BS: Brought to you by... GHWBush

Subject: RE: BS: Brought to you by... GHWBush
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 21 Nov 05 - 10:28 AM

O.K. now boys... no rough housing in this mild mannered and gentlemanly thread... ;^)

Psychotic? Oh, please... Guest A... I'd say that your cowardly anonymous sniping is the closest thing to psychotic we've got around here.

I agree with Boberto on the emotional distractions... Liberals are SO easily manipulated...

I'm of the opinion, however, that the only thing wrong with this administration is it's exclusion of the left wing. Like it or not, the self serving prescription... that nemisis belonging to the indolent control freaks of every persuasion... is a function of the 'absolute power' that our country abhores. Neo-Cons belong in a system of checks and ballences (gesticulating perhaps a bit too wildly over at the pinko gay marriage support groups, who are fervidly returning gesticulations ) ...

It is only through the democratic process that our country functions properly... and I for one haven't been seeing enough of it.

Anyone who thinks that identification *a priori* with a partisan ( that's 'artisan' with a whirled pea) political affiliation is the 'hot ticket'... as opposed to an open minded and well informed (including the 'facts' gathered by all prespectives) apraisal of each issue... is thinking inside the box, thus driving another nail into democracy's coffin. Yikes!

G'day!
ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Brought to you by... GHWBush
From: Deda
Date: 22 Nov 05 - 12:24 AM

The first person who defected from the GWB White House and wrote about it (sorry, I forget the name, was 1st administration, maybe after about 1 1/2 - 2 years) said that the general perception of W. is that (a) he's kinda dumb, but (b) he's really a nice guy -- NEITHER of which is accurate.

Subject: RE: BS: Brought to you by... GHWBush
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Nov 05 - 11:10 AM

Bobert - 19 Nov 05 - 05:46 PM

Now let's take a look at the extent of GWB's so called screw ups according to Bobert, Bobert of course has not got things happening in the correct order:

Air National Guard - Lt. George W. Bush was considered to be a highly proficient pilot.

Harken Energy - GWB took Arbusto Energy Inc., bought up undeveloped/lapsed licence areas in Texas. Sold the Company on, GWB getting a position in the Company that now owns Arbusto. Arbusto's new owners are taken over by Harken Energy, who also give GWB a job. GWB is given 212,000 shares in Harken Energy (Worth $600,000 approx). Harken were going into a deal that was way outside their area of expertise (offshore exploration in the Arabian Gulf as opposed to onshore exploration in the USA). GWB advised against and stated that if they went ahead with it he would sell up and leave. That is what did happen and GWB's Harken Energy Shares were sold for just under $850,000. The capital he used to raise Arbusto was his own which he increased about four-fold, he then remains employed and the value of his shareholdings increase by 33%. That's some screw up Bobert.

The Texas Rangers Baseball Team - In the meantime, prior to GWB selling up his Harken Shares, he has raised a loan to buy a share of the Texas Rangers Baseball team (Cost $606,302 in 1989). He uses some of the money he gets from the sale of his Harken shares to pay off that loan. In 1998, when the Texas Rangers are sold GWB's shares are worth $14.9 million. Now fuckin' hell Bobert that really was a screw up, loads of failed business men do it all the time.

PS - If that's what you call "messing up everything" maybe we all should try it - we'd at least be able to afford a more comfortable kind of misery. Oh Bobert, another correction - He (GWB) was *given* Fuck All.

Subject: RE: BS: Brought to you by... GHWBush
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Nov 05 - 02:37 PM

Well, Teribus, you got ½ out of three.

As a pilot, Bush was in the top five percent of his class. When he bothered to show up. We'll give you half a point for that one.

Bush and Harken.   Goose egg.

Some pertinent poop on the Texas Rangers deal.
Here's some more on the Texas Rangers.   Goose egg.

Some interesting notes on Bush as a businessman.   Fasten your seat belt!

No, Bush isn't stupid. But there's a big difference between "smart" and "cunning." Not to mention "dishonest" and "ruthless." It becomes obvious that, in office, he's looking out for his own.

Sorry, T-bird. Some days are like that.

Don Firth

P. S. And I didn't even link to anything by Molly Ivins. Boy, does she have a lot to say on the subject!

Subject: RE: BS: Brought to you by... GHWBush
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Nov 05 - 04:11 PM

Sorry Don, reads and sounds like sour grapes to me

About $175k turned into $14.9 million in just under ten years - God Bless America.

