Odd interaction with a road rager



On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 20:55:24 GMT, "Pete" <ptr@ThievingBastardsWorkAt_usaf.com>
wrote:

>There is at least one pilot that specifically remembers he and 1Lt Bush
>talking to their commander about volunteering for the program. And being
>told they were still too junior.
>

>I take it you didn't bother to follow the links I posted.
>As for it being a 'matter of public record'...not every conversation you
>have with your commanding officer goes into a log somewhere, to be brought
>out 30 years later. Bush asked, was told he wasn't yet eligible. No
>'official' application, no written request.
>
>"Hey Boss...can I apply for this?"
>"No, you don't have enough flight hours."
>"OK"
>
So, basically, what you're saying is that "a person", has conveniently
remembered an unprovable incident that shows that the chimp uncharacteristicaly
enquired about volunteering?

Rock on.

He undoubtably knew perfectly well that he wasn't qualified. I know he's an
idiot, but you can bet your life that possibility of going to 'nam was an active
topic amongst the pilots. They'd know if they were qualified or not.

So the chimp knows full well he isn't, and goes and tries to score a brownie
point by asking his co if he can apply.

And that's if the incident ever took place at all.

>And in future, please do not denigrate service in the Reserve of National
>Guard. Especially for a fighter pilot during the Cold War. Remember...there
>was still a significant threat from the 'Evil Empire'. Many, many times did
>ADC aircraft (which includes Guard and Reserve) launch to intercept USSR
>bomber and recon aircraft exiting Cuba or going up and down the East Coast.
>The Guard and Reserve at the time were primary suppliers of such intercept
>flights.


End of the day?

Kerry: Put his life on the line serving his country in a war zone.
Bush: Stayed home and let others risk and lose their lives in that war zone.
 
On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 16:32:05 -0400, Mitch Haley <[email protected]> wrote:

> Blah, blah, Blah


End of the day?

Kerry: Put his life on the line serving his country in a war zone.
Bush: Stayed home and let others risk and lose their lives in that war zone.
 
Muttley wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 21:13:22 GMT, "Hijo de la Changa"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Bush: no Bronze Star.
>>Tim McVeigh: Bronze Star.
>
>
> End of the day?
>
> Kerry: Put his life on the line serving his country in a war zone.
> Bush: Stayed home and let others risk and lose their lives in that war zone.
>

*PLONK*

--
the black rose
proud to be owned by a yorkie
http://community.webshots.com/user/blackrosequilts
 
Raoul Duke wrote:
> "Frank Krygowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> Have you checked into Cheney's record on this?
>
> Is Cheney running for President?

He's running for re-election to Power Behind the Throne.

If someone complains that Kerry "consistently favored gutting our
defense and intelligence assets" they probably don't want to vote for
Cheney. Which means they probably don't want to vote for Bush.

http://www.polkonline.com/stories/060604/opi_cheneyrecord.shtml



"Cheney has styled himself as something of a super hawk, but when it
comes to opposing weapons, his advisers seem to be counting on no one
looking closely at his record. In his four-year stint as defense
secretary during the waning days of the Cold War, Cheney terminated more
weapons than every Democrat combined over the previous four decades."

"The depth and breadth of his cuts were so breathtaking that today the
military is still struggling to cope with some of the consequences."


" Cheney was the biggest unilateral disarmer in recent history, and
darnned proud of it."

Read the details at at the link.



--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]
 
On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 13:47:19 GMT, the black rose <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>*PLONK*

Thank goodness someone has used some intelligence at last.

He's only posting to wind up those in the Bush camp, and since what he's posting
is a simple fact - even though it has little relevance to today, trying to argue
that it it's not really what it seems is like trying to argue that black is
white.

What really gets up the nose of the undecided is that if people are going to
start trashing someone's war record because they disagree with their politics,
who might be next.

