LOL! Thank you, "Think 1," for demonstrating that no matter how big an idiot we encounter on Slashdot, there will always be a bigger idiot waiting in the wings.
You're kidding, right? This is Apple, the company that runs the long-running movie trailer site and the iTunes Music Store. They've got more bandwidth than Jesus.
Mags. And his little brother was named Louis. And the old guy was named Otis. And his Saturday was ruined because Granny's electric went out again. He had to stay and fix it instead of going to Toshi Station to pick up some power converters. Or something.
Apart from the fact that you're just plain wrong --read the UN charter lately? --enforce with what? Strong language?
Of course, I expected the same response from you, because I explained it all to you 2 years ago.
LOL. You've been right all along, huh? It's everybody else in the country that's been wrong. That's real sensible. I'm amazed you haven't won over more converts with that kind of talk.
I hypnotized Bush, and his public speeches are my own words.
If I were you, I wouldn't brag too loudly about the fact that you lack the basic human intelligence required to understand things like speeches. I wouldn't advertise the fact that you come away from speeches and other statements of policy thinking that the speaker just told you that black is white or that up is down. I wouldn't mention that because it demonstrates the degree to which you are an idiot. Which is something you should try as hard as possible to hide.
The latest piece of jujitsu in this saga is that the DNC has demanded that the RNC explain their part in the forgery of the memos.
Misdirection and spin. The RNC has no part in the forgery whatsoever. The DNC, in demanding that the RNC explain its involvement, has allowed its most lamebrained followers to reject that answer out of hand and keep the conspiracy theory alive.
Lame, lame, lame. Clever politicking, but incredibly lame.
the chances of either national party being involved are negligible.
Um. The DNC is already involved. Joe Lockhart, remember?
The polls are clearly swinging towards Kerry
LOL! Have you seen the latest numbers? Even in the biased polls --the ones that selectively sample in order to approximate the voter turnout in the 2000 election, which was a very low turnout for Republicans--show Kerry tied or behind by a margin that's within the MOE. The unbiased polls show Bush up by as much as 14 or 15 points nationwide. Electoral college math has Bush breaking 300 electoral college votes if the election were held today. Bush's job approval is up over 50%, and the Rasmussen automated tracking poll, not known for being accurate in the numbers but known for being an indicator of trends, has Bush's margin increasing.
Al Qaeda to attack before the inauguration unless people vote for Bush etc.
Oh, sure. It's all a big conspiracy. Whatever, dipshit.
In the context GWB used to justify the Iraq invasion, WMD is something that poses a major threat to the USA.
Idiot. You think that these things just get made up? The terms of disarmament were defined by UN Security Council resolutions. I don't care how many words you try to put in the president's mouth; it won't change the underlying facts.
You most certainly did not make up the fallacy of consensus (aka. the Democratic fallacy).
Sure I did. I just pulled it right out of my ass. If it happened, by some striking coincidence, to coincide with something that somebody else pulled right out of their ass, that's certainly interesting.
Note: it does not mean what you originally said.
LOL! I made it up, you shithead.
Does anyone else see the irony in this statement and its tone?
Nope. Just you.
Well, I've been baited long enough. You win, I responded to your childish and mindless posts. Congratulations.
And yet again you wander off feeling smug, somehow oblivious to the fact that you have said nothing at all.
For example, googling on "Septermber 17" and dental records turn up nothing on any dental records from September 17th, 1972 for George W.
LOL. Must never have happened then. If some miserable putz can't find it with a half-assed Internet search, then it's obviously false. Nothing to see here, move along, back to your homes.
I mean, what do I have to do to get you to give me some evidence?
You can start by reading my articles.
Until then, I'll stop wasting my time.
Yes, please.
Hopefully someone else will find my earlier posts interesting.
Bush got into the TANG despite a 500-person waiting list, the lowest possible score on the aptitude test and no relevant experience.
Mikey, is that you?
The idea that there was a big master waiting list is wholly an invention of Michael Moore. It's simply not true. The truth is that there were lots of slots open for applicants who could qualify as pilots, who were willing to fly the F-102, and who would sign a six-year commitment.
Also, the person who interceded for him has come forward and admitted his role.
Ben Barnes, the well-documented liar with a grudge against the Bush family? Ben Barnes, who first said that he interceded for George W. Bush in 1968, when he was UN General Envoy to Geneva? Ben Barnes, who now says he interceded in 1969, a full year after Bush got into the Guard? Ben Barnes who has been making baseless allegations for political purposes since 1994? Ben Barnes, who testified under oath about his allegations in 1999 and subsequently recanted, narrowly missing a perjury charge? Ben Barnes who has been unable to produce a single piece of documentary evidence or corroborating testimony from anyone in a full decade?
