Ted Haggard

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

With regard to Fox, I was talking more about their actual news coverage than their shows. I do like some of the shows. I think O'Reilly is alright most of the time. At times, he can be really obnoxious but most of the time he is alright. He is very conseravtive on most issues but he has liberal guests on all the time that he debates. at least the liberal guest's voice is heard and O"Reilly will always give the guest the last word which I like.

With regard to Hannity and Colmes, the show is probably not quite as balanced as it should be beacuse Hannity is really the star of the show and he comes on much stronger than Colmes. I'm not a big fan of Hannity. He's a conservative hack. The guests on the show are usually alright. they usually have a good mix of both liberals and conservatives.

With regard to your question about Bush, I do not think that his job approval has been hurt by media coverage. I think the media has been fair with him overall. I think the only thing that has really hurt him is the war. And the war would not have hurt him at all if it would have gone well. Americans are results oriented. If we would have won the war, everyone would be happy.

I agree with you about Drudge. I like it because it has a good mix of articles from both liberal and conservative papers. It has all the interesting headlines from all the big newpapers.

I think Bush would be doing far better on the public's view of his handling of the war, not to mention that the war itself might go better, if he cut Rumsfeld loose. I'm not hopping on any bandwagon, I've felt this for a couple years.

I just do not get Bush's devotion and while I guess I admire Rumsfeld's desire to get the job done, I think we'd all be better off with change there.

It's been 5 years since 9/11 and four years of war. If the country were a corporation, Defense was it's biggest division and Rumsfeld was in charge of that division, there is not much chance he'd still be in the job. Why is this different?

When things go bad, people get stale and you can't replace all of the troops. But you can change the leadership and sometimes change for the sake of change alone is reasonable.

Frankly, this puzzles the hell out if me.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by SentToStud

I think Bush would be doing far better on the public's view of his handling of the war, not to mention that the war itself might go better, if he cut Rumsfeld loose. I'm not hopping on any bandwagon, I've felt this for a couple years.

I just do not get Bush's devotion and while I guess I admire Rumsfeld's desire to get the job done, I think we'd all be better off with change there.

It's been 5 years since 9/11 and four years of war. If the country were a corporation, Defense was it's biggest division and Rumsfeld was in charge of that division, there is not much chance he'd still be in the job. Why is this different?

When things go bad, people get stale and you can't replace all of the troops. But you can change the leadership and sometimes change for the sake of change alone is reasonable.

Frankly, this puzzles the hell out if me.

I think Rumsfeld is probably a victim of his own success. He's been so successful at everything that he's done in his life that I think it has made him a little stubborn. I heard that he was broguht in as CEO at two different companies and totally turned the companies around. I think he's worth over $100 million. Sometimes guys who are that successful think that they can do anything. They think they can walk on water. I'm sure he thinks he's smarter than all of his generals and he may be, but that doesn't mean that he knows more about fighting a war than they do.

The truth of the matter is that it's a really tough situation over there and I think there would be serious problems no matter who was in charge. But like you said, sometimes it can be better to change things just for the sake of change. Bush probably doesn't have the nerve to fire him. He probably felt lucky to get him in the first place. It would be like if you owned a team and you convinced some legendary coach to come out of retirement and coach your team. If things didn't go well, you still may not have the nerve to fire him. You feel so grateful that he took the job in the first place that you wouldn't feel right about firing him even if you felt that he wasn't getting the job done.

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I think Rumsfeld is probably a victim of his own success. He's been so successful at everything that he's done in his life that I think it has made him a little stubborn. I heard that he was broguht in as CEO at two different companies and totally turned the companies around. I think he's worth over $100 million. Sometimes guys who are that successful think that they can do anything. They think they can walk on water. I'm sure he thinks he's smarter than all of his generals and he may be, but that doesn't mean that he knows more about fighting a war than they do.

The truth of the matter is that it's a really tough situation over there and I think there would be serious problems no matter who was in charge. But like you said, sometimes it can be better to change things just for the sake of change. Bush probably doesn't have the nerve to fire him. He probably felt lucky to get him in the first place. It would be like if you owned a team and you convinced some legendary coach to come out of retirement and coach your team. If things didn't go well, you still may not have the nerve to fire him. You feel so grateful that the took the job in the first place that you wouldn't feel right about firing him even if you felt that he wasn't getting the job done.

Rumsfeld was CEO of Gen Instrument and Searle. He's a tremendously wealthy and successful man. I think he was also Chairman of two or three other firms as well.

He got elected to Congress very young ...28 or 29 I think.

