Gw Bush toy doll in flightgear - now available

[Aerophotos]

http://www.kbtoys.com/genProduct.html/PID/2431939/ctid/17?_ts=y&ls=default&_e=3f3b1&_v=3F3B1F382DICa1B1802535B6&_ts=y

just what the kids need for xmas and spread thru out the middle east...
harmony to all.

so far USA has got gamma ray bomb in development, nuclear bunker bomb
and now this doll .. WMDs are coming from the USA faster then hamburgers
are cooked.

just dont mention any words about iraqs WMD or other countries like USa
and Britian, until these countries accept that they having WMD is it
self a crime - they will never learn.

[David Bromage]

Aerophotos wrote:
>
http://www.kbtoys.com/genProduct.html/PID/2431939/ctid/17?_ts=y&ls=default&_e=3f3b1&_v=3F3B1F382DICa1B1802535B6&_ts=y
>
> just what the kids need for xmas and spread thru out the middle east...
> harmony to all.

But one now.... and stick pins in it. :)

Cheers
David

[Sunny]

"Aerophotos" > wrote in message
<snip>
You on leave already ?

[cbear]

Aerophotos > wrote in
:

> http://www.kbtoys.com/genProduct.html/PID/2431939/ctid/17?_ts=y&ls=defa
> ult&_e=3f3b1&_v=3F3B1F382DICa1B1802535B6&_ts=y
>
> just what the kids need for xmas and spread thru out the middle
> east... harmony to all.
>
> so far USA has got gamma ray bomb in development, nuclear bunker bomb
> and now this doll .. WMDs are coming from the USA faster then
> hamburgers are cooked.
>
> just dont mention any words about iraqs WMD or other countries like
> USa and Britian, until these countries accept that they having WMD is
> it self a crime - they will never learn.

My what crass individual you are promote sales of a Bush toy while at the
same time bad mouthing yje US and Great Britain WMDs were never the real
problem with Iraq Just Saddams willingness to use them even on his own
people. To bad they did not finish the job in the first gulf war but then
what would people like you bitch about then?
Just remember before 9-11 the US had more of a reactive policy towards
threats, now the policy is more pro-active towards perceived threats like
Saddam. Pearl harbor and now 9-11 have taught us that a threat must be
dealt with before it rises to the level that demands vengeance. The only
time theUS ever used WMDs was to end WW2 before the invasion of Japan
and yes the toll was huge but not as much as the invasion would have cost.
I hope that the use of any kind of WMD being used again by the US will
never neccesary,

[Andrew and Tea]

Im only going to get REALLY worried if theres demand for blow up latex GWB
dolls . . . . .


"Aerophotos" > wrote in message
...
>
http://www.kbtoys.com/genProduct.html/PID/2431939/ctid/17?_ts=y&ls=default&_
e=3f3b1&_v=3F3B1F382DICa1B1802535B6&_ts=y
>
> just what the kids need for xmas and spread thru out the middle east...
> harmony to all.
>
> so far USA has got gamma ray bomb in development, nuclear bunker bomb
> and now this doll .. WMDs are coming from the USA faster then hamburgers
> are cooked.
>
> just dont mention any words about iraqs WMD or other countries like USa
> and Britian, until these countries accept that they having WMD is it
> self a crime - they will never learn.

[Alan Erskine]

"Andrew and Tea" > wrote in message
u...
> Im only going to get REALLY worried if theres demand for blow up latex GWB
> dolls . . . . .

Nooo, the real worry is whether or not the puncture kit is with the doll.
;-)

.... and what the punctures are caused by.
--
Alan Erskine
alanerskine(at)optusnet.com.au
John Howard doesn't speak for this
Australian in the Amrosi death sentence -
Jail, not death.

[JR]

> Im only going to get REALLY worried if theres demand for blow up latex GWB
> dolls . . . . .
>

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiii............

[Bob Harrington]

David Bromage wrote:
> Aerophotos wrote:
> >
>
http://www.kbtoys.com/genProduct.html/PID/2431939/ctid/17?_ts=y&ls=default&_e=3f3b1&_v=3F3B1F382DICa1B1802535B6&_ts=y
> >
> > just what the kids need for xmas and spread thru out the middle
> east... > harmony to all.
>
> But one now.... and stick pins in it. :)
>
> Cheers
> David

Ironically, your suggestion is still more likely to succeed than
anything the Democrats have put forward... =)

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Joseph" > wrote in message
...
>
> Bush lied. Pretty simple, really.
>

Spoken like a true moron.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

[Alan Erskine]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> "Joseph" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Bush lied. Pretty simple, really.
> >
>
> Spoken like a true moron.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--

No, he's simple - said it himself.
--
Alan Erskine
alanerskine(at)optusnet.com.au
John Howard doesn't speak for this
Australian in the Amrosi death sentence -
Jail, not death.

[Kokoro]

In alt.binaries.pictures.aviation, cbear ordered an army of hamsters to
type:

> I hope that the use of any kind of WMD being used again by the US will
> never neccesary,



Why have any at all?

[David Stinson]

Mitchell Holman wrote:

> Speaking of which.........

Not what you think: "MORAN" is the feminine of "MORON,"
so he was only talking to the female Democrats.... (heh heh)

[Frederik Paul]

"Steven P. McNicoll" schrieb:

> "Joseph" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Bush lied. Pretty simple, really.
> >
>
> Spoken about a true moron.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----
> ----




--
"Wenn du eine Leidenschaft hast, solltest
du dich durch Pr=FCgel nicht stoppen lassen."

Al Pacino

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Frederik Paul" > wrote in message
...
"Steven P. McNicoll" schrieb:

> "Joseph" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Bush lied. Pretty simple, really.
> >
>
> Spoken about a true moron.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> ----




Steven P. McNicoll wrote nothing above, "Frederik Paul" is void of
integrity.

[Mitchell Holman]

David Stinson > wrote in news:3F3C982F.DBF9A681
@ix.netcom.com:

> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>
>> Speaking of which.........
>
> Not what you think: "MORAN" is the feminine of "MORON,"
> so he was only talking to the female Democrats.... (heh heh)


Since this is a pro-war pro-Bush rally
I don't know what female Democrats have to
do with it........

[cbear]

David Stinson > wrote in
:

> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>
>> Speaking of which.........
>
> Not what you think: "MORAN" is the feminine of "MORON,"
> so he was only talking to the female Democrats.... (heh heh)
>
I thonk you insulting morons and morans every where by calling them liberal
democrats. Morons are smarter than that

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mitchell Holman" > wrote in message
...
>
> Since this is a pro-war pro-Bush rally
> I don't know what female Democrats have to
> do with it........
>

"Antis" frequently appear at "pro" rallies of all kinds.

[Mitchell Holman]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in news:Xo5%a.2335
:

>
> "Mitchell Holman" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Since this is a pro-war pro-Bush rally
>> I don't know what female Democrats have to
>> do with it........
>>
>
> "Antis" frequently appear at "pro" rallies of all kinds.
>
>
>

Nice try. The numbscull in question
is clearing a pro-Bushie.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mitchell Holman" > wrote in message
...
>
> Nice try. The numbscull in question
> is clearing a pro-Bushie.
>

And his sign is clearly directed at those appearing at the rally in
opposition to Bush.

[Mitchell Holman]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in news:0X5%a.2383
:

>
>
>>
>
> And his sign is clearly directed at those appearing at the rally in
> opposition to Bush.


Bingo!

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mitchell Holman" > wrote in message
...
>
> Bingo!
>

Glad I could help.

[Duke of URL]

"Bob Harrington" > wrote in message
news:cVV_a.146609$Ho3.17654@sccrnsc03
> David Bromage wrote:
>> Aerophotos wrote:

>> > just what the kids need for xmas and spread thru out the middle
>> east... > harmony to all.
>> But one now.... and stick pins in it. :)
>
> Ironically, your suggestion is still more likely to succeed than
> anything the Democrats have put forward... =)

??? Is THAT why the Dems want all the illegal Haitians to be made
instant citizens?

[Mitchell Holman]

"Duke of URL" <macbenahATkdsiDOTnet> wrote in news:vjq08noigdb333
@corp.supernews.com:

> "Bob Harrington" > wrote in message
> news:cVV_a.146609$Ho3.17654@sccrnsc03
>> David Bromage wrote:
>>> Aerophotos wrote:
>
>>> > just what the kids need for xmas and spread thru out the middle
>>> east... > harmony to all.
>>> But one now.... and stick pins in it. :)
>>
>> Ironically, your suggestion is still more likely to succeed than
>> anything the Democrats have put forward... =)
>
> ??? Is THAT why the Dems want all the illegal Haitians to be made
> instant citizens?


If it's good enough for the Cubans.........

[redc1c4]

Mitchell Holman wrote:
>
> "Duke of URL" <macbenahATkdsiDOTnet> wrote in news:vjq08noigdb333
> @corp.supernews.com:
>
> > "Bob Harrington" > wrote in message
> > news:cVV_a.146609$Ho3.17654@sccrnsc03
> >> David Bromage wrote:
> >>> Aerophotos wrote:
> >
> >>> > just what the kids need for xmas and spread thru out the middle
> >>> east... > harmony to all.
> >>> But one now.... and stick pins in it. :)
> >>
> >> Ironically, your suggestion is still more likely to succeed than
> >> anything the Democrats have put forward... =)
> >
> > ??? Is THAT why the Dems want all the illegal Haitians to be made
> > instant citizens?
>
> If it's good enough for the Cubans.........

since the Cubans are fleeing a Marxist state, they rarely wish to
return to life under a Democrat.

redc1c4,
hence they vote Republican, usually. %-)
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."

Army Officer's Guide

[B2431]

What has any of this to do with military aviation?

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Tarver Engineering]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> What has any of this to do with military aviation?

Let's see, Bush landed on an aircraft carrier ...