Wow. Compelling.
The Air Force and/or TANG have released documents stating that Bush was ordered to take a flight physical and that his flying priveleges were revoked when he refused.
No. There is no evidence that any such order was given. If a pilot wanted to fly, he had to take an annual physical. If he didn't take his physical, his flight status was revoked. Pilots who weren't going to be flying regularly skipped their annual physicals because those physicals were very involved and very invasive and very uncomfortable. There has never been any documentation that an order was given until these memos popped up, and these memos are forgeries.
Are you trying to claim that military personnel can refuse orders because they're 'uncomfortable' or 'make no sense'?
I'm trying to explain to you --although God knows why --that no such order was ever given. The reason why the forged memos were so damning is because they finally provided documentary evidence that Bush refused an order. Except they didn't, because they were big ol' fakes. So we're back to square one: no evidence of an order.
BUT he has never explained why he didn't
Yes, he has, repeatedly. He has said, countless times during the past decade, that he opted out of his physical because he was not going to be flying during the 1972-1973 year. There were more pilots than planes in his unit at that time, and there wasn't a spot on the roster for him. No flying, no need to maintain flight status, no physical.
What he hasn't done is said that he skipped his physical to avoid failing a drug test, which is the only thing the Bush haters would be willing to accept.
I would like Bush to explain to a National Guard pilot currently serving in Iraq, or in line to go to Iraq, why he can't simply quit the way he, Bush, did.
Um. They can. All they have to do is request an early discharge. If they've met their requirements and their unit isn't deployed at the time of the request, the request will almost certainly be granted.
And he did quit, by the way. That is also a fact.
Yes, it is. Except it's not called "quitting." It's called "early discharge." And it's a standard part of the National Guard's way of doing business.
John Kerry got an early discharge, too, by the way. Wanna talk about how he quit? Or do you want to ramble on about how it's different somehow for reasons that you never fully address but that you insist are salient?
That's "you're." See, it's a contraction. Short for "you are." Not the second-person possessive pronoun "your." Different. See?
I wasn't America bashing.
True, you were just Americans-bashing. That's much less offensive.
When you can't argue with any substance
Said the guy who has yet to actually, you know, say anything.
I also find it funny that you equate adherance to logic with a lack of common sense AND a sense of superiority.
Gee, where could I ever have gotten the idea that you're a superior sumbitch? Where could I ever have gotten that idea? It's a big mystery, that's what it is. Because, you know, you don't sound superior at all. You don't sound smug and self-satisfied. You don't sound like you have rod up your ass that's got a rod up its ass. So where could I have gotten that idea? Wherever could that idea have come from?
Guess it just came to me.
If we don't look at the world through reasoning, thought and logic, how is truth even possible?
Oooh, I bet that one really impresses the other freshmen.
shouldn't Bush have been able to say "that never happened"?
I don't recall his saying that he's not queen of the space weasels, either. Stop the motherfuckin' presses.
I don't expect the president to deny every crazy allegation that gets cooked up, but I also don't expect him to hand them out to everybody in the press core, either.
That's White House communications office policy.
And perhaps based on a false assumption, if you can provide a source for your "press corps policy."
Well, it's right here in this three-ring binder. Come on down here and I'll make you a photocopy.
It was a mandatory requirement and if a pilot failed to take it, a commander had to conduct an investigation and either convene a Flying Evaluation Board or forward a detailed report up the chain of command.
Not correct. Try again.
Whether or not he earned the required 48 points in a year
50
has no bearing on whether or not he missed five months.
Um. Yeah, it does. The only requirement was to earn 50 points during the year. If you miss a drill, you make it up. You can earn all 50 points in the last month if you want.
Look, the facts as released by the Whitehouse are that he missed five months, from the end of May to the end of October.
Where are you getting this "he missed five months" language? That language doesn't make sense in this context. Guard members are required to fulfill their obligations on a yearly basis, not on a monthly basis.
He said that about the end of June 1970 after he had finished his training.
He finished his training in the winter of 1968. Sigh.
Go read this Guardian article from 1999.
Al-Ghaurdian? Don't think so.
It talks about Ben Barnes providing sworn testimony before a court that he in fact pulled strings to get Bush into the Guard.