Subject: RE: BS: Brought to you by... GHWBush
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Nov 05 - 05:06 PM

"Sour grapes?" That's a pretty limp come-back, T-Wrecks.

Take a good look how Bush did it. That is the point.

You're not condoning sheer bloody-minded greed and screwing anyone who gets in the way, even the general public, are you?

Are you?

Don Firth

P. S. Of course in some people's minds, the opportunity to operated that way is the American Dream. God Bless the Bottom Line (no matter how you do it)!

Subject: RE: BS: Brought to you by... GHWBush
From: Ebbie
Date: 23 Nov 05 - 02:44 PM

Thank you for that link, Don. Even if the apologists deny or disbelieve that particular article, it is possible that they will be motivated to investigate their own sources. Yeah, right.

Subject: RE: BS: Brought to you by... GHWBush
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Nov 05 - 10:43 AM

Teribus--

"L.t George W. Bush was considered to be a highly proficient pilot"

Let's assume that is true.

Sure is curious therefore that these skills were not used in Vietnam, which is where most of his fellow proficient pilots were sent.   Amazing how that happens.

Admittedly he did have some important work to do-- rating watering holes in the South, and working for Republican candidates. I'm sure his piloting skills were essential in both of these enterprises, which are of course vital to US national security.

Subject: RE: BS: Brought to you by... GHWBush
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Nov 05 - 12:25 PM

Ron Davies - 24 Nov 05 - 10:43 AM raises a couple of points:

Point 1.
"Teribus--

"L.t George W. Bush was considered to be a highly proficient pilot"

Let's assume that is true."

How about this:
(Source - www.aerospaceweb.org/question/history/q0185.shtml)

""Bush then returned to Ellington in Texas to complete seven months of combat crew training on the F-102 from December 1969 to June 1970..... Bush graduated from the training program in June 1970. The previously mentioned Maurice Udell was a flight instructor for Lt. Bush who was interviewed by the Associated Press in February 2004. MAJ Udell recalled that Bush was one of his best students saying that, "I'd rank him in the top five percent."

Now let's take a look at that aircraft he was declared operational on (Top 5% remember - by the man who trained him))

"the F-102 was still far more dangerous to fly than today's combat aircraft. Compared to the F-102's lifetime accident rate of 13.69, today's planes generally average around 4 mishaps per 100,000 hours. For example, compare the F-16 at 4.14, the F-15 at 2.47, the F-117 at 4.07, the S-3 at 2.6, and the F-18 at 4.9. Even the Marine Corps' AV-8B, regarded as the most dangerous aircraft in US service today, has a lifetime accident rate of only 11.44 mishaps per 100,000 flight hours. The F-102 claimed the lives of many pilots, including a number stationed at Ellington during Bush's tenure. Of the 875 F-102A production models that entered service, 259 were lost in accidents that killed 70 Air Force and ANG pilots."

Hey Ron, 259 lost in accidents out of 875, that's just a kick in the arse off 30% - Give the man his due, all indications, plus the word of the guy who trained him, seem to bare out that GWB was a highly proficient pilot, combat/operations cleared in a very difficult aircraft. So Ron is that that particular little slur cleared up - I fucking well hope so, otherwise I'll have to trot it out again the next time one of the anti-Bush tossers brings it up.

On to the next one:

"Sure is curious therefore that these skills were not used in Vietnam, which is where most of his fellow proficient pilots were sent.   Amazing how that happens."

From:
www.aerospaceweb.org/question/history/q0185.shtml

"Nevertheless, we have established that the F-102 was serving in combat in Vietnam at the time Bush enlisted to become an F-102 pilot. Air National Guard pilots from the 147th FIG, where Bush was stationed, even served combat duty in Vietnam routinely under a volunteer program called "Palace Alert" from 1968 to 1970" (HINT - Note the times Ron - When did GWB go operational on this type of aircraft?)

"This program was instituted because the Air Force lacked sufficient pilots of its own for duty in Vietnam but was unable to activate ANG units since Presidents Johnson and Nixon had decided not to do so for political reasons."

"Fred Bradley, a friend of Bush's who was also serving in the Texas ANG, reported that he and Bush inquired about participating in the Palace Alert program. However, the two were told by a superior, MAJ Maurice Udell, that they were NOT YET QUALIFIED since they were still in training and did not have the 500 hours of flight experience required. Furthermore, ANG veteran COL William Campenni, who was a fellow pilot in the 111th FIS at the time, told the Washington Times that Palace Alert was winding down and not accepting new applicants."

