"Another" Waste of Our Money!

[Doggie Daddy]

And you think you have the right to censure me?!

Yes,she absolutely has the right.

 

[Poorboy]

I was Wondering when You were Going to jump in here! I did Back up my Statements,Or did you Choose to Overlook that?
Ignore:That's why I Informed the Chosen Few of that Option If they don't like what I Post then Feel Free to use it. Suggesting the Ignore isn't Ignorant at all
My Education Level is a Bachelors Degree in Law Enforcement and Yours?
As Far as Grammar: I wasn't aware that you were the Grammar Police, Thought that was OVMs Job But Just like My Threads I Choose to do and use the Grammar exactly how I Want to..If I Don't use the Correct Punctuation or anything else then That's my Decision----Right?

*LOL* you gettin me confused with JuJu on grammar....

so who is going to get in the last word? [/QUOTE]

To be perfectly Honest OVM, I Don't really care as to who gets the Last word as I am Having a-lot of Fun with These People cuz I'm just sitting Back and Laughing
Tell ya what, Lets give the Last word to The Shelled One as I really believe that he actually Believes some of the stuff that he Spews.
Sorry JuJu, Seems Like I Errored as to who was Actually the Grammar Police, But OVM Straightened me out

Well, Since yesterday was My Birthday, I am Off for a Little bit of R&R for a Few Days. Maybe by the time that I get Back I Might have a Continuing Saga and we'll See what I come up with Next!
Stay Safe Everyone!

 

[greg334]

... I am Having a-lot of Fun with These People cuz I'm just sitting Back and Laughing

You're not the only one.

 

[layoutshooter]

Bambi? A Her? Bambi was a stag, not a hind. Are they now doing sex change operations on Red Deer in Germany? No wonder their health system is going broke. That must have cost them a fortune.

 

[RLENT]

Bambi? A Her? Bambi was a stag, not a hind.

Actually no, that's not correct - Bambi, since he was not actually an adult deer, was a fawn ....

I'm really surprised Layout - I thought that you - of all people - would know the difference.

 

[jimby82]

Watch all of the film.

<spoiler alert> -->



Bambi grows up.



</ spoiler alert>

 

[greg334]

All I know is Bambi grew up and ended up on someone's table for food.

 

[layoutshooter]

All I know is Bambi grew up and ended up on someone's table for food.

Yep, in Germany, but most likely not before he spread some genes about. Then, as deer designed to do, he spent his entire life converting hard to digest proteins into more easily digested proteins for man and other non-grazers to eat. Such is life.

 

[dieseldiva]

The problem with "Bambi", in the context of this thread, is that he/she doesn't exist as a member. Poor "Bambi" was drawn into the conversation by one of the self-appointed spelling/grammar police here that simply cannot endure the postings of the common man.

The member that was referenced in a previous post was "bambam". Perhaps our spelling/grammar cop should do their homework before posting, another suggestion that is often made to us commoners.

 

[layoutshooter]

The problem with "Bambi", in the context of this thread, is that he/she doesn't exist as a member. Poor "Bambi" was drawn into the conversation by one of the self-appointed spelling/grammar police here that simply cannot endure the postings of the common man.

The member that was referenced in a previous post was "bambam". Perhaps our spelling/grammar cop should do their homework before posting, another suggestion that is often made to us commoners.

I know all about the spelling/grammar and "thought police" that run in here all the time. I just enjoy "ragging" on people who don't know anything about "Bambi"!! I got nuthin better to do!!

 

[Doggie Daddy]

Perhaps our spelling/grammar cop should do their homework before posting, another suggestion that is often made to us commoners.

Let 'em eat cake,and off with their heads.

 

[Poorboy]

The problem with "Bambi", in the context of this thread, is that he/she doesn't exist as a member. Poor "Bambi" was drawn into the conversation by one of the self-appointed spelling/grammar police here that simply cannot endure the postings of the common man.

The member that was referenced in a previous post was "bambam". Perhaps our spelling/grammar cop should do their homework before posting, another suggestion that is often made to us commoners.

Now that's Funny Right There

And she was Questioning My Education

 

[cheri1122]

The problem with "Bambi", in the context of this thread, is that he/she doesn't exist as a member. Poor "Bambi" was drawn into the conversation by one of the self-appointed spelling/grammar police here that simply cannot endure the postings of the common man.
Yet another distortion of fact [or outright lie?] It was you who brought the former member into the conversation, in furtherance of your slimy smear campaign. Your snide references to my motives, state of mind, and other facts you know nothing about are getting tiresome - there are things I'd rather do than correct the misinformation you put out here.
Does the word 'stalker' mean anything to you?

