Is Chris Thomas a Real Pilot?

"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: Corky Scott
Date: 8/26/2004 7:53 AM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

On 26 Aug 2004 01:37:16 GMT, osite (RobertR237)
wrote:

It was an issue in Kerry's campaign because he wants to try and use it
as
some
sort of leverage that he has better qualifications to be commander in
chief.

The democrats have been pushing the issue of Bush's National Guard
record
from
the very beginning. It also takes the heat off of Kerry's voting record
which
they really don't want advertised.

Fact: Kerry went to Vietnam and fought in combat. Fact: He was a
commander who commanded in combat. Regardless the medals issue and
those swift boat idiots who are funded by close Texan friends of Bush,
and who have direct connections to the Whitehouse whether Bush was
aware of it or not, he went and put himself and his men in harms way,
like all soldiers are supposed to, but sometimes don't. It is said by
many who fought in war that leading soldiers under fire is an all
encompassing leavening process, that it changes you forever and
teaches you to lead.

It's an issue because Bush, for whatever his reasons, chose not to go
to Vietnam, and that's a fact too. Yes he flew an F-102 but as
everyone who knew him and Bush himself admits, he mostly drank and
partied during those years. I would venture to say, there's no doubt
about this either, it's been extensively documented and Bush himself
admits to heavy drinking and partying during those years, as do those
who knew him.

As a young man Kerry - led men in deadly combat during the most
divisive conflict in American history. A conflict that our leaders
who took us there now admit was a HUGE mistake. Some, like Kerry,
figured this out while he was there. He not only had to command his
men, he also had to command his Swift Boat. Loose control of the boat
and you loose control of the situation and put your men in jeopardy.
Most readily admit that Swift Boat duty was tough and dangerous duty.

As a young man Bush - drank and partied while flying stateside for the
National Guard thus avoiding serving in combat. Whether it was his
intent or not, he did not go.

Those were the processes by which these two men learned to lead.
Which process do you think might have the best chance to shape a
decisive leader?

Corky Scott

Main Gott, you are comparing anvils to oranges. The leadership a man
learns in
combat is how to lead in combat not how to run a corporation. Successful
executives use managment, not leadership. There is a difference.

As for the drinking and partying I can tell you have never been in the
military. I am willing to bet kerry did exactly that between missions. I
know I
did when I was in Viet Nam in the Army.

Now then, why does kerry not talk about what he has done in his political
life?
Kerry is always alternating between bashing Bush and bring up his Viet Nam
service. I want to hear from kerry what his plans are if by some miracle
he
gets elected.

Now the most important question: what has any of this to do with homebuilt
aircraft?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired


George Bush has yet to run a successful corportation (or small business for
that matter) without a 'bail-out' from either taxpayers, or foreign
financial intervention (IE the Saudi family).

Also, I have yet to find ANYONE that was allowed to go to flight school with
less than a 6 year ACTIVE duty or reserve commitment. Kerry may be a chump,
but GW Bush is disgusting. How ANY Vet can support this ****-ant is beyond
me. This Vet won't vote for that pile of defecation.

What has this got to do with aircraft? Kerry is an active pilot. GW Bush is
a wanna-be that refused to fulfill his promise to the TANG. Kerry is a
'friend' of aviation. GW Bush is a.... ???

Kerry DOES talk about his political life. You may not be listening.

Phil (U.S. Army 71-77)

PAW wrote:

"B2431" wrote in message
...

From: Corky Scott
Date: 8/26/2004 7:53 AM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

On 26 Aug 2004 01:37:16 GMT, osite (RobertR237)
wrote:


It was an issue in Kerry's campaign because he wants to try and use it

as

some

sort of leverage that he has better qualifications to be commander in

chief.

The democrats have been pushing the issue of Bush's National Guard

record

from

the very beginning. It also takes the heat off of Kerry's voting record

which

they really don't want advertised.

Fact: Kerry went to Vietnam and fought in combat. Fact: He was a
commander who commanded in combat. Regardless the medals issue and
those swift boat idiots who are funded by close Texan friends of Bush,
and who have direct connections to the Whitehouse whether Bush was
aware of it or not, he went and put himself and his men in harms way,
like all soldiers are supposed to, but sometimes don't. It is said by
many who fought in war that leading soldiers under fire is an all
encompassing leavening process, that it changes you forever and
teaches you to lead.

It's an issue because Bush, for whatever his reasons, chose not to go
to Vietnam, and that's a fact too. Yes he flew an F-102 but as
everyone who knew him and Bush himself admits, he mostly drank and
partied during those years. I would venture to say, there's no doubt
about this either, it's been extensively documented and Bush himself
admits to heavy drinking and partying during those years, as do those
who knew him.

As a young man Kerry - led men in deadly combat during the most
divisive conflict in American history. A conflict that our leaders
who took us there now admit was a HUGE mistake. Some, like Kerry,
figured this out while he was there. He not only had to command his
men, he also had to command his Swift Boat. Loose control of the boat
and you loose control of the situation and put your men in jeopardy.
Most readily admit that Swift Boat duty was tough and dangerous duty.

