Story: "Let me think carefully about this," Dean said in a political riff reminiscent of his days as governor. "I think George Bush is the most incompetent president we've had in our lifetime. I mean, nobody would accuse President Nixon of being incompetent."
Dean was quick to point out that Nixon was dishonest, and that he wasn't endorsing that president's conduct in office. Still, he said Bush and his administration share some of characteristics of Nixon and his administration."I think there's a lot of similarities between Nixon and Agnew and Bush and Cheney," Dean said, referring to vice presidents Spiro Agnew - also forced to resign from office - and Vice President Richard Cheney.
"They're both using the IRS for political purposes. They're both spying on people they don't like and not just terrorists, but also American citizens. Neither one of them particularly believes in judicial rights. They've both been dishonest with the American people.""
Right, thats the kind of rhetoric that will win elections. Keep it up, and it will be helping the republican.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
20 comments:
yes, its nothing at all like Bush saying "Democrats want the terrorists to win"
give me a break.
oh, and how about this hypocritical friend of yours?
hahahaha - so typical
Mudslinging. Is that anything new for an election year? And you have to admit, the Democrats have it down to an exact science.
‘His accuser, Denver resident Mike Jones, refused to share with The Associated Press voice mails that he said backed up his allegation, stating that he is having them reviewed by a voice analyst. Jones further claimed that Haggard paid him for methamphetamines.’
Riiiight. Won’t share evidence, why not? Hasn’t he got any? Show me the evidence and I'll give it a second look.
Daniel
Here you go...listen to the voicemails...
I'm just going to repost what I said in reply your comment on my blog
"hmm... that's interesting.
I fail to see what it has to do with the current conversation,
But I will entertain the thought.
First I’d like to point out,
That nothing is official here and all we have is one single person saying this happened.
I’m not saying that it did or didn’t,
Because I don’t really know.
Just because he’s a pastor, doesn’t mean he represents my ideas,
I’ve been to a few of his services,
And his doctrine didn’t exactly line up with what I believe.
(Don’t ask me for details on this,
This was last year sometime)
Now, I will admit,
A lot of his philosophy was appealing.
He made a big deal about helping other smaller churches in the area.
And the church did have a good ministry program,
So I can see how so many people could be drawn into that church with out noticing that the preaching wasn’t exactly lined up.
This being said,
Even if these allegations are true,
(which hasn’t been proven yet)
This guy’s views do not represent the rest of Christians views.
Once again,
Not sure what this has to do with the incident at hand,
(other than to draw attention away from it)
But thanks for informing me."
After reveiwing this "evidence",
It says that he admited to some of the allegations.
As I recall, that doesn't mena anything since some of the allegations don't really have any substence.
Also,
Those voice recordings really don't prove anything and the news caster said the same thing.
In my opinion,
It sounds very likly that those could have had to do with just about anything the church was working on.
And if you'll notice,
THe recording says,If we can get any more"
Meaning that he had already obtained whatever it was from that source.
And this guy says he never got the drugs for him.
Looks rather inconsistant to me.
BTW...
It's rather conveinent that these allegations,
With no real proof as of yet,
Happened just after a slip up from the party that this pator disagrees with.
It says that he admited to some of the allegations.
As I recall, that doesn't mena anything since some of the allegations don't really have any substence.
Huh? he ADMITTED to some of the allegations. But yet, you don't understand what the word "ADMITTED" means? Do you realize how blind this makes you appear? Seriously...are you even able to think for yourself? or will you support anyone, anything simply because it labels itself as "christian?"
this guy had weekly phone calls with the President advising him on evangelicals and policy do you think that's appropriate?
oh, so wait - using crystal meth is ok, and getting massages is ok??
but you still don't believe its true? alright... great...
Yeah, back to mudslinging. Issues don't matter a flip, but what some pastor in Colorado is accused of, thats big news.
Mg, your crazy.
And would you please show me what the democrats have done to help defeat the terrorists? Call the troops nazis, rail about Gutanamo bay, and say Bush is the most incompetent president in history?
its about the hypocrisy of your fellow so-called-christians palm boy....its things like this that make it almost impossible to take the whole lot of you seriously...
Ok,
I never said that meth is ok.
but I still trying to figure out what is worng with getting a massage.
either way, that's not the point.
I never said he was a christian.
I have to watch some one closely for a while and get to know them before I'll say that.
Just cause he's a pastor though,
doesn't make him a christian.
I'm not saying he is or isn't.
I was just saying this whole thing sounds a little fishy.
what your saying is that this pastoor is being hypocritcal. once you actually prove that did what the allegations say he did,
I'll buy that.
How ever, what you're trying to do is take the focus off of a certain Senator's, who was elected and represents a certein group of peoples ideas, hypocrasy.
"T support the troop, just now the war,
And oh by the way,
I think they're stupid"
Tell me that's not hypocritical.
I'll admit that this pastor may have done these thing,
(Even though there's no proof of that)
But I didn't elect him to be a pastor.
Neither did PB.
However,
A certain group of people DID elect that senator.
Which,
I assume,
means they agree with him.
That's the real point here.
Please pardon my spelling and grammar.
I'm slightly sleep deprived.
BTW
I've come to the conclusion that MG also posts as Annie.
