Gw Bush toy doll in flightgear - now available

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

"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

Subject: 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

(ArtKramr) wrote in message ...
Subject: 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

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