GWB has been a good Commander-in-Chief

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

wrote:
In , on 08/19/2004
at 11:54 AM, Steve Hix said:

Did you have some point to make?

For **obtuse people like you how are here to love bush -- yeah. bush
didn't do something dangerous and daring.

You every fly an F-102? Hell, you ever fly at all?

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****?

"sanjian" wrote in message
news:amcVc.7980$ni.5686@okepread01...
: wrote:
: In , on 08/19/2004
: at 11:54 AM, Steve Hix said:
:
: Did you have some point to make?
:
: For **obtuse people like you how are here to love bush -- yeah. bush
: didn't do something dangerous and daring.
:
: You every fly an F-102? Hell, you ever fly at all?

Le'Turd is always "flying" on something over in a.m.r. He's one of our few
resident Bush-haters over there. I'd bet even money that Le'Turd's mouth
and an organ of Kerry's are a perfect match.

:
:

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 21:21:09 -0400, "sanjian"
wrote this crap:

wrote:
In , on 08/19/2004
at 11:54 AM, Steve Hix said:

Did you have some point to make?

For **obtuse people like you how are here to love bush -- yeah. bush
didn't do something dangerous and daring.

You every fly an F-102? Hell, you ever fly at all?


I flew to Florida last year.




My T-shirt says, "This shirt is the
ultimate power in the universe."

In article qn7Vc.9852$zO3.3508@trndny05, wrote:

In , on 08/19/2004
at 11:54 AM, Steve Hix said:

In article 7QYUc.6516$_w.5361@trndny04, wrote:

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 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).

The same was done with earlier jet (and some piston) fighters with even
worse safety records.

Did you have some point to make?

For **obtuse people like you how are here to love bush -- yeah.

I thought not.

bush didn't do something dangerous and daring.

You were wrong about the F-102 being trivially-simple to fly, too.

"Steve Hix" wrote in message
...

bush didn't do something dangerous and daring.

You were wrong about the F-102 being trivially-simple to fly, too.

Is it more difficult than eating pretzels and watching TV at the same time?

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.

In , on 08/19/2004
at 08:26 PM, "Bigredwingsfan" said:


"sanjian" wrote in message
news:amcVc.7980$ni.5686@okepread01...
: wrote:
: In , on 08/19/2004
: at 11:54 AM, Steve Hix said:
:
: Did you have some point to make?
:
: For **obtuse people like you how are here to love bush -- yeah. bush
: didn't do something dangerous and daring.
:
: You every fly an F-102? Hell, you ever fly at all?

Le'Turd is always "flying" on something over in a.m.r. He's one of our
few resident Bush-haters over there. I'd bet even money that Le'Turd's
mouth and an organ of Kerry's are a perfect match.


What you mean is I'm always saying things that make you rightwing assholes
confront your own lies --and you don't like it.

You could fix that by not being ever constant assholes, but since you
don't -- its probably a genetic defect controlling your guys.


:
:

In , on 08/19/2004
at 09:00 PM, Steve Hix said:

In article qn7Vc.9852$zO3.3508@trndny05, wrote:

In , on 08/19/2004
at 11:54 AM, Steve Hix said:

In article 7QYUc.6516$_w.5361@trndny04, wrote:

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 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).

The same was done with earlier jet (and some piston) fighters with even
worse safety records.

Did you have some point to make?

For **obtuse people like you how are here to love bush -- yeah.

I thought not.

bush didn't do something dangerous and daring.

You were wrong about the F-102 being trivially-simple to fly, too.

bush didn't do something dangerous and daring. However, he did escape
going to war in Vietnam -- and topped it by going AWOL.