" the F-102 had originally been stationed in that theater to guard against the possibility of air attack from the North, a danger that never materialized since North Vietnamese pilots refused to stray south of the border and outside their own protective SAM barrier. This lack of a threat prompted the Air Force to gradually withdraw the F-102 from southeast Asia beginning in December 1969 and concluding in May 1971."

OK Ron - status check:
- We have trainee pilots putting in a request that is refused for the rock solid reasons given above by their training officer.
- We have a temporary assignment programme that is being wound down
- We have an aircraft type that was already in the process of being withdrawn from the theatre of operations. This aircraft type being the one that the pilot in question has just been declared operational on.

Now what is it that you find amazing about that Ron? Because it looks pretty damn logical and totally understandable to me. By the bye Ron had Lt G. W. Bush cross-trained it would have had to have been to a McDonald-Douglas Phantom F-4 Conversion Unit that would have bought up a further 15 months.

Subject: RE: BS: Brought to you by... GHWBush
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Nov 05 - 12:38 PM

Teribus--


As I recall, Mr. Bush took his sweet time about asking about Palace Guard. He was not tremendously eager to leave his important work surveying watering holes.

Subject: RE: BS: Brought to you by... GHWBush
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Nov 05 - 12:43 PM

He also took his sweet time about joining the military at all. If he'd actually wanted to fight in Vietnam, rather than strongly advocate that others do so, I'm confident he could have found a way.

Subject: RE: BS: Brought to you by... GHWBush
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Nov 05 - 01:56 PM

First the Ron Davies - Post of: 24 Nov 05 - 12:38 PM

Now then Ron, taking into account that you know what 'Palace Guard' was. And taking into account the reason GWB and Fred Bradley's request was turned down (i.e. not fully trained and too inexperienced), can you rationally explain how requesting assignment to Vietnam under the 'Palace Guard' programme earlier than they did would have been viewed more favourably? Because my sense of logic would tell me that at that time they would be even less trained and a lot more inexperienced than when they were originally turned down - TRUE Ron??

Second Ron Davies - Post of: 24 Nov 05 - 12:43 PM

So when did you rush into the fray Ron?

I know damn well that, as a young man, if I was given the choice between stumbling about a jungle for two years or learning to fly high performance jet fighters for four, I would opt for the chance to fly for four years. Nothing strange about that, completely understandable.

Subject: RE: BS: Brought to you by... GHWBush
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Nov 05 - 02:32 PM

I know exactly what Palace Guard was. Somebody who was cheerleading the war loudly from the rear could have taken whatever steps necessary to actually fight--not put it off as long as possible.

Can you say "hypocrite"?

Contrast Bush's behavior with some in World War II who actually lied about their ages in order to get a chance to fight.

Subject: RE: BS: Brought to you by... GHWBush
From: Amos
Date: 24 Nov 05 - 03:35 PM

ANd "inquiring about" is not at all identical with "requesting", T. So far I have seen no evidence he offered any intent to act on the information.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Brought to you by... GHWBush
From: Ebbie
Date: 24 Nov 05 - 05:26 PM

Kind of like Cheney telling them he really would like to go fight for our country but he had interfering priorities. Five times.

Subject: RE: BS: Brought to you by... GHWBush
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Nov 05 - 08:56 PM

So Ron Davies, I take it that you didn't go either - well what the fuck - let he who is without whatever cast whatever.

Listen you stupid prick - how long do you think it takes to train a pilot not only to fly a high performance aircraft but to fight it.

Now this is supposed to be a predominently musical sight. So how long does it take between someone deciding that they want to play a musical instrument to them being able to stand up in front of thousands and blow that audience away with the sheer magnificence of their playing. Now if you can quantify that. That was GWB's achievement in qualifying combat capable in the F-102A, have you got that you narrow, closed-minded, bigotted prick. Are you really that small minded that you cannot give anyone credit for their own accomplishments, because if you are then I have nothing but pity for you, and nothing but contempt for your opinions. And just to give you an idea of where I am coming from, I was one of 2000 who applied for flight training, out of 2000 less than 25 were selected. Out of 25 only three when on to be accepted for training.

Now Ron Davies unless you have achieved any sort of equal status the question above still stands, oddly enough I don't think that anywhere in your life you have come anywhere close, and that is based purely on what you say here on this forum and the values you espouse. So Ron Davies unless you come up with some fairly substantial evidence to the contrary, you are the one I will label a hypocrite.

When faced with presented fact, you have consistently ignored the substance and countered with unsubstantiated garbage. Please try to do better, or else give up entirely.