The most interesting fact I know about him is that while he is now the oldest person to serve as Sec of Defense, he is also the youngest person to have held the position (back with Ford).

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by SentToStud

Rumsfeld was CEO of Gen Instrument and Searle. He's a tremendously wealthy and successful man. I think he was also Chairman of two or three other firms as well.

He got elected to Congress very young ...28 or 29 I think.

The most interesting fact I know about him is that while he is now the oldest person to serve as Sec of Defense, he is also the youngest person to have held the position (back with Ford).

Yes, that is right. He was both the youngest and oldest Sec of Defense.

I respect the man. How many guys in there 70's wanna be working night and day and constantly being bashed? He is not on a beach with a paper umbrella in his drink. He really thought he could get the job done. And he did. But vastly underestimated the aftermath.

[Downthestretch55]

Rupert,
Here are your words:
"First of all, the post was not directed at you. It was directed at DTS and I never said that DTS would defend someone just beacuse they are a Muslim. I said that DTS probably wouldn't have been interetsed in the story and probably would not have posted the story if it was about a Muslim. That is what I said."

First of all, you are making an outrageous assumption that demands an apology. I will not tolerate your lie.
Secondly, your clumsy attempt to refocus the topic of the debate from Haggard to me, like somehow I am the reason for his actions, is also tranparent.
You are entitled to believe whatever you wish as am I.
I base mine on truth.

DTS

Pgardn,
You stated above that Rumsfeld has gotten the job done. I'd like clarification on that statement, as last I heard, the engagement in Iraq is far from completed.

DTS

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Rupert,
Here are your words:
"First of all, the post was not directed at you. It was directed at DTS and I never said that DTS would defend someone just beacuse they are a Muslim. I said that DTS probably wouldn't have been interetsed in the story and probably would not have posted the story if it was about a Muslim. That is what I said."

First of all, you are making an outrageous assumption that demands an apology. I will not tolerate your lie.
Secondly, your clumsy attempt to refocus the topic of the debate from Haggard to me, like somehow I am the reason for his actions, is also tranparent.
You are entitled to believe whatever you wish as am I.
I base mine on truth.

DTS

Pgardn,
You stated above that Rumsfeld has gotten the job done. I'd like clarification on that statement, as last I heard, the engagement in Iraq is far from completed.

DTS

You can correct me if I was wrong. Would you have been interested in the story and posted the story if it was about a Muslim? If you would have, then my assumption was wrong and I apologize.

Anyway, I'm done debating with you. It's a waste of time.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

You can correct me if I was wrong. Would you have been interested in the story and posted the story if it was about a Muslim? If you would have, then my assumption was wrong and I apologize.

Anyway, I'm done debating with you. It's a waste of time.

In what way did I bring the word Muslim into the debate?
YOU brought that into the debate, not me.
Debating?
You have demonstrated your lack of skills.
I do agree that you are wrong.
Your "apology", couched in the words you stated, amount to bu-l ****.
To the "honey wagon" you go! Along with the war criminals you so dearly defend.
Good bye!!

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

The guy is not a muslim. That's not what I said. I said that if he was a Muslim and a democrat, you would probably criticize the story. You would attack the messenger. But since he is Christian and probably a republican, you think it's a newsworthy story.

No, I don't think you create the news and I don't think any of us do. That was my point. I think a news story is a news story. Whereas you and Genuine Risk seem to think that any story that you don't like was created by some right-wing conspiracy.

This quote is why I hopped into the debate, RP. No, you didn't directly in that post say I would have ignored the story were it about a Muslim, but since you were so quick to lump me in with DTS (which I don't mind one bit, DTS. ) I wanted to hop into the discussion.

Regarding Bill O'Reilly-- From Salon.com:

<<Bill O'Reilly: Not a good obstetric-health authority

Thanks to Media Matters and several eagle-eyed and eagle-eared Broadsheet readers for passing this gem along.

Last week on his syndicated radio show, "The Radio Factor With Bill O'Reilly," Fox anchor and loofah-wielder Bill O'Reilly decided to address the issue of abortion in his "Culture War" segment. He briefly touched on Ms. magazine's "We Had Abortions" campaign, before explaining that pretty soon, abortion may not be legal thanks to cases being argued in South Dakota and other states. Legal abortion "may not be the law of the land, unfettered, much longer because the Supreme Court's hearing a whole bunch of stuff," said O'Reilly. "South Dakota, as you know, has voted to outlaw abortions unless the mother's life is in danger, which is never the case, because you can always have a C-section and do those kinds of things."

The host then went on to assert that after 26 weeks "there's life, whether you cede it or not, it's true -- scientifically speaking, of course."