I wouldn't be surprised if he posts under other names too.
So apparently he doesn't have any pride in his opinions since he has to fake multiple persons to support them.
This isn't intended to be a personal attack,
just to inform the rest of the world.
he ADMITTED to getting massages from a homosexual male prostitute.
so let me get this straight, you think that's just fine? do your pastors get massages from male prostitutes?
how about the crystal meth? you think that's ok too?
he admitted it, and he resigned. how can you possibly defend this man.
I'm not defending him.
I've said multiple times that I can't vouch for his guilt or his inoucence.
I was merely pointing out that the stroy doesn't sit seem to be complete.
My main point is that you're only pointing this out to draw attention away from a certain event that happened that you don't like.
I think we all know what that is.
I said that should this actually get proven,
Yes he is a hypocrit.
But we've already proven that Senator is a hypocrit.
And you haven't acknowledged that yet.
The Bush Administration is "spying" so we don't have another 9/11. Democrats hammer Bush for not preventing 9/11 but they don't want him to stop another one. What's up with that?
Just because one says they are something does not necessarily make them so. A pastor said that he was a Christian, so what? Does that make him a Christian? No, his actions and his life prove whether or not he lives up the the Christian's Doctrines and ways of life. He could say that he is a Budhist, or Muslim for that matter, and it does not make him any more a Muslim or Budhist than his saying that he is a Christian does.
Yes people followed him, but it would not be the first time that a people followed a great orator.
Take Hitler for example, many people followed him, he was one of the most influential speakers of the time, yet at the end of WWII, many people of his country said that they did not agree with what he stood for at the end of the war. Does that make the Germans Nazis to this day?
Or for instance take Commetus of ancient Rome, (Yes the character from the movie Gladiator was a real person, though poorly depicted.) Many people followed him, and even burned many people in his gardens for hanging lights, but they were not the same man as Commetus, nor should they be grouped in the same category.
The point I am making is this, it is easy to mislead a group of people by pretending to be of the same idealogy and beliefs as them, however that does not make the leader a part of the same group, in fact it makes them the exact opposite, and destroys the fabric of trust that the people had with the surrounding cultures and beliefs.
The fact that one "pastor" that claimed to be "Christian" had a homosexual affair with a homosexual prostitute and bought crystal methamphetamine from the man does not mean that all Christians will have homosexual affairs and do drugs, it means that one man who claimed to be a "Christian" has finally been caught with his true colors flying.
Tweee Tweee! Time out! Everyone take a deep breath. You've been at each other's throats this entire discussion. No one post until he or she has closed his or her eyes and counted to 10 slowly.
Mg, You have committed a logical fallacy known as "Argumentum ad Hominem (circumstantial)"; that is, you countered an accusation of Dean with an accusation of Haggard. While bringing up another issue is a valid maneuver you cannot logically use it to rebuttal an argument. They are separate topics that cannot be intermingled. I am NOT defending or attacking Haggard. I am simply asking that we abide by the standards of logical discussion.
I also noticed that both of you committed the logical fallacy of "composition"; you associated a part directly with the whole. Palm Boy and his group attempted (perhaps unintentionally) to prove that what applies to Dean also applies to democrats as a whole. Mg, you attempted (again, perhaps unintentionally) to prove that whatever Haggard did reflects the behavior of all Christians. I agree that what a member of a group does can be an indicator of the condition of the entire group. However, two incidents like these cannot be expected apply to the entire groups, especially with the emotional appeals being used my both sides.
Just my thoughts
P.S. Palm Boy, on future posts you may not want to initiate the discussions with sarcasm. It's kinda like throwing a match onto gasoline soaked wood.
P.P.S. I hope no one was insulted by my arguments. I'm not trying to imply that anyone is stupid or clueless because they made a logic mistake. I make them all the time.
actually - i wasn't commenting on the Dean comment at all....i just wanted to make sure these christians over here were well aware of their hypocritical leader, Ted Haggard. i would have put up the link no matter what the topic was.
and Haggard leads a church of 30,000....and he speaks to the President on a regular basis....so clearly he speaks on behalf of the Christians. its sad really... why do so many so-called christian men fall into a life of homosexuality and drug use?
do you think if maybe everyone didn't freak out so much about sex, then he wouldn't be forced to go see a prostitute.
anyway, his church did the right thing and kicked him out today....but not until well after this hypocrite influenced many many people. its sad really.
Fair enough. You probably weren't countering with to the article on Dean. It just looked like it to me. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume I mistook your comments.
I notice whenever liberals get pinked in the eye with a good argument, their first response is to "nyah-nyah." "Well, what about (insert incident)? That's just as bad. Nyah nyah nyah!"
They won't argue the issues on their merits. They just bellow loudly with the above until you get tired of it and stop trying. Then, they think they've won the day by wearing you out with their stupidity. There are some conservatives who do this as well, but in my long experience, nowhere near as many. Go to a conservative college campus as a liberal, and you'll probably be heard respectfully and engaged in discussion. Go to a liberal college campus as a conservative, and you'll be shouted down. Or even have food thrown at you.
In other words mg, you're going to have to do a lot better than that. If you can't, then go back to Romper Room and play until you can actually address the subject on terms of premises and conclusions.
Post a Comment