As a young man Bush - drank and partied while flying stateside for the
National Guard thus avoiding serving in combat. Whether it was his
intent or not, he did not go.

Those were the processes by which these two men learned to lead.
Which process do you think might have the best chance to shape a
decisive leader?

Corky Scott

Main Gott, you are comparing anvils to oranges. The leadership a man

learns in

combat is how to lead in combat not how to run a corporation. Successful
executives use managment, not leadership. There is a difference.

As for the drinking and partying I can tell you have never been in the
military. I am willing to bet kerry did exactly that between missions. I

know I

did when I was in Viet Nam in the Army.

Now then, why does kerry not talk about what he has done in his political

life?

Kerry is always alternating between bashing Bush and bring up his Viet Nam
service. I want to hear from kerry what his plans are if by some miracle

he

gets elected.

Now the most important question: what has any of this to do with homebuilt
aircraft?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired



George Bush has yet to run a successful corportation (or small business for
that matter) without a 'bail-out' from either taxpayers, or foreign
financial intervention (IE the Saudi family).

Also, I have yet to find ANYONE that was allowed to go to flight school with
less than a 6 year ACTIVE duty or reserve commitment. Kerry may be a chump,
but GW Bush is disgusting. How ANY Vet can support this ****-ant is beyond
me. This Vet won't vote for that pile of defecation.

What has this got to do with aircraft? Kerry is an active pilot. GW Bush is
a wanna-be that refused to fulfill his promise to the TANG. Kerry is a
'friend' of aviation. GW Bush is a.... ???

Bush as a moral compass, Kerry reads the polls, just like Clinton. If
the polls said that 77% of Americans supported legalizing murder, Kerry
would likely support it also.


Matt

DAMN, MATT!

A 5 kb post, for two lines? Learn to snip, please!
--
Jim in NC

Corky Scott wrote:

On 26 Aug 2004 01:37:16 GMT, osite (RobertR237)
wrote:


It was an issue in Kerry's campaign because he wants to try and use it as some
sort of leverage that he has better qualifications to be commander in chief.
The democrats have been pushing the issue of Bush's National Guard record from
the very beginning. It also takes the heat off of Kerry's voting record which
they really don't want advertised.


Fact: Kerry went to Vietnam and fought in combat. Fact: He was a
commander who commanded in combat. Regardless the medals issue and
those swift boat idiots who are funded by close Texan friends of Bush,
and who have direct connections to the Whitehouse whether Bush was
aware of it or not, he went and put himself and his men in harms way,
like all soldiers are supposed to, but sometimes don't. It is said by
many who fought in war that leading soldiers under fire is an all
encompassing leavening process, that it changes you forever and
teaches you to lead.

It's an issue because Bush, for whatever his reasons, chose not to go
to Vietnam, and that's a fact too. Yes he flew an F-102 but as
everyone who knew him and Bush himself admits, he mostly drank and
partied during those years. I would venture to say, there's no doubt
about this either, it's been extensively documented and Bush himself
admits to heavy drinking and partying during those years, as do those
who knew him.

As a young man Kerry - led men in deadly combat during the most
divisive conflict in American history. A conflict that our leaders
who took us there now admit was a HUGE mistake. Some, like Kerry,
figured this out while he was there. He not only had to command his
men, he also had to command his Swift Boat. Loose control of the boat
and you loose control of the situation and put your men in jeopardy.
Most readily admit that Swift Boat duty was tough and dangerous duty.

As a young man Bush - drank and partied while flying stateside for the
National Guard thus avoiding serving in combat. Whether it was his
intent or not, he did not go.

Those were the processes by which these two men learned to lead.
Which process do you think might have the best chance to shape a
decisive leader?

Corky Scott




Based on Kerry's voting record in Congress, I'd say Bush.


Matt

wrote:

It was an issue in Kerry's campaign because he wants to try and use it as
some
sort of leverage that he has better qualifications to be commander in chief.

The democrats have been pushing the issue of Bush's National Guard record
from
the very beginning. It also takes the heat off of Kerry's voting record
which
they really don't want advertised.

Fact: Kerry went to Vietnam and fought in combat. Fact: He was a
commander who commanded in combat. Regardless the medals issue and
those swift boat idiots who are funded by close Texan friends of Bush,
and who have direct connections to the Whitehouse whether Bush was
aware of it or not, he went and put himself and his men in harms way,
like all soldiers are supposed to, but sometimes don't. It is said by
many who fought in war that leading soldiers under fire is an all
encompassing leavening process, that it changes you forever and
teaches you to lead.

It's an issue because Bush, for whatever his reasons, chose not to go
to Vietnam, and that's a fact too. Yes he flew an F-102 but as
everyone who knew him and Bush himself admits, he mostly drank and
partied during those years. I would venture to say, there's no doubt
about this either, it's been extensively documented and Bush himself
admits to heavy drinking and partying during those years, as do those
who knew him.

