Gunner wrote:

snip
Ah Jim...Dubya WAS a F-102 pilot (along with a number of other
aircraft, any of which could have killed him)..

http://www.danford.net/bushf102.htm

as the author said in his last paragraph....

"If I were judging Bush on his career as an Air Force officer, I would
be inclined to grade him much as his Yale professors did, with a
"gentleman's C" (which in this era of grade inflation would translate
to a B-plus). I can't of course judge him as a pilot, except to doff
the virtual hat to anyone who could handle a supersonic aircraft
without killing himself or a bystander."

Please try to seperate your anti-Bush sentiments from the facts, ok?
Btw..what aircraft do you have time in?


Gunner

Here's another view of George W. as a pilot. His flying skills seem to
somewhat limited, as has been my experience with low-time military
pilots. He learned the numbers and procedures for the F102 (and
apparently took a while to do so) and not much else.

http://www.seanet.com/~johnco/bush102.htm

Dale Scroggins
Who has quite a few more hours turbine time than GW does. And I can
certainly fly a C-172! (Or anything else with wings or a rotor).

In article , Bray Haven says...

Who's this "Rove" guy??

Ah, nobody. Just another disgusting political
hack, an opportunist.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On 9 Feb 2004 14:03:08 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

Which restrictions and which Supreme Court?

The court, as an institution. Over the years
it has been pretty clear that reasonable time,
place and manner restrictions on things like
free exercise, or free speech, have been
endorsed many many times.

At one time the various Supreme Courts held slavery was legal as well
as Poll Taxes, etc.

Free speech is not an absolute right. Nor,
apparently is weapons ownership.

Free speech IS an absolute right. You just have to be careful about
how you exercise it.

No screaming fire in a crowded theater without a fire, no shooting the
place up without a damned good reason.


This is one of the problems of claiming
equal treatment between the first and second
amemendment - sure the court does place limits
and restrictions on the first. So it makes
sense that they should do the same, to the
second as well.

Pretty much depends on what those "restrictions" are, doesnt it?

Or is your position that the second amendment
is somehow more important than the first, and
therefor should be exempt from any interpretation
at all? If that's the case, I *do* claim
equal treatment between the two, because the
first thing in the morning I'm starting the
Dali Jim Llama Church of Metalworking and filing
for tax exempt status. My religion prohibits
paying taxes, of course!

Jim


Go for it. Its your right. Just make sure you get all your papers
filed and dot yur i's and all that good stuff because if you dont,
large burley men with guns will be visiting you.

I strongly suggest fireproof construction techniques and maybe some
tank traps

Gunner



================================================= =
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
================================================= =

"To be civilized is to restrain the ability to commit mayhem.
To be incapable of committing mayhem is not the mark of the civilized,
merely the domesticated." - Trefor Thomas

On 9 Feb 2004 13:55:30 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

And if his squadron had been deployed to RVN?

Yep, 'if my aunt had wheels, she'd be a tea-cart.'
Which is another way of saying the obvious in this
case, which is gwb's dad bought him a slot in that
outfit so he wouldn't *have* to go overseas.

If that problem cropped up again, dad would fix
it up some other way, the same way he did it the
first time, with an application of money or
influence.

Are you positive? Seems Dad was something of a hawk, also a pilot if
you remember.

To be honest..if I had the opportunity to keep my kid out of RVN, Id
have done it also, even though I volunteered to go.

Honestly I'm suprised at your naive viewpoint here
on this issue gunner. There's absolutely no
reason in the world that rich folks shouldn't
be allowed to spend their hard inherited money
any way they want! And that includes buying
their son out of combat. This country has a long
histroy of this sort of thing - look back at
the civil war, all one had to do is 'hire'
a substitute to get out of the draft.

Jim

When you can PROVE that Bush bought his way out of combat, we will
discuss the issue. So far you are making your claims on guesses.
Probably true..but innocent until proven guilty.

Dig out your proof, and we can discuss the issues.

Gunner

"To be civilized is to restrain the ability to commit mayhem.
To be incapable of committing mayhem is not the mark of the civilized,
merely the domesticated." - Trefor Thomas

In article , Gunner says...

When you can PROVE that Bush bought his way out of combat, we will
discuss the issue. So far you are making your claims on guesses.
Probably true..but innocent until proven guilty.

Nope, new Karl Rove Rules: guilty guilty guilty of whatever
I say he's guilty of. Slander till ya drop.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , Gunner says...

Free speech IS an absolute right. You just have to be careful about
how you exercise it.

This is a contradiction in terms. It cannot be 'absolute'
if there are caveats about how it can be employed. And
there are - don't trust me on the issue, check with the
9.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

Gunner wrote:
On 9 Feb 2004 05:41:10 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:


In article , Gunner says...


GW strapped on a supersonic aircraft which could have killed him in an
instant.