The member that was referenced in a previous post was "bambam". Perhaps our spelling/grammar cop should do their homework before posting, another suggestion that is often made to us commoners.

Perhaps I'd have remembered the correct name, had you not had to go back years to find an example of what you claim I "often" do.
[Or perhaps it's just that, in reading the former member's own words, I came to the conclusion that the username she meant was 'bimbo', but she misspelled it, as per usual.]

 

[dieseldiva]

Perhaps I'd have remembered the correct name, had you not had to go back years to find an example of what you claim I "often" do.
[Or perhaps it's just that, in reading the former member's own words, I came to the conclusion that the username she meant was 'bimbo', but she misspelled it, as per usual.]

The point was that I didn't have to go back years to find an example. Had your behavior changed in the three years since your encounters with bambam I would have had no reason to bring it up.

Perhaps our spelling/grammar cop should do their homework before posting, another suggestion that is often made to us commoners.

There is no name attached to the word often, yours or anyone elses.

 

[cheri1122]

Now that's Funny Right There

And she was Questioning My Education

Yes, she was - but not until you bragged about your background.....before then, I just assumed you didn't know any better, and pointing out the errors would have been needlessly meanspirited.

 

[Pilgrim]

No, it's absolutely with merit. He's claiming a falsehood, since the Obama administration is not, in fact, spending taxpayer money on refurbishing mosques overseas. Previous administrations didn't do it, either. It was and in Congress that is doing it. The State Department is doing it, but under the direction of Congress. The fact that Pooboy wants to get rid of Obama is irrelevant. I want to get rid of him, too. But the simple fact is that he's purposely spreading lies and falsehoods for his own agenda. He posts things without checking the validity, which is both reckless and irresponsible. Because a number of his posts, including this one, have turned out to be lies and misinformation, his posts are not trustworthy.

He's the one who first used his career to establish character and integrity, and continues to do so. Yet his career and his postings here are irreconcilable, which goes directly to character and integrity. One who has integrity in one facet of their lives will have the same integrity in all facets of their life, and if one does not, then they have neither integrity or high character.

Excellent spin, but wrong. When someone purports to be of high integrity and character, yet their postings time after time belie that claim, to call them on it is hardly shallow. It's an honest observation.

Irrelevant. What some other site does is irrelevant to what happens here. Nonetheless, "news" by definition is a report of a recent event, intelligence, information, i.e., something known, and by implication known to be true, rather than something fabricated or intentionally misleading. "Before it's News" misrepresents itself.

That's incorrect. The use of "on" versus "to" has nothing to do with the implication of the degree (partial or entire) of the taxpayer's money that is being spent. The difference between "on refurbishing" and "to refurbish" is purely a semantical one, as both are prepositional phrases that mean precisely the same thing.

Prepositional phrases can be removed from a sentence and the sentence will still retail its primary meaning. For example:

"Obumma and His Administration are Spending Tax Payers Money on Refurbishing Mosques Over Seas."

"Obumma and His Administration are Spending Tax Payers Money."

Both are complete sentences (albeit both with appalling grammar). The first sentence has a qualifier that further explains the subject, to tell us how that money is being spent. The manner in which the qualifier is phrased is irrelevant, since it goes directly to the noun phrase and the verb phrase.

"Obumma and His Administration" is the noun, and "Tax Payers Money" is the noun compliment, with "Tax Payers" being the adjective to the "Money" noun. And "are Spending" being the verb phrase.

The "on Refurbishing Mosques Over Seas" is purely a prepositional phrase that can be completely removed from the sentence, and is a qualifier preposition phrase that links to the subject of the sentence to give it a clear (or clearer) context and meaning.

"Obumma and His Administration are Spending Tax Payers Money" is a standalone sentence, and any prepositional phrase that one might add will be the context of the subject. Whether that prepositional phrase is "to refurbish" or "on refurbishing" is literally semantical, as both phrases refer to the subject of who is spending who's money, and in no way refers to the degree of the tax payer's money that is being spent.

The Ambassadors Fund doesn't spend taxpayer dollars on religious projects, but rather on cultural projects.

Got that one from a conservative wb site, I'll bet. You might want to read the actual law, rather than rely on someone's biased interpretation and pure opinion (It is impossible to separate religion from a mosque; any such projects will necessarily support Islam.) on the matter.