Of course. Science could only be behind his follow-up claim that 45 percent of Americans favor outlawing abortion "unless the mother's going to die, or catastrophic health consequences, which again, is never the case. Never."

Well, actually, Bill O'Reilly, you irresponsible moron, that's news to me. And try telling it to all the women who have experienced, or died from, life-threatening conditions like ectopic pregnancy, which is when a fertilized egg attaches itself outside of the uterus and can rupture fallopian tubes, causing fatal bleeding. That's the No. 1 cause of pregnancy-related death in the first trimester. But don't forget preeclampsia, a high-blood-pressure syndrome that is extremely common and treatable but that in rare, severe circumstances can lead to life-threatening conditions. The Mayo Clinic reports that preeclampsia "and other high blood pressure disorders during pregnancy are a leading cause of maternal and infant illness and death." None of these conditions "can always" be solved by a C-section.

So another moral for the day: Don't trust obstetric information -- or let's be honest here, any information -- when it comes from Bill O'Reilly. >>

That kind of talk is A) inaccurate and B) irresponsible, seeing as how violent the anti-abortion faction in this country can be. By saying things like this- that a woman's life is never in danger during pregnancy, the man is encouraging terrorists (because that's what people who shoot abortion doctors and threaten women going into clinics are-- terrorists). That's all they need to hear-- that there is never a situation where abortion is medically necessary to save a woman's life. Dangerous, irresponsible commentary. And very, very emotionally damaging to women who did have to terminate a pregnancy due to health reasons.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

This quote is why I hopped into the debate, RP. No, you didn't directly in that post say I would have ignored the story were it about a Muslim, but since you were so quick to lump me in with DTS (which I don't mind one bit, DTS. ) I wanted to hop into the discussion.

Regarding Bill O'Reilly-- From Salon.com:

<<Bill O'Reilly: Not a good obstetric-health authority

Thanks to Media Matters and several eagle-eyed and eagle-eared Broadsheet readers for passing this gem along.

Last week on his syndicated radio show, "The Radio Factor With Bill O'Reilly," Fox anchor and loofah-wielder Bill O'Reilly decided to address the issue of abortion in his "Culture War" segment. He briefly touched on Ms. magazine's "We Had Abortions" campaign, before explaining that pretty soon, abortion may not be legal thanks to cases being argued in South Dakota and other states. Legal abortion "may not be the law of the land, unfettered, much longer because the Supreme Court's hearing a whole bunch of stuff," said O'Reilly. "South Dakota, as you know, has voted to outlaw abortions unless the mother's life is in danger, which is never the case, because you can always have a C-section and do those kinds of things."

The host then went on to assert that after 26 weeks "there's life, whether you cede it or not, it's true -- scientifically speaking, of course."

Of course. Science could only be behind his follow-up claim that 45 percent of Americans favor outlawing abortion "unless the mother's going to die, or catastrophic health consequences, which again, is never the case. Never."

Well, actually, Bill O'Reilly, you irresponsible moron, that's news to me. And try telling it to all the women who have experienced, or died from, life-threatening conditions like ectopic pregnancy, which is when a fertilized egg attaches itself outside of the uterus and can rupture fallopian tubes, causing fatal bleeding. That's the No. 1 cause of pregnancy-related death in the first trimester. But don't forget preeclampsia, a high-blood-pressure syndrome that is extremely common and treatable but that in rare, severe circumstances can lead to life-threatening conditions. The Mayo Clinic reports that preeclampsia "and other high blood pressure disorders during pregnancy are a leading cause of maternal and infant illness and death." None of these conditions "can always" be solved by a C-section.

So another moral for the day: Don't trust obstetric information -- or let's be honest here, any information -- when it comes from Bill O'Reilly. >>

That kind of talk is A) inaccurate and B) irresponsible, seeing as how violent the anti-abortion faction in this country can be. By saying things like this- that a woman's life is never in danger during pregnancy, the man is encouraging terrorists (because that's what people who shoot abortion doctors and threaten women going into clinics are-- terrorists). That's all they need to hear-- that there is never a situation where abortion is medically necessary to save a woman's life. Dangerous, irresponsible commentary. And very, very emotionally damaging to women who did have to terminate a pregnancy due to health reasons.

Of all the abortions that are done in the US, what percentage of them are done to save a woman's life? I don't know the answer but my guess is that the number is extremely low. I doubt it's higher than 1% or 2%. O'Reilly probably should have used the word "rarely" rather than "never".