As a young man Kerry - led men in deadly combat during the most
divisive conflict in American history. A conflict that our leaders
who took us there now admit was a HUGE mistake. Some, like Kerry,
figured this out while he was there. He not only had to command his
men, he also had to command his Swift Boat. Loose control of the boat
and you loose control of the situation and put your men in jeopardy.
Most readily admit that Swift Boat duty was tough and dangerous duty.

As a young man Bush - drank and partied while flying stateside for the
National Guard thus avoiding serving in combat. Whether it was his
intent or not, he did not go.

Those were the processes by which these two men learned to lead.
Which process do you think might have the best chance to shape a
decisive leader?

Corky Scott

I don't think that any one event will shape a decisive leader. The roads to
any given point are many and varied. Yes, Kerry served in Viet Nam but based
on his testimony and actions after returning from Viet Nam, I have serious
questions about what sort of decisive leader he has become. I even have many
questions about what sort of leader he was in Viet Nam. He testified about
some of the acts our soldiers did in Viet Nam but I wonder if he was speaking
from the personal experience of his own actions.

In any case, both Bush and Kerry have come a long way since then. I much more
concerned with what each is likely to do from here forward than with what they
did 35 years ago. Neither impresses me much in that respect.

Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

Corky Scott wrote:

As a young man Bush - drank and partied while flying stateside for the
National Guard thus avoiding serving in combat. Whether it was his
intent or not, he did not go.

Those were the processes by which these two men learned to lead.
Which process do you think might have the best chance to shape a
decisive leader?

Corky Scott



Corky, Corky, Corky
Are you saying that those that served in the NG should be less proud
of their service in the guard because they did not serve in Vietnam?
I did serve in vietnam and I do not think any less of those that stayed state
side in the NG.

Bush does admit he had a drinking problem and overcame it, I believe that is a
plus for him.

I well not ever forgive Kerry and his cronies for saying I committed atrocities
in Vietnam. I say I because I do take it personally.

Also why is Kerry trying to suppress his own book called "The New Soldier,"
that has a picture of a bunch of hippy types rising the American flag upside down?

Jerry

"Jerry Springer" wrote in message
ink.net...
Corky Scott wrote:

As a young man Bush - drank and partied while flying stateside for the
National Guard thus avoiding serving in combat. Whether it was his
intent or not, he did not go.

Those were the processes by which these two men learned to lead.
Which process do you think might have the best chance to shape a
decisive leader?

Corky Scott



Corky, Corky, Corky
Are you saying that those that served in the NG should be less proud
of their service in the guard because they did not serve in Vietnam?
I did serve in vietnam and I do not think any less of those that stayed
state
side in the NG.

Bush does admit he had a drinking problem and overcame it, I believe that
is a
plus for him.

I well not ever forgive Kerry and his cronies for saying I committed
atrocities
in Vietnam. I say I because I do take it personally.

Also why is Kerry trying to suppress his own book called "The New
Soldier,"
that has a picture of a bunch of hippy types rising the American flag
upside down?

Jerry


" I well not ever forgive Kerry and his cronies for saying I committed
atrocities
in Vietnam. I say I because I do take it personally."

Are you trying to say what Kerry said was not true? No freefire zones, no
villages burned to the ground, nobody from the 101st collecting VC ears, no
TA312's being cranked on the nutsacks of NVA? You may not like what he
said, but it was true.

Phil

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 08:53:59 -0400, Corky Scott
wrote:

e heat off of Kerry's voting record which
they really don't want advertised.

Fact: Kerry went to Vietnam and fought in combat. Fact: He was a
commander who commanded in combat. Regardless the medals issue and
those swift boat idiots who are funded by close Texan friends of Bush,

Just who did you expect to finance it? A Democrat? I suspect all of
Kerry's ads are financed by his supporters.

and who have direct connections to the Whitehouse whether Bush was
aware of it or not, he went and put himself and his men in harms way,
like all soldiers are supposed to, but sometimes don't. It is said by
many who fought in war that leading soldiers under fire is an all
encompassing leavening process, that it changes you forever and
teaches you to lead.

It's an issue because Bush, for whatever his reasons, chose not to go
to Vietnam, and that's a fact too. Yes he flew an F-102 but as
everyone who knew him and Bush himself admits, he mostly drank and
partied during those years. I would venture to say, there's no doubt
about this either, it's been extensively documented and Bush himself
admits to heavy drinking and partying during those years, as do those
who knew him.

As a young man Kerry - led men in deadly combat during the most
divisive conflict in American history. A conflict that our leaders
who took us there now admit was a HUGE mistake. Some, like Kerry,
figured this out while he was there. He not only had to command his
men, he also had to command his Swift Boat. Loose control of the boat
and you loose control of the situation and put your men in jeopardy.
Most readily admit that Swift Boat duty was tough and dangerous duty.

As a young man Bush - drank and partied while flying stateside for the
National Guard thus avoiding serving in combat. Whether it was his
intent or not, he did not go.

Those were the processes by which these two men learned to lead.
Which process do you think might have the best chance to shape a
decisive leader?

Corky Scott