That's the same testimony that he recanted under oath. Why do you idiots keep bringing up the Ben Barnes story when that story is deader than a box of hammers?
So, that doesn't prove it is true and you are free to believe it isn't, but there is evidence that suggests it happened.
No, there is no evidence whatsoever. There is the testimony of a man with a publicly acknowledged grudge, testimony which he subsequently recanted.
You are talking about dental records from January 6th, 1973
September 17, 1972.
Given the accuracy in the rest of your post, can you provide some examples?
Given the foolishness of your post, can you go read for yourself? Try looking at something that's not five years out of date, and that's not published in DNC propaganda machines like the Times, and the Globe. Try getting your facts from objective sources instead of spewing Michael Moore's talking points.
See, the thing about defying logic is that by doing so, your argument is invalid.
And yet I'm still right. Shocker, huh? Amazing.
This is about what constitutes truth.
Right. Truth: George W. Bush enlisted in the Texas Air National Guard, got one of many open spots for F-102 pilots willing to sign a six-year commitment, fulfilled his obligations, and was honorably discharged. Lie: George W. Bush got preferential treatment, didn't do what he was supposed to do, and failed to report for duty.
Why the hell should I (or anyone else here) believe in your conclusion if you have given us no compelling arguments to back up your conclusion?
Because it is a matter of fact. It's about what constitutes truth, remember?
All you have proven by your mindless and childish posts is how intellectual honesty is no longer important to the average American.
Cue the America bashing. Now talk about how we're all fat, and how we like country music, and how we're not educated and erudite.
There is this fucked up notion that "common sense" should overrule logic.
Yeah. Real fucked up.
If you don't, I'm going to call you on it.
That's worked so well so far. All you've managed to demonstrate to this point is that (1) you have no idea what we're actually talking about here, and (2) you're a superior sumbitch. What else would you like to share with the class?
Hopefully the mods on this board realize that point. By the fact that your response to my observatives was met with a +3 Funny, I'm not so sure they will.
Ah, but isn't that the logical fallacy of the consensus, also known as Plato's fallacy?
The Texas Politician "spreading rumours" is the one THAT PULLED THE STRINGS.
No, he's the one that says he pulled strings, that has said he pulled strings ever since 1994, but that cannot produce a single piece of documentary evidence or a corroborating witness to back up his story that he pulled strings.
He's also got a very old and very well documented grudge against Bush.
I have a real problem with cowards. Bush is one, by definition.
Oooh, yes, you're a real bad ass.
Now kids are dying in fucking Iraq, which did NOT have any WMD
Except they did, chemical, biological and radiological. But you just keep on insisting that they didn't have any, or that they didn't have enough, or that they didn't have the right kind, or whatever the spin of the week is.
They did NOT have any hand in 9/11.
No, they were just planning the next one.
Hussein may have been a despot, but he was evidently cool when he was OUR despot.
Which part of that sentence is the bad part?
Nor was he any worse than the dozens of petty dictators we support EVERY goddam DAY.
Name one.
Yeah, I got alot to be angry about, asshole.
If I were as ignorant and as foolish as you, I'd be pretty pissed off too. Need a hug?
Seriously, can we please have a debate where disagreements don't result in name calling?
Sure. As long as the ignorant fuckwits stay out of it.
Also, I'd like to take the opportunity to say something about logical fallacies: don't use them.
I'd like to say something about your something: grow the fuck up. "Ah! Ah! Logical fallacy!" may have impressed the girls in seventh grade, but this is grown-up time. If you want to have a conversation, have a conversation. If you don't, take your lame-ass cries of "fallacy!" and get off the field.
"But he's not playing by the rules! He's using dirty words and calling people names and committing logical fallacies!"
Well, I guess the whole controversy over Bush's election is just a figment of my imagination then.
Basically, yeah. It's made up. It's not real. It's a tin-foil-hat thing, like the "controversy" over the moon landing or the "controversy" over flight 77.
Either way, I wish you well... I think you need some good energy in your life.:)
Oh, well, by all means then, let me get a crystal and do some meditation and channel the spirit of Ramtha, a 35,000-year-old hunter-gatherer who can share his wisdom with me.
Yes, please, for the love of God, vote for a 3rd party. The sooner we get the crazy people out of the political parties and off into their own little wild-eyed fringe groups, the sooner we can stop talking about foolishness and get back to real issues.
If they couldn't possibly be true, then why did the White House distribute them?
It's press corps policy. Anything that comes in for comment gets passed on to everybody in the press corps.