If it is impossible to separate religion from a mosque, then it is also impossible to separate religion from a Catholic church or a Buddhist temple. It's not just mosques that are being refurbished using US taxpayer dollars. Over the years there have been quite a few more catholic churches than mosques to receive refurbishment aid, actually.

Why aren't these same conservatives all up in arms over this?

Personally, I think it's a very blurry line getting crossed when a building that is currently and actively being used primarily for religious purposes is being refurbished using US taxpayer dollars, regardless of the type of religion. The refurbishments and restorations aren't being done specifically to promote religious activities, but are done specifically for the cultural and historical significance. The vast majority of projects that the Ambassadors Fund supports are not religious in nature at all. Still, I think that for active religious buildings, it should be up to people who worship there, or the governments in those locations, to foot the entire bill for restorations and refurbishments.

This whole thing, the Ambassadors Fund, is purely political to help foster goodwill and foreign policy objectives. It's not all that unlike your local congressman or senator who tries to bring projects home. These US Ambassadors to foreign countries submit candidate project for aid to the State Department, which in turn puts the Ambassador, and thus the State Department and the US as a whole, in a more favorable light with the people in those countries.

So if you want to complain about some of the aid going to help refurbish a mosque, you have to complain just as loudly for some of the aid going to any and all other religious buildings. Otherwise, you're just hypocritical.


It's Congress that created this Fund, not an administration, and certainly not Obama's administration.

"So even though Obama's administration isn't the only one guilty of misappropriation of taxpayer funds," I like how you just slipped that in there as if it was true, and then used it to base your conclusion. Excellent. Nicely done.

The fact is, the story from "Before it's News" is misleading and untrue in substance, even on a superficial scale, and a blatant lie to incite the anger of others on a substantial scale. Poorboy read it and believed it, and without checking any of the facts, whole remaining entirely ignorant of the "why" of the funding, he blindly and recklessly propagated the misinformation, which is in and of itself an irresponsible act. And since he has a history of disseminating information that is later found to be untrue, that makes him untrustworthy. So when you say that his post here is "hardly an example of recklessness, irresponsibility and untrustworthiness," it is actually a conclusive and definitive example of it.

Ironic isn't it that that is the one message that good self-proclaimed Christians are the least likely to practice?

If he passed, it's only because we're playing musical chairs with the same number of chairs as people.

Ah jeez I know I should just let this rest, but there's just a couple of clarifications that I just can't contain. I'm not going to parse this entire novella with counterpoints, but there's a couple of things I'd like to bring back into focus:

1. The nit-picking of posts to the point of sentence diagramming and scrutinizing every minute point is IMHO getting a bit extreme. Most of these are written hurriedly and without a lot of fact checking. Mostly opinions, they're like comments made during a casual conversation among acquaintences. Similar perhaps to a group chewing the fat in the parking lot of a Flying J somewhere. I don't think somebody in a bull session like that should be catcalled for straying off the narrow path of factual accuracy, and IMHO the same applies here.
2. Granted, there has never been a president or an administration that spent a dollar of taxpayers' money; it's the Congress that handles budgetary matters. But don't tell me that the POTUS or his SECSTATE / State Dept. doesn't have influence over some of these areas. I'll refer again to the article in the Washington Times:

"Americans also may be surprised to learn that the United States has been an active participant in mosque construction projects overseas. In April, U.S. Ambassador to Tanzania Alfonso E. Lenhardt helped cut the ribbon at the 12th-century Kizimkazi Mosque, which was refurbished with assistance from the United States under a program to preserve culturally significant buildings. The U.S. government also helped save the Amr Ebn El Aas Mosque in Cairo, which dates back to 642. The mosque's namesake was the Muslim conqueror of Christian Egypt, who built the structure on the site where he had pitched his tent before doing battle with the country's Byzantine rulers. For those who think the Ground Zero Mosque is an example of "Muslim triumphalism" glorifying conquest, the Amr Ebn El Aas Mosque is an example of such a monument - and one paid for with U.S. taxpayer funds.
The mosques being rebuilt by the United States are used for religious worship, which raises important First Amendment questions. U.S. taxpayer money should not be used to preserve and promote Islam, even abroad. In July 2009, the Office of the Inspector General published an audit of U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) faith-based and community initiatives that examined whether government funds were being used for religious activities. The auditors found that while USAID was funding some religious activities, officials were "uncertain of whether such uses of Agency funding violate Agency regulations or the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution" when balanced against foreign-policy objectives.
For example, our government rebuilt the Al Shuhada Mosque in Fallujah, Iraq, expecting such benefits as "stimulating the economy, enhancing a sense of pride in the community, reducing opposition to international relief organizations operating in Fallujah, and reducing incentives among young men to participate in violence or insurgent groups." But Section 205.1(d) of title 22 of the Code of Federal Regulations prohibits USAID funds from being used for the rehabilitation of structures to the extent that those structures are used for "inherently religious activities." It is impossible to separate religion from a mosque; any such projects will necessarily support Islam."