[Rob Heywood]

The US intelligencia completely blew it on 9/11. And now you and the Bushies
believe they can see the future and accurately take out threats
PRE-EMPTIVELY!!!!! Give us all a break. My money is on human nature and greed
to **** things up.

cbear wrote:

> Aerophotos > wrote in
> :
>
> > http://www.kbtoys.com/genProduct.html/PID/2431939/ctid/17?_ts=y&ls=defa
> > ult&_e=3f3b1&_v=3F3B1F382DICa1B1802535B6&_ts=y
> >
> > just what the kids need for xmas and spread thru out the middle
> > east... harmony to all.
> >
> > so far USA has got gamma ray bomb in development, nuclear bunker bomb
> > and now this doll .. WMDs are coming from the USA faster then
> > hamburgers are cooked.
> >
> > just dont mention any words about iraqs WMD or other countries like
> > USa and Britian, until these countries accept that they having WMD is
> > it self a crime - they will never learn.
>
> My what crass individual you are promote sales of a Bush toy while at the
> same time bad mouthing yje US and Great Britain WMDs were never the real
> problem with Iraq Just Saddams willingness to use them even on his own
> people. To bad they did not finish the job in the first gulf war but then
> what would people like you bitch about then?
> Just remember before 9-11 the US had more of a reactive policy towards
> threats, now the policy is more pro-active towards perceived threats like
> Saddam. Pearl harbor and now 9-11 have taught us that a threat must be
> dealt with before it rises to the level that demands vengeance. The only
> time theUS ever used WMDs was to end WW2 before the invasion of Japan
> and yes the toll was huge but not as much as the invasion would have cost.
> I hope that the use of any kind of WMD being used again by the US will
> never neccesary,

[Rob Heywood]

Bush didn't lie "exactly" just like Clinton didn't lie. Right??



Alan Erskine wrote:

> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> hlink.net...
> >
> > "Joseph" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > Bush lied. Pretty simple, really.
> > >
> >
> > Spoken like a true moron.
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
>
> No, he's simple - said it himself.
> --
> Alan Erskine
> alanerskine(at)optusnet.com.au
> John Howard doesn't speak for this
> Australian in the Amrosi death sentence -
> Jail, not death.

[Rob Heywood]

Yes, Republicans are SO good at naming and labeling. The Dem's should do
the same by calling and labeling Rep's as greedy neo-fascist's who's
only real religion is money and power.


David Stinson wrote:

> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>
> > Speaking of which.........
>
> Not what you think: "MORAN" is the feminine of "MORON,"
> so he was only talking to the female Democrats.... (heh heh)

[Tarver Engineering]

"Rob Heywood" > wrote in message
...
> Bush didn't lie "exactly" just like Clinton didn't lie. Right??

The Brits still claim what GW said is true. Noone believes Clinton.

There doesn't seem to be any correlation at all.

Wasn't it cool when GW landed on that aircraft carrier?

[David Stinson]

Rob Heywood bleated:

> The Dem's should do
> the same by calling and labeling Rep's as greedy neo-fascist's who's
> only real religion is money and power.

Another emotional fool swallows the Democrat "Big Lie."
Ahh well... sheep will always need shepards, even if
they are constantly sheared by them....
Kindly go back to mental masturbation-
stick with something you're good at.

[Grantland]

Mitchell Holman > wrote:


> Speaking of "lie-holes" (whatever that is),
>what do you think of the following kneeslapper?
>
>
>"We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological
>laboratories. They're illegal. They're against the United Nations
>resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more
>weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found
>the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong,
>we found them."
>George Bush, 5/31/03 regarding trailers Iraq bought from Britain
>to inflate hydrogen gas balloons.
>
Little ****ing freak, in his little ****ing freaksuit. Cocky little
birdlike strutting freak. A twisted, deformed little spirit utterly
unworthy of the Presidency.

You heard it here.

Grantland

[Mitchell Holman]

redc1c4 > wrote in news:3F3D12BC.682D32D8
@drunken*******s.org.ies:

> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>
>> "Duke of URL" <macbenahATkdsiDOTnet> wrote in news:vjq08noigdb333
>> @corp.supernews.com:
>>
>> > "Bob Harrington" > wrote in message
>> > news:cVV_a.146609$Ho3.17654@sccrnsc03
>> >> David Bromage wrote:
>> >>> Aerophotos wrote:
>> >
>> >>> > just what the kids need for xmas and spread thru out the middle
>> >>> east... > harmony to all.
>> >>> But one now.... and stick pins in it. :)
>> >>
>> >> Ironically, your suggestion is still more likely to succeed than
>> >> anything the Democrats have put forward... =)
>> >
>> > ??? Is THAT why the Dems want all the illegal Haitians to be made
>> > instant citizens?
>>
>> If it's good enough for the Cubans.........
>
> since the Cubans are fleeing a Marxist state, they rarely wish to
> return to life under a Democrat.
>


Funny - Carter welcomed Cubans fleeing from
Castro, while your hero Bush captures them and
send them back to Castro.

Some friend of freedom HE is..........


new.wset.com/news/stories/0703/95595.html

www.dailystar.com/star/tue/30722iCuba-hijacking.html

[Bob Harrington]

Rob Heywood wrote:
> Yes, Republicans are SO good at naming and labeling. The Dem's should
> do the same by calling and labeling Rep's as greedy neo-fascist's
> who's only real religion is money and power.

"Should"...? WTF do you think they do every time they open their lie
holes?

>
>
> David Stinson wrote:
>
>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>
>>> Speaking of which.........
>>
>> Not what you think: "MORAN" is the feminine of "MORON,"
>> so he was only talking to the female Democrats.... (heh heh)

[Mitchell Holman]

"Bob Harrington" > wrote in news:DPe%a.153045$uu5.23497
@sccrnsc04:

> Rob Heywood wrote:
>> Yes, Republicans are SO good at naming and labeling. The Dem's should
>> do the same by calling and labeling Rep's as greedy neo-fascist's
>> who's only real religion is money and power.
>
> "Should"...? WTF do you think they do every time they open their lie
> holes?


Speaking of "lie-holes" (whatever that is),
what do you think of the following kneeslapper?


"We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological
laboratories. They're illegal. They're against the United Nations
resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more
weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found
the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong,
we found them."
George Bush, 5/31/03 regarding trailers Iraq bought from Britain
to inflate hydrogen gas balloons.

[Mitchell Holman]

(Grantland) wrote in news:3f3d4045.37561276@ct-
news.iafrica.com:

> Mitchell Holman > wrote:
>
>
>> Speaking of "lie-holes" (whatever that is),
>>what do you think of the following kneeslapper?
>>
>>
>>"We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological
>>laboratories. They're illegal. They're against the United Nations
>>resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more
>>weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found
>>the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong,
>>we found them."
>>George Bush, 5/31/03 regarding trailers Iraq bought from Britain
>>to inflate hydrogen gas balloons.
>>
> Little ****ing freak, in his little ****ing freaksuit. Cocky little
> birdlike strutting freak. A twisted, deformed little spirit utterly
> unworthy of the Presidency.
>
> You heard it here.
>
> Grantland


Wonder how long it will take the Loyalists
to resort to their "yea, well what about Clinton"
diversion.......

[Tarver Engineering]

"Mitchell Holman" > wrote in message
...

> Wonder how long it will take the Loyalists
> to resort to their "yea, well what about Clinton"
> diversion.......

Outsmarted by a chimp ...

[Joseph]

Mitchell Holman wrote:
>
> (Grantland) wrote in news:3f3d4045.37561276@ct-
> news.iafrica.com:
>
> > Mitchell Holman > wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Speaking of "lie-holes" (whatever that is),
> >>what do you think of the following kneeslapper?
> >>
> >>
> >>"We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological
> >>laboratories. They're illegal. They're against the United Nations
> >>resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more
> >>weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found
> >>the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong,
> >>we found them."
> >>George Bush, 5/31/03 regarding trailers Iraq bought from Britain
> >>to inflate hydrogen gas balloons.
> >>
> > Little ****ing freak, in his little ****ing freaksuit. Cocky little
> > birdlike strutting freak. A twisted, deformed little spirit utterly
> > unworthy of the Presidency.
> >
> > You heard it here.
> >
> > Grantland
>
> Wonder how long it will take the Loyalists
> to resort to their "yea, well what about Clinton"
> diversion.......

According to Article 85 of the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice)
Bush (the present) is a *deserter.*

[cbear]

Rob Heywood > wrote in
:

> The US intelligencia completely blew it on 9/11. And now you and the
> Bushies believe they can see the future and accurately take out
> threats PRE-EMPTIVELY!!!!! Give us all a break. My money is on human
> nature and greed to **** things up.
And I suppose you or anyone out there had any inkling of what those
terroists were up to. Unfortunately various persons and agencies had
evidence which added up to 9-11. but it is only apparent with the clarity
of hindsight<much as the attack on Pearl harbor was obvious in hindsight.
Now as for you assertions about human nature and greed I hope thatonce
things play out the you have lots of bread for all the crow you might have
to eat. Your dislike for Bush shows you liberal sour grapes stripes and
you use of foul language show your ignorance.
> cbear wrote:
>
>> Aerophotos > wrote in
>> :
>>>> My what crass individual you are promote sales of a Bush toy while at
>> the same time bad mouthing yje US and Great Britain WMDs were
>> never the real problem with Iraq Just Saddams willingness to use them
>> even on his own people. To bad they did not finish the job in the
>> first gulf war but then what would people like you bitch about then?
>> Just remember before 9-11 the US had more of a reactive policy
>> towards threats, now the policy is more pro-active towards perceived
>> threats like Saddam. Pearl harbor and now 9-11 have taught us that a
>> threat must be dealt with before it rises to the level that demands
>> vengeance. The only time theUS ever used WMDs was to end WW2 before
>> the invasion of Japan
>> and yes the toll was huge but not as much as the invasion would have
>> cost.
>> I hope that the use of any kind of WMD being used again by the US
>> will never neccesary,
>

[David Stinson]

cbear wrote:
> ...Your dislike for Bush shows your liberal sour grapes stripes and
> your use of foul language shows your ignorance....

Dave's Law of Mouth-Mind Relation:
"To calculate the I.Q. of an individual,
start with 120 (100 if a Democrat)
and subtract one point for each time
they say "f*ck" (or any derivitive thereof)
in one day."

You will get pretty close to their I.Q. Try it...

[Alan Erskine]

(top post)

If you read my comment, it was about "Joseph" not Bush.