Why did Scott McClellan say "We had every reason to believe that they were authentic at that time"?
Um. 'Cause it's true? I don't see your point.
Shouldn't George Bush have been able to recall that he hadn't disobeyed a direct order?
You aren't understanding simple points here. 1. No such order was ever given. Therefore 2. it never could have been disobeyed. There exists absolutely no evidence that any such order was given; that was an invention of these memos. Expecting the president to publicly deny every crazy allegation that gets cooked up about him is just silly.
An annual physical is not something you just "skip" because you don't feel you need to have flight status.
Actually, yeah, it is. If you want to be cleared to fly, you have to take a physical. If you aren't going to be required to fly (as Bush wasn't) and you don't want to hang on to your status for some other reason, you just don't take the physical. Common practice.
The government spent over a million bucks training him, he doesn't just get to say he isn't interested any more.
He didn't. When Bush requested a transfer to Alabama, he was told that he would be welcome but that due to a surplus of pilots who had rotated back home, there would be no place on the flightline for him. More pilots than aircraft, you see. More pegs than holes. Ergo, he would not be flying in Alabama. Ergo, no need to maintain flight status.
In his "autobiography," A Charge to Keep, he claims just that. "I continued flying with my unit for the next several years." The truth is he stopped after less than two years.
1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, half of 1972. That's four and a half years, not two. If you want to argue about whether that constitutes "several" be my guest. You'll be arguing by yourself, however.
Bush got in in front of thousands of others
False. In 1968, there were open slots for pilots who wanted to fly the F-102. Bush simply got into one of many open slots.
So the question isn't if strings were pulled, but who pulled them.
Nope. Simply untrue. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that any strings at all were pulled, ever.
A transfer would imply that he showed up in Alabama, but the records show he was simply gone for five months.
Yet another untruth spread by you for purposes unknown. We have service and pay records indicating that not only did Bush show up for duty in Alabama, he fulfilled all of his requirements for service. In both 1972 and 1973, Bush earned 56 points, more than the required 50 points. You don't get points if you don't show up.
Of course, you will undoubtedly fall back on "somebody was covering for him," but that's just circular reasoning. Not that that will stop you from getting really strident and shrill about it.
There are no credible witnesses that can recall him ever showing up in Alabama.
There's no evidence that he wasn't there, though, and plenty of documentary evidence that puts him on the scene. Including, as you're well aware, records of a dental examination. You wouldn't suggest, would you, that his teeth were on base but that he was not?
This is a pretty good summary of what we know at this point.
No, it's not. That was written by Kevin Drum, a well-documented partisan and a skilled liar himself. You will learn nothing by reading only that which is written by people who have no compunction about covering up or ignoring relevant facts in order to make their case.
Frankly, I would be more than happy to have the whole thing dropped if Bush would simply acknowledge what the record shows: he didn't faithfully fulfill his obligation to the National Guard.
That is not what the record shows. The record shows, in fact, exactly the opposite. So why aren't you happy to drop the whole thing right now?
Dismissing someone as a "Bush-hater" might be all it takes to dismiss arguments to your satisfaction, but it does nothing to address the central points.
LOL. That's right up there with "fake but accurate." "You're saying I'm a crazy person, but you're not addressing my point!"
Whatever, dude. Back to your padded room with the nice jacket with the sleeves that don't go anywhere.
Slashdot Mirror
LOL! Thank you, "Think 1," for demonstrating that no matter how big an idiot we encounter on Slashdot, there will always be a bigger idiot waiting in the wings.
Um. The message is "false hope bad, dealing with difficult realities good." Agree, disagree, whatever; there's no need to be a dumbass about it.
You're kidding, right? This is Apple, the company that runs the long-running movie trailer site and the iTunes Music Store. They've got more bandwidth than Jesus.
For a genre film, it had a pretty clever script. I'll never forget this bit:
Alex: One gunstar against the whole armada? It'll be a slaughter!
Grig: That's the spirit!
Alex: No, my slaughter!
Mags. And his little brother was named Louis. And the old guy was named Otis. And his Saturday was ruined because Granny's electric went out again. He had to stay and fix it instead of going to Toshi Station to pick up some power converters. Or something.
Completely random. Take the crack pipe out of your mouth before posting again, dipshit.
UN resolutions are for the UN to enforce.
Apart from the fact that you're just plain wrong --read the UN charter lately? --enforce with what? Strong language?
Of course, I expected the same response from you, because I explained it all to you 2 years ago.
