|
|
Post by pissin2 on Sept 15, 2004 7:26:09 GMT -5
ahh, but this is a big game of Risk
|
|
|
|
Post by JesusLooksLikeMe on Sept 15, 2004 8:20:42 GMT -5
Amusing, but it chimes with my constant puzzlement that the majority of christians vote for right wing parties. |
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Sept 15, 2004 8:23:02 GMT -5
We (the left) hate god, I thought you knew that. Didn't you read the contract?
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Sept 15, 2004 8:24:58 GMT -5
"Did not take on the last two years of his Guard service with the same vigor that he did the first four?" A curious way for you to describe it, Chrisfan, given that you’ve always stated personal responsibility as a cornerstone of your politics. Not sure what exactly your point is here Drum. If you'd care to elaborate, I'll happily respond. But I can't read your mind, and I'm not following your point. Bush shirked his service obligation, committing a court-martial offence in the process according to Lechliter. This is an absolutely baseless claim. Drum, you can hang your hat on Lechliter if you wish, but there are military people on the other side that are saying that Bush did absolutely nothing wrong. So, other than "he's the one against Bush" what basis do you have for declaring which source is right? So we don't know whether or not Bush completed every required day of his guard service. I can't say he did, you can't say he didn't. But we CAN say he received an honorable discharge. Apply some logic here -- how does a man who should be court martialed receive an honorable discharge. As has been stated by others on the subject, during this time period, the guard was LOOKING for pilots to be relieved of duty. If Bush did not complete his service BUT WAS GRANTED PERMISSION NOT TO, then he did NOT commit a court martial offense. If you look at the FULL story, if you look at ALL the reliable sources speaking on the issue, than there is absolutely no way that you can reach the definitive conclusion that you are here. |
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Sept 15, 2004 8:28:19 GMT -5
No, it’s not at all based on the CBS documents, stratman (though, I in fact doubt that they are forgeries at this point). The link to the Lechliter report is on pg. 23. Read it. My response to the RocDoc is the same. Okay, I'll bite. What are you basing your doubts of the documents being forgeries on? Has there been ANY evidence produced to say that they're legitimate? Other than Dan Rather saying he won't be questioned? |
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Sept 15, 2004 8:29:16 GMT -5
Amusing, but it chimes with my constant puzzlement that the majority of christians vote for right wing parties. If you truly want an explanation, I'll be happy to give one. However, if you're just musing and don't care, I'd prefer not to get in to it. LMK. |
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Sept 15, 2004 8:36:37 GMT -5
Drum, I took a look at the report linked on page 23. Now in all fairness, I'll admit that I skimmed it. I did not read it carefully. (at some point today, I have to actually work) So if there's something key that you think I missed, please let me know where it is, and I'll go back and read it. However, from what I saw, I think that DOUBT can certainly be there, but definite conclusions, as you appear to be making, cannot be drawn. As an example, in the pay records section, Lechliter says that the pay records released by the White House do not definitively confirm Bush's service, and explains why. Okay, fair enough. But there's a huge gap between something not being definitively confirmed and something being proven to be false. There are certainly questions that can be raised about Bush's service, much like there can be about Kerrys' service. But in both cases, definitive conclusions cannot be achieved. There is far too much he said / she said. Honestly, I have a hard time NOT seeing a political motivation in what people on BOTH sides of the guard debate have said. So if they have a vested interest in what they're saying TODAY, how can I trust it conclusively? In short, I failed to see anything in that report that supported firm conclusions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Thorngrub on Sept 15, 2004 8:41:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by JesusLooksLikeMe on Sept 15, 2004 8:46:20 GMT -5
If you truly want an explanation, I'll be happy to give one. However, if you're just musing and don't care, I'd prefer not to get in to it. LMK. I would be interested. I've always loosely thought Christ was a bit of a lefty. |
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Sept 15, 2004 9:07:01 GMT -5
I would be interested. I've always loosely thought Christ was a bit of a lefty. Okay, here goes my first attempt. BTW, my sister is going to be sending me a tape of her minister speaking on this subject this weekend. If he says anything that will add to this (as I guess he will), I'll let you know. First off, I think that the thought of Christ "choosing sides" politically is a bit odd. Being that Christ had such a great love for all of God's children, I have a hard time wrapping my arms around His picking one side over the other. So I'm not really arguing that Christ would be a Republican ... just explaining why I don't see things as an obvious choice of one side vs the other. To me, it really comes down to the ideological differences between the right and the left approach to issues in the world. We've discussed before the notion that one side is not necessarily right, and one wrong, they're just different. To me, this VERY much comes into play here. In many ways, it comes down to a question of "What is the best and most effective way to help those who are in need?" Someone on the left will likely say that the government reaches all peole, therefore, it's the best way. For me personally, as a Christian AND as a Conservative, I respectfully disagree. I believe in the notion that to those who much is given, much is expected. I believe that when you see someone in need, it's not your job to look around for someone to help them ... it's your job to help! I believe that as a Christian, I am called to serve God in many ways, among them helping other people. If I were to get a bit partisian about it, I would say that Christ taught that you were better off to teach a starving man to fish than to give him a fish. I think that the conservative approach to helping those in need falls more in line with this lesson. Right or wrong, I DO see the left's approach of government giving people in need what they need to not be nearly effective as it is to enpower a person to provide what they need for themselves, ensuring that they're not left dependent on the government. I hear peole claim all the time (as was claimed here the other day) that conservatives just leave people out to fend for themsleves. I strongly disagree with this notion. If you buy into that line of thought, then it would be easy to understand why you'd question how Jesus could ever buy into conservative thought. However, if you believe that BOTH sides want to help people, then it's just a question of which way is the more effective way to help. I think that bottom line, Christ was far more concerned with showing love to other people, and showing them how they could achieve the eternal happiness they desired, than in proving His detractors wrong. I'm rambling. That was pretty much my free-form thought on the topic. So I'll stop at this point since I think I've stopped making sense. |
|
|
|
Post by Meursault on Sept 15, 2004 9:13:36 GMT -5
Jesus is Riding High On a Missile tonight by the Riley Dog Experience is one of my favorite songs.
|
|
|
|
Post by strat-0 on Sept 15, 2004 10:49:53 GMT -5
I hope luke cleared the fuck out of New Orleans. They're predicting possible hurricane-force winds as far as Birmingham, with tropical storm winds and 8+ inches of rain. There's not a battery or candle left to be had. You folks might not hear from me for awhile after tonight/tomorrow. I hope I don't lose any trees. Might have to try out the hide-a-bed sofa in the basement tonight if it gets bad here.
|
|