Take this out of the binaries groups and into alt.politics. I don't go
there. I come to the binaries groups for images - binaries- not political
rubbish.
--
Alan Erskine
alanerskine(at)optusnet.com.au
John Howard doesn't speak for this
Australian in the Amrosi death sentence -
Jail, not death.

"Rob Heywood" > wrote in message
...
> Bush didn't lie "exactly" just like Clinton didn't lie. Right??
>
>
>
> Alan Erskine wrote:
>
> > "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> > hlink.net...
> > >
> > > "Joseph" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > Bush lied. Pretty simple, really.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Spoken like a true moron.
> >
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --
> >
> > No, he's simple - said it himself.
> > --
> > Alan Erskine
> > alanerskine(at)optusnet.com.au
> > John Howard doesn't speak for this
> > Australian in the Amrosi death sentence -
> > Jail, not death.
>

[Speaking of Rubbish]

> Alan Erskine > wrote:

> I come to the binaries groups for images - binaries- not political
> rubbish.
> --
> Alan Erskine
> alanerskine(at)optusnet.com.au
> John Howard doesn't speak for this
> Australian in the Amrosi death sentence -
> Jail, not death.

If you are not here for political rubbish, then why pray tell
does your SIG file this past month or so contain a political
statement that is nothing but political rubbish.

[Alan Erskine]

"Speaking of Rubbish" > wrote in message
...
> If you are not here for political rubbish, then why pray tell
> does your SIG file this past month or so contain a political
> statement that is nothing but political rubbish.

It's a statement that is on every post I make. It is not inappropriate as
the comments it is attached to are usually on-topic. The discussion was
semi-on-topic to begin with and has just slid down the hill since then.

I'm posting to abp.aviation while the other groups in the header have
appeared since the thread started. Why use a false name and email addy like
"rubbish at rubbish.com" (rochester.rr.com)?

--
Alan Erskine
alanerskine(at)optusnet.com.au
John Howard doesn't speak for this
Australian in the Amrosi death sentence -
Jail, not death.

[Bob Harrington]

Mitchell Holman wrote:
> "Bob Harrington" > wrote in news:DPe%a.153045$uu5.23497
> @sccrnsc04:
>
>> Rob Heywood wrote:
>>> Yes, Republicans are SO good at naming and labeling. The Dem's
>>> should do the same by calling and labeling Rep's as greedy
>>> neo-fascist's who's only real religion is money and power.
>>
>> "Should"...? WTF do you think they do every time they open their lie
>> holes?
>
>
> Speaking of "lie-holes" (whatever that is),
> what do you think of the following kneeslapper?
>
>
> "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological
> laboratories. They're illegal. They're against the United Nations
> resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more
> weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found
> the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong,
> we found them."
> George Bush, 5/31/03 regarding trailers Iraq bought from Britain
> to inflate hydrogen gas balloons.

No doubt to make cute little animal balloons for the kiddies in the
villages Saddam gassed...

[Bob Harrington]

Grantland wrote:
> Mitchell Holman > wrote:
>
>
>> Speaking of "lie-holes" (whatever that is),
>> what do you think of the following kneeslapper?
>>
>>
>> "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological
>> laboratories. They're illegal. They're against the United Nations
>> resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more
>> weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found
>> the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong,
>> we found them."
>> George Bush, 5/31/03 regarding trailers Iraq bought from Britain
>> to inflate hydrogen gas balloons.
>>
> Little ****ing freak, in his little ****ing freaksuit. Cocky little
> birdlike strutting freak. A twisted, deformed little spirit utterly
> unworthy of the Presidency.
>
> You heard it here.

Heard it lots of places. Doesn't make it any less silly.

[Bob Harrington]

Joseph wrote:
> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>
>> (Grantland) wrote in news:3f3d4045.37561276@ct-
>> news.iafrica.com:
>>
>>> Mitchell Holman > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Speaking of "lie-holes" (whatever that is),
>>>> what do you think of the following kneeslapper?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological
>>>> laboratories. They're illegal. They're against the United Nations
>>>> resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more
>>>> weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found
>>>> the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong,
>>>> we found them."
>>>> George Bush, 5/31/03 regarding trailers Iraq bought from Britain
>>>> to inflate hydrogen gas balloons.
>>>>
>>> Little ****ing freak, in his little ****ing freaksuit. Cocky little
>>> birdlike strutting freak. A twisted, deformed little spirit utterly
>>> unworthy of the Presidency.
>>>
>>> You heard it here.
>>>
>>> Grantland
>>
>> Wonder how long it will take the Loyalists
>> to resort to their "yea, well what about Clinton"
>> diversion.......
>
> According to Article 85 of the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice)
> Bush (the present) is a *deserter.*

You, of course, will provide evidence of his court martial and
conviction on these charges.

[Mitchell Holman]

"Bob Harrington" > wrote in news:5gp%a.128633$Oz4.26239
@rwcrnsc54:

> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>> "Bob Harrington" > wrote in news:DPe%a.153045$uu5.23497
>> @sccrnsc04:
>>
>>> Rob Heywood wrote:
>>>> Yes, Republicans are SO good at naming and labeling. The Dem's
>>>> should do the same by calling and labeling Rep's as greedy
>>>> neo-fascist's who's only real religion is money and power.
>>>
>>> "Should"...? WTF do you think they do every time they open their lie
>>> holes?
>>
>>
>> Speaking of "lie-holes" (whatever that is),
>> what do you think of the following kneeslapper?
>>
>>
>> "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological
>> laboratories. They're illegal. They're against the United Nations
>> resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more
>> weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found
>> the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong,
>> we found them."
>> George Bush, 5/31/03 regarding trailers Iraq bought from Britain
>> to inflate hydrogen gas balloons.
>
> No doubt to make cute little animal balloons for the kiddies in the
> villages Saddam gassed...


using helicopters supplied by the Reagan administration....

[Frederik Paul]

David Stinson schrieb:

> Rob Heywood bleated:
>
> > The Dem's should do
> > the same by calling and labeling Rep's as greedy neo-fascist's who's
> > only real religion is money and power.
>
> Another emotional fool swallows the Democrat "Big Lie."
> Ahh well... sheep will always need shepards, even if
> they are constantly sheared by them....

Sorry, this metapher is used for guys like you...







--
"Wenn du eine Leidenschaft hast, solltest
du dich durch Pr=FCgel nicht stoppen lassen."

Al Pacino

[Frederik Paul]

Mitchell Holman schrieb:

> "Bob Harrington" > wrote in news:DPe%a.153045$uu5.23497
> @sccrnsc04:
>
> > Rob Heywood wrote:
> >> Yes, Republicans are SO good at naming and labeling. The Dem's shoul=
d
> >> do the same by calling and labeling Rep's as greedy neo-fascist's
> >> who's only real religion is money and power.
> >
> > "Should"...? WTF do you think they do every time they open their lie=

> > holes?
>
>
> Speaking of "lie-holes" (whatever that is),
> what do you think of the following kneeslapper?
>
> "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological
> laboratories. They're illegal. They're against the United Nations
> resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more
> weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found
> the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong,
> we found them."
> George Bush, 5/31/03 regarding trailers Iraq bought from Britain
> to inflate hydrogen gas balloons.

This guy is really that stupid...unbelievable!





--
"Wenn du eine Leidenschaft hast, solltest
du dich durch Pr=FCgel nicht stoppen lassen."

Al Pacino

[Joseph]

"Outgoing V. Incoming" wrote:
>
> On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 03:06:41 GMT, Joseph > wrote:
>
> >According to Article 85 of the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice)
> >Bush (the present) is a *deserter.*
>
> Are you really an idiot or do you just play one on Usenet?
>
> Bush was not on active duty. He was a member of the Air National
> Guard. There is no "AWOL" or "Deserter" status with the Guard while
> not on Federal duty.
>
> The worst one could claim -- and the evidence is missing rather than
> present -- is that he "missed training."
>
> You can wish it were true, but that doesn't change it.

You can read the text of Article 85 at-

http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/mcm/bl85.htm?once=true&

"Any member of the armed forces who-" Point out where it mentions duty status.
Was GWBush a member of the armed forces or not?

BTW, why do you guys resort to personal insults when someone points out
something not to your liking?

J

[Joseph]

Bob Harrington wrote:
>
> Joseph wrote:
> > Mitchell Holman wrote:
> >>
> >> (Grantland) wrote in news:3f3d4045.37561276@ct-
> >> news.iafrica.com:
> >>
> >>> Mitchell Holman > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Speaking of "lie-holes" (whatever that is),
> >>>> what do you think of the following kneeslapper?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological
> >>>> laboratories. They're illegal. They're against the United Nations
> >>>> resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more
> >>>> weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found
> >>>> the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong,
> >>>> we found them."
> >>>> George Bush, 5/31/03 regarding trailers Iraq bought from Britain
> >>>> to inflate hydrogen gas balloons.
> >>>>
> >>> Little ****ing freak, in his little ****ing freaksuit. Cocky little
> >>> birdlike strutting freak. A twisted, deformed little spirit utterly
> >>> unworthy of the Presidency.
> >>>
> >>> You heard it here.
> >>>
> >>> Grantland
> >>
> >> Wonder how long it will take the Loyalists
> >> to resort to their "yea, well what about Clinton"
> >> diversion.......
> >
> > According to Article 85 of the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice)
> > Bush (the present) is a *deserter.*
>
> You, of course, will provide evidence of his court martial and
> conviction on these charges.

He never was. That's the problem.

J

[Mitchell Holman]

Joseph > wrote in :

> Bob Harrington wrote:
>>
>> Joseph wrote:
>> > Mitchell Holman wrote:
>> >>
>> >> (Grantland) wrote in news:3f3d4045.37561276@ct-
>> >> news.iafrica.com:
>> >>
>> >>> Mitchell Holman > wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>> Speaking of "lie-holes" (whatever that is),
>> >>>> what do you think of the following kneeslapper?
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological
>> >>>> laboratories. They're illegal. They're against the United Nations
>> >>>> resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more
>> >>>> weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found
>> >>>> the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're
wrong,
>> >>>> we found them."
>> >>>> George Bush, 5/31/03 regarding trailers Iraq bought from Britain
>> >>>> to inflate hydrogen gas balloons.
>> >>>>
>> >>> Little ****ing freak, in his little ****ing freaksuit. Cocky
little
>> >>> birdlike strutting freak. A twisted, deformed little spirit
utterly
>> >>> unworthy of the Presidency.
>> >>>
>> >>> You heard it here.
>> >>>
>> >>> Grantland
>> >>
>> >> Wonder how long it will take the Loyalists
>> >> to resort to their "yea, well what about Clinton"
>> >> diversion.......
>> >
>> > According to Article 85 of the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military
Justice)
>> > Bush (the present) is a *deserter.*
>>
>> You, of course, will provide evidence of his court martial and
>> conviction on these charges.
>
> He never was. That's the problem.