EDITORIAL: Tax dollars to build mosques - Washington Times

3. Having had more accounting classes in college than I care to remember, it's easy to see how these govt. bureaucrats can try to claim these tax dollars are being used for "cultural purposes". These claims are malarky; if the money is being spent on religious structures - churches, mosques, synagogues, snake handlers' reptile kennels, whatever - then it's going to benefit religious activities. Considering the activities in mosques are more likely to be promoting anti-American vitriol than the other religions, it's only logical that there's more sensitivity towards those expenditures.

4. It just seems to me that it's easier to throw up a post offering additional information or enlightenment on a particular subject without the personal sniping. Most people that participate in this forum are perfectly capable of drawing their own conclusions about individuals and their posts, without relying on the advice and counsel of others. In reality, the stuff we read here probably tells us very little about what the authors are really like, other than their political philosophies.

 

[greg334]

My God ... you two still going on about that deer?

 

[Poorboy]

Yes, she was - but not until you bragged about your background.....before then, I just assumed you didn't know any better, and pointing out the errors would have been needlessly meanspirited.

Back up there Scooter, I wasn't Bragging at all! Your buddy RLENT First Brought it up into the thread, Read back in this thread and you'll find it!! Read on From there if you dare and you will see that I was being attacked by a couple of people (RLENT and Turtle) who know or knew NOTHING about me or my Career! That's why it was put in there because They brought it up, and then you questioning my Education!! So Don't try to spin it that way as Bragging!

 

[Turtle]

1. The nit-picking of posts to the point of sentence diagramming and scrutinizing every minute point is IMHO getting a bit extreme. Most of these are written hurriedly and without a lot of fact checking.

That's pretty funny considering you're the one who started it by trying to invent a literal distinction between "on refurbishing" and "to refurbish." Simple sentence diagramming was the only way to show how ridiculous that attempt was.

Mostly opinions, they're like comments made during a casual conversation among acquaintences. Similar perhaps to a group chewing the fat in the parking lot of a Flying J somewhere. I don't think somebody in a bull session like that should be catcalled for straying off the narrow path of factual accuracy, and IMHO the same applies here.

I agree, yet you're the one who focused on what Poorboy said, and how he said it, with your comment of,

Look at the sentence: "...Spending Tax Payers Money on Refurbishing Mosques Over Seas"

That's the very thing that qualifies as chewing the fat conversation, yet you're the one who tried to attach literal and figurative significance to it as if it wasn't chewing the fat in a bull session.

My focus has been on the article itself, which is from a self-titled "news" site, and on the blatant factual inaccuracies and deliberate misleadings of the article, and that it was read and believed verbatim by Poorboy and then posted here, deliberately or recklessly, to perpetuate lies and falsehoods.

Granted, there has never been a president or an administration that spent a dollar of taxpayers' money; it's the Congress that handles budgetary matters. But don't tell me that the POTUS or his SECSTATE / State Dept. doesn't have influence over some of these areas.

A couple of things. One, I guarantee you that Obama nor his Secretary of State is immersed and all up in the minutia of the details of this program. With all of the things Obama is dealing with on a daily basis, which candidate projects his ambassadors around the world submit for consideration is hardly at the top of his list of things to address today. The program itself is a sub-department of a sub-department of the Department of State. Total annual expenditures of this is in the low to mid single digit millions, not bazillions, and is thus low on the radar and low on the OMG List. Obama is involved in this in about the same level and capacity as a CEO of a large carrier is involved in the daily individual decisions that individual drivers and dispatchers make. The carrier's CEO vets those decisions just about as often as Obama vets the massively layered delegated decisions of the Ambassadors Fund.

Secondly, the President (currently Obama) and the Secretary of State (currently Clinton) do, absolutely, have an influence on the program, because the program was instituted by Congress for the expressed purpose of furthering this nation's foreign policy objectives, including that of goodwill. Those policies are codified, then it's up to the delegated sub-sub-sub departments to carry those policy objectives out.

So before people start going all bat gaga over this president and these mosques, they should take the time to find out that as a result of the Ambassadors Fund more catholic churches have been preserved and refurbished than mosques, and more non-religious cultural "stuff" has been preserved and refurbished than all religious "stuff" combined.

