Looks like Bush's "Faith-Based Initiatives" is nothing more than BS.

[sinewave]

Putting words in YOUR mouth? When did I say republicans wouldn't do it?? Remember what you said to me? No? Where here's what you said...

"yeah, there's no way the republican party would try and exploit a community for politcal gain... how old are you again?"

That was you putting words in MY mouth, friend.

So get off your high horse and at LEAST admit that the story posted says NOTHING about Bush.

And I'm delusional? So because someone wrote about something in a book, I guess that makes it FACT to you?

he mentions bush in the book. it's bush's administration. you can try and twist it anyway you want, but this administration is exploiting the religious-right for political gain and making fun of them behind their backs. your almighty ruler is a sleezebag, wake up.

 

[lazur]

Hi Lazur,
How are you? How was your weekend? Please note that i did not respond to the thread as you so detailed, so please do not place me in your prescribed group when next we meet at the opposiing ends of our political parrying blades. Thank you and have a good day.

sincerely,
Maxwell's Demon

My weekend was great, thanks for asking. Went to a fan gathering in San Antonio.

And I have no idea what in the hell you're talking about. Something that happened last week?

You have a good day as well.

 

[lazur]

he mentions bush in the book. it's bush's administration. you can try and twist it anyway you want, but this administration is exploiting the religious-right for political gain and making fun of them behind their backs. your almighty ruler is a sleezebag, wake up.

Ah okay, you got me. I guess because some guy said it in a book, that makes it so. How short-sighted of me .

 

[Addendum]

I guess because some guy on an internet message board said something else, makes it so

 

[lazur]

I guess because some guy on an internet message board said something else, makes it so

What I find most interesting is that the guy who wrote the book wrote a contradicting letter upon parting from the White House. A little fact he apparently elected to keep OUT of this "factual" book.

 

[Addendum]

I'm atheist, so why should I care

 

[sinewave]

Ah okay, you got me. I guess because some guy said it in a book, that makes it so. How short-sighted of me .

what makes you think it's not true? you've automatically written it off without knowing anything about it because it flies in the face of your pristine vision of the bush administration.

 

[maxwell's demon]

My weekend was great, thanks for asking. Went to a fan gathering in San Antonio.

And I have no idea what in the hell you're talking about. Something that happened last week?

You have a good day as well.

cool. I went to this cool Sculpture park called Storm King myself.
Adn i was just talking about the general preconceived notions about your fellow hypesters and their political views that you carry into most threads you enter. And also the trouble those notions cause when people (myself included) try to start an honest to goodness meaningful discussion with you.


Thanks, I'm trying.

 

[lazur]

what makes you think it's not true? you've automatically written it off without knowing anything about it because it flies in the face of your pristine vision of the bush administration.

No, I have NOT written it off. What I've done is disputed YOUR notion that it is, indeed, fact, when there's no evidence to show either way.

My point in my original response was that you guys will latch onto ANYTHING and blame it on Bush, even when Bush himself isn't even named as one of the parties the book supposedly examines. It mentions something Rove - NOT Bush - did.

Now, arguably, Rove worked for Bush, but that also doesn't mean Rove was working in Bush's best interest when he said or did whatever the book proclaims.

So, to summarize, I'm not saying the book isn't factual. I'm saying that you have no way of knowing whether or not it's factual, so you therefore shouldn't be operating as though it IS.

But I also know that it's easy to just believe ANYTHING negative about someone you already dislike. It's just too bad people (you) can't rise above that.

 

[lazur]

cool. I went to this cool Sculpture park called Storm King myself.
Adn i was just talking about the general preconceived notions about your fellow hypesters and their political views that you carry into most threads you enter. And also the trouble those notions cause when people (myself included) try to start an honest to goodness meaningful discussion with you.


Thanks, I'm trying.

Most of your arguments are honest and objective. Sinewave, however, does not fit within that category - nor does Superman. They will post (and/or read posts of) stories that are highly subjective and then try to pass them off as "fact" - all because they despise Bush and, therefore, are willing to believe *anything* anyone says about the man, as long as it's negative.

People like that DESERVE their own category, and so I give them their own category.

 

[maxwell's demon]

When it comes to the article posted i largely agree with you, Lazur. But do you understand why, after being lied* to for almost 6 years, people might start to believe the administration less, and the critics more?


*at least according to their viewpoint.

 

[sinewave]

No, I have NOT written it off. What I've done is disputed YOUR notion that it is, indeed, fact, when there's no evidence to show either way.

My point in my original response was that you guys will latch onto ANYTHING and blame it on Bush, even when Bush himself isn't even named as one of the parties the book supposedly examines. It mentions something Rove - NOT Bush - did.

Now, arguably, Rove worked for Bush, but that also doesn't mean Rove was working in Bush's best interest when he said or did whatever the book proclaims.

So, to summarize, I'm not saying the book isn't factual. I'm saying that you have no way of knowing whether or not it's factual, so you therefore shouldn't be operating as though it IS.