Too bad he never learned to fly those when he was in his
former training. This was a great photo op, but to suggest
that he was anything other than along for the ride is to
disparage the real pilot who flew him. That man had the
guts to actually take advantage of the training given
him by the air force, and not just hide away until the
smoke cleared in Vietnam.

You could strap GWB onto a space shuttle, that don't
make him an astronaut.

Jim


Ah Jim...Dubya WAS a F-102 pilot (along with a number of other
aircraft, any of which could have killed him)..

http://www.danford.net/bushf102.htm

as the author said in his last paragraph....

"If I were judging Bush on his career as an Air Force officer, I would
be inclined to grade him much as his Yale professors did, with a
"gentleman's C" (which in this era of grade inflation would translate
to a B-plus). I can't of course judge him as a pilot, except to doff
the virtual hat to anyone who could handle a supersonic aircraft
without killing himself or a bystander."

Please try to seperate your anti-Bush sentiments from the facts, ok?
Btw..what aircraft do you have time in?


Gunner

"To be civilized is to restrain the ability to commit mayhem.
To be incapable of committing mayhem is not the mark of the civilized,
merely the domesticated." - Trefor Thomas

Snicker : C-47 - or was that a 07 :-)

Martin
--
Martin Eastburn, Barbara Eastburn
@ home at Lion's Lair with our computer
NRA LOH, NRA Life
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder

jim rozen wrote:

In article , Bray Haven says...

Yep Slick Willy was a genuine draft dodger. Kerry would have done what Dubya
did if he's had the intelligence to do it.

Let me get this straight, you say that:

1) clinton was a draft dodger and that was wrong.

2) W was a draft dodger and it was right, and smart.

3) Kerry served his country overseas, and that makes him
stupid and unfit to run for president.

Doesn't make sense to me.


Do you really expect a man who raises asses to make sense? ;-)

Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com

Gunner wrote:


Please try to seperate your anti-Bush sentiments from the facts, ok?

This from a man who wrote: "Clinton went to Europe to do dope, and rape young
English girls."

Who is having trouble seperating sentiment from facts?

Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com

Gunner wrote:


And if his squadron had been deployed to RVN?

As many in the Guard found out in Iraq, belonging to the Guard, or
the military in general doesnt give you a pass from being put in harms
way.


Uhm, Gunner, are you asleep at your desk again, time for the dunce cap again?
You have not been paying attention. Apparently history tells us, that belonging
to the Guard in the late 60"s was a way to be ASSURED NOT to be sent to Vietnam.

Ive not doubt Dubya would have bitched and screamed and ****ed and
moaned (like 99% of every troop) when learning he had to go get shot
at..and then gone and done it just like the other 99.99%

That's the beaty about you Gunner. You have no doubt. For you, life is only
certainty, with all the answers crystal clear. I understand that for you it has
to be, otherwise your existance would be just unbearable. I am beginning to
pity you.

Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com

Bray Haven wrote:

I'd vote for Saddam before I'd vote for John Kerry.

The scary part is, that this is most likely true.

Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com

Bray Haven wrote:

No, kerry isn't a dodger he's
just a disgusting opportunist, gigolo, who is an embarrassment ...

Whoa, I thought for a moment you were talking about Rove there.

Jim

Who's this "Rove" guy?? Is he running for something? You guys are pretty
desperate for someone to trash. )
Greg Sefton

Hmm,

Why am I not surprised that you don't know who Karl Rove is?

I suggest you do a little more reading now and then, instead of "educating "
yourself during the nightly "news" on Fox TV. You know, newspapers, books and
the like, although maybe a bit more than you will be able to handle since most
of what you can absorb seems to be sound bites.

Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com

Gunner wrote:

On 7 Feb 2004 08:39:51 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Dale Scroggins
says...

Both the Republicans and Democrats should be careful what they wish for
this election cycle. While the economy will most likely improve enough
this summer to help Bush's reelection chances, we could witness some
truly interesting times within the next decade.

How 'bout this for a possibility: Bush is reelected by a narrow margin,
has a truly disastrous second term on many fronts, resulting in the
near-destruction of the Republican party for a generation.

Interesting. I always wondered if the contest between gore and
GWB was broked in the back room. Ie, the democrats said, 'no
thanks, we don't want this one. You folks go on up ahead and
take the point.'

I think if I knew that your theory was correct, I would vote for
bush in november.

Jim

Chuckle..the political pendulum has been swinging to the Right for
about 8 yrs. It has been Left for about 40 or so..

The Republican party is stronger today than it has been in over 40
yrs, and there is no danger of it crashing down anytime soon. Its
replacement someday in the future will be a more libertarian one.

The Democratic party on the other hand..is in shambles. The rats are
deserting the sinking ship and the far left wing extremists that have
decided to go down with the ship are alienating even the few folks
that might have considered trying to bail the bilge.

