You might also want to read the comments following that report to understand what kind of blog this story is being reported on. It's blatantly partisan political. What is being reported may or may not be accurate. If it is it true it illustrates the kind of thing that can happen with big, mindless bureaucracies. The thrust of the story...that the Bush administration is personally behind this policy is most likely pure BS. It's doubtful they are even personally aware of the policy. The DOD is a giant bureaucracy with thousands upon thousands of rules and regulations promulgated by bureaucrats. Any person with a modicum of knowledge about the US government knows this but if they have a political agenda it might serve their purposes to place the blame directly on the Bush administration.
Check the facts. Who is behind such actions is irrelevant if such actions happen. If conditions are not corrected then it is responsibility of chief of department ( i'm shure you are familiar with term objective responsibility). Reported on such blatantly biased site? So what. First reports came trough local News station and picked up by MSNBC but immediatly forggoten (droped like hot potatoe would be more like it) by MSN.
MSNBC is as left wing as they come. However, this was also reported on Fox News, which does strive for balance, being featured on "The O'Reilly Factor (However, Mr. O'Reilly didn't talk about it, being in Afghanistan at the time). The guest host stated that a Defense Department spokesman said that this problem of asking wounded veterans for some of the signing bonuses back was due to a glitch of some sort, and that this was NOT DoD policy. If they get this resolved quickly, then I will be more inclined to accept that explanation. Knowing the nature of bureaucracies, however, I am willing, for the moment, to give DoD the benefit of the doubt.
BWAHAHAHA, You made my evening. I hadn't had such a good lough in years It seems a lot of glitches happen in DoD: http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20071123/1a_lede23.art.htm
Edited by Moderator Why then, if there shows were so biased do they invite top democrats on? the news is unbiased how they present it. The shows are shows intended to get audiences which they do. CABLE NEWS RACE NITE OF OCT 31, 2007 FOXNEWS O'REILLY 2,876,000 FNC HANNITY/COLMES 2,029,000 FNC GRETA 1,398,000 FNC SHEP SMITH 1,353,000 FNC HUME 1,067,000 CNN DOBBS 873,000 MSNBC OLBERMANN 808,000 CNN PRESENTS 749,000 CNNHN GRACE 624,000 MSNBC HARDBALL 584,000
And how on Earth do you measure what is 'balanced'? As long as the media remains 'free' (as it should) media providers will remain unbound by content regulations, and free to present an opinion, or tabloid spam, and call it 'news'... The agenda is usually ratings, or compliance with whoever is footing the bills... It is never balance or truth, and for this reason all media outlets should be treated with MUCH reservation... FOX news, among others, certainly like to remind the viewer that they are merely giving you the facts, but in the end each merely provides a brand of editorial which you may choose or choose not to subscribe to... Right-wingers tend to prefer FOX... Lefites, those little Marxist pamphlets you get in the city... I don't subscribe to MSNBC or FOX, unless I feel like having my intelligence insulted... The presenters are patronising and sometimes outright nasty to their guests on both... I despise Fox particularily because of the violent messages I have seen it encourage... The far-right and far-left are both gits, but one at least is just harmless whinging... Smoking a particular kind of plant, protesting-4-thingz and singing kumbayah... A safer bet than another war for sure On a lighter note, you might like this TISO not serious but funny, sorry to all the FOX viewers http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swLExEmedtw
thats funny smedge like the chuck norris part I also do hate the the Greta van sustrens program its a waste of time same with Gheraldo, since on that program only young white women EVER disapear around the world. Also the whole thing about anna nichole smith was a waste of time, i wanna see the news not peoples views on her. same goes with the holloway case and Aruba.... Hannity and Colmes is good and the O'Reilly factor is pretty entertaining to watch just because how mad Bill can get. The fox report with shepherd smith is probably the most fair and balanced show on TV I think.
Kinda like saying she didnt accomplish a whole lot. She was just a tabloid curiosity for the last 10 years
She was a porn star....not somebody in society that should be looked up.....she married some old guy for his money and was a druggie. had fake breasts....
Before you judge her, you might remember this: "There, but for the grace of God, go I". And we are all equal in the eyes of God.
Perhaps, but we do get to make choices in life, and we do have moral codes we live by. Therefore we can rightly judge others on the extent to which their choices fit our morals, no?
I got Roel on my side! victory! but still foxnews did go over the boat by covering her "story" too much, they should look at more important and relevant things to Americans lives like hmmm the war on terror mmmm.
I'll have to agree with corpcasselbury on this one. Besides, I don't understand what fake boobs has to do with a woman's character. I don't like fake boobs but think that makes one a person.
Well, we can deplore the choices they make, but judging anyone is the province of God, not men. And would you honestly like to have people judging you for the things you do, Roel? Especially for the bad decisions we all make from time to time?
I certainly would not like being judged for such things, but I would expect it, and I readily admit to doing it myself... God sees us all as equal, yes, but it is too much to expect the same of men :smok:
Just as you will be fair game for Him. And He'll have the last laugh on all those who do not believe in Him.