Wealth and connections are like that.

What was it Ann Richards said about him?
"Born on third base and he thinks he hit a
triple", IIRC.

[Charles A. Peavey]

This is fascinating:

I've enjoyed many of your photo's but this last set of rants is absolutely
unbelievable: I'd have never guessed. I am no friend of our current
President but when I think of 9-11 under Al Gore or Ralph Nader it scares
the hell out of me.

Best regards,
Charles
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> "Frederik Paul" > wrote in message
> ...
> "Steven P. McNicoll" schrieb:
>
> > "Joseph" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > Bush lied. Pretty simple, really.
> > >
> >
> > Spoken about a true moron.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> > ----
>
>
>
>
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote nothing above, "Frederik Paul" is void of
> integrity.
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Charles A. Peavey" > wrote in message
...
>
> This is fascinating:
>
> I've enjoyed many of your photo's but this last set of rants is absolutely
> unbelievable: I'd have never guessed. I am no friend of our current
> President but when I think of 9-11 under Al Gore or Ralph Nader it scares
> the hell out of me.
>

I posted a set of rants?

[Bob McKellar]

Mitchell Holman wrote:

> Joseph > wrote in :
>
> > Bob Harrington wrote:
> >>
> >> Joseph wrote:
> >> > Mitchell Holman wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> (Grantland) wrote in news:3f3d4045.37561276@ct-
> >> >> news.iafrica.com:
> >> >>
> >> >>> Mitchell Holman > wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> Speaking of "lie-holes" (whatever that is),
> >> >>>> what do you think of the following kneeslapper?
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological
> >> >>>> laboratories. They're illegal. They're against the United Nations
> >> >>>> resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more
> >> >>>> weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found
> >> >>>> the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're
> wrong,
> >> >>>> we found them."
> >> >>>> George Bush, 5/31/03 regarding trailers Iraq bought from Britain
> >> >>>> to inflate hydrogen gas balloons.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>> Little ****ing freak, in his little ****ing freaksuit. Cocky
> little
> >> >>> birdlike strutting freak. A twisted, deformed little spirit
> utterly
> >> >>> unworthy of the Presidency.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> You heard it here.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Grantland
> >> >>
> >> >> Wonder how long it will take the Loyalists
> >> >> to resort to their "yea, well what about Clinton"
> >> >> diversion.......
> >> >
> >> > According to Article 85 of the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military
> Justice)
> >> > Bush (the present) is a *deserter.*
> >>
> >> You, of course, will provide evidence of his court martial and
> >> conviction on these charges.
> >
> > He never was. That's the problem.
>
> Wealth and connections are like that.
>
> What was it Ann Richards said about him?
> "Born on third base and he thinks he hit a
> triple", IIRC.

Actually, she said that about GHWB/Bush I/Bush 41/ however you wish to
remember him, speaking at the Democratic National Convention in 1988 . He
was the Bush that fought in a war, and, AFAIK, has never been accused of
drug/alcohol abuse. Please try to keep your Bushes straight.

Bob McKellar

[Joseph]

"Outgoing V. Incoming" wrote:
>
> On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 21:15:47 GMT, Joseph > wrote:
>
> >> You can wish it were true, but that doesn't change it.
> >
> >You can read the text of Article 85 at-
>
> Article 85 does not apply to anyone not on Federalized status.
>
> That's what you don't seem to get.

Was GWBush a member of the armed forces or not?

[Thom]

On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 06:51:47 GMT, Joseph > wrote:

>"Outgoing V. Incoming" wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 21:15:47 GMT, Joseph > wrote:
>>
>> >> You can wish it were true, but that doesn't change it.
>> >
>> >You can read the text of Article 85 at-
>>
>> Article 85 does not apply to anyone not on Federalized status.
>>
>> That's what you don't seem to get.
>
>Was GWBush a member of the armed forces or not?

The doll comes without an aircraft or the ability to fly it. You
decide.

THOM

[B2431]

>
>Yes, Republicans are SO good at naming and labeling. The Dem's should do
>the same by calling and labeling Rep's as greedy neo-fascist's who's
>only real religion is money and power.
>
>
>
I hate to clue you, but all sides resort to childish behaviour all too
frequently.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Bob Harrington]

Joseph wrote:
> Bob Harrington wrote:
>>
>> Joseph wrote:
>>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>
>>>> (Grantland) wrote in news:3f3d4045.37561276@ct-
>>>> news.iafrica.com:
>>>>
>>>>> Mitchell Holman > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Speaking of "lie-holes" (whatever that is),
>>>>>> what do you think of the following kneeslapper?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological
>>>>>> laboratories. They're illegal. They're against the United Nations
>>>>>> resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more
>>>>>> weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found
>>>>>> the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're
>>>>>> wrong, we found them."
>>>>>> George Bush, 5/31/03 regarding trailers Iraq bought from Britain
>>>>>> to inflate hydrogen gas balloons.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Little ****ing freak, in his little ****ing freaksuit. Cocky
>>>>> little birdlike strutting freak. A twisted, deformed little
>>>>> spirit utterly unworthy of the Presidency.
>>>>>
>>>>> You heard it here.
>>>>>
>>>>> Grantland
>>>>
>>>> Wonder how long it will take the Loyalists
>>>> to resort to their "yea, well what about Clinton"
>>>> diversion.......
>>>
>>> According to Article 85 of the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military
>>> Justice) Bush (the present) is a *deserter.*
>>
>> You, of course, will provide evidence of his court martial and
>> conviction on these charges.
>
> He never was. That's the problem.

For you and a few others, maybe. Doesn't seem to bother the other
99.99% of the country at all.

[David Stinson]

Bob Harrington wrote:

> For you and a few others, maybe. Doesn't seem to bother the other
> 99.99% of the country at all.

Bob, you are attempting to reason with an emotive creature.
Most are commonly (and incorrectly) called "liberals."
Such beasts cannot reason- they can only "feel"
and rationalize. They didn't get what they wanted in 2000,
and they have seethed in hatred and resentment ever since.
No logic, no fact, no amount of patient explanation
will reach them; you might as well attempt to reason
with a rabid dog. They are to be defeated and shunned-
religated to minor roles as laborers and to the "artistic"
community, where a well-developed sense of fantasy
is actually of some use.
D.S.

[Mitchell Holman]

Outgoing V. Incoming > wrote in
:

> On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 06:51:47 GMT, Joseph > wrote:
>
>>"Outgoing V. Incoming" wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 21:15:47 GMT, Joseph > wrote:
>>>
>>> >> You can wish it were true, but that doesn't change it.
>>> >
>>> >You can read the text of Article 85 at-
>>>
>>> Article 85 does not apply to anyone not on Federalized status.
>>>
>>> That's what you don't seem to get.
>>
>>Was GWBush a member of the armed forces or not?
>
>
> He was a member of the Air National Guard not on active duty.


So his orders to report for duty
in Alabama were just suggestions?

Boy, no wonder he pulled so many
strings to get that cushy Guard posting...

[Tarver Engineering]

"Mitchell Holman" > wrote in message
...
> Outgoing V. Incoming > wrote in
> :
>
> > On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 06:51:47 GMT, Joseph > wrote:
> >
> >>"Outgoing V. Incoming" wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 21:15:47 GMT, Joseph > wrote:
> >>>
> >>> >> You can wish it were true, but that doesn't change it.
> >>> >
> >>> >You can read the text of Article 85 at-
> >>>
> >>> Article 85 does not apply to anyone not on Federalized status.
> >>>
> >>> That's what you don't seem to get.
> >>
> >>Was GWBush a member of the armed forces or not?
> >
> >
> > He was a member of the Air National Guard not on active duty.
>
>
> So his orders to report for duty
> in Alabama were just suggestions?

Those Orders were not subject to the code section defining AWOL.

> Boy, no wonder he pulled so many
> strings to get that cushy Guard posting...

Not wanting to go to Viet Nam is not the same as not serving,

Gore's 4 month service tour of the whore houses of Saigon was less dangerous
than GW's being a fighter pilot. Besides that, the Kerry stategy is doomed
by Dean.

[Joseph]

Bob Harrington wrote:
>
> Joseph wrote:
> > Bob Harrington wrote:
> >>
> >> Joseph wrote:
> >>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> (Grantland) wrote in news:3f3d4045.37561276@ct-
> >>>> news.iafrica.com:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Mitchell Holman > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Speaking of "lie-holes" (whatever that is),
> >>>>>> what do you think of the following kneeslapper?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological
> >>>>>> laboratories. They're illegal. They're against the United Nations
> >>>>>> resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more
> >>>>>> weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found
> >>>>>> the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're
> >>>>>> wrong, we found them."
> >>>>>> George Bush, 5/31/03 regarding trailers Iraq bought from Britain
> >>>>>> to inflate hydrogen gas balloons.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Little ****ing freak, in his little ****ing freaksuit. Cocky
> >>>>> little birdlike strutting freak. A twisted, deformed little
> >>>>> spirit utterly unworthy of the Presidency.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You heard it here.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Grantland
> >>>>
> >>>> Wonder how long it will take the Loyalists
> >>>> to resort to their "yea, well what about Clinton"
> >>>> diversion.......
> >>>
> >>> According to Article 85 of the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military
> >>> Justice) Bush (the present) is a *deserter.*
> >>
> >> You, of course, will provide evidence of his court martial and
> >> conviction on these charges.
> >
> > He never was. That's the problem.
>
> For you and a few others, maybe. Doesn't seem to bother the other
> 99.99% of the country at all.

That, too, is the problem.

