Slashdot Mirror

It was a joke, http://users.cis.net/sammy/pinball.htm

tune. 'own grandpa'.

/.'ers take note. The USA courts have the final say, after the fact, as to the constitutiopnality of a law. You guys are always jumping the gun here. What should really worry you is the noise about subjugating USA law to international law.

You watch this ISP logging crap. The big 5 are going to be n favor of it and so is the MPAA and RIAA. I'm my own ISP and if this becomes law, which is highly doubtful when you look back at all the boneheaded stuff ideas that the boneheaded politicians come up with, I'm not gonna pay a tax for someone else to log my stuff and my logs, well...all I can say is...'what's a log?' ;-) ;-) nudge nudge

The only objective evidence that he did not have a lousy record was soundly trounced as being a forgery. There is no other evidence, only accusation.

Oh, really?

The White House has never denied that GWB was banned from flying for failing to take a physical. The Rather documents purpotedly proved that he disobeyed a direct order to do so (a felony), but "Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit" when his biography said he was in Texas hasn't been in the news because it isn't news.

The only objective evidence that he did not have a lousy record was soundly trounced as being a forgery. There is no other evidence, only accusation.

Oh, really?

The White House has never denied that GWB was banned from flying for failing to take a physical. The Rather documents purpotedly proved that he disobeyed a direct order to do so (a felony), but "Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit" when his biography said he was in Texas hasn't been in the news because it isn't news.

The only objective evidence that he did not have a lousy record was soundly trounced as being a forgery. There is no other evidence, only accusation.

Oh, really?

The White House has never denied that GWB was banned from flying for failing to take a physical. The Rather documents purpotedly proved that he disobeyed a direct order to do so (a felony), but "Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit" when his biography said he was in Texas hasn't been in the news because it isn't news.

yeh, its a good thing that other records fro shrub dont contain the exact same font, with the mysterious superscript th

you're a fucking liar.

I wonder, did this person even look for evidence supporting the claims before saying they were false? Did you look for evidence and fail to find any before propagating the notion that there was no evidence?

A quick search finds a scanned document stating that Bush was suspended for "failure to accomplish annual medical examination". That certainly doesn't sound good to me, but if that's considered acceptable in the Texas Air National Guard, somebody correct me. If he was expected to show up for examination, but didn't, that also justifies the text "failure to appear".

As for the last remaining claim, Neal Boortz only refutes part of the story. The accusation against Bush is that he signed up for the Texas Air National Guard because he knew they were unlikely to be deployed in the war, and he could avoid being drafted and sent to Vietnam. The next allegation is that there was a long waiting list and that favoritism got him in, and possibly also helped him up the ranks. In a situation like this, you can spot favoritism much easier than you can find who is responsible for it. One article points to a family friend pulling the strings. But who put him up to it? I don't know.

Somebody needs to tell Neil Boorts that he generally should not call someone a liar if they believe what they are saying, and especially not if there's good reason to believe those things. I recommend to anyone who is going to vote to do some reading at Wikipedia.

If it's AM-radio-specific, I can't help but think that the Starland Vocal Band must somehow be to blame..

I've got neighbors with wi-fi (with myself included).

There is a C&W song called "I'm My Own Grandpa" http://users.cis.net/sammy/grandpa.htm
, but i've never heard of someone being their own neighbor.

There's actually a song called "I'm my own grandpa" that is based on this story or maybe it's the other way around. I heard it back in HS at least 10 years ago in my Genetics class. We were offered extra credit to figure out how it works and draw a family tree.
Here w/ music.

I didn't bring criminal convictions up but since you asked, Bush's DUI conviction in 1976 courtesy of the Smoking Gun. I don't personally think it is that big a deal but you seem sensitive on the subject.

It's ceratinly true that all major political candidates favor corporate welfare of one kind or another. (Though I do want to point out that the Clinton administration's stance on trade was far more market oriented than the pandering of the Bush administration. Look at steel tariffs.) Bush was unusual in that he personally profited from corporate welfare.

"Self-righteous" is definitely an eye-of-the-beholder thing.

The Clinton recession? That's good. Clinton certainly benefitted from a strong economy while he was at the helm. And a downturn of some sort was inevitable. But he did the most important thing: he didn't derail the economy. The Bush tax cuts, which Bush claims is a "jobs stimulus", have created nothing but defecits as far as the eye can see while the economy sheds tens of thousands of jobs each month.

There was fraud in the election. The Bush team pressured Florida election boards to count invalid absentee ballots. But even with it, under every plausible recount scenario (with the hugely ironic exception of the one favored by the Gore team), Gore received more votes in Florida than Bush.

1. scans of actual military records obtained from FOIA
2. accompanying analysis
3. another analysis

Why don't I have a right to pass on what's mine to somebody else?

When you are dead, you have no rights in the living world. None. Some third party can strongarm victims in your name, but that has nothing to do with any "rights" imbued in your mouldering corpse. This issue is slightly muddied by inheritance law, until you remember all inheritance law is primarily concerned with the rights and properties of the living, because the state has a vested interest in allocation of taxable assets.

When you engage in speech, or publishing, you release an image from your mind (something that's yours) to others (whoever's listening or reading). You have gifted them with knowledge, and although that knowledge may be worthless, it is now available to the recipient to do with as that person wills.

You need to grasp the fundamental difference between property, which exists in a single instance (like a physical CD-ROM) and communication, which can be replicated without diminishment of the source (like a picture that can be copied, or a speech that can be transcripted). Consider Thomas Jefferson's remarks on the subject; if I light your candle with mine, you are illuminated, but my own light is not extinguished.

My reference to "the divine right of kings" is apropos, as you have demonstrated, because most people (like yourself) have been brainwashed into thinking they have a right to force others behavior, all because of an imaginary right to own and inherit that which is essentially and naturally free - human thought and communication.

Your comments about the current regime in the US may be correct, but they have nothing to do with anyone's rights- they have to do with the ability of powerful families to hoard power and escape punishment. Case in point: Bush is apparently a military deserter, which is normally a punishable crime that would invalidate ones' ability to hold public office. There are no "rights" being exercised here, it's plain old corruption at work.

Just because someone can get away with something doesn't mean they have a right to do so. If your dead ancestor wrote down an idea, or painted a picture, you don't have a right to forcibly prevent me from writing down the same idea.

...does it extend to everything I own, including the clothes on my back? I ask because you don't seem to make any distinction.

A quick Google search turned these up:

From the Boston Globe: One Year Gap in Bush's National Guard Duty

From the Dallas Morning News (reprinted in the Washington Post): Records of Bush's Alabama Military Duty Cannot Be Found

A guy then used the Freedom of Information Act to get the actual reports detailing Bush's "issues" with reporting for duty: You Can't Just Walk Away

CNN reported Bush's denial (Bush Dismisses Report He Skipped Air National Guard Service), but it's notable what a weak denial it was: "Asked about his Air National Guard attendance record, Bush told reporters it was 'spotty attendance but I did the duty necessary... I did the time that was required in the Guard.' " Not the kind of ringing denial you'd expect if there wasn't at least an element of truth to the story.

Unsurprisingly, the media didn't press him on the issue back during the campaign, and they're certainly not likely to now. But as far as I can see the questions are still open, and the "Bush was AWOL" side seems to have more facts and evidence at their disposal than does the "no he wasn't" side.

• Boston Globe
• Washington Post
• Dubya refused to release his military records, but pieces of them have been obtained through FOI requests.
• AWOL Bush has some interesting things to say on this topic.