A lot of us have respected friends or relatives who served in various conflicts,
and seeing people trying to rubbish someone's service record does not do a lot
for the cause they are supporting. Kinda makes them look desparate and prepared
to sink to any level. And let's face it, *anyone* who goes to the trouble of
querying Kerry's war record is going to be assumed to be fighting the republican
cause, no matter how much they deny it.

Just follow black rose's example, and he'll have nothing to come back at.


--
Anton
 
On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 13:47:19 GMT, the black rose <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>*PLONK*

Thank goodness someone has used some intelligence at last.

He's only posting to wind up those in the Bush camp, and since what he's posting
is a simple fact - even though it has little relevance to today, trying to argue
that it it's not really what it seems is like trying to argue that black is
white.

What really gets up the nose of the undecided is that if people are going to
start trashing someone's war record because they disagree with their politics,
who might be next.

A lot of us have respected friends or relatives who served in various conflicts,
and seeing people trying to rubbish someone's service record does not do a lot
for the cause they are supporting. Kinda makes them look desparate and prepared
to sink to any level. And let's face it, *anyone* who goes to the trouble of
querying Kerry's war record is going to be assumed to be fighting the republican
cause, no matter how much they deny it.

Just follow black rose's example, and he'll have nothing to come back at.


--
Anton
 
On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 20:44:05 GMT, "Ken [NY)" <[email protected]> wrote:

>>
>>*VERY* strange that if the chimp ever volunteered for service this is not common
>>knowledge, since it would go some way to placating those who think he spent the
>>time when he ought to have been in 'nam, in a funk hole back home.
>
> Funny, but I knew about Mr. Bush's request, as did my friends.
>It came up in 2000, but the Democrats did not push it since Bill
>Clinton spent the war studying in Europe. You need some better news
>sources.

??? Why would the democrats push it.

If it is true, which I find extremely doubful (unless bush knew full well that
he was not qualified *before* he made any attempt to 'volunteer'), then it would
have been the *repubs* who would have made it known, not the demos.

Nonetheless:

End of the day?

Kerry: Put his life on the line serving his country in a war zone.
Bush: Stayed home and let others risk and lose their lives in that war zone.
 
Pete wrote:
> "Rick" <[email protected]> wrote
>
>
>>By the way, folks, the PBR's (aka. swift boats) posted the highest
>>injury and mortality rates of the war. 4 months was a particularly long
>>tour of duty on these craft due to the high mortality rates.
>
>
> Actually, I think PBR's and 'Swift Boats' are two different classes
> PBR's are fiberglass, Swift Boats are aluminum
>
> Swift
> http://boatdesign.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/2175/sort/1/cat/all/page/1
> http://pcf45.com/
>
> PBR
> http://www.hnsa.org/ships/pbrmkii-b.htm
> http://www.hnsa.org/ships/pbrmkii.htm
>
> Pete
>
>
Pete,

The original swift boats were aluminum. They were replaced by the
fibreglass PBR version, also called "swift boats, IIRC," which were
built by a US sports boat builder (though I've forgotten the man's name)
in an extremely short time. By the time Kerry was in VN, I do believe
that the aluminum boats were already retired, though I could be wrong on
that. In either case, the aluminum boats were doing the same mission,
though were much less capable designs than the fibreglass ones. Serving
on those was considered to be much less safe.

Rick
 
Pete wrote:
> "Rick" <[email protected]> wrote
>
>
>>By the way, folks, the PBR's (aka. swift boats) posted the highest
>>injury and mortality rates of the war. 4 months was a particularly long
>>tour of duty on these craft due to the high mortality rates.
>
>
> Actually, I think PBR's and 'Swift Boats' are two different classes
> PBR's are fiberglass, Swift Boats are aluminum
>
> Swift
> http://boatdesign.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/2175/sort/1/cat/all/page/1
> http://pcf45.com/
>
> PBR
> http://www.hnsa.org/ships/pbrmkii-b.htm
> http://www.hnsa.org/ships/pbrmkii.htm
>
> Pete
>
>
Pete,

The original swift boats were aluminum. They were replaced by the
fibreglass PBR version, also called "swift boats, IIRC," which were
built by a US sports boat builder (though I've forgotten the man's name)
in an extremely short time. By the time Kerry was in VN, I do believe
that the aluminum boats were already retired, though I could be wrong on
that. In either case, the aluminum boats were doing the same mission,
though were much less capable designs than the fibreglass ones. Serving
on those was considered to be much less safe.

