GWB has been a good Commander-in-Chief

In KcKVc.9881$ni.472@okepread01, on 08/21/2004
at 11:52 AM, "sanjian" said:

wrote:
In Xcxvc.9346$ni.6368@okepread01, on 08/20/2004
at 09:04 PM, "sanjian" said:

wrote:
In llcvc.7979$ni.2899@okepread01, on 08/19/2004
at 09:20 PM, "sanjian" said:

wrote:
Stop your nonsene -- and non sequiturs. bush went to the texas
ANG because that's where he had the political connections to get
in the day he needed to.

And we see reason come to a screeching halt. Pete explains
something to you, and all you can do is dismiss it as nonsense and
repeat your same old diatribe.

He posted nonsense. bush got into the texas guard -- because daddy
had connections in texas.

I hate to tell you this, but "proof by assertion" has no legitimacy
in logical debates. Even repeated insistance that Bush got in by his
connections does not make it so. It seems that you define
"nonsense" as "That which disagrees with me."

Listen up asshole -- no one got in the ANG during the Vietnam war --
on the day they applied -- without political power opening the door
and building the road for them.

Deal with it!

You already posted that. Resorting to spamming now?


See a shrink about your inability to accept truth you don't like.

In kckvc.9880$ni.9509@okepread01, on 08/21/2004
at 11:51 AM, "sanjian" said:

wrote:
In Xcxvc.9346$ni.6368@okepread01, on 08/20/2004
at 09:04 PM, "sanjian" said:

wrote:
In llcvc.7979$ni.2899@okepread01, on 08/19/2004
at 09:20 PM, "sanjian" said:

wrote:
Stop your nonsene -- and non sequiturs. bush went to the texas
ANG because that's where he had the political connections to get
in the day he needed to.

And we see reason come to a screeching halt. Pete explains
something to you, and all you can do is dismiss it as nonsense and
repeat your same old diatribe.

He posted nonsense. bush got into the texas guard -- because daddy
had connections in texas.

I hate to tell you this, but "proof by assertion" has no legitimacy
in logical debates. Even repeated insistance that Bush got in by his
connections does not make it so. It seems that you define
"nonsense" as "That which disagrees with me."

Listen up asshole -- no one got in the ANG during the Vietnam war --
on the day they applied -- without political power opening the door
and building the road for them.

Deal with it!

And here we have a prime example of "intellectual McCartheysim." In lieu
of fact, all you have is shouting at the top of your lungs and attacking
those who disagree with you. There was a time, long ago, when the
"intellectual elite" could actually argue their points in a convincing
manner, even if they were dead wrong. I guess those times are in the
past. Whether you make up your arugments, whole cloth, or pull them off
some anti-bush site, you still are not posting fact.

Saddly, even the Holocaust deniers do a better job of convincingly
presenting their argument than you do. Maybe you should study rhetoric,
as opposed to propaganda.

Bush served honorably. Deal with it!

I wonder your inability to accept facts that don't fit
your assumptions has anything to do with your never progressing in
political understanding.

Its you who cannot accept facts.

I tend to prefer to have my facts supported by reason and evidence.
I guess I'm old-fashoned that way. For some reason, your method of
establishing "fact" (repeating a lie often and ridiculing those who
don't buy off on it) doesn't convince me.

Bull****. You are here to lie for bush and you ignore facts that
don't agree with the rightwing bull**** you believe.

Obviously, it is far easier for you to dismiss your opponent than accept
that we may be right and you may be wrong. Go ahead, put your head back
in the sand and hope we all go away, so you can continue to live in your
own world. Don't let us nasty right-wingers challenge what you believe
or force you to face the world. If, however, you should ever wish to
discuss things like adults, come on back.

Stop lying and playing asshole. -- No one got in ANG on the day they
applied without political influence making the way clear.

When you are ready to deal with reality -- you might be able to discuss
things like the adult you claim to be.