LOL. You've been right all along, huh? It's everybody else in the country that's been wrong. That's real sensible. I'm amazed you haven't won over more converts with that kind of talk.
I hypnotized Bush, and his public speeches are my own words.
If I were you, I wouldn't brag too loudly about the fact that you lack the basic human intelligence required to understand things like speeches. I wouldn't advertise the fact that you come away from speeches and other statements of policy thinking that the speaker just told you that black is white or that up is down. I wouldn't mention that because it demonstrates the degree to which you are an idiot. Which is something you should try as hard as possible to hide.
The latest piece of jujitsu in this saga is that the DNC has demanded that the RNC explain their part in the forgery of the memos.
Misdirection and spin. The RNC has no part in the forgery whatsoever. The DNC, in demanding that the RNC explain its involvement, has allowed its most lamebrained followers to reject that answer out of hand and keep the conspiracy theory alive.
Lame, lame, lame. Clever politicking, but incredibly lame.
the chances of either national party being involved are negligible.
Um. The DNC is already involved. Joe Lockhart, remember?
The polls are clearly swinging towards Kerry
LOL! Have you seen the latest numbers? Even in the biased polls --the ones that selectively sample in order to approximate the voter turnout in the 2000 election, which was a very low turnout for Republicans--show Kerry tied or behind by a margin that's within the MOE. The unbiased polls show Bush up by as much as 14 or 15 points nationwide. Electoral college math has Bush breaking 300 electoral college votes if the election were held today. Bush's job approval is up over 50%, and the Rasmussen automated tracking poll, not known for being accurate in the numbers but known for being an indicator of trends, has Bush's margin increasing.
Al Qaeda to attack before the inauguration unless people vote for Bush etc.
Oh, sure. It's all a big conspiracy. Whatever, dipshit.
In the context GWB used to justify the Iraq invasion, WMD is something that poses a major threat to the USA.
Idiot. You think that these things just get made up? The terms of disarmament were defined by UN Security Council resolutions. I don't care how many words you try to put in the president's mouth; it won't change the underlying facts.
You, sir, are a troll.
Cue orchestra crash.
You most certainly did not make up the fallacy of consensus (aka. the Democratic fallacy).
Sure I did. I just pulled it right out of my ass. If it happened, by some striking coincidence, to coincide with something that somebody else pulled right out of their ass, that's certainly interesting.
Note: it does not mean what you originally said.
LOL! I made it up, you shithead.
Does anyone else see the irony in this statement and its tone?
Nope. Just you.
Well, I've been baited long enough. You win, I responded to your childish and mindless posts. Congratulations.
And yet again you wander off feeling smug, somehow oblivious to the fact that you have said nothing at all.
Provide some sources.
No.
For example, googling on "Septermber 17" and dental records turn up nothing on any dental records from September 17th, 1972 for George W.
LOL. Must never have happened then. If some miserable putz can't find it with a half-assed Internet search, then it's obviously false. Nothing to see here, move along, back to your homes.
I mean, what do I have to do to get you to give me some evidence?
You can start by reading my articles.
Until then, I'll stop wasting my time.
Yes, please.
Hopefully someone else will find my earlier posts interesting.
Slim chance of that.
Bush got into the TANG despite a 500-person waiting list, the lowest possible score on the aptitude test and no relevant experience.
Mikey, is that you?
The idea that there was a big master waiting list is wholly an invention of Michael Moore. It's simply not true. The truth is that there were lots of slots open for applicants who could qualify as pilots, who were willing to fly the F-102, and who would sign a six-year commitment.
Also, the person who interceded for him has come forward and admitted his role.
Ben Barnes, the well-documented liar with a grudge against the Bush family? Ben Barnes, who first said that he interceded for George W. Bush in 1968, when he was UN General Envoy to Geneva? Ben Barnes, who now says he interceded in 1969, a full year after Bush got into the Guard? Ben Barnes who has been making baseless allegations for political purposes since 1994? Ben Barnes, who testified under oath about his allegations in 1999 and subsequently recanted, narrowly missing a perjury charge? Ben Barnes who has been unable to produce a single piece of documentary evidence or corroborating testimony from anyone in a full decade?
Wow. Compelling.
The Air Force and/or TANG have released documents stating that Bush was ordered to take a flight physical and that his flying priveleges were revoked when he refused.