Rick
 
Pete wrote:
> "Rick" <[email protected]> wrote
>
>
>>By the way, folks, the PBR's (aka. swift boats) posted the highest
>>injury and mortality rates of the war. 4 months was a particularly long
>>tour of duty on these craft due to the high mortality rates.
>
>
> Actually, I think PBR's and 'Swift Boats' are two different classes
> PBR's are fiberglass, Swift Boats are aluminum
>
> Swift
> http://boatdesign.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/2175/sort/1/cat/all/page/1
> http://pcf45.com/
>
> PBR
> http://www.hnsa.org/ships/pbrmkii-b.htm
> http://www.hnsa.org/ships/pbrmkii.htm
>
> Pete
>
>
Pete,

The original swift boats were aluminum. They were replaced by the
fibreglass PBR version, also called "swift boats, IIRC," which were
built by a US sports boat builder (though I've forgotten the man's name)
in an extremely short time. By the time Kerry was in VN, I do believe
that the aluminum boats were already retired, though I could be wrong on
that. In either case, the aluminum boats were doing the same mission,
though were much less capable designs than the fibreglass ones. Serving
on those was considered to be much less safe.

Rick
 
Pete wrote:
> "Rick" <[email protected]> wrote
>
>
>>By the way, folks, the PBR's (aka. swift boats) posted the highest
>>injury and mortality rates of the war. 4 months was a particularly long
>>tour of duty on these craft due to the high mortality rates.
>
>
> Actually, I think PBR's and 'Swift Boats' are two different classes
> PBR's are fiberglass, Swift Boats are aluminum
>
> Swift
> http://boatdesign.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/2175/sort/1/cat/all/page/1
> http://pcf45.com/
>
> PBR
> http://www.hnsa.org/ships/pbrmkii-b.htm
> http://www.hnsa.org/ships/pbrmkii.htm
>
> Pete
>
>
Pete,

The original swift boats were aluminum. They were replaced by the
fibreglass PBR version, also called "swift boats, IIRC," which were
built by a US sports boat builder (though I've forgotten the man's name)
in an extremely short time. By the time Kerry was in VN, I do believe
that the aluminum boats were already retired, though I could be wrong on
that. In either case, the aluminum boats were doing the same mission,
though were much less capable designs than the fibreglass ones. Serving
on those was considered to be much less safe.

Rick
 
....stuff deleted
>>
> Pete,
>
> The original swift boats were aluminum. They were replaced by the
> fibreglass PBR version, also called "swift boats, IIRC," which were
> built by a US sports boat builder (though I've forgotten the man's name)
> in an extremely short time. By the time Kerry was in VN, I do believe
> that the aluminum boats were already retired, though I could be wrong on
> that. In either case, the aluminum boats were doing the same mission,
> though were much less capable designs than the fibreglass ones. Serving
> on those was considered to be much less safe.
>
> Rick

After checking, the PBR's were not also called swift boats, though they
did the same role, though much more effectively. The swift boats were,
according to what I've read, even less capable and less survivable.

Rick
 
Pete wrote:

>
> There is at least one pilot that specifically remembers he and 1Lt Bush
> talking to their commander about volunteering for the program. And being
> told they were still too junior.

:) And there is at least one street person in Austin who specifically
remembers GWB stepping out of an alien spacecraft.

>
> I take it you didn't bother to follow the links I posted.