In , on 08/21/2004
at 10:35 AM, "BigRedWingsFan" said:


wrote in message
news1mVc.9452$_w.5622@trndny04... : In 4qcVc.7983$ni.1490@okepread01,
on 08/19/2004
: at 09:25 PM, "sanjian" said:
:
: wrote:
: In Zktuc.25886$Yf6.21127@lakeread03, on 08/18/2004
: at 09:53 PM, "sanjian" said:
:
: I'll take the word of the Air Force Colonel who explained the century
: series aircraft to me back in the early '90s. He had few kind
: things to say about the F-102 other than it separates the wheat from
: the chaffe.
:
: Nonsense. -- If the F-102 was so dangerous to fly -- then how come
: it was so easy to rig with automatic controls that could take it off
:
: Well, first of all, dangerous to fly doesn't mean it can't be rigged with
: controls, even automatic ones.
:
: and fly it as drone? -- That's where most of them went -- target
: practice in combat with our best -- all under remote control. E.g.,
: that means it was *easy to fly and *stable. (Or course you should
: have known that before now, since duba did it).
:
: That's hardly a valid conclusion. That something can be piloted by
: remote doesn't mean it's easy to fly or particularly stable. So I've got
: an Air Force Colonel telling me that they were a nightmare, and I've got
: you saying they were "easy to fly." So, what are your qualifications to
: say that?
:
: -- Why do you rightwingers post nonsense when so many know better?
:
: Why do you leftwingers post half(at best)-truths and sheer bull****?
:
: To counter the utter nonsense and lies of you rightwingers. -- bush was a
: flop who went AWOL when he was asked to pee in the cup.

What part of "you can never prove that" don't you understand, Le'Turd?
It's just not true, period.

See a shrink about your inability to deal with truth you don't like.

In , on 08/21/2004
at 10:35 AM, "BigRedWingsFan" said:


wrote in message
news:7XIVc.2206$IO1.635@trndny03... : In zexvc.9347$ni.1594@okepread01,
on 08/20/2004
: at 09:06 PM, "sanjian" said:
:
: wrote:
: In 4qcVc.7983$ni.1490@okepread01, on 08/19/2004
: at 09:25 PM, "sanjian" said:
:
: wrote:
: In Zktuc.25886$Yf6.21127@lakeread03, on 08/18/2004
: at 09:53 PM, "sanjian" said:
:
: I'll take the word of the Air Force Colonel who explained the
: century series aircraft to me back in the early '90s. He had few
: kind things to say about the F-102 other than it separates the
: wheat from the chaffe.
:
: Nonsense. -- If the F-102 was so dangerous to fly -- then how come
: it was so easy to rig with automatic controls that could take it off
:
: Well, first of all, dangerous to fly doesn't mean it can't be rigged
: with controls, even automatic ones.
:
: and fly it as drone? -- That's where most of them went -- target
: practice in combat with our best -- all under remote control. E.g.,
: that means it was *easy to fly and *stable. (Or course you should
: have known that before now, since duba did it).
:
: That's hardly a valid conclusion. That something can be piloted by
: remote doesn't mean it's easy to fly or particularly stable. So
: I've got an Air Force Colonel telling me that they were a nightmare,
: and I've got you saying they were "easy to fly." So, what are your
: qualifications to say that?
:
: -- Why do you rightwingers post nonsense when so many know better?
:
: Why do you leftwingers post half(at best)-truths and sheer bull****?
:
: To counter the utter nonsense and lies of you rightwingers. -- bush
: was a flop who went AWOL when he was asked to pee in the cup.
:
: I see. When confronted by your lies, you just use another one. Do you
: honestly think you're fooling anyone? Or could it be that you're
: actually fooling yourself?
:
: Bush went AWOL when he had to pee in the cup. -- What part of that
: statement don't you get?

What part of "you can never prove that" don't you understand, Le'Turd?
It's just not true, period.

bushs pay records prove he didn't show up. -- Right after he was ordered
to pee in the cup and didn't.

See a shrink about who you refuse to live in the real world.



:
:
:
:

In D5KVc.9879$ni.2444@okepread01, on 08/21/2004
at 11:44 AM, "sanjian" said:

wrote:
In zexvc.9347$ni.1594@okepread01, on 08/20/2004
at 09:06 PM, "sanjian" said:

I see. When confronted by your lies, you just use another one. Do
you honestly think you're fooling anyone? Or could it be that you're
actually fooling yourself?

