GWB has been a good Commander-in-Chief

In Zktuc.25886$Yf6.21127@lakeread03, on 08/18/2004
at 09:53 PM, "sanjian" said:

LawsonE wrote:
"sanjian" wrote in message
news:5TFUc.25508$Yf6.18570@lakeread03...
[...]
I'd like to see him survive flying one of the most dangerous
aircraft in US military history.



Not hardly: according to the site referred to, the F-102 was bad
compared to MODERN fighters, but compared to other models from that
time period? It was one of the safest US fighter jet to fly for many
years, at least on average. Given that bit of spin on this site, I'd
take the rest of what it says with a grain or two of salt also.

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 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).

-- Why do you rightwingers post nonsense when so many know better?

In article 7QYUc.6516$_w.5361@trndny04,
writes:
In Zktuc.25886$Yf6.21127@lakeread03, on 08/18/2004
at 09:53 PM, "sanjian" said:

LawsonE wrote:
"sanjian" wrote in message
news:5TFUc.25508$Yf6.18570@lakeread03...
[...]
I'd like to see him survive flying one of the most dangerous
aircraft in US military history.



Not hardly: according to the site referred to, the F-102 was bad
compared to MODERN fighters, but compared to other models from that
time period? It was one of the safest US fighter jet to fly for many
years, at least on average. Given that bit of spin on this site, I'd
take the rest of what it says with a grain or two of salt also.

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 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).

Politically, I don't have a dog in this fight. (But you're doing a
damned good job of convincing me) So let's put it on an objective,
factual basis. If the F-102 was so much easier than its Century Series
brethren, adn the jet fighters that preceded it, and thus more
suitable for drone work, how does that explain the QF-80s, QF-86s and
QF-104s that preceded it into service? Or the QF-100s that were its
contemporaries?

If you were to go and research the numbers for accidents, and
fatalities, you'd see that there were much safer options than flying
any sort of fighter available in that same timeframe. There were
National Guard units in the South who were flying C-97 and C-124
transports, which were at least an order of magnitude (As in to the
10th power) safer than any fighter. Or he could have been flying the
Squadron administrative aircraft - usually a T-29 or C-47 at that
time, with comfy seats, a coffee pot, and no chance of hurting itself.
And, to head off the next question, no, you don't have to be a
Resident of a State to be in a particular National Guard unit. Much
of, if not most of, the Vermont National Guard is made up of people
from New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and New York. (VT is the only state
with Armored units in the Northeast. If you want to be a tanker,
that's where you go.) There was nothing stopping him, or anybody
else, from getting a nice, safe, comfy slot with the Tennesee,
Georgia, Mississippi or South Carolina Guard units flying the big
lifters. Hell - if he did, then he could, if he so desired, make all
sorts of true claims about flying into Viet Nam during the war - The
Guard and Reserve Airlift units were a regular part of the MAC
schedule, and made regular trips to Viet Nam and Thailand.

If you want to make a point, make a point. but don't be more stupid
than you have to be.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

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.










In , on 08/19/2004
at 10:12 AM, (Peter Stickney) said:

In article 7QYUc.6516$_w.5361@trndny04,
writes:
In Zktuc.25886$Yf6.21127@lakeread03, on 08/18/2004
at 09:53 PM, "sanjian" said:

LawsonE wrote:
"sanjian" wrote in message
news:5TFUc.25508$Yf6.18570@lakeread03...
[...]
I'd like to see him survive flying one of the most dangerous
aircraft in US military history.



Not hardly: according to the site referred to, the F-102 was bad
compared to MODERN fighters, but compared to other models from that
time period? It was one of the safest US fighter jet to fly for many
years, at least on average. Given that bit of spin on this site, I'd
take the rest of what it says with a grain or two of salt also.

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 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).

Politically, I don't have a dog in this fight. (But you're doing a
damned good job of convincing me) So let's put it on an objective,
factual basis. If the F-102 was so much easier than its Century Series
brethren, adn the jet fighters that preceded it, and thus more suitable
for drone work, how does that explain the QF-80s, QF-86s and QF-104s that
preceded it into service? Or the QF-100s that were its contemporaries?

If you were to go and research the numbers for accidents, and fatalities,
you'd see that there were much safer options than flying any sort of
fighter available in that same timeframe. There were National Guard
units in the South who were flying C-97 and C-124 transports, which were
at least an order of magnitude (As in to the 10th power) safer than any
fighter. Or he could have been flying the Squadron administrative
aircraft - usually a T-29 or C-47 at that time, with comfy seats, a
coffee pot, and no chance of hurting itself. And, to head off the next
question, no, you don't have to be a Resident of a State to be in a
particular National Guard unit. Much of, if not most of, the Vermont
National Guard is made up of people from New Hampshire, Massachusetts,
and New York. (VT is the only state with Armored units in the Northeast.
If you want to be a tanker, that's where you go.) There was nothing
stopping him, or anybody else, from getting a nice, safe, comfy slot with
the Tennesee, Georgia, Mississippi or South Carolina Guard units flying
the big lifters. Hell - if he did, then he could, if he so desired, make
all sorts of true claims about flying into Viet Nam during the war - The
Guard and Reserve Airlift units were a regular part of the MAC schedule,
and made regular trips to Viet Nam and Thailand.

If you want to make a point, make a point. but don't be more stupid than
you have to be.

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.

In llcvc.7979$ni.2899@okepread01, on 08/19/2004
at 09:20 PM, "sanjian" said:

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.

He posted nonsense. bush got into the texas guard -- because daddy had
connections in texas.


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

Its you who cannot accept facts.

wrote:
In llcvc.7979$ni.2899@okepread01, on 08/19/2004
at 09:20 PM, "sanjian" said:

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.

He posted nonsense. bush got into the texas guard -- because daddy
had connections in texas.

I hate to tell you this, but "proof by assertion" has no legitimacy in
logical debates. Even repeated insistance that Bush got in by his
connections does not make it so. It seems that you define "nonsense" as
"That which disagrees with me."

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

Its you who cannot accept facts.

I tend to prefer to have my facts supported by reason and evidence. I guess
I'm old-fashoned that way. For some reason, your method of establishing
"fact" (repeating a lie often and ridiculing those who don't buy off on it)
doesn't convince me.

In Xcxvc.9346$ni.6368@okepread01, on 08/20/2004
at 09:04 PM, "sanjian" said:

wrote:
In llcvc.7979$ni.2899@okepread01, on 08/19/2004
at 09:20 PM, "sanjian" said:

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.

He posted nonsense. bush got into the texas guard -- because daddy
had connections in texas.

I hate to tell you this, but "proof by assertion" has no legitimacy in
logical debates. Even repeated insistance that Bush got in by his
connections does not make it so. It seems that you define "nonsense" as
"That which disagrees with me."

Listen up asshole -- no one got in the ANG during the Vietnam war -- on
the day they applied -- without political power opening the door and
building the road for them.

Deal with it!




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

Its you who cannot accept facts.

I tend to prefer to have my facts supported by reason and evidence. I
guess I'm old-fashoned that way. For some reason, your method of
establishing "fact" (repeating a lie often and ridiculing those who don