9 candidates for president? And each and everyone trying to cut the
throat of the other guy.. indeed..there is some party cohesiveness?
Notice that only the extreme Lefties are given DNC support? Edwards
and Lieberman were too moderate and look what happened to them..hung
out to dry.

Frankly.. the Dems are now a party of leftwing extremists..their
membership simply has either not gotten the hint yet, or are trying to
ignore it out of party loyalty. Shrug.

The country as a whole is far more conservative now than it was even
10 yrs ago. Hell thats one of the reasons Bush is getting so much
flack from most everyone, as he is not the Conservative he campaigned
to be. Bush is a moderate, and is pandering to both the moderates and
the mainstream Dems. This is the one reason a hell of a lot of us on
the Right are not happy campers with him. He is too moderate. The
Lefties would hate his guts, no matter what, even if he sung the
Internatiale and changed his stripes to Socialist, so their opinions
are of no value.

This will indeed be an interesting year.

Gunner

"To be civilized is to restrain the ability to commit mayhem.
To be incapable of committing mayhem is not the mark of the civilized,
merely the domesticated." - Trefor Thomas

You're really scary when you're right. This is indeed going to be some election
year.

Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com

mikee wrote:

Boy! Talk about a bunch of conspiracy theorists! We've already got Osama and
are just holding him till close to election day so we (Bush) can get great
press??.....

I wouldn't put it past them. Not that the Democrats wouldn't pull such a stunt
if they could. These days anything is possible, anything goes in the name of
(re)elections.

Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 21:19:12 GMT, Gunner wrote:
On 9 Feb 2004 12:43:39 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

Ah Jim...Dubya WAS an F-102 pilot ...

Tough to get shot at, in texas.

Jim

And if his squadron had been deployed to RVN?

Lots of Bear bombers over RVN were there?

The F-102 was designed and tasked to intercept
Soviet intercontinental nuclear bombers. It wasn't
much good for anything else. It had no strike
capability, and was probably the world's worst
dogfighter.

Some of them were used in Vietnam early on
in the escort role (for which they were very ill
suited), 15 were lost. But they'd been withdrawn
from service over VN by the time Bush joined the
Air Guard.

They were designed to run down bombers entering
our airspace, not for penetrating what was then the
world's most intense air defense network.

The primary operational task of Bush's air guard unit
was to intercept Soviet Bear bombers staging out of
Cuba. They intercepted them and escorted them away
from our airspace. (The Soviets routinely probed
our air defenses that way in those days.)

That was a valid military mission, no less so than the
guys in the heavy tank squadrons positioned eyeball
to eyeball with the Soviets in northern Germany. But
neither weapons system, nor their crews, could be of
much use in Vietnam.

Gary

On 9 Feb 2004 20:32:14 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

Free speech IS an absolute right. You just have to be careful about
how you exercise it.

This is a contradiction in terms. It cannot be 'absolute'
if there are caveats about how it can be employed. And
there are - don't trust me on the issue, check with the
9.

Jim


Every freedom has its responsibilities. You are more than free to
shout fire. However if a riot ensues, and people are hurt, you will
not be charged with screaming fire, but for creating a riot,
disturbing the peace, etc. You will not be charged with a speech
crime. If you stand in the middle of the street, or a public park, and
scream Fire...no one will give a ****, though most will think you are
a loon.

The recent case where some activist was arrested and convicted of
posting bomb making information on his web site is of great concern
for many people. That is pure censorship, and a limitation on free
speech.
Don't you think so?

Gunner

"To be civilized is to restrain the ability to commit mayhem.
To be incapable of committing mayhem is not the mark of the civilized,
merely the domesticated." - Trefor Thomas

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 06:46:17 GMT, Abrasha wrote:

Gunner wrote:


And if his squadron had been deployed to RVN?

As many in the Guard found out in Iraq, belonging to the Guard, or
the military in general doesnt give you a pass from being put in harms
way.


Uhm, Gunner, are you asleep at your desk again, time for the dunce cap again?
You have not been paying attention. Apparently history tells us, that belonging
to the Guard in the late 60"s was a way to be ASSURED NOT to be sent to Vietnam.

Ive not doubt Dubya would have bitched and screamed and ****ed and
moaned (like 99% of every troop) when learning he had to go get shot
at..and then gone and done it just like the other 99.99%

That's the beaty about you Gunner. You have no doubt. For you, life is only
certainty, with all the answers crystal clear. I understand that for you it has
to be, otherwise your existance would be just unbearable. I am beginning to
pity you.

Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com


Hummm Oddly enough..I recall 1968 was the year Johnson mobilized all
the Guard units. Wasnt that the year Bush joined up?
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...y/usaf/ang.htm

"Driven by the Kennedy administration's adoption of the "flexible
response" strategy and the large American military buildup during the
1960s, the Air Guard continued to modernize and diversify its aircraft
inventory. It had entered the tanker business in FY 1962 with the
acquisition of KC-97s. In 1963, Air Guard tactical flying units began
to routinely deploy outside the continental United States on their
annual active duty training tours for the first time. The ANG's total
aircraft inventory shrank from 2,269 in 1960 to 1,425 by 1965.
Following the end of active American military involvement in the
Vietnam War in 1973, there was a substantial reduction in the active
duty Air Force enabling the ANG to acquire another infusion of modern
aircraft and equipment. These included A-7s, A-10As, F-105s, OA-37s
and some brand new C-130Hs. But, its principal fighter aircraft such
as F-4s had logged many flying hours including combat operations in
Vietnam before they came to the Guard. The Air Guard's personnel
strength stood at over 90,300 by the end of FY 1973 when active
American military involvement in the Vietnam War ended.

The Vietnam War illustrated a central paradox facing the USAF's
reserve components. In January 1968, President Johnson mobilized naval
and air reservists following the North Korean seizure of the USS
Pueblo. More reservists were called into federal service following the
February 1968 Tet offensive in Vietnam. Altogether, approximately
10,600 Air Guardsmen were called into federal service in 1968.
Although most of the reservists were used to strengthen America's
depleted strategic reserve force, four ANG fighter squadrons were
dispatched to Vietnam.

In January 1968, President Johnson mobilized naval and air reservists
following the North Korean seizure of the USS Pueblo. More reservists
were called into federal service following the February 1968 Tet
offensive in Vietnam. Altogether, approximately 10,600 Air Guardsmen
were called into federal service in 1968. Although most of the
reservists were used to strengthen America's depleted strategic
reserve force, four ANG fighter squadrons were dispatched to Vietnam.
"


Joining the Air National Guard, at the time the Air National Guard
was being sent to Nam..sounds like a cowards way to me.


Gunner



"To be civilized is to restrain the ability to commit mayhem.
To be incapable of committing mayhem is not the mark of the civilized,
merely the domesticated." - Trefor Thomas

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 02:53:40 GMT, Dale Scroggins
wrote:

Gunner wrote:

snip
Ah Jim...Dubya WAS a F-102 pilot (along with a number of other
aircraft, any of which could have killed him)..

http://www.danford.net/bushf102.htm

as the author said in his last paragraph....

"If I were judging Bush on his career as an Air Force officer, I would
be inclined to grade him much as his Yale professors did, with a
"gentleman's C" (which in this era of grade inflation would translate
to a B-plus). I can't of course judge him as a pilot, except to doff
the virtual hat to anyone who could handle a supersonic aircraft
without killing himself or a bystander."

Please try to seperate your anti-Bush sentiments from the facts, ok?
Btw..what aircraft do you have time in?


Gunner

Here's another view of George W. as a pilot. His flying skills seem to
somewhat limited, as has been my experience with low-time military
pilots. He learned the numbers and procedures for the F102 (and
apparently took a while to do so) and not much else.

http://www.seanet.com/~johnco/bush102.htm

Dale Scroggins
Who has quite a few more hours turbine time than GW does. And I can
certainly fly a C-172! (Or anything else with wings or a rotor).

From another newsgroup:

" Jeff old buddy, let's throw some facts up on the wall.

1st Fact.

There were two Air National Guard Fighter Squadrons in Texas.
The 111th and the 182nd. Both of them flew F102's.
The 111th based out of Ellington ANGS and the 182nd based
out of Kelly Filed

There were no Air National Guard Fighter Interceptor Squadrons
in Alabama at that time.

The 111th flew 102's from 1960 to 1975 when it transition to
F101B's
The 182nd flew F102's out of Kelly Field in Dallas until 1969 and
then
transitions to F-84F (and became tactical fighter squadron).

As George Bush was rated in F102's only he must have flown with
the
111 out of Ellington. In 1975 the F102 was with drawn from the
inventory in the Con US. One squadron remained active until 1977
in
Hawaii.

Fact #2

George W. Bush graduated from Yale University in 1968 and Joined
the Texas Air National Guard when he learned that his student
deferment was going to be up.

On May 28, 1968 G. W Bush enlists as a airman basic with the
147 Fighter Interceptor Group at Ellington Air Force base
Houston Texas.

July 12, 1968 A three officer panel determined that G.W. Bush is
to be
commissioned as a 2nd Lt. upon completion of his basic training
(DC)

July 14, 1968 G.W. Bush begins 6 week Air Force Basic Training at
Lackland Air Force Base..

September 4, 1968 G.W. Bush is commissioned a 2nd Lt and assigned
to the 111th fighter Squadron of the 147th Fighter Group with the
Texas Air National Guard. At this point he has a break in service
as the next available flight school slot doesn't begin at Moody
Air Force Base in Georgia until November. As a officer trainee
this is probable as he had nothing to do at the squadron during
drills.