Subject: RE: BS: Brought to you by... GHWBush
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 24 Nov 05 - 09:41 PM

HEY TERIBUS.. Nice research! Thanks for going to the trouble to getting some of the hard to find facts about GWB's service. Take it down a few notches though... OK? I know it's hard to take it from the Brainwashed Hollywood Liberals... who are still glorifying the Republican-bashing Veit Nam years... But hey... your well spoken research carries more weight when you dish it out lightly.

The jaunty attitude of the 'one sided liberals' is often just exasperating and vapid... but not always... So said, much of the linking is stinking of one sided persuasion evasion... These issues are WAY TOO complicated for such simplistic dualities to comprehend... Time to take a coupla steps toward the center... We're divided... and thus conquered.

Bring on the facts, and we'll talk it over... realistic... not fatalistic.
ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Brought to you by... GHWBush
From: GUEST,Peter Piglet
Date: 24 Nov 05 - 10:05 PM

OINNNNK!

Subject: RE: BS: Brought to you by... GHWBush
From: Peace
Date: 25 Nov 05 - 12:21 AM

You may see the respective service records of Bush and Kerry here.

Subject: RE: BS: Brought to you by... GHWBush
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 25 Nov 05 - 01:04 AM

Well done, Peace! ...But Gore was a friend of Clinton's... ...and so he couldn't be trusted.
;^) ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Brought to you by... GHWBush
From: Ebbie
Date: 25 Nov 05 - 01:31 AM

How old are you, T? How old do you think Ron Davies is? One thing I can say for him, proven liar that I am, is that Ron Davies does his homework. Which is more than I can say for you.

Subject: RE: BS: Brought to you by... GHWBush
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Nov 05 - 05:16 AM

Ebbie - 25 Nov 05 - 01:31 AM

"One thing I can say for him (Ron Davies), proven liar that I am, is that Ron Davies does his homework. Which is more than I can say for you."

If that were indeed the case Ebbie it would be very easy for him to refute the substance of the case as put to him. He doesn't, not many of the anti-Bush, anti-war crowd do when confronted by verifiable fact. They wind themselves up in cosy inaccuracies and half truths, selected to reinforce their many dubious but dearly held beliefs.

Subject: RE: BS: Brought to you by... GHWBush
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Nov 05 - 12:57 PM

"They wind themselves up in cosy inaccuracies and half truths, selected to reinforce their many dubious but dearly held beliefs."

The typical response of any ego to another ego that holds a different opinion about anything whatsoever... ;-)

Teribus, the people you debate with endlessly on this forum are just like you (in their basic tendency to react and counterattack, I mean). You have a symbiotic relationship with all of them which will go on until your computers crash or you die. And nothing useful will be accomplished either, but by GOD, will you ever feel righteous as you score yet another brilliant point over your despised opponent (whose only crime is that he probably grew up under a different set of family-based political influences)!

It's an addiction, man. Face it. I wish I had a dollar for every word you have churned out on politics in the last few years. I would buy the whole damn Internet and turn it to some more useful purpose...like creating jobs or building homes for the homeless.

Subject: RE: BS: Brought to you by... GHWBush
From: dianavan
Date: 25 Nov 05 - 01:32 PM

Well said, Little Hawk.

Subject: RE: BS: Brought to you by... GHWBush
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 25 Nov 05 - 03:05 PM

Nice of you to condesend to stop by, Little...

I'd say that your 'ultra cool' internet demeanor is just as shallow and self absorbed as you claim Teribus to be... Can't you see the implied superiority of your PC-sheek detatchments... in each and every one of the mock identities you portray??? ...True though... the lusty lefty ladies love it!

Nice to see a "Little" backbone and the "Hawk's" extended claws for a change... Like... It's nice to know "something really matters... anyone can see... something really matters... to thee." ;^)
ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Brought to you by... GHWBush
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Nov 05 - 04:16 PM

"…..not many of the anti-Bush, anti-war crowd do [refute the substance of the case as put to him] when confronted by verifiable fact…."

You might try actually presenting a verifiable fact, Teribus, rather than lengthy cut and pastes from right wing blogs and websites.

Subject: RE: BS: Brought to you by... GHWBush
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Nov 05 - 05:19 PM

Well, well, well...

Looks like T-Jerk didn't get no Thanksgivin' day turkey and fixin's... But in spite of missin' out on the turkey, he sho nuff in a foul mood...

Now he's gonna say that anyone who ain't a friggin' pilot canm't have an opinion on Bush's unexplained AWOL... Hmmmmmm?

