in WW II, and Wilson was president during WW I. If you take the post WW II era, that's just silly. Nixon's slaughter in Viet Nam alone exceeds anything Clinton or Carter did. You can add Rawanda and the Iraq sanctions to the Clinton total if you want, but then you have to add the Congo and Darfur to Bush's. LBJ was pretty bloody from Viet Nam, too, but the slaughter escalated dramatically under Nixon.

[ProfessorGAC]

8. So, He's Comparing WWI and WWII to This?

That's so stupid as to defy belief. It doesn't warrant a response. First, it's apropos of nothing. Secondly, it's a statement with NO context, even if it were directly regarding something of importance.

It's an idiotic statement. Don't bother responding to it.
The Professor

[greenbriar]

9. I agree

but someone more artful needs to respond, I get pissed and "tongue -tied"

[wryter2000]

10. Did you want us to stay out of World War II?

Actually, if you count the Civil War, as someone did above, Republicans win. As him if time began in 1940.

[Norquist Nemesis]

11. He needs to provide his facts and stats

He's made the assertion, and it's just that...and assertion until he provides the data. Also note, he says "civilians". So, is he going to include murder stats as well?