[Joseph]

"Outgoing V. Incoming" wrote:
>
> On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 06:51:47 GMT, Joseph > wrote:
>
> >"Outgoing V. Incoming" wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 21:15:47 GMT, Joseph > wrote:
> >>
> >> >> You can wish it were true, but that doesn't change it.
> >> >
> >> >You can read the text of Article 85 at-
> >>
> >> Article 85 does not apply to anyone not on Federalized status.
> >>
> >> That's what you don't seem to get.
> >
> >Was GWBush a member of the armed forces or not?
>
> He was a member of the Air National Guard not on active duty.

Show me where it says a member of the ANG not on active duty is *not* a
member of the armed forces and I'll concede the point.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Joseph" > wrote in message
...
> "Outgoing V. Incoming" wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 06:51:47 GMT, Joseph > wrote:
> >
> > >"Outgoing V. Incoming" wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 21:15:47 GMT, Joseph > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >> You can wish it were true, but that doesn't change it.
> > >> >
> > >> >You can read the text of Article 85 at-
> > >>
> > >> Article 85 does not apply to anyone not on Federalized status.
> > >>
> > >> That's what you don't seem to get.
> > >
> > >Was GWBush a member of the armed forces or not?
> >
> > He was a member of the Air National Guard not on active duty.
>
> Show me where it says a member of the ANG not on active duty is *not* a
> member of the armed forces and I'll concede the point.
>

UNIFORM CODE of MILITARY JUSTICE

SUB CHAPTER I. GENERAL PROVISIONS

ARTICLE 2. PERSONS SUBJECT TO THIS CHAPTER

(a) The following persons are subject to this chapter:

(1) Members of a regular component of the armed forces, including those
awaiting discharge after expiration of their terms of enlistment; volunteers
from the time of their muster or acceptance into the armed forces; inductees
from the time of their actual induction into the armed forces; and other
persons lawfully called or ordered into, or to duty in or for training in
the armed forces, from the dates when they are required by the terms of the
call or order to obey it.

(2) Cadets, aviation cadets, and midshipman.

(3) Members of a reserve component while on inactive-duty training, but in
the case of members of the Army National Guard of the United States or the
Air National Guard of the United States only when in Federal Service.

(4) Retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are
entitled to pay.

(5) Retired members of a reserve component who are receiving
hospitalization from an armed force.

(6) Members of the Fleet Reserve and Fleet Marine Corps Reserve.

(7) Persons in custody of the armed forces serving a sentence imposed by a
court-martial.

(8) Members of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Public
Health Service, and other organizations, when assigned to and serving with
the armed forces.

(9) Prisoners of war in custody of the armed forces.

(10) In time of war, persons serving with or accompanying an armed force
in the field.

(11) Subject to any treaty or agreement to which the United States is or
may be a party to any accepted rule of international law, persons serving
with, employed by, or accompanying the armed forces outside the United
States and outside the Canal Zone, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam,
and the Virgin Islands.

(12) Subject to any treaty or agreement to which the United States is or
may be a party to any accepted rule of international law, persons within an
area leased by or otherwise reserved or acquired for use of the United
States which is under the control of the Secretary concerned and which is
outside the United States and outside the Canal Zone, the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands. (b) The voluntary enlistment of
any person who has the capacity to understand the significance of enlisting
in the armed forces shall be valid for purposes of jurisdiction under
subsection (a) and change of status from civilian to member of the armed
forces shall be effective upon the taking of the oath of enlistment. (c)
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a person serving with an armed
force who--(1) Submitted voluntarily to military authority; (2) met the
mental competence and minimum age qualifications of sections 504 and 505 of
this title at the time of voluntary submissions to military authority: (3)
received military pay or allowances; and (4) performed military duties: is
subject to this chapter until such person's active service has been
terminated in accordance with law or regulations promulgated by the
Secretary concerned. (d) (1) A member of a reserve component who is not on
active duty and who is made the subject of proceedings under section 815
(article 15) or section 830 (article 30) with respect to an offense against
this chapter may be ordered to active duty involuntary for the purpose
of-(A) investigation under section 832 of this title (article 32); (B) trial
by court-martial; or (C) non judicial punishment under section 815 of this
title (article 15). (2) A member of a reserve component may not be ordered
to
active duty under paragraph (1) except with respect to an offense committed
while the member was (A) on active duty; or (B) on inactive-duty training,
but in the case of members of the Army National Guard of the United States
or the Air National Guard of the United States only when in Federal service.
(3) Authority to order a member to active duty under paragraph (1) shall be
exercised under regulations prescribed by the President. (4) A member may be
ordered to active duty under paragraph (1) only by a person empowered to
convene general courts-martial in a regular component of the armed forces.
(5) A member ordered to active duty under paragraph (1), unless the order to
active duty was approved by the Secretary concerned, may not-(A) be
sentenced to confinement; or (B) be required to serve a punishment of any
restriction on liberty during a period other than a period of inactive-duty
training or active duty (other than active duty ordered under paragraph (1).

[Stephen Harding]

> Yes, Republicans are SO good at naming and labeling. The Dem's should do
> the same by calling and labeling Rep's as greedy neo-fascist's who's
> only real religion is money and power.

You mean the Dems don't already do that?


SMH

[Tarver Engineering]

"Outgoing V. Incoming" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 13:35:00 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote:
>
> >> > He was a member of the Air National Guard not on active duty.
> >>
> >>
> >> So his orders to report for duty
> >> in Alabama were just suggestions?
> >
> >Those Orders were not subject to the code section defining AWOL.
>
>
> I think it's hopeless trying to reason with this guy. He has no
> interest in facts, just his hate for Bush. You'd think he and his ilk
> would want to concentrate on real issues and not false ones.

There are so many of those raging about, thinking they will somehow avenge
Clinton.

> If he really wanted to buy a clue, I might loan him the money. Might.

[Joseph]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
>
> "Joseph" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Outgoing V. Incoming" wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 06:51:47 GMT, Joseph > wrote:
> > >
> > > >"Outgoing V. Incoming" wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 21:15:47 GMT, Joseph > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> >> You can wish it were true, but that doesn't change it.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >You can read the text of Article 85 at-
> > > >>
> > > >> Article 85 does not apply to anyone not on Federalized status.
> > > >>
> > > >> That's what you don't seem to get.
> > > >
> > > >Was GWBush a member of the armed forces or not?
> > >
> > > He was a member of the Air National Guard not on active duty.
> >
> > Show me where it says a member of the ANG not on active duty is *not* a
> > member of the armed forces and I'll concede the point.
> >
>
> UNIFORM CODE of MILITARY JUSTICE
>
> SUB CHAPTER I. GENERAL PROVISIONS
>
> ARTICLE 2. PERSONS SUBJECT TO THIS CHAPTER
>
> (a) The following persons are subject to this chapter:
>
> (1) Members of a regular component of the armed forces, including those
> awaiting discharge after expiration of their terms of enlistment; volunteers
> from the time of their muster or acceptance into the armed forces; inductees
> from the time of their actual induction into the armed forces; and other
> persons lawfully called or ordered into, or to duty in or for training in
> the armed forces, from the dates when they are required by the terms of the
> call or order to obey it.
>
> (2) Cadets, aviation cadets, and midshipman.
>
> (3) Members of a reserve component while on inactive-duty training, but in
> the case of members of the Army National Guard of the United States or the
> Air National Guard of the United States only when in Federal Service.

Thank you. That's what I've been looking for. I hereby concede and
agree with you that GWBush was never a member of the armed forces of the
United States of America.

[Bob Harrington]

Joseph wrote:
> Bob Harrington wrote:
>>
>> Joseph wrote:
>>> Bob Harrington wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Joseph wrote:
>>>>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (Grantland) wrote in
>>>>>> news:3f3d4045.37561276@ct- news.iafrica.com:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mitchell Holman > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Speaking of "lie-holes" (whatever that is),
>>>>>>>> what do you think of the following kneeslapper?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological
>>>>>>>> laboratories. They're illegal. They're against the United
>>>>>>>> Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And
>>>>>>>> we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say
>>>>>>>> we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned
>>>>>>>> weapons, they're wrong, we found them."
>>>>>>>> George Bush, 5/31/03 regarding trailers Iraq bought from
>>>>>>>> Britain to inflate hydrogen gas balloons.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Little ****ing freak, in his little ****ing freaksuit. Cocky
>>>>>>> little birdlike strutting freak. A twisted, deformed little
>>>>>>> spirit utterly unworthy of the Presidency.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You heard it here.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Grantland
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wonder how long it will take the Loyalists
>>>>>> to resort to their "yea, well what about Clinton"
>>>>>> diversion.......
>>>>>
>>>>> According to Article 85 of the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military
>>>>> Justice) Bush (the present) is a *deserter.*
>>>>
>>>> You, of course, will provide evidence of his court martial and
>>>> conviction on these charges.
>>>
>>> He never was. That's the problem.
>>
>> For you and a few others, maybe. Doesn't seem to bother the other
>> 99.99% of the country at all.
>
> That, too, is the problem.

So... it's a problem that it wasn't a problem for Bush' commanding
officers; but it's not a problem that it ~is~ a problem for folks such
as yourself who apparently had far more direct knowledge and awareness
of the situation than said commanding officers...?

[Mitchell Holman]

Outgoing V. Incoming > wrote in
:

> On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 13:35:00 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote:
>
>>> > He was a member of the Air National Guard not on active duty.
>>>
>>>
>>> So his orders to report for duty
>>> in Alabama were just suggestions?
>>
>>Those Orders were not subject to the code section defining AWOL.
>
>
> I think it's hopeless trying to reason with this guy. He has no
> interest in facts, just his hate for Bush. You'd think he and his ilk
> would want to concentrate on real issues and not false ones.
>
> If he really wanted to buy a clue, I might loan him the money. Might.


Funny how the same people who claimed
Clinton "dodged the draft" are now twisting
themselves into pretzles to claim that
Bush was not AWOL.

[Mitchell Holman]

Outgoing V. Incoming > wrote in
:

> On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 12:43:15 GMT, Mitchell Holman
> > wrote:
>
>>Outgoing V. Incoming > wrote in
:
>>
>>> On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 13:35:00 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>> > He was a member of the Air National Guard not on active duty.
>
>>
>> Funny how the same people who claimed
>>Clinton "dodged the draft" are now twisting
>>themselves into pretzles to claim that
>>Bush was not AWOL.
>>
>>
>
>
> No pretzels necessary, Mitchell. The law is the law, the facts are the
> facts. He was never AWOL.