But I also know that it's easy to just believe ANYTHING negative about someone you already dislike. It's just too bad people (you) can't rise above that.

hmmm, like when conservatives believed that crap about the kerry and the swift-boats, even though there was no evidence?

besides, who cares what bush thinks, his staff was caught doing this, so it reflects on him as well.

 

[Addendum]

 

[lazur]

When it comes to the article posted i largely agree with you, Lazur. But do you understand why, after being lied* to for almost 6 years, people might start to believe the administration less, and the critics more?


*at least according to their viewpoint.

I guess it depends on what you *think* you're being lied to about? I mean, if you don't really know the truth (or the whole story), how can you know you're being lied to?

 

[Addendum]

No one on an internet message board knows the whole story

 

[lazur]

hmmm, like when conservatives believed that crap about the kerry and the swift-boats, even though there was no evidence?

besides, who cares what bush thinks, his staff was caught doing this, so it reflects on him as well.

I'm not sure the swift boat vets is a good example since there were MANY of those guys as compared to this ONE author.

And you're right, Bush is ultimately responsible for what his staff does. THAT should have been your approach to this, instead of stating that a Bush policy is nothing more than a scam.

 

[sinewave]

Most of your arguments are honest and objective. Sinewave, however, does not fit within that category - nor does Superman. They will post (and/or read posts of) stories that are highly subjective and then try to pass them off as "fact" - all because they despise Bush and, therefore, are willing to believe *anything* anyone says about the man, as long as it's negative.

People like that DESERVE their own category, and so I give them their own category.

i give the benefit of the doubt to Kuo because he's a christian conservative who worked closely with the bush administration for a number of years and had insider access to more information than us. i also believe him because, as max said, this administration has lost all credibility with me and the majority of the country, so if they deny it i'll tend to believe it's true.

 

[lazur]

i give the benefit of the doubt to Kuo because he's a christian conservative who worked closely with the bush administration for a number of years and had insider access to more information than us. i also believe him because, as max said, this administration has lost all credibility with me and the majority of the country, so if they deny it i'll tend to believe it's true.

Then what about his parting letter, which apparently PRAISED (not criticized) the Faith Based Initiatives?

I assume you're giving him the benefit of the doubt because he's a "christian conservative", which implies that he's honest, right? Well, was he being honest in his parting letter or not? If he was being honest then, how then can his book be honest when it goes directly against his letter?

Don't you get it? The man lied at SOME point. How can YOU know which point that was?

 

[sinewave]

I'm not sure the swift boat vets is a good example since there were MANY of those guys as compared to this ONE author.

And you're right, Bush is ultimately responsible for what his staff does. THAT should have been your approach to this, instead of stating that a Bush policy is nothing more than a scam.

1) i didn't start this thread

2) i didn't say bush was responsible for this.

we know he's a jesus-freak so he probably buys into all that stuff. i'm sure people like cheney and rove were behind a lot of it.

 

[sinewave]

Then what about his parting letter, which apparently PRAISED (not criticized) the Faith Based Initiatives?

I assume you're giving him the benefit of the doubt because he's a "christian conservative", which implies that he's honest, right? Well, was he being honest in his parting letter or not? If he was being honest then, how then can his book be honest when it goes directly against his letter?

Don't you get it? The man lied at SOME point. How can YOU know which point that was?

i haven't seen it. got a link?

 

[Addendum]

In September 2004, Vice Admiral Ronald A. Route, the Navy Inspector General, completed a review of Kerry's combat medals, initiated at the request of Judicial Watch. In a memo to the Secretary of the Navy, Gordon England, Route stated:

Our examination found that existing documentation regarding the Silver Star, Bronze Star and Purple Heart medals indicates the awards approval process was properly followed. In particular, the senior officers who awarded the medals were properly delegated authority to do so. In addition, we found that they correctly followed the procedures in place at the time for approving these awards.

Conducting any additional review regarding events that took place over 30 years ago would not be productive. The passage of time would make reconstruction of the facts and circumstances unreliable, and would not allow the information gathered to be considered in the context of the time in which the events took place.

Our review also considered the fact that Senator Kerry's post-active duty activities were public and that military and civilian officials were aware of his actions at the time. For these reasons, I have determined that Senator Kerry's awards were properly approved and will take no further action in this matter.

I'll take the words of a Vice Admiral over any political group every day.

 

[lazur]

i haven't seen it. got a link?

Umm, it's referenced in the original article that began this thread.

 

[sinewave]

Umm, it's referenced in the original article that began this thread.

ummm, yeah, it's "referenced", but there's no link to the actual letter. how do we know what was said in it? he could have been genuinely happy with the experience and still thought favorably of bush when leaving, but that doesn't mean that the things he's accusing the administration of didn't happen. that's a weak argument.

 

[lazur]

I'll take the words of a Vice Admiral over any political group every day.

Of course. Why would a vice admiral go against the policies of the military and revoke a medal?

Still, you sound like you need to read up on this subject: http://www.swiftvets.com/index.php.

Kerry's the worst candidate the dems could have chosen to run for President. I can't believe anyone intelligent would STILL stand behind this man.

 

[sinewave]

oh god, i really didn't mean to start another debate on this ridiculous topic. please stop.