You a pilot, T-Jerk? You said that you applied as one of 2000 and only 25 were selected and only 3, ahhhh, whatever the 3 was... Were you one of the 3, T-MayBeAPilotMaybeNot...

If so, maybe you can tell the peanut gallery if George Bush had the authority to land a military plane, as the pilot, on a carrier deck... He sho didn't ind jumped out of the plane with his pilotin' suit on and sho nuff didn't mind givin' a strong "impression" that he had landed the plane...

Just curious???

And just my opinion but flyin' planes ain't all that hard to do... Okay, I'll give Bush credit fir gettin' thru "ground school" but the actual flyin' ain't all that tough... Yeah, though I never botrhered gettin ground school 'er a license, I been flyin' since I was 'bout 8 years old... No big deal... I learnt on a joy stick Cub tail-dragger and have flown, icludin' takes offs and landings, Cesnas, Piper Cherokee and even a Moonie... Not too tough...

Well, not so tough taht if you can't do it you ain't allowed to have no opinion, that is...

Maybe you need a vacation, T-zer... Yuou really have become a real jerk now that the lies are getting exposed and the chickens are coming to roost...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Brought to you by... GHWBush
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Nov 05 - 09:12 PM

Bobert, have you ever flown anything like an A-4 fully loaded with weapons, let alone a F-102? And we will skip the carrier deck stuff.

Can you relate to the flying of an aircraft similiar to the aforementioned and not involve the characteristics of something like a Piper Cub with a take off speed that is not as fast as a passenger car?

Never mind! Now that I think about it, you are a disgrace to any basic debate that requires some facts. This thread and a couple others are not about you although you try to direct them that way.

The stories of your skills and derringdo never cease to amaze me. The amazement part is due to the fact that your poor sagging ego makes you post this crap when in essence most don't give a flyig F*** what you may have done. I am going to believe that you are a total puton. This gives you a little benefit of the doubt regarding your pathetic attempts to impress others.
Again Bobert, this is not about you!

Subject: RE: BS: Brought to you by... GHWBush
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Nov 05 - 09:27 PM

Well gol danged, GUEST, first youask me a question then you imply you couldn't give a flyin' crap what my answer is...

Was it good fir you???

Yer the one with the saggin' ego, GUEST... S osaggin' that you sit in yer little GUEST closet... That's 'bout as saggin' as it gets...

You better spend less time worryin' 'bout me ego than yers...

And no, I ain't ever landed an A-4 or a C-5 but guess what? Planes is purdy much the same... Give me a couple passes' and I'll greeze the skids...

Now have you a ball in yer little GUEST closet... You are prolly a bored ten yer old girl who's up past her bed time...

Nighty night...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Brought to you by... GHWBush
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Nov 05 - 09:33 PM

BTW, Guest....

Why are we skipping the carrier deck stuff??? I think we both know the answer and anything that makes yer hero not shine, we skip...

I get it...

Can you spell "Hypocrit"....

Subject: RE: BS: Brought to you by... GHWBush
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Nov 05 - 09:47 PM

BTW, Part B, GUEST...

Yer hero ain't landed no A-4 or c-5 or C5a loaded with no weapons either but I have callenged him to a carrier landin' contest and he ainh't took me up on it so figgure he's a looser, jus' lie you...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Brought to you by... GHWBush
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 Nov 05 - 10:31 PM

Teribus--

Temper, temper, little man.

Where's your veneer of civilization? Haven't you ever heard the quickest way to lose an argument is to lose your temper? You might want to keep that in mind.

I repeat: "where there's a will...." People who wanted to fight in World War II were able to do so. Anybody who wanted to fight in Vietnam could have also done so. For example, burning with desire for combat glory as he was, G W Bush could have left school early. Funny thing about how being in school tended to keep loudmouth war supporters safe.

I will note again that I am a 3-year veteran--and did not take time off from my military service for the important national security mission of working for my chosen political candidates. As far as I know, my fitness for elective office is not actually under discussion here--you may be under the delusion, among many others, that it is.

As I've said before, I am also a registered Republican. It's just that for some reason, hypocrisy tends to bother me. The word (pardon the expression) "chickenhawk" comes to mind.

Also, what about Amos' point about "inquiring about" vs "requesting"? And, as I recall, Bush was in fact teased about the fact that he was not going to Vietnam by fellow students in his piloting class who were in fact going. So much for your heart-breaking excuse that Bush was "too late" for Vietnam.   Others in his class were not. Logic would suggest that, had he wanted to, he could have arranged to be with them.