He was *ordered* to report for duty in Alabama.

He never showed up.

What do you call that - patriotic duty?

[Joseph]

"Outgoing V. Incoming" wrote:
>
> On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 06:18:33 GMT, Joseph > wrote:
>
> >"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
> >>
> >> "Joseph" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > "Outgoing V. Incoming" wrote:
>
> >> > > He was a member of the Air National Guard not on active duty.
> >> >
> >> > Show me where it says a member of the ANG not on active duty is *not* a
> >> > member of the armed forces and I'll concede the point.
> >> >
> >>
> >> UNIFORM CODE of MILITARY JUSTICE
> >>
> >> SUB CHAPTER I. GENERAL PROVISIONS
> >>
> >> ARTICLE 2. PERSONS SUBJECT TO THIS CHAPTER
> >>
> >> (a) The following persons are subject to this chapter:
> >>
> >> (1) Members of a regular component of the armed forces, including those
> >> awaiting discharge after expiration of their terms of enlistment; volunteers
> >> from the time of their muster or acceptance into the armed forces; inductees
> >> from the time of their actual induction into the armed forces; and other
> >> persons lawfully called or ordered into, or to duty in or for training in
> >> the armed forces, from the dates when they are required by the terms of the
> >> call or order to obey it.
> >>
> >> (2) Cadets, aviation cadets, and midshipman.
> >>
> >> (3) Members of a reserve component while on inactive-duty training, but in
> >> the case of members of the Army National Guard of the United States or the
> >> Air National Guard of the United States only when in Federal Service.
> >
> >Thank you. That's what I've been looking for. I hereby concede and
> >agree with you that GWBush was never a member of the armed forces of the
> >United States of America.
>
> I started out saying you were an asshole and I'm still right about
> that.

Suit yourself. If namecalling works for you, then, well, ok. Whatever.
>
> The point that is your to concede is not whether he was a member of
> the Armed Forces; it is that you claim that he was a AWOL or a
> deserter was a lie.

It follows from my concession that if he was never a member of the armed
forces then I admit he cannot be considered to have been either AWOL or
deserter. Simple logic, really.
>
> Yeah, I know

Are you psychic?

you were just parroting what you heard someone else say,
> but it was a lie nonetheless and you claimed it as truth.

You have no idea as to what I what I might have or have not heard.
"Lie" is a pretty strong word and it should be used with caution, much
as a two edged sword should be. Yet I just admitted that given the
definitions of "armed forces member"
(see above) GWBush cannot be considered to have been either AOL or deserter.
>
> Be a man about it.

Your move.

[Mitchell Holman]

Outgoing V. Incoming > wrote in
:

> On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 00:15:38 GMT, Mitchell Holman
> > wrote:
>
>
>>> No pretzels necessary, Mitchell. The law is the law, the facts are
the
>>> facts. He was never AWOL.
>>
>>
>> He was *ordered* to report for duty in Alabama.
>>
>> He never showed up.
>>
>> What do you call that - patriotic duty?
>>
>>
>
> Whatever it might be, it is neither AWOL nor desertion. Missing
> training, perhaps, but I'm sure that doesn't suit your agenda. You and
> Joseph seem to prefer a lie where the truth will do.


He disobeyed orders to report. Not a
fine example for a Commander in Chief who
demands that OTHERS report for duty in his
foreign adventures. No wonder the Guard
members in Iraq are chaffing about being
stuck there for the rest of the year.

[Dave]

Without getting too deeply involved in your argument. I've seen this
AWOL-deserter-etc. argument many times in many forums. The fairly obvious
truth is that GW was not doing what he was supposed to be doing. What he
had, at least in the opinion of some of his commanding officers what he had
been ordered and he had commited to do. There are many who believe he should
have been chraged. There are others who will line up on his side either
because of political loyalties, or because they like him and believe he is a
good president who is doing the things they would like done.

It is likely that the issue will continue to be a source of discourse for
some time. Not because of the issue itself but simply because of the actions
of your president. I look forward to his leaving office in the next
election, although I do think the republican party could pull this one out
of the fire by offering another candidate. The other fairly large question
is, could Al Gore have done any better with the issues that hit GW? I won't
even speculate. I do think that the general nature and character of those
offering for public office has declined, and that public offices are looking
pretty poor because of the types of individuals who occupy them.

[David Stinson]

Mitchell Holman wrote:

> He was *ordered* to report for duty in Alabama.
>
> He never showed up.
>
> What do you call that - patriotic duty?

It depends on what your definition of "is" is.

[Mitchell Holman]

David Stinson > wrote in news:3F421882.FA2F3624
@ix.netcom.com:

> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>
>> He was *ordered* to report for duty in Alabama.
>>
>> He never showed up.
>>
>> What do you call that - patriotic duty?
>
> It depends on what your definition of "is" is.


No, it depends more on who your daddy is
and what strings he can pull for you.

[David Stinson]

Mitchell Holman wrote:

> He disobeyed orders to report. Not a
> fine example for a Commander in Chief who
> demands that OTHERS report for duty in his
> foreign adventures...

This is a typical Democrat move.
If you can't get your "Big Lie" (Bush deserted)
to fly, crawfish back and try a few little lies,
see if you can get any traction with that.
Pitiful.... just pitiful.

[Mitchell Holman]

David Stinson > wrote in
:

> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>
>> He disobeyed orders to report. Not a
>> fine example for a Commander in Chief who
>> demands that OTHERS report for duty in his
>> foreign adventures...
>
> This is a typical Democrat move.
> If you can't get your "Big Lie" (Bush deserted)
> to fly, crawfish back and try a few little lies,
> see if you can get any traction with that.
> Pitiful.... just pitiful.
>

Save your ad hominems for someone else.
I never said Bush deserted. I said he failed
to report as ordered, and suffered absolutely
no consequences from it. If you have something
contrary to those points, by all means post it.

[David Stinson]

Dave wrote:
> I do think that the general nature and character of those
> offering for public office has declined, and that public offices
> are looking
> pretty poor because of the types of individuals who occupy them.

Great leaders can no longer seek public office in the West.
Leftists (Emotives) and their media dogs would instantly crucify them.
Any person who has the makings of great leadership has probably
stepped on a few toes, said a few things in passion,
written a few things that offended someone etc.
Great leadership is NOT born from great caution.
The great leader gets "in the arena." He gets bloodied,
makes mistakes, steps on a few toes, learns and finally
accomplishes worthy goals.

For example- I could never run for so much as "dog catcher."
Over the years, I've written things that have offended just
about everyone (for which I do *not* apologize, by the way).
One Google search and the media would have me roasting over
a pit. A leader must be willing to take a stand,
even if it's unpopular.
Do that today, and you'll be fried.
The mindless sheep of the electorate love
to destroy those who could lead them,
because it makes them feel better
about their pathetic, meaningless existence.
Ben Franklin, Teddy Roosevelt, Harry Truman,
even Abraham Lincoln for pity's sake, would have no chance whatever
were they faced with the Emotives of today.
The media dogs and the mindless mob of the electorate would rend them.

Robert Reich (an Emotive I actually *like*) was correct when
he wrote in his book, "Locked In the Cabinet," that
if you make one misstep in Washington, you're "mince meat."
As a result, few people take any real steps, at all.
I grant you that George Bush is not George Washington.
But he's as good a leader as we can hope to get in these times.
At least he's willing to take action and the heat he gets for it.
So unlike the treasonous Clintoon disgrace, who *talked* a good line
but *did* very little good (other than for his winkie).

D.S.

[Jesse]

"Dave" > wrote in
:

.. I look forward to his leaving office in
> the next election, although I do think the republican party could pull
> this one out of the fire by offering another candidate.

And I look forward to your slack jawed gay loving liberal trash french
wannabe leader leaving office likewise.

[alf blume]

Now leave this newsgroup NOW, Jesse, David and Dave with all your political
babble.
Post some pictures instead!

"Jesse" > wrote in message
...
> "Dave" > wrote in
> :
>
> . I look forward to his leaving office in
> > the next election, although I do think the republican party could pull
> > this one out of the fire by offering another candidate.
>
> And I look forward to your slack jawed gay loving liberal trash french
> wannabe leader leaving office likewise.
>
>
>

[Jesse]

"alf blume" > wrote in
k:

> Now leave this newsgroup NOW, Jesse, David and Dave with all your
> political babble.
> Post some pictures instead!

C'mon now alf - No one died and made you Lord of the Usenet.
He has no respect for my Prez,I have no respect for his,,um,,PM.
I can see yout point. I hate to see things drift off topic, but its a fact
of life on the usenet - You can be in a group about chocolate chip cookie
recipes and still run into this crap,so my advice would be either to get
used to it or ignore it.
Telling people TO STOP/LEAVE NOW !! certainly won't have the desired
effect,and indeed,some will post all the more off topic just to spite you.
>
> "Jesse" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Dave" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> . I look forward to his leaving office in
>> > the next election, although I do think the republican party could
>> > pull this one out of the fire by offering another candidate.
>>
>> And I look forward to your slack jawed gay loving liberal trash
>> french wannabe leader leaving office likewise.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

[Mitchell Holman]

Outgoing V. Incoming > wrote in
:

> On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 12:51:50 GMT, Mitchell Holman
> > wrote:
>
>>David Stinson > wrote in news:3F421882.FA2F3624
:
>>
>>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>
>>>> He was *ordered* to report for duty in Alabama.
>>>>
>>>> He never showed up.
>>>>
>>>> What do you call that - patriotic duty?
>>>
>>> It depends on what your definition of "is" is.
>>
>>
>> No, it depends more on who your daddy is
>>and what strings he can pull for you.
>>
>>
>>
>
> So your real problem is jealousy and class envy.


If so then at least I am in good company.



"I am angry that so many of the sons of the powerful
and well-placed... managed to wangle slots in Reserve
and National Guard units...Of the many tragedies of
Vietnam, this raw class discrimination strikes me as
the most damaging to the ideal that all Americans are
created equal and owe equal allegiance to their country."