September-October 1968 G.W. Bush worked on Senate Campaign in
Florida but did return occasionally to Houston to attend
weekend Guard Meetings at Ellington

November 25, 1968 Bush attends and graduates from flight school
assigned to the 3550 Student Squadron at Moody Air Force Base
Georgia (53 weeks) Graduates Nov 25 1969

May 26, 1969 G.W. Bush's 201 file credited him with 226 days
service as an officer and 95 days of Enlisted service
(total service from May 68 to May 69 321 days service which
adds up to total obligated service i.e. he did not miss any
drills. )

March 1970 Bush received his pilots wings. and by May 20
had served 313 days as and officer and had 95 days of
enlisted service for a total of 408 days of service.

On January 1, 1970 147 changes status from doing Air Defense
Alerts to training F102 pilots.

December 1969 to June 27 G.W. Bush trains full-time to be a F-102
pilot at Ellington Air Force Base

June 23 1970 G.W. Bush Graduates Combat Crew Training School with
a cumulative total of 21 months in Uniform.

June 1970 G.W. Bush volunteered for (Palace Alert program) for
6 months active duty service in Europe or Viet Nam but was turned
down because Air Force had with drawn F102's from Service in
Asia and Europe.

November 7, 1970 George Bush promoted to 1st Lt.

May 71 G.W. Bush's 201 file shows he had served 43 additional
days as 2nd lt and 3 days of 1st lt.
(Total time in service 408 + 43 + 3 = 455 days active duty)

May 26 1972 G.W. Bush served only 22 days of active service
in his forth year which leaves 4 days short of a full year.
It is possible that he received some excused absences.

August 1972 G.W. Bush was Grounded because of missing Flight
physical.

May 1973 Next fitness report noted that G.W. Bush cleared this
base and has been performing equivalent training in a not
flying status with the 187th Tac Recon Gp, Dannelly Ang Base
in Alabama

May 1973 G.W. Bush took las physical as a crew member on flight
status so he wasn't grounded in his last year of active service.
There are records that show that G.W. Bush logged 36 days of
additional duty from May of 1973 to July 1973.

These days made up the 4 days missed drill of 1973 as well as
put 32 days in the bank so to speak for 1973.

(Total service from May 68 to July 73 (408 + 43 + 3 + 22 + 36 =
512 days)

Total obligation in National Guard is 38 days per year.
38 days time 6 years = 228 days plus pilot training 53 weeks
at 5 days per week satisfied his oblation for service.

Bottom line George Bush found him self in obsolete aircraft
that was being with drawn from service while he was in the
national guard and there was no opportunity for him to serve
over seas. Second is that because George Bush had more than
enough days to satisfy his National Guard obligation he received
a Honorable discharge even though he did miss many days that
he made up at the end of his term of service.

The only question is were the missing days excused absences or
did he just not show up. I suspect that they were excused
absences by as the excused drills are at unit level only.

At the end of his national guard service was G.W. Bush
a sterling officer. I would say no but did he do any thing
that was against the rules. NO.

The Independent"

*****************************************

http://www.warbirdforum.com/bushf102.htm
"Updated: There's a story about Bush's renting a Cessna and taking
some of his youngsters flying at some point in the winter of 1972-73.
As it's told on anti-Bush websites, his handling of the aircraft was
so erratic as to cast doubt that he'd ever qualified as a pilot. This
rather overlooks the fact that it's impossible to rent an aircraft for
a solo flight without at least having a student certicate and current
medical, and very rare to rent one without actually being checked out
in person by a flight instructor. "

*************************************************

Im pleased you have turbine time. How long have you been governor of
a major state and president of the United States?


Gunner, with a small amount of stick time in 206Bs, UH-12s, 47Gs,
UH-1Ds & Gs, AH-1Js, OH-13s


"To be civilized is to restrain the ability to commit mayhem.
To be incapable of committing mayhem is not the mark of the civilized,
merely the domesticated." - Trefor Thomas

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 06:41:01 GMT, Abrasha wrote:

Gunner wrote:


Please try to seperate your anti-Bush sentiments from the facts, ok?

This from a man who wrote: "Clinton went to Europe to do dope, and rape young
English girls."

Who is having trouble seperating sentiment from facts?

Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com

It was fact.
http://chblue.com/Feb1999/022099/clintonrape022099.htm

However..maybe he didnt inhale.

Course.. it was Clinton's brother Roger (thee convicted drug dealer)
who was captured on video tape during a drug sting saying his brother
"... had a nose like a Hoover." So maybe he did inhale.

I wonder if thats why he refused to release his medical records? I
understand overuse of cocaine causes the septum to blow out and need
medical repair.....

Shrug..old history now. But interesting how you defended him at the
time.