Let me compliment you however, on your turn of phrase--"cosy inaccuracies and half-truths, selected to reinforce...many dubious but dearly held beliefs".

That's wonderful! You must have been looking in the mirror when you wrote that.

You are indeed a worthy companion for the "Swift Boat Veterans For Filthy Politics"--wasn't that their name?

Note the clever way Bush, while keeping his own hands clean, was able to have surrogates trash the reputation of a good man who--in contrast to himself- did fight----and was respected at the time by those who actually did serve under him. That Kerry did turn against the war does not negate the fact that he did fight in it. Au contraire-- (sorry about the French--I know it conclusively proves deep-down lack of patriotism)--it means he is a thinking being.

You ought to try it sometime.

Subject: RE: BS: Brought to you by... GHWBush
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Nov 05 - 10:38 PM

Now you went and done it, Ron...

'tween me messin' with T's little sister (GUEST) and you... we done over loaded their little circuits...

Tough beans...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Brought to you by... GHWBush
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 25 Nov 05 - 11:09 PM

Thanks for the 'mostly civil' post Ron... I didn't realize that you are a Vet. Teribus must be your new wind up... Hmmmm... Still seems to me that you're spouting the 'standard liberal lines'... and suprize suprize... ya hooked a right-winger!

Bobert, old boy... why don't you pick up your guitar in the other room there... and stay in there for a few days with a new tuning or sumpin... K? Yer bein' a li'l wacky (er than normal) and yer jus mekkin us werrie 'bout cher mennal stite... Don't prove "GUEST A" right and me wrong... Do it for ME, Bobert... ;^)
ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Brought to you by... GHWBush
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Nov 05 - 11:25 PM

Well gol danged, ttr.... Iz down right.....

(Ahhhhh, BObert, what ie you all down righted 'bout????)

Well, ttr, if Iz figure it out then you be the first to know...

As fir the guitar???

Danged.... There two rooms in this house that got any heat what so ever an' the P-vine asleep in one and it's righht next to this one so I can't exactly play in it either...

I was jus' sayin' to the the P-Vine "Hey, I got a benefit to do in two weeks an' I ain't played much since it got too cold to play outside... Heckm I might have to rent me a danged room somewhere with heat so I can play....

But, hey, other than messin' with the T-Jerker, ttr, whad I do wrong???

Hey, face it, he an' buds ain't hittin' on much these days... Might o' fact, they scrapin' the bottom of the barrell...

So, hey, why not jump on 'um???? Folks like them got us in this mess... They don't deserve no "Get Outta Jail Free" cards... They gonna have to pay now....

They were wrong and we weren't....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Brought to you by... GHWBush
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 Nov 05 - 11:33 PM

As I've said, the old Teribus--even though I often disagreed with him--- seemed to make a lot more sense than this one.

I wonder if something has happened--or if it's just the nimbus of nostalgia.

Subject: RE: BS: Brought to you by... GHWBush
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 Nov 05 - 11:36 PM

But "civil" is in the mind and eye of the beholder--and I have a suspicion Teribus may possibly not consider my answer "civil". Pobre cito.

Subject: RE: BS: Brought to you by... GHWBush
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Nov 05 - 06:00 AM

Ron Davies - 25 Nov 05 - 10:31 PM

"I repeat: "where there's a will...." People who wanted to fight in World War II were able to do so. Anybody who wanted to fight in Vietnam could have also done so. For example, burning with desire for combat glory as he was, G W Bush could have left school early."

OK Ron - status check:
- We have trainee pilots putting in a request that is refused, by their training officer, for the rock solid reasons they have not completed their training and they have not got the requisite 500 hours on type logged.
- We have a temporary assignment programme that is being wound down
- We have an aircraft type that was already in the process of being withdrawn from the theatre of operations. This aircraft type being the one that the pilot in question has just been declared operational on.

Now then, registered Republican, 3-year veteran, Ron, can you rationally explain how requesting assignment to Vietnam under the 'Palace Guard' programme earlier than he did would have been viewed more favourably? Because my sense of logic would tell me that at that time he would be even less trained and a lot more inexperienced than when he was originally turned down - TRUE Ron??

By the way Ron, who were the "fellow students in his piloting class who were in fact going"? Or is this some more unsubstantiated drivel that will pass into the left-wing, anti-Bush, anti-war Bullshit Hall of Fame. Again apply logic to the report, they are at the same level in training, they are attempting to qualify as operational on the same type of aircraft - a type that is in the process of being withdrawn from service in theatre. Now why would they go. Now you seem to know that they 'teased' GWB (Tell me did they also 'tease' Fred Bradley?) you seem to know that they were going, so who were they?