I don't know how you can make the accusation that O'Reilly is encoraging terrorists by criticizing abortion. You have always scoffed at that argument when conservatives make that argument about opponents of Presidnet Bush and the war.

[Downthestretch55]

Quick questions Rupert,
Does the government control what you chose to do with your body (if you are male and not doing anything illegal like drugs)?
Should the same apply to females?
Should government have a "say" in determining the choice of the ones that are chosen by the individual as their "love interest"?
Should ALL Americans share the same rights and privileges?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Quick questions Rupert,
Does the government control what you chose to do with your body (if you are male and not doing anything illegal like drugs)?
Should the same apply to females?
Should government have a "say" in determining the choice of the ones that are chosen by the individual as their "love interest"?
Should ALL Americans share the same rights and privileges?

I am not in favor of outlawing abortion.

The governmet should not have a say in a person's "love interest".

Yes, all Americans should have the same rights and privileges.

Why do you keep asking me questions? I thought that we agreed that we would not debate any more.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I am not in favor of outlawing abortion.

The governmet should not have a say in a person's "love interest".

Yes, all Americans should have the same rights and privileges.

Why do you keep asking me questions? I thought that we agreed that we would not debate any more.

Rupert,
I wasn't debating. I was asking questions.
Actually, I agree with your answers.
It's consistant with my long cherished belief that there should be "liberty and justice for all."

[timmgirvan]

Bad Boys! Bad Boys! Whatcha Gonna Do When They Come For You!

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

Bad Boys! Bad Boys! Whatcha Gonna Do When They Come For You!

I'll hope they don't have extra nooses beside Saddam's for the real war criminals.
HANG EM HIGH!!!

Hope the band plays "Hail to the Chief" when the frog march begins.

[timmgirvan]

DTS: I was talking about Haggard actually! I think it's unfair of you to call the Administration war criminals. It's oK to dialogue about the war etc etc but the diatribe against Bush is wrong. I've disagreed with much in the 38 yrs since I became eligible to vote..even worked to change decisions,laws,perceptions,but I drew the line with calling our leaders war criminals.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

DTS: I was talking about Haggard actually! I think it's unfair of you to call the Administration war criminals. It's oK to dialogue about the war etc etc but the diatribe against Bush is wrong. I've disagreed with much in the 38 yrs since I became eligible to vote..even worked to change decisions,laws,perceptions,but I drew the line with calling our leaders war criminals.

Timm,
Haggard admitted to his doings. his "church" has dealt with him.
Now it's time for the world court to bring the criminals to their justice.
Charges will be filed in Germany next week.
The USA set the precedent at Nuremburg.
The only way the USA will regain credibility with the other nations that share our planet is to abide by the standard that's been set.
You certainly are entitled to your views.
To me, you can dress up the skunks in any costumes you buy them to trick-or treat in, but they're still going to smell the same.
Sorry Timm, they're war criminals.
They sold it. We bought it. They own it.
Just like Saddam, Nixon, Hitler, and all of their buddies.
Hang now...burn later.

[Downthestretch55]

In case you missed it, here's Haggart's letter of apology.

http://www.gazette.com/display.php?id=1326184&secid=1

Now, if we could just get Cheney, Rove, and others in the administraton to help Georgie-boy write his.
They need all the help they can get.

*note...in Kenny's letter, he doesn't ask forgivness from the only ONE that is capable of forgiving him.
"Blind men lead other blind men into the pit."
-Jesus

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Of all the abortions that are done in the US, what percentage of them are done to save a woman's life? I don't know the answer but my guess is that the number is extremely low. I doubt it's higher than 1% or 2%. O'Reilly probably should have used the word "rarely" rather than "never".

I don't know how you can make the accusation that O'Reilly is encoraging terrorists by criticizing abortion. You have always scoffed at that argument when conservatives make that argument about opponents of Presidnet Bush and the war.

O'Reilly didn't use the word "rarely;" he used the word "never." He said "never,' therefore he meant "never." What? You can easily believe Kerry really did mean to insult the troops, but you can't believe O'Reilly meant "never?" Now who has a double standard?

And now it looks like an investigation may start against him for leaking information. From AOL.com:

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a...00010000000001

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

O'Reilly didn't use the word "rarely;" he used the word "never." He said "never,' therefore he meant "never." What? You can easily believe Kerry really did mean to insult the troops, but you can't believe O'Reilly meant "never?" Now who has a double standard?

And now it looks like an investigation may start against him for leaking information. From AOL.com:

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a...00010000000001

I'm not claiming he meant to say "rarely". I'm saying that he should have said "rarely". I think he was wrong to use the word "never".