Gunner

"To be civilized is to restrain the ability to commit mayhem.
To be incapable of committing mayhem is not the mark of the civilized,
merely the domesticated." - Trefor Thomas

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 06:54:23 GMT, Abrasha wrote:

Bray Haven wrote:

No, kerry isn't a dodger he's
just a disgusting opportunist, gigolo, who is an embarrassment ...

Whoa, I thought for a moment you were talking about Rove there.

Jim

Who's this "Rove" guy?? Is he running for something? You guys are pretty
desperate for someone to trash. )
Greg Sefton

Hmm,

Why am I not surprised that you don't know who Karl Rove is?

I suggest you do a little more reading now and then, instead of "educating "
yourself during the nightly "news" on Fox TV. You know, newspapers, books and
the like, although maybe a bit more than you will be able to handle since most
of what you can absorb seems to be sound bites.

Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com

Ill bet James Carvel told you to say that huh....

Snicker

Gunner

"To be civilized is to restrain the ability to commit mayhem.
To be incapable of committing mayhem is not the mark of the civilized,
merely the domesticated." - Trefor Thomas

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 06:29:38 GMT, Abrasha wrote:

jim rozen wrote:

In article , Bray Haven says...

Yep Slick Willy was a genuine draft dodger. Kerry would have done what Dubya
did if he's had the intelligence to do it.

Let me get this straight, you say that:

1) clinton was a draft dodger and that was wrong.

2) W was a draft dodger and it was right, and smart.

3) Kerry served his country overseas, and that makes him
stupid and unfit to run for president.

Doesn't make sense to me.


Do you really expect a man who raises asses to make sense? ;-)

Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com

About like the above post from an ass makes sense.

Gunner

"To be civilized is to restrain the ability to commit mayhem.
To be incapable of committing mayhem is not the mark of the civilized,
merely the domesticated." - Trefor Thomas

(Dan Caster) wrote in message om...

(Cliff Huprich) wrote in message

Seems like the his IQ is thought to be about 120 - 125. About 15%
of te US population is brighter by far. He'd never make it into Mensa.

So this means he is brighter than 85% of the Democrats that say he is stupid?

"THE War President"? He mantioned his wars what, 56 times in half
an hour?
No wars, no glory? Have to worry about foreign & domestic affairs
instead of vacations (IIRC he's taken the most days off of any
president)
and fundraising? Wars you just turn over to the military ....

From http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature...eak/index.html
[
.... George W. Bush's unplugged performance with Tim Russert on
Sunday offered hope for even the dumbest of men: You too can become
president of the United States. Yet Bush's apparent inanity conceals
his immense talent as a political speaker. If one applies the
principles of duckspeak to Bush's performance, he is a doubleplusgood
doublethinker. Duckspeak, of course, is the language celebrated in
George Orwell's "1984." Characterized by mindless invocation and the
repetition of slogans, it was the highest form of speech in Orwell's
nightmare demolition of the English language, Newspeak
]
.........
.........

Tim Russert:
[
The night you took the country to war, March 17th, you said this:
"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt
that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most
lethal weapons ever devised ... How do you respond to critics who say
that you brought the nation to war under false pretenses?
]

George W. Bush:
[
Quack weapons quack war against terror quack we were attacked quack
every threat quack every threat quack every potential harm to America
quack war on terror quack weapons quack suicide bombers quack funding
terrorist groups quack dangerous man quack stockpiles of weapons quack
capacity to produce weapons quack weapons quack capacity to make
weapons quack Saddam Hussein quack dangerous with weapons quack Saddam
Hussein quack dangerous with the ability to make weapons quack
dangerous man quack dangerous quack a madman quack imminent quack
imminent quack new kind of war quack no doubt in my mind quack Saddam
Hussein quack danger to America.
]
.....................
--
Cliff

Tough to get shot at, in texas.

Jim

Oh yeah, Paint a sign on your car saying "I'm a gay yankee here to take your
guns" and drive across the state ). (or maybe just "Kerry for Prez")
greg sefton

In article , Gunner says...


Hummm Oddly enough..I recall 1968 was the year Johnson mobilized all
the Guard units. Wasnt that the year Bush joined up?

Ah I misses that. He served in combat overseas?

Silly me.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

Do you really expect a man who raises asses to make sense? ;-)

Abrasha

Better to raise them than make one of yourself ).
Greg Sefton

Carl Rove is the Dubya's political adviser

Ahh,Glenn, the great Satan for the left wing, who's ammo against the Prez is
being systematically taken from them. It's entertaining, watching what they
will invent next to baffle the voters ).
Greg Sefton

Hmm,

Why am I not surprised that you don't know who Karl Rove is?


Abasha, why am I not surprised that you missed the whole point.. duh.
Greg S.

In article , Gunner says...

Every freedom has its responsibilities. You are more than free to
shout fire. However if a riot ensues, and people are hurt, you will
not be charged with screaming fire, but for creating a riot,
disturbing the peace, etc. You will not be charged with a speech
crime.