(Colin Powell’s autobiography, My American Journey, p. 148)

[Bob Harrington]

Jesse wrote:
> "alf blume" > wrote in
> k:
>
>> Now leave this newsgroup NOW, Jesse, David and Dave with all your
>> political babble.
>> Post some pictures instead!
>
> C'mon now alf - No one died and made you Lord of the Usenet.
> He has no respect for my Prez,I have no respect for his,,um,,PM.
> I can see yout point. I hate to see things drift off topic, but its a
> fact of life on the usenet - You can be in a group about chocolate
> chip cookie recipes and still run into this crap,so my advice would
> be either to get used to it or ignore it.
> Telling people TO STOP/LEAVE NOW !! certainly won't have the desired
> effect,and indeed,some will post all the more off topic just to spite
> you.

So, getting back on topic -

Anybody have any good chocolate chip cookie recipes? ;^)

[David Stinson]

alf blume wrote:
>
> Now leave this newsgroup NOW, Jesse, David and Dave with all your political
> babble.
> Post some pictures instead!

Who died and left *you* in charge?
Get lost, ****ant.

[Jesse]

"Bob Harrington" > wrote in
news:3bA0b.204210$uu5.36789@sccrnsc04:

> Jesse wrote:
>> "alf blume" > wrote in
>> k:
>>
>>> Now leave this newsgroup NOW, Jesse, David and Dave with all your
>>> political babble.
>>> Post some pictures instead!
>>
>> C'mon now alf - No one died and made you Lord of the Usenet.
>> He has no respect for my Prez,I have no respect for his,,um,,PM.
>> I can see yout point. I hate to see things drift off topic, but its a
>> fact of life on the usenet - You can be in a group about chocolate
>> chip cookie recipes and still run into this crap,so my advice would
>> be either to get used to it or ignore it.
>> Telling people TO STOP/LEAVE NOW !! certainly won't have the desired
>> effect,and indeed,some will post all the more off topic just to spite
>> you.
>
> So, getting back on topic -
>
> Anybody have any good chocolate chip cookie recipes? ;^)
>
>
>

I'll ask that question to my wifes,and as soon as I think of a way to
somehow tie that in with aircraft,I'll post the results.
B-52 shaped cookie perhaps hmmmm .. ?

[alf blume]

"David Stinson" : >Get lost, ****ant.<

:-)

:-)

"David Stinson" > wrote in message
...
> alf blume wrote:
> >
> > Now leave this newsgroup NOW, Jesse, David and Dave with all your
political
> > babble.
> > Post some pictures instead!
>
> Who died and left *you* in charge?
> Get lost, ****ant.

[Dave]

"Jesse" > wrote in message
...
> >> He has no respect for my Prez,I have no respect for his,,um,,PM.
> >> I can see yout point.

C'mon now, lots of people have no respect for GW. I'm just another face in a
very large crowd. If it makes you feel any better I could have a great deal
of respect for the presidency, there have been some fine ones. It just seems
lately that you've all been electing the village idiot just for a joke.

[Jesse]

Dave wrote:
> "Jesse" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>>>He has no respect for my Prez,I have no respect for his,,um,,PM.
>>>>I can see yout point.
>>>
>
> C'mon now, lots of people have no respect for GW. I'm just another face in a
> very large crowd. If it makes you feel any better I could have a great deal
> of respect for the presidency, there have been some fine ones. It just seems
> lately that you've all been electing the village idiot just for a joke.
>
>

I never said you weren't entitled to your opinions,assinine though they
may be.
And a canadanadian has no room to talk about electing idiots.
Your children have a very strong chance of growing up to be pot
smoking,gay,gambling addicted legal whores thanks to the decisions of
your government.
You have let yourself become liberalized to the point of ludicrousness
,and you should worry about whats simmering in your own kettle before
you cast barbs at others.

[Andrew Chaplin]

[Binary groups trimmed.]

Jesse wrote:

> I never said you weren't entitled to your opinions,assinine though they
> may be.
> And a canadanadian has no room to talk about electing idiots.
> Your children have a very strong chance of growing up to be pot
> smoking,gay,gambling addicted legal whores thanks to the decisions of
> your government.

Well, we have a higher birth rate, so I guess we're not a "gay" as you
think we are, we smoke slightly less, and our casinos seem primarily
to work as a ploy to ensure U.S. tourists leave as much of their cash
behind as possible. Our government makes few decisions the majority do
not support or cannot learn to accept (kinda like yours, I suspect).
Whores? Well, a man has to have a hobby.

> You have let yourself become liberalized to the point of ludicrousness,
> and you should worry about whats simmering in your own kettle before
> you cast barbs at others.

We are only following a liberal path that follows logically from our
polity's European origins, just like yours (you are liberals, but most
of you haven't done the basic philosophy, just like most
"canadanadians", to recognize it). The only thing we really have to
look out for is the fact we have failed, *miserably* IMO, to get our
aboriginal population to buy in to our political processes.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[CyberKnight]

I would really like a pic of the doll. Anyone,,,,,,,, TIA



"Joseph" > wrote in message
...
> "Outgoing V. Incoming" wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 06:18:33 GMT, Joseph > wrote:
> >
> > >"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
> > >>
> > >> "Joseph" > wrote in message
> > >> ...
> > >> > "Outgoing V. Incoming" wrote:
> >
> > >> > > He was a member of the Air National Guard not on active duty.
> > >> >
> > >> > Show me where it says a member of the ANG not on active duty is
*not* a
> > >> > member of the armed forces and I'll concede the point.
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> UNIFORM CODE of MILITARY JUSTICE
> > >>
> > >> SUB CHAPTER I. GENERAL PROVISIONS
> > >>
> > >> ARTICLE 2. PERSONS SUBJECT TO THIS CHAPTER
> > >>
> > >> (a) The following persons are subject to this chapter:
> > >>
> > >> (1) Members of a regular component of the armed forces, including
those
> > >> awaiting discharge after expiration of their terms of enlistment;
volunteers
> > >> from the time of their muster or acceptance into the armed forces;
inductees
> > >> from the time of their actual induction into the armed forces; and
other
> > >> persons lawfully called or ordered into, or to duty in or for
training in
> > >> the armed forces, from the dates when they are required by the terms
of the
> > >> call or order to obey it.
> > >>
> > >> (2) Cadets, aviation cadets, and midshipman.
> > >>
> > >> (3) Members of a reserve component while on inactive-duty training,
but in
> > >> the case of members of the Army National Guard of the United States
or the
> > >> Air National Guard of the United States only when in Federal Service.
> > >
> > >Thank you. That's what I've been looking for. I hereby concede and
> > >agree with you that GWBush was never a member of the armed forces of
the
> > >United States of America.
> >
> > I started out saying you were an asshole and I'm still right about
> > that.
>
> Suit yourself. If namecalling works for you, then, well, ok. Whatever.
> >
> > The point that is your to concede is not whether he was a member of
> > the Armed Forces; it is that you claim that he was a AWOL or a
> > deserter was a lie.
>
> It follows from my concession that if he was never a member of the armed
> forces then I admit he cannot be considered to have been either AWOL or
> deserter. Simple logic, really.
> >
> > Yeah, I know
>
> Are you psychic?
>
> you were just parroting what you heard someone else say,
> > but it was a lie nonetheless and you claimed it as truth.
>
> You have no idea as to what I what I might have or have not heard.
> "Lie" is a pretty strong word and it should be used with caution, much
> as a two edged sword should be. Yet I just admitted that given the
> definitions of "armed forces member"
> (see above) GWBush cannot be considered to have been either AOL or
deserter.
> >
> > Be a man about it.
>
> Your move.

[CyberKnight]

Whow David, Sure do wish I had said that!


"David Stinson" > wrote in message
...
> Bob Harrington wrote:
>
> > For you and a few others, maybe. Doesn't seem to bother the other
> > 99.99% of the country at all.
>
> Bob, you are attempting to reason with an emotive creature.
> Most are commonly (and incorrectly) called "liberals."
> Such beasts cannot reason- they can only "feel"
> and rationalize. They didn't get what they wanted in 2000,
> and they have seethed in hatred and resentment ever since.
> No logic, no fact, no amount of patient explanation
> will reach them; you might as well attempt to reason
> with a rabid dog. They are to be defeated and shunned-
> religated to minor roles as laborers and to the "artistic"
> community, where a well-developed sense of fantasy
> is actually of some use.
> D.S.

[Herb]

Right on , David!


"CyberKnight" > wrote in message
...
> Whow David, Sure do wish I had said that!
>
>
> "David Stinson" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Bob Harrington wrote:
> >
> > > For you and a few others, maybe. Doesn't seem to bother the other
> > > 99.99% of the country at all.
> >
> > Bob, you are attempting to reason with an emotive creature.
> > Most are commonly (and incorrectly) called "liberals."
> > Such beasts cannot reason- they can only "feel"
> > and rationalize. They didn't get what they wanted in 2000,
> > and they have seethed in hatred and resentment ever since.
> > No logic, no fact, no amount of patient explanation
> > will reach them; you might as well attempt to reason
> > with a rabid dog. They are to be defeated and shunned-
> > religated to minor roles as laborers and to the "artistic"
> > community, where a well-developed sense of fantasy
> > is actually of some use.
> > D.S.
>
>

[rufus t]

so if a person doesn't agree with you, then it's because he's a beast
incapable of reason?

egotism
SYLLABICATION: e·go·tism
PRONUNCIATION: AUDIO: g-tzm, g- KEY
NOUN: 1. The tendency to speak or write of oneself excessively and
boastfully.
2. An inflated sense of one's own importance; conceit. See synonyms at
conceit.