No. There is no evidence that any such order was given. If a pilot wanted to fly, he had to take an annual physical. If he didn't take his physical, his flight status was revoked. Pilots who weren't going to be flying regularly skipped their annual physicals because those physicals were very involved and very invasive and very uncomfortable. There has never been any documentation that an order was given until these memos popped up, and these memos are forgeries.
Are you trying to claim that military personnel can refuse orders because they're 'uncomfortable' or 'make no sense'?
I'm trying to explain to you --although God knows why --that no such order was ever given. The reason why the forged memos were so damning is because they finally provided documentary evidence that Bush refused an order. Except they didn't, because they were big ol' fakes. So we're back to square one: no evidence of an order.
BUT he has never explained why he didn't
Yes, he has, repeatedly. He has said, countless times during the past decade, that he opted out of his physical because he was not going to be flying during the 1972-1973 year. There were more pilots than planes in his unit at that time, and there wasn't a spot on the roster for him. No flying, no need to maintain flight status, no physical.
What he hasn't done is said that he skipped his physical to avoid failing a drug test, which is the only thing the Bush haters would be willing to accept.
I would like Bush to explain to a National Guard pilot currently serving in Iraq, or in line to go to Iraq, why he can't simply quit the way he, Bush, did.
Um. They can. All they have to do is request an early discharge. If they've met their requirements and their unit isn't deployed at the time of the request, the request will almost certainly be granted.
And he did quit, by the way. That is also a fact.
Yes, it is. Except it's not called "quitting." It's called "early discharge." And it's a standard part of the National Guard's way of doing business.
John Kerry got an early discharge, too, by the way. Wanna talk about how he quit? Or do you want to ramble on about how it's different somehow for reasons that you never fully address but that you insist are salient?
Your still doing it.
...seeing as how I made it up.
That's "you're." See, it's a contraction. Short for "you are." Not the second-person possessive pronoun "your." Different. See?
I wasn't America bashing.
True, you were just Americans-bashing. That's much less offensive.
When you can't argue with any substance
Said the guy who has yet to actually, you know, say anything.
I also find it funny that you equate adherance to logic with a lack of common sense AND a sense of superiority.
Gee, where could I ever have gotten the idea that you're a superior sumbitch? Where could I ever have gotten that idea? It's a big mystery, that's what it is. Because, you know, you don't sound superior at all. You don't sound smug and self-satisfied. You don't sound like you have rod up your ass that's got a rod up its ass. So where could I have gotten that idea? Wherever could that idea have come from?
Guess it just came to me.
If we don't look at the world through reasoning, thought and logic, how is truth even possible?
Oooh, I bet that one really impresses the other freshmen.
Finally, I did not use the Democratic fallacy.
I should hope not
What a putz.
shouldn't Bush have been able to say "that never happened"?
I don't recall his saying that he's not queen of the space weasels, either. Stop the motherfuckin' presses.
I don't expect the president to deny every crazy allegation that gets cooked up, but I also don't expect him to hand them out to everybody in the press core, either.
That's White House communications office policy.
And perhaps based on a false assumption, if you can provide a source for your "press corps policy."
Well, it's right here in this three-ring binder. Come on down here and I'll make you a photocopy.
It was a mandatory requirement and if a pilot failed to take it, a commander had to conduct an investigation and either convene a Flying Evaluation Board or forward a detailed report up the chain of command.
Not correct. Try again.
Whether or not he earned the required 48 points in a year
50
has no bearing on whether or not he missed five months.
Um. Yeah, it does. The only requirement was to earn 50 points during the year. If you miss a drill, you make it up. You can earn all 50 points in the last month if you want.
Look, the facts as released by the Whitehouse are that he missed five months, from the end of May to the end of October.
Where are you getting this "he missed five months" language? That language doesn't make sense in this context. Guard members are required to fulfill their obligations on a yearly basis, not on a monthly basis.
He said that about the end of June 1970 after he had finished his training.
He finished his training in the winter of 1968. Sigh.
Go read this Guardian article from 1999.
Al-Ghaurdian? Don't think so.
It talks about Ben Barnes providing sworn testimony before a court that he in fact pulled strings to get Bush into the Guard.
That's the same testimony that he recanted under oath. Why do you idiots keep bringing up the Ben Barnes story when that story is deader than a box of hammers?
So, that doesn't prove it is true and you are free to believe it isn't, but there is evidence that suggests it happened.
No, there is no evidence whatsoever. There is the testimony of a man with a publicly acknowledged grudge, testimony which he subsequently recanted.
You are talking about dental records from January 6th, 1973
September 17, 1972.