But those responsibilities are determined ultimately
by the courts. If one publishes defamatory information
about an individual, the charge is indeed a 'speech
crime.' Then the person can sue, and the courts will
decide if the speech was actionable or not.

Here is a question of one person's rights being
ballanced against another persons speech rights. If,
for example, the person being defamed is a public
person or better yet a politician, then it's almost
impossible to prove libel. Likewise if the information
published is *true* then that makes almost it impossible
to show libel. But this is one example of time
place and manner restrictions. If one were to publish
something that one *knows* is false about some average
shmoe, then the courts are more likely to say, that
speech should be restricted, the publisher is guilty
of libel.

The recent case where some activist was arrested and convicted of
posting bomb making information on his web site is of great concern
for many people. That is pure censorship, and a limitation on free
speech.

So this will go to the courts, right? The question is,
does the government's need to keep information secret outweigh
the bad effects of *prior* *restraint*. That is, the
banning of a publication before it even happens, because the
ideas in it are so dangerous. This is typically not how
the courts have ruled in the past. Typically they have
made the distinction between the information about some
item or device that is dangerous, and the actual *use* of
that thing to cause harm. So in the past, prior restraint
was a no-no.

In the present environment however, they might well
padlock the progressive, jail the editors, and create
an fbi file on anyone who has a subscription.

I guess my point here is, if the courts have to get this
deep into the application of something as straightforward
as the first amendment, they're going certainly not going
to look at the second and say, 'whatever you want, help
yourself.'

One of the things that *does* trouble me is how speech
cases seem to rapidly resolve based on these issues, but
firearm cases seem to all hinge on state laws, because
that's mostly how ownership is regulated. So the state
courts can adjudicate based on their own laws and it
pretty much stops there.

If I were you, I would not so much be concerned about the
fact that firearms *are* regulated, but rather the manner
in which the state/federal balance is done. If there's
an amendment about it, why isn't there more federal law
concerning firearm ownership, that effectively trumps
state law?

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , Bray Haven says...

Tough to get shot at, in texas.

Oh yeah, Paint a sign on your car saying "I'm a gay yankee here to take your
guns"

I *meant* in an *airplane*!

Though, seems like folks who do what you suggest tend to
get tied to trucks and dragged.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"Gunner" wrote in message
...

Although most of the
reservists were used to strengthen America's depleted strategic
reserve force, four ANG fighter squadrons were dispatched to Vietnam.
"
Joining the Air National Guard, at the time the Air National Guard
was being sent to Nam..sounds like a cowards way to me.


Oh, get real. Four squadrons sent to Vietnam? I'll take those odds. That's
the definition of a good dodge.

As you probably know if you were really awake at the time, and if you
weren't spending too much time with the bong, practically everyone who
joined the ANG in those years did so to reduce their chances of fighting in
'Nam to near zero, while still putting in their time.

That was the whole point. Don't you know that?

Ed Huntress

jim rozen wrote:

"Tough to get shot at, in texas."

Oh yeah, Paint a sign on your car saying "I'm a gay yankee here to take your guns"

I *meant* in an *airplane*!

Though, seems like folks who do what you suggest tend to
get tied to trucks and dragged.

It wasn't a gay yankee who got dragged to death in Vidor, it was a black
man whose family has been in Texas for generations.
--
Tom Stovall, CJF
Farrier & Blacksmith

http://www.katyforge.com

"That government governs best that governs least."
-Thomas Jefferson

Bray Haven wrote:
Carl Rove is the Dubya's political adviser


Ahh,Glenn, the great Satan for the left wing, who's ammo against the Prez is
being systematically taken from them. It's entertaining, watching what they
will invent next to baffle the voters ).
Greg Sefton

Talk about pots and kettles! You just need to know a little about
Rove's history. It has been well established that we is one nasty
character. The Prince of Darkness and undisputed master of political
dirty tricks.

His first dirty trick, which he is happy to brag about, was in Illinois
in 1970. Gaining entry into the office of Alan Dixon, a Democrat running
for state treasurer, Rove stole campaign stationery and printed false
invitations to Dixon’s campaign headquarters, promising “free beer, free
food, girls, and a good time.” They were distributed in places such as
homeless shelters.

It has been down hill from there.

--
Glenn Ashmore

I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack
there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com
Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com

In article B17Wb.44271$u_6.24886@lakeread04, Glenn Ashmore says...

His first dirty trick, which he is happy to brag about, was in Illinois
in 1970. Gaining entry into the office of Alan Dixon, a Democrat running
for state treasurer, Rove stole campaign stationery and printed false
invitations to Dixon’s campaign headquarters, promising “free beer, free
food, girls, and a good time.” They were distributed in places such as
homeless shelters.

Ha ha, that's great. I bet Kerry's guy is going to take
a chapter from his book. This will be a great race.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , Tom Stovall says...