If that was how it was reported Ron - "piloting class" ????? - Come on as a 3-year veteran, you must have had some exposure to military aviation terminology - "piloting class" ????? In the US it would Flight School, in the UK it would be Basic Air Training, NEVER "piloting class" - maybe what you read had been written by dianavan? In which case it could hardly be considered authorative. But whoever wrote the term "piloting class" hasn't a clue what they are talking about.

Besides at the time GWB and Fred Bradley asked obout 'Palace Guard' they were not attending "piloting class" they were already out of Flight School and were on Advanced Jet Training, or at Operational Training Unit stage of training (i.e. learning to fight the aircraft).

On your "Where there's a will.. " theme, the US Government might have had a few objections to young inadequately trained and inexperienced pilots manouevring their way by art and enthusiasm into a combat theatre where in all probability they will throw away their own lives (in which the US Government has just invested hundreds of thousands of dollars training), they will definitely endanger others possibly at more cost, and destroy Government Property, to whit at least one operational combat aircraft worth millions. Yeah I could see them going for that - NOT.

Ron you arguements lack logic and reason. You are almost getting as bad as Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Brought to you by... GHWBush
From: GUEST,A
Date: 26 Nov 05 - 07:51 AM

LUDICROUS; An adjective meaning "utterly ridiculous because of being absurd, incongruous, impractical or unsuitable.

(Definition placed here to save you some time, Bobert)

When this word came to mind, I was thinking of some of your statements. But now, I realize that it pertains to me as well due to my attempts to confer with you. I still would like to believe that you are just a puton and your posts do not reflect your true 'character'. However, they seem to follow a certain pattern which leads me to believe otherwise.

I enjoy the exchangs and occasional jabs between Teribus, Ron Davies et.al. Ron D. can make sense even when I disagree with him which is most of the time.
BUT, you are a different story. I think what sums up your debating skills in a few words ia comment you made above;

            "They were wrong and we weren't."

You simply attack the poster and don't try very hard to insert opposing fact ot opinion. If I have offended anyone with my harshness or apparent of patience including a little lewdness, I apologize.
And if Bobert thinks that my no longer addressing him is a victory on his part, so be it.

By the way Bobert, I am the "little ten year girl" in the above guest post. Forgot the "A". Also, you might as well forget the carrier landing contest you mentioned as the Navy does drug testing which obviously would eliminate you.

Subject: RE: BS: Brought to you by... GHWBush
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Nov 05 - 08:59 AM

Hmmmmmm? Go get yer oatmeal, A... I think yer blood sugar is a tad low...

Hey, pal, I give lots of facts and organize my thoughts rather well... That's what you and yer buds don't like..

And yer right, T, that most of the folks who were training in the Texas Air National guard were training in aircraft that wasn't readily being used over Nam... Then first of all, why the heck train them... Cost a lot of dough to burn that fuel and maintain aircraft that, if I get yer logic, ain't of any value...

But beyond that, as I have stated on another thread, learin' in one aircraft doesn't mean you can't easilly be trained to fly another airplane... There not a lot of negative transference from one to another... Yes, switchin' to a chopper is hard but relearning a new airplane ain't all the difficult once you have the basics down... My brother, who is the licensed pilot in the family, has flown dozens of different airplanes over this 30 some years of flying and has also done simulator time, thanks to be wined and dined by the US Air Force, of military airplanes....

So yer premise, while having some validity, is weak..

And, no matter, this still does nothing to fill in the gaps where Bush can't prove he completed his contract with the tax payers who were paying for drunk frat boy to aviod real war by hiding in the National Guard... You know, the AWOL thing???

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Brought to you by... GHWBush
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Nov 05 - 10:42 AM

Teribus--


"Left-wing drivel", as from Time Magazine, as I recall. Not like your unassailable sources, like the Washington Times--also fondly known in the US as the "Moonie Paper". But you're not expected to know that.   You are, however, expected to do a bare minimum on the objectivity of your sources.   That would be refreshing. Sorry, the Washington Times doesn't make the cut.

If you've noticed my continuing criticisms of Bush in many threads, you may possibly, with your unsurpassed powers of observation, have noted that they usually come from the Wall St. Journal (the reporting, not the editorials). When you can quote, say the New York Times reporting as supporting your view, we will be approaching equilibrium in reliability of sources.