Having had more accounting classes in college than I care to remember, it's easy to see how these govt. bureaucrats can try to claim these tax dollars are being used for "cultural purposes". These claims are malarky; if the money is being spent on religious structures - churches, mosques, synagogues, snake handlers' reptile kennels, whatever - then it's going to benefit religious activities.

I agree to a large extent. Any religious building that is still actively being used for religious purposes should be off the table for assistance, even though the amount of the assistance really and truly is pocket change. The people of a church (or whatever) should be responsible for their own church. Or, if they can wrangle it, with help from their own government.

There are situations where culture and religion are so intertwined that it it impossible to separate them, however. For example, many small Central and South American countries have such a strong historical and culture association with Catholicism that it is tough to help restore or preserve many of the important culturally significant "stuff" without it crossing the line of religion. The case can be made that the fostering of goodwill of restoring and preserving some of the culturally significant building and artifacts outweighs the side effect of it also benefiting a religion. If aid is given to religious entities solely for religious purposes and to preserve or refurbish stuff with no significant historical or cultural value, then the line is clearly crossed.

Considering the activities in mosques are more likely to be promoting anti-American vitriol than the other religions, it's only logical that there's more sensitivity towards those expenditures.

Assuming that's true, then one must ask why that is. Islam (and mosques) has been around a lot longer than America. And it is only very recently within the scope of American history that some segments of Islam have become anti-American. Why is that? It is am important question, one that needs to be asked in order to put things into perspective.

Do you think the attitude, and evidenced reality of, "We're America. We're big, we're bad, we'll do anything we want, and you'll shut up and like it," might maybe possibly have anything to do with any anti-American vitriol that may be present in some or even many mosques? Are Muslims solely to blame for this, or might Americans be at least somewhat culpable? Do you think it's really all that wise to continue the SOP American attitude of the past and present in the hopes that doing the same thing over and over again will produce different results?

4. It just seems to me that it's easier to throw up a post offering additional information or enlightenment on a particular subject without the personal sniping.

Please re-read my initial post and tell me where I have done otherwise? The only person I snipped at the Mr No Spin Zone, the source of the Blog article. I didn't address Poorboy directly until he opened the door by defending and justifying his post that started the thread.

Most people that participate in this forum are perfectly capable of drawing their own conclusions about individuals and their posts, without relying on the advice and counsel of others.

True, to a point. Conclusions can be drawn without knowing the opinions of others, but are they necessarily the correct conclusions considering they are drawn based on limited information? The more viewpoints you can be exposed to about an individual or a post, the more things you have to consider in order to draw conclusions from.

I'm a firm believer in that what gets posted is far more important that who posted it. Hence my initial reply in this thread where I addressed what was posted rather than who posted it. But if the poster then goes out of their way to equate them personally to what they post, then the lines between post and poster are largely erased.

In reality, the stuff we read here probably tells us very little about what the authors are really like, other than their political philosophies.

If you're observant, people will eventually give themselves away in their posts. They can't help it. At least the more prolific posters. Those who have been members for 4 years and have 37 posts to their credit, probably not a lot of insight to be found there. But whether they're posting on political philosophy or the virtues of free showers, they are in their posts. Impetuous, spontaneous, ignorance and intelligence, patience, empathy, helpful, open, closed, don't want to get involved, controlling and judgmental are but a few of the traits that be ascertained from a few hundred posts. It doesn't take all that many postings to figure out who you'd like to have dinner with, and who you wouldn't even want to share a diner with.

 

[Turtle]

Back up there Scooter, I wasn't Bragging at all! Your buddy RLENT First Brought it up into the thread, Read back in this thread and you'll find it!! Read on From there if you dare and you will see that I was being attacked by a couple of people (RLENT and Turtle) who know or knew NOTHING about me or my Career!

Whoa there horsey. I never attacked you until you invited it with defending and justifying your post.

"Oh Yeah, That Dog does Hunt as That's the way I Do It!" goes to irresponsibility.

"I Don't Bother to check if It's true or not..." goes to recklessness.

"As been previously Stated by me in "Other" Threads..." shows a history of deliberately posting falsehoods, which goes directly to untrustworthiness.

That's why it was put in there because They brought it up...

Again, whoa there. "they" didn't bring it up. RLENT did (may or may not should have brought something from outside the thread into the current thread, but...) and you gave it life by addressing it and qualifying it with "Narcotics Detective to be Precise". RLENT knocked on the door, but you opened it up and invited people in. I walked in.