It wasn't a gay yankee who got dragged to death in Vidor, it was a black
man whose family has been in Texas for generations.

No wait, there *was* a gay guy who got lynched there
someplace. Tied to a fencepost and beaten? I thought
that was texas.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

I have met too many of them. A while back, before Christmas, I was
standing in line at the post office. A woman wanted some colorful
stamps and the clerk gave here some with Ceasar Chavez on them. She
wondered who he was, and later went on and on about how stupid G.W.
Bush is.

Dan


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message


But how do you know that the Democrats who say he's stupid aren't the same
ones who are smarter than he is? g

Ed Huntress

"Dan Caster" wrote in message
m...
I have met too many of them. A while back, before Christmas, I was
standing in line at the post office. A woman wanted some colorful
stamps and the clerk gave here some with Ceasar Chavez on them. She
wondered who he was, and later went on and on about how stupid G.W.
Bush is.

Dan

You're kidding, aren't you? They have Caesar Chavez's face on a postage
stamp??

Ed Huntress

On 10 Feb 2004 04:53:33 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...


Hummm Oddly enough..I recall 1968 was the year Johnson mobilized all
the Guard units. Wasnt that the year Bush joined up?

Ah I misses that. He served in combat overseas?

Silly me.

Jim

Was his wing given orders to go?

Gunner

"To be civilized is to restrain the ability to commit mayhem.
To be incapable of committing mayhem is not the mark of the civilized,
merely the domesticated." - Trefor Thomas

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 14:26:57 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .

Although most of the
reservists were used to strengthen America's depleted strategic
reserve force, four ANG fighter squadrons were dispatched to Vietnam.
"
Joining the Air National Guard, at the time the Air National Guard
was being sent to Nam..sounds like a cowards way to me.


Oh, get real. Four squadrons sent to Vietnam? I'll take those odds. That's
the definition of a good dodge.


Did anyone know at the time that Johnson would limit his callup to
only 4 squadrons?


As you probably know if you were really awake at the time, and if you
weren't spending too much time with the bong, practically everyone who
joined the ANG in those years did so to reduce their chances of fighting in
'Nam to near zero, while still putting in their time.


This was a bad thing given the realities of Nam? Speaking of
bongs..did you enjoy your living under a bridge in California? Get
some of that good Humbolt Country Gold?

That was the whole point. Don't you know that?

Yup. And that was a bad thing? What branch of the military were you
in?

Ed Huntress

Gunner



"To be civilized is to restrain the ability to commit mayhem.
To be incapable of committing mayhem is not the mark of the civilized,
merely the domesticated." - Trefor Thomas

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 03:24:59 -0500, Gary Coffman
wrote:

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 21:19:12 GMT, Gunner wrote:
On 9 Feb 2004 12:43:39 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

Ah Jim...Dubya WAS an F-102 pilot ...

Tough to get shot at, in texas.

Jim

And if his squadron had been deployed to RVN?

Lots of Bear bombers over RVN were there?

The F-102 was designed and tasked to intercept
Soviet intercontinental nuclear bombers. It wasn't
much good for anything else. It had no strike
capability, and was probably the world's worst
dogfighter.

Some of them were used in Vietnam early on
in the escort role (for which they were very ill
suited), 15 were lost. But they'd been withdrawn
from service over VN by the time Bush joined the
Air Guard.

They were designed to run down bombers entering
our airspace, not for penetrating what was then the
world's most intense air defense network.

The primary operational task of Bush's air guard unit
was to intercept Soviet Bear bombers staging out of
Cuba. They intercepted them and escorted them away
from our airspace. (The Soviets routinely probed
our air defenses that way in those days.)

That was a valid military mission, no less so than the
guys in the heavy tank squadrons positioned eyeball
to eyeball with the Soviets in northern Germany. But
neither weapons system, nor their crews, could be of
much use in Vietnam.

Gary

Yup.

Gunner
"To be civilized is to restrain the ability to commit mayhem.
To be incapable of committing mayhem is not the mark of the civilized,
merely the domesticated." - Trefor Thomas

On 10 Feb 2004 08:49:54 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article B17Wb.44271$u_6.24886@lakeread04, Glenn Ashmore says...

His first dirty trick, which he is happy to brag about, was in Illinois
in 1970. Gaining entry into the office of Alan Dixon, a Democrat running
for state treasurer, Rove stole campaign stationery and printed false
invitations to Dixon’s campaign headquarters, promising “free beer, free
food, girls, and a good time.” They were distributed in places such as
homeless shelters.

Ha ha, that's great. I bet Kerry's guy is going to take
a chapter from his book. This will be a great race.

Jim


Sounds like Rove learned at the foot of the Masters, the Daleys.

Gunner

"To be civilized is to restrain the ability to commit mayhem.
To be incapable of committing mayhem is not the mark of the civilized,
merely the domesticated." - Trefor Thomas