I wonder, did you even _read_ the first one?
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1999/09-13-99/vo15no19_bush.htm

That list of Bush's business dealings, special treatment, and political
tricks was all stuff I'd read before (well, most of it, anyway) but
still fascinating. Seems to me that if it weren't for family connection
after family connection, Bush would _be_ a street person in Austin!


To balance that bad publicity, the article has the unproven claims by a
few Bush buddies that he was actually a) smart, and b) willing to serve
in 'Nam.

Hmm. Wanna bet those guys are working on _their_ connections? ;-)


--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]
 
Pete wrote:

>
> There is at least one pilot that specifically remembers he and 1Lt Bush
> talking to their commander about volunteering for the program. And being
> told they were still too junior.

:) And there is at least one street person in Austin who specifically
remembers GWB stepping out of an alien spacecraft.

>
> I take it you didn't bother to follow the links I posted.

I wonder, did you even _read_ the first one?
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1999/09-13-99/vo15no19_bush.htm

That list of Bush's business dealings, special treatment, and political
tricks was all stuff I'd read before (well, most of it, anyway) but
still fascinating. Seems to me that if it weren't for family connection
after family connection, Bush would _be_ a street person in Austin!


To balance that bad publicity, the article has the unproven claims by a
few Bush buddies that he was actually a) smart, and b) willing to serve
in 'Nam.

Hmm. Wanna bet those guys are working on _their_ connections? ;-)


--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]
 
"Frank Krygowski" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> I wonder, did you even _read_ the first one?
> http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1999/09-13-99/vo15no19_bush.htm
>
> That list of Bush's business dealings, special treatment, and political
> tricks was all stuff I'd read before (well, most of it, anyway) but
> still fascinating. Seems to me that if it weren't for family connection
> after family connection, Bush would _be_ a street person in Austin!
>
>
> To balance that bad publicity, the article has the unproven claims by a
> few Bush buddies that he was actually a) smart, and b) willing to serve
> in 'Nam.
>
> Hmm. Wanna bet those guys are working on _their_ connections? ;-)

Yes, I did read that one. And it's amazing that an article so predominantely
anti-Bush would comment on his trying to volunteer for combat duty, isn't
it?

Pete
 
On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 20:51:38 GMT, "Ken [NY)" <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 09:51:43 GMT, [email protected] (Muttley)
>claims:
>
>>On Tue, 7 Sep 2004 02:10:52 -0700, "Raoul Duke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Frank Krygowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> Have you checked into Cheney's record on this?
>>>
>>>Is Cheney running for President?
>>
>>Well, he's been pulling the chimp's strings for the last four years ;)
>
> Funny stuff. These folks sometimes forget whether Bush is
>supposed to be an evil, crafty dictator, or a puppet. Call it a
>problem of not getting their talking points straight.

Nobody said he was a dictator.

He damn nearly got elected!

The chimp is the figurehead for a small coterie of pretty nasty people. Not very
bright himself, he nonetheless had the talk to convince almost as many people to
vote for him as for his opponent.

Of course, in a democracy he wouldn't be president, but c'est la vie.
 
"Frank Krygowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> To balance that bad publicity, the article has the unproven claims by a
> few Bush buddies that he was actually a) smart, and b) willing to serve
> in 'Nam.

It always amazes me how the left claims President Bush isn't "smart". Yet
somehow he managed to rise to the position of - THE MOST POWERFUL PERSON ON
EARTH. Bill Clinton did exactly the same thing, and yet no one questions
his intelligence.

If you think you're so much smarter - and I'm sure you do - why don't YOU
run for President and show us how it's done.

Dave
 
"Muttley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> The chimp is the figurehead for a small coterie of pretty nasty people.
Not very
> bright himself, he nonetheless had the talk to convince almost as many
people to
> vote for him as for his opponent.
>
> Of course, in a democracy he wouldn't be president, but c'est la vie.

If Gore were so much smarter, how come he didn't pull it off? And if you
are so much smarter than Bush, how come YOU aren't President?

Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back