Gw Bush toy doll in flightgear - now available

Outgoing V. Incoming wrote in
:

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 12:43:15 GMT, Mitchell Holman
wrote:

Outgoing V. Incoming wrote in
m:

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?

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.