Given the accuracy in the rest of your post, can you provide some examples?
Given the foolishness of your post, can you go read for yourself? Try looking at something that's not five years out of date, and that's not published in DNC propaganda machines like the Times, and the Globe. Try getting your facts from objective sources instead of spewing Michael Moore's talking points.
See, the thing about defying logic is that by doing so, your argument is invalid.
And yet I'm still right. Shocker, huh? Amazing.
This is about what constitutes truth.
Right. Truth: George W. Bush enlisted in the Texas Air National Guard, got one of many open spots for F-102 pilots willing to sign a six-year commitment, fulfilled his obligations, and was honorably discharged. Lie: George W. Bush got preferential treatment, didn't do what he was supposed to do, and failed to report for duty.
Why the hell should I (or anyone else here) believe in your conclusion if you have given us no compelling arguments to back up your conclusion?
Because it is a matter of fact. It's about what constitutes truth, remember?
All you have proven by your mindless and childish posts is how intellectual honesty is no longer important to the average American.
Cue the America bashing. Now talk about how we're all fat, and how we like country music, and how we're not educated and erudite.
There is this fucked up notion that "common sense" should overrule logic.
Yeah. Real fucked up.
If you don't, I'm going to call you on it.
That's worked so well so far. All you've managed to demonstrate to this point is that (1) you have no idea what we're actually talking about here, and (2) you're a superior sumbitch. What else would you like to share with the class?
Hopefully the mods on this board realize that point. By the fact that your response to my observatives was met with a +3 Funny, I'm not so sure they will.
Ah, but isn't that the logical fallacy of the consensus, also known as Plato's fallacy?
(See how incredibly stupid that sounds?)
The Texas Politician "spreading rumours" is the one THAT PULLED THE STRINGS.
No, he's the one that says he pulled strings, that has said he pulled strings ever since 1994, but that cannot produce a single piece of documentary evidence or a corroborating witness to back up his story that he pulled strings.
He's also got a very old and very well documented grudge against Bush.
I have a real problem with cowards. Bush is one, by definition.
Oooh, yes, you're a real bad ass.
Now kids are dying in fucking Iraq, which did NOT have any WMD
Except they did, chemical, biological and radiological. But you just keep on insisting that they didn't have any, or that they didn't have enough, or that they didn't have the right kind, or whatever the spin of the week is.
They did NOT have any hand in 9/11.
No, they were just planning the next one.
Hussein may have been a despot, but he was evidently cool when he was OUR despot.
Which part of that sentence is the bad part?
Nor was he any worse than the dozens of petty dictators we support EVERY goddam DAY.
Name one.
Yeah, I got alot to be angry about, asshole.
If I were as ignorant and as foolish as you, I'd be pretty pissed off too. Need a hug?
In the next breath, you resort to name calling
...I am home. So very confused.
I didn't resort to it. I reveled in it.
Check out your other posts on this thread
How sweet. I have a fan.
You suck, dipshit! Go home.
But
Seriously, can we please have a debate where disagreements don't result in name calling?
Sure. As long as the ignorant fuckwits stay out of it.
Also, I'd like to take the opportunity to say something about logical fallacies: don't use them.
I'd like to say something about your something: grow the fuck up. "Ah! Ah! Logical fallacy!" may have impressed the girls in seventh grade, but this is grown-up time. If you want to have a conversation, have a conversation. If you don't, take your lame-ass cries of "fallacy!" and get off the field.
"But he's not playing by the rules! He's using dirty words and calling people names and committing logical fallacies!"
"Yes, but he's also right."
"But it's not fair!"
Waa waa waa.
Hell, Molly Ivins new about this YEARS ago.
Well, hell! It must be true if Molly Ivins says so!
BUSH did NOT show in Alabama.
The official record says otherwise.
1. Bush got preferential treatment
There's zero evidence of that, just a malicious rumor spread by a former Texas politician with a grudge.
2. Bush did NOT serve his entire enlistment
Correct. In 1973, a bit over seven months before the end of his commitment, he requested and was granted early discharge. Oooh, scandal.
3. Bush did not take a required physical, and lost his flight rating as a result
Correct, except that "required" in this context means "required to maintain flight status," not "required to fulfill his service."
4. Bush left early.
We covered that one already.
Got anything else you're "so angry" about, you fucking freak?
Well, I guess the whole controversy over Bush's election is just a figment of my imagination then.