"Herb" > wrote in message
...
> Right on , David!
>
>
> "CyberKnight" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Whow David, Sure do wish I had said that!
> >
> >
> > "David Stinson" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Bob Harrington wrote:
> > >
> > > > For you and a few others, maybe. Doesn't seem to bother the other
> > > > 99.99% of the country at all.
> > >
> > > Bob, you are attempting to reason with an emotive creature.
> > > Most are commonly (and incorrectly) called "liberals."
> > > Such beasts cannot reason- they can only "feel"
> > > and rationalize. They didn't get what they wanted in 2000,
> > > and they have seethed in hatred and resentment ever since.
> > > No logic, no fact, no amount of patient explanation
> > > will reach them; you might as well attempt to reason
> > > with a rabid dog. They are to be defeated and shunned-
> > > religated to minor roles as laborers and to the "artistic"
> > > community, where a well-developed sense of fantasy
> > > is actually of some use.
> > > D.S.
> >
> >
>
>

[Nicolas Kinnan]

In article >,
"Herb" > wrote:

> Right on , David!
>
>
> "CyberKnight" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Whow David, Sure do wish I had said that!
> >
> >
> > "David Stinson" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Bob Harrington wrote:
> > >
> > > > For you and a few others, maybe. Doesn't seem to bother the other
> > > > 99.99% of the country at all.
> > >
> > > Bob, you are attempting to reason with an emotive creature.
> > > Most are commonly (and incorrectly) called "liberals."
> > > Such beasts cannot reason- they can only "feel"
> > > and rationalize. They didn't get what they wanted in 2000,
> > > and they have seethed in hatred and resentment ever since.
> > > No logic, no fact, no amount of patient explanation
> > > will reach them; you might as well attempt to reason
> > > with a rabid dog. They are to be defeated and shunned-
> > > religated to minor roles as laborers and to the "artistic"
> > > community, where a well-developed sense of fantasy
> > > is actually of some use.
> > > D.S.
> >
> >
>
>

I have come late to this bit of nonsense, but, in the interests of fun,
I thought I might add my two cents...

The first is what I think would be a reasonable "rearrangement" of
D.S.'s post:


<<Bob, you are attempting to reason with an emotive creature.
Most are commonly (and incorrectly) called ["conservatives."]
Such [folks] cannot reason- they can only "feel"
and rationalize. They didn't get what they wanted in [1992 and 1996],
and they seethed in hatred and resentment [clear up into 2001].
No logic, no fact, no amount of patient explanation
will reach them; you might as well attempt to reason
with a rabid dog. They are to be [converted, feared, or ignored]-
religated to minor roles as [mid-level executives and bankers] and, God
willing, to the "artistic" community, where [they hopefully might
develop an actual sense of compassion, reason, or imagination so as to
actually be] of some use.>>


SECOND is that past presidents who had served in the military generally
accepted the idea that they should not ever appear in military or
military-like uniform once they were president. Men like Eisenhower and
Kennedy realised that it was VERY important to maintain the clear
seperation of the miltary from the civilian government that rightfully
commands it. There are people who are upset at W over his carrier stunt
because it made us look to the world like some third world despotism.
Now I know it was probably all in good fun and he's just an eager guy
wanting to show his support for our troops, but still, it was a breach
of protocol and many who were upset by it were legitimately upset.

I'm not going to criticize folks here for being off topic as one of the
reasons I enjoy this group is for the occasional lively exchange like
this. Even when somebody really ****es you off, you at least know that
there is one thing that you agree on -- human flight. It's kind of like
arguing with family, I suppose. The cool thing is that, technically,
this topic really is aviation related!

Nicolas

[David Stinson]

Nicolas Kinnan wrote:
>
> I have come late to this bit of nonsense,....
The only correct thing you had to say.
Next time you want to show your ass,
be quicker about it.
D.S.

[John Keeney]

"Nicolas Kinnan" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Herb" > wrote:
>
> > Right on , David!
> >
> >
> > "CyberKnight" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Whow David, Sure do wish I had said that!
> > >
> > >
> > > "David Stinson" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > Bob Harrington wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > For you and a few others, maybe. Doesn't seem to bother the other
> > > > > 99.99% of the country at all.
> > > >
> > > > Bob, you are attempting to reason with an emotive creature.
> > > > Most are commonly (and incorrectly) called "liberals."
> > > > Such beasts cannot reason- they can only "feel"
> > > > and rationalize. They didn't get what they wanted in 2000,
> > > > and they have seethed in hatred and resentment ever since.
> > > > No logic, no fact, no amount of patient explanation
> > > > will reach them; you might as well attempt to reason
> > > > with a rabid dog. They are to be defeated and shunned-
> > > > religated to minor roles as laborers and to the "artistic"
> > > > community, where a well-developed sense of fantasy
> > > > is actually of some use.
> > > > D.S.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
> I have come late to this bit of nonsense, but, in the interests of fun,
> I thought I might add my two cents...
>
> The first is what I think would be a reasonable "rearrangement" of
> D.S.'s post:

Yea, you can say that, it just fails the "reasonable" test,
it wasn't a conservative who said "I *feel* your pain."
Just what part of a woman's anatomy is the "pain" anyway?

> <<Bob, you are attempting to reason with an emotive creature.
> Most are commonly (and incorrectly) called ["conservatives."]
> Such [folks] cannot reason- they can only "feel"
> and rationalize. They didn't get what they wanted in [1992 and 1996],
> and they seethed in hatred and resentment [clear up into 2001].
> No logic, no fact, no amount of patient explanation
> will reach them; you might as well attempt to reason
> with a rabid dog. They are to be [converted, feared, or ignored]-
> religated to minor roles as [mid-level executives and bankers] and, God
> willing, to the "artistic" community, where [they hopefully might
> develop an actual sense of compassion, reason, or imagination so as to
> actually be] of some use.>>
>
>
> SECOND is that past presidents who had served in the military generally
> accepted the idea that they should not ever appear in military or
> military-like uniform once they were president. Men like Eisenhower and
> Kennedy realised that it was VERY important to maintain the clear
> seperation of the miltary from the civilian government that rightfully
> commands it. There are people who are upset at W over his carrier stunt
> because it made us look to the world like some third world despotism.
> Now I know it was probably all in good fun and he's just an eager guy
> wanting to show his support for our troops, but still, it was a breach
> of protocol and many who were upset by it were legitimately upset.
>
> I'm not going to criticize folks here for being off topic as one of the
> reasons I enjoy this group is for the occasional lively exchange like
> this. Even when somebody really ****es you off, you at least know that
> there is one thing that you agree on -- human flight. It's kind of like
> arguing with family, I suppose. The cool thing is that, technically,
> this topic really is aviation related!
>
> Nicolas

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Gw Bush toy doll in flightgear - now available
>From: "John Keeney"
>Date: 9/23/03 10:24 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id:

>> SECOND is that past presidents who had served in the military generally
>> accepted the idea that they should not ever appear in military or
>> military-like uniform once they were president. Men like Eisenhower and
>> Kennedy realised that it was VERY important to maintain the clear
>> seperation of the miltary from the civilian government that rightfully
>> commands it. There are people who are upset at W over his carrier stunt
>> because it made us look to the world like some third world despotism.
>> Now I know it was probably all in good fun and he's just an eager guy
>> wanting to show his support for our troops, but still, it was a breach
>> of protocol and many who were upset by it were legitimately upset.
>>

There were real combat airmen who died in that uniform. It should not be worn
in vain as a political stunt.



Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Kevin Brooks]

(ArtKramr) wrote in message >...
> >Subject: Re: Gw Bush toy doll in flightgear - now available
> >From: "John Keeney"
> >Date: 9/23/03 10:24 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id:
>
> >> SECOND is that past presidents who had served in the military generally
> >> accepted the idea that they should not ever appear in military or
> >> military-like uniform once they were president. Men like Eisenhower and
> >> Kennedy realised that it was VERY important to maintain the clear
> >> seperation of the miltary from the civilian government that rightfully
> >> commands it. There are people who are upset at W over his carrier stunt
> >> because it made us look to the world like some third world despotism.
> >> Now I know it was probably all in good fun and he's just an eager guy
> >> wanting to show his support for our troops, but still, it was a breach
> >> of protocol and many who were upset by it were legitimately upset.
> >>
>
> There were real combat airmen who died in that uniform. It should not be worn
> in vain as a political stunt.

Gee, I wonder why you don't similarly decry Clinton's wearing of a
flight jacket on occasion?

Brooks

>
>
>
> Arthur Kramer
> 344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Roger]

In article >, says...
>
> "Nicolas Kinnan" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Herb" > wrote:
> >
> > > Right on , David!
> > >
> > >
> > > "CyberKnight" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > Whow David, Sure do wish I had said that!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "David Stinson" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > Bob Harrington wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > For you and a few others, maybe. Doesn't seem to bother the other
> > > > > > 99.99% of the country at all.
> > > > >
> > > > > Bob, you are attempting to reason with an emotive creature.
> > > > > Most are commonly (and incorrectly) called "liberals."
> > > > > Such beasts cannot reason- they can only "feel"
> > > > > and rationalize. They didn't get what they wanted in 2000,
> > > > > and they have seethed in hatred and resentment ever since.
> > > > > No logic, no fact, no amount of patient explanation
> > > > > will reach them; you might as well attempt to reason
> > > > > with a rabid dog. They are to be defeated and shunned-
> > > > > religated to minor roles as laborers and to the "artistic"
> > > > > community, where a well-developed sense of fantasy
> > > > > is actually of some use.
> > > > > D.S.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > I have come late to this bit of nonsense, but, in the interests of fun,
> > I thought I might add my two cents...
> >
> > The first is what I think would be a reasonable "rearrangement" of
> > D.S.'s post:
>
> Yea, you can say that, it just fails the "reasonable" test,
> it wasn't a conservative who said "I *feel* your pain."
> Just what part of a woman's anatomy is the "pain" anyway?
>
> > <<Bob, you are attempting to reason with an emotive creature.
> > Most are commonly (and incorrectly) called ["conservatives."]


Right On Nikolas. But you made a mistake!! You tried to use reason with
the cons. It is futile! To be a real preservative-conservative you must
have frozen ideas since you want to preserve and conserve the status quo.
No changes toward the better. So next time do not try to reason or use
logics with them. They confirm the old truth:
"Common sense is the less common of all senses".

Rog

[Nicolas Kinnan]

In article >,
David Stinson > wrote:

> Nicolas Kinnan wrote:
> >
> > I have come late to this bit of nonsense,....
> The only correct thing you had to say.
> Next time you want to show your ass,
> be quicker about it.
> D.S.

Hmmm, You must not have read my post, I think I wrote all sorts of
correct things.

I haven't had time to hit the newsgroups until recently, so I posted as
soon as I saw the message.

I didn't show my ass, silly! That must have been someone else...I just
typed a bunch of stuff... :)

N.K.