Bush went AWOL when he had to pee in the cup. -- What part of that
statement don't you get?

The part where you mistake it for fact.

1. He was a drunk and drug user -- by his own admission.
2. He refused to show up when it came time for the annual medical. --
Including peeing in the cup.

Connect the dots.

wrote:
In KcKVc.9881$ni.472@okepread01, on 08/21/2004
at 11:52 AM, "sanjian" said:

You already posted that. Resorting to spamming now?


See a shrink about your inability to accept truth you don't like.

Come on, I think I at least deserve tailor-made insults instead of the grab
bag. Really, you are showing a bit of stress about getting caught in your
own lies. You're like a caged animal trying to claw your way to safety.
Admit that you have no case and move on. There's no good that can come from
your tenacious hold on your own lies.

wrote:
In kckvc.9880$ni.9509@okepread01, on 08/21/2004
at 11:51 AM, "sanjian" said:

Obviously, it is far easier for you to dismiss your opponent than
accept that we may be right and you may be wrong. Go ahead, put
your head back in the sand and hope we all go away, so you can
continue to live in your own world. Don't let us nasty
right-wingers challenge what you believe or force you to face the
world. If, however, you should ever wish to discuss things like
adults, come on back.

Stop lying and playing asshole. -- No one got in ANG on the day they
applied without political influence making the way clear.

When you are ready to deal with reality -- you might be able to
discuss things like the adult you claim to be.

It would seem that your idea of how adults discuss things is that they call
eachother names and thow out unsupported lies and spin. That works well
enough for politicians, but not for civilized, rational people.

wrote:
In , on 08/21/2004
at 10:35 AM, "BigRedWingsFan" said:

What part of "you can never prove that" don't you understand,
Le'Turd? It's just not true, period.

bushs pay records prove he didn't show up. -- Right after he was
ordered to pee in the cup and didn't.

You're mistaking "have not disproven" for "have proven." By that measure, I
must assume you believe in the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny. Have you
ever dealt with military pay records?

wrote:
In D5KVc.9879$ni.2444@okepread01, on 08/21/2004
at 11:44 AM, "sanjian" said:

wrote:
In zexvc.9347$ni.1594@okepread01, on 08/20/2004
at 09:06 PM, "sanjian" said:

I see. When confronted by your lies, you just use another one. Do
you honestly think you're fooling anyone? Or could it be that
you're actually fooling yourself?

Bush went AWOL when he had to pee in the cup. -- What part of that
statement don't you get?

The part where you mistake it for fact.

1. He was a drunk and drug user -- by his own admission.
2. He refused to show up when it came time for the annual medical. --
Including peeing in the cup.

Connect the dots.

I can't speak for how they did things back then, but I know that I don't
have to pee in a cup for my annual medical screening. I do have to once
every five years for a radiation health physical, but that's not for drug
testing (I have to sign a form saying that it is used only for the purposes
of testing for evidence of blood in my urine, a early warning sign of many
types of tumors associated with radiation exposure. To use the sample for
drug testing would invalidate it as evidence since it was used without my
consent).

Just out of curiosity, which branch of the military were you in, and when
did you serve?

In NELVc.86669$Lj.43904@fed1read03, on 08/21/2004
at 01:30 PM, "sanjian" said:

wrote:
In KcKVc.9881$ni.472@okepread01, on 08/21/2004
at 11:52 AM, "sanjian" said:

You already posted that. Resorting to spamming now?


See a shrink about your inability to accept truth you don't like.

Come on, I think I at least deserve tailor-made insults instead of the
grab bag. Really, you are showing a bit of stress about getting caught
in your own lies.

YUour the one doing the lying and the trolling. -- You're a rightwing
asshole.



You're like a caged animal trying to claw your way to
safety. Admit that you have no case and move on. There's no good that
can come from your tenacious hold on your own lies.

See a shrink. Your meds aren't working.