:)
Basically, yeah. It's made up. It's not real. It's a tin-foil-hat thing, like the "controversy" over the moon landing or the "controversy" over flight 77.
Either way, I wish you well... I think you need some good energy in your life.
Oh, well, by all means then, let me get a crystal and do some meditation and channel the spirit of Ramtha, a 35,000-year-old hunter-gatherer who can share his wisdom with me.
Freak.
Yes, please, for the love of God, vote for a 3rd party. The sooner we get the crazy people out of the political parties and off into their own little wild-eyed fringe groups, the sooner we can stop talking about foolishness and get back to real issues.
It doesn't matter who makes a claim, only if the claim is true or false.
Who makes the claim affects whether the claim should be believed or not.
You are dutifully following conservaclone rule #1, though: "Attack the source."
And you are dutifully following idiot crapweasel rule #1: "Spew filth and then accuse the other guys of attacking the source."
It was fake but accurate
Nursey will be along with your injection shortly, Mr. Crazy Man.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: proof positive that somebody can be a genius in one field and a shithead in all the others.
If they couldn't possibly be true, then why did the White House distribute them?
It's press corps policy. Anything that comes in for comment gets passed on to everybody in the press corps.
Why did Scott McClellan say "We had every reason to believe that they were authentic at that time"?
Um. 'Cause it's true? I don't see your point.
Shouldn't George Bush have been able to recall that he hadn't disobeyed a direct order?
You aren't understanding simple points here. 1. No such order was ever given. Therefore 2. it never could have been disobeyed. There exists absolutely no evidence that any such order was given; that was an invention of these memos. Expecting the president to publicly deny every crazy allegation that gets cooked up about him is just silly.
An annual physical is not something you just "skip" because you don't feel you need to have flight status.
Actually, yeah, it is. If you want to be cleared to fly, you have to take a physical. If you aren't going to be required to fly (as Bush wasn't) and you don't want to hang on to your status for some other reason, you just don't take the physical. Common practice.
The government spent over a million bucks training him, he doesn't just get to say he isn't interested any more.
He didn't. When Bush requested a transfer to Alabama, he was told that he would be welcome but that due to a surplus of pilots who had rotated back home, there would be no place on the flightline for him. More pilots than aircraft, you see. More pegs than holes. Ergo, he would not be flying in Alabama. Ergo, no need to maintain flight status.
In his "autobiography," A Charge to Keep, he claims just that. "I continued flying with my unit for the next several years." The truth is he stopped after less than two years.
1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, half of 1972. That's four and a half years, not two. If you want to argue about whether that constitutes "several" be my guest. You'll be arguing by yourself, however.
Bush got in in front of thousands of others
False. In 1968, there were open slots for pilots who wanted to fly the F-102. Bush simply got into one of many open slots.
So the question isn't if strings were pulled, but who pulled them.
Nope. Simply untrue. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that any strings at all were pulled, ever.
A transfer would imply that he showed up in Alabama, but the records show he was simply gone for five months.
Yet another untruth spread by you for purposes unknown. We have service and pay records indicating that not only did Bush show up for duty in Alabama, he fulfilled all of his requirements for service. In both 1972 and 1973, Bush earned 56 points, more than the required 50 points. You don't get points if you don't show up.
Of course, you will undoubtedly fall back on "somebody was covering for him," but that's just circular reasoning. Not that that will stop you from getting really strident and shrill about it.
There are no credible witnesses that can recall him ever showing up in Alabama.
There's no evidence that he wasn't there, though, and plenty of documentary evidence that puts him on the scene. Including, as you're well aware, records of a dental examination. You wouldn't suggest, would you, that his teeth were on base but that he was not?
This is a pretty good summary of what we know at this point.
No, it's not. That was written by Kevin Drum, a well-documented partisan and a skilled liar himself. You will learn nothing by reading only that which is written by people who have no compunction about covering up or ignoring relevant facts in order to make their case.
Frankly, I would be more than happy to have the whole thing dropped if Bush would simply acknowledge what the record shows: he didn't faithfully fulfill his obligation to the National Guard.
That is not what the record shows. The record shows, in fact, exactly the opposite. So why aren't you happy to drop the whole thing right now?
Dismissing someone as a "Bush-hater" might be all it takes to dismiss arguments to your satisfaction, but it does nothing to address the central points.
LOL. That's right up there with "fake but accurate." "You're saying I'm a crazy person, but you're not addressing my point!"
Whatever, dude. Back to your padded room with the nice jacket with the sleeves that don't go anywhere.