Congratulations, however, on overcoming your temper. Things go much better when you do--in life generally. You don't need to thank me--it's a pleasure to give you advice on making your life better.



Bush did not want to fight in Vietnam--do you deny that? He however was not shy at advocating that others do so. Do you deny that?

In my book that's spelled H Y P O C R I S Y.

Subject: RE: BS: Brought to you by... GHWBush
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Nov 05 - 10:14 AM

No answers then Ron. But there again I wasn't really expecting any, even from someone who "does their homework" as well as you. By the bye, if you ever could be accused of "doing your homework" you would have noted that the Washington Times was referred to in the quoted text extracted from the source document, I did not state that the Washington Times was the source, which was - www.aerospaceweb.org/question/history/q0185.shtml

Amos - 24 Nov 05 - 03:35 PM

"ANd "inquiring about" is not at all identical with "requesting", T. So far I have seen no evidence he offered any intent to act on the information."

Complete red herring Amos, doesn't matter if he "inquired" or "requested" - the answer was no

Subject: RE: BS: Brought to you by... GHWBush
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 Nov 05 - 10:18 AM

Aerospace quoted the Washington Times. Don't you read your own citations?

George Bush did not want to fight in Vietnam. Do you deny that? He was not shy about advocating that others do so. Do you deny that?

Answer the questions.

Subject: RE: BS: Brought to you by... GHWBush
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 Nov 05 - 10:27 AM

Excuse me. Answer the questions-- please.

We want to keep this as civil as possible, right?

Subject: RE: BS: Brought to you by... GHWBush
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Nov 05 - 12:11 PM

Ron Davies - 27 Nov 05 - 10:18 AM

"Aerospace quoted the Washington Times." - Good boy that's what I said. The Washington Times was not my "unassailable source" as stated by yourself remember -

Ron D....."Left-wing drivel", as from Time Magazine, as I recall. Not like YOUR unassailable sources, like the Washington Times--also fondly known in the US as the "Moonie Paper". But you're not expected to know that.   You are, however, expected to do a bare minimum on the objectivity of your sources.   That would be refreshing. Sorry, the Washington Times doesn't make the cut."


Ron D asks ....."George Bush did not want to fight in Vietnam. Do you deny that?" I don't know, why don't you ask him.

Ron D asks......"He was not shy about advocating that others do so. Do you deny that?" I don't know, why don't you ask him.

Now that your questions have been answered to the best of my ability what about answering those put to you. I won't be holding my breath

By the way how are all those people doing at "piloting classes" ? - Don't tell me, I don't know, why don't you ask them.

Subject: RE: BS: Brought to you by... GHWBush
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 Nov 05 - 01:19 PM

So where do you think Aerospace got the info?--you're certainly defending your sophistry award tenaciously.


Am I to understand that you believe Bush was looking forward to serving in Vietnam? Yes or no.

Subject: RE: BS: Brought to you by... GHWBush
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 Nov 05 - 01:23 PM

Aerospace quoted the Washington Times. Most people who understand English would say that makes the Washington Times the source.

Too bad you have a problem with English.

Subject: RE: BS: Brought to you by... GHWBush
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 27 Nov 05 - 03:15 PM

I'm sorry guys... This polarized thread drift is quite simply... Krappola. Take it outside, or stick to the topic... Which as I recall... Is the nature of the division between the "red blooded American conservatives", and the "neo-con extremist" conservatives...

What the heck are you guys on about anyway?

Your pet polaritied topic to trot out your pet polaritied issues? Yeh well... I've done it to... Been there, done that.
ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Brought to you by... GHWBush
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Nov 05 - 04:57 PM

Well, I will say this... First of all, the Washington Times has a dynamite sports section...

But secondly, like Ron has observed, there's not even a fine line between their news and editorial departments... I remember the Clinton years and I dare say that in the eight years that Clinton was in office that the Washington Times didn't miss more than a handfull of days having a negative article about Clinton on their front page...

Notr that I liked Clinton much but their slant was to use their news department to dig and dig and investigate and, most of the time, creat news where there was no news... I mean the most obscure things that Clinton did made bold headlines...

But don't believe me... Google yer way into their archives... Will make fir some interesting reading...

Compare that the utter pass that Bush got from both the Washington Post and the New York Times in not asking the hard questions in Bush mad-dash to war it it's no wonder that most folks on the left side of the isle are highly suspect of the corpoprate owned media...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Brought to you by... GHWBush
From: Leadfingers
Date: 27 Nov 05 - 07:25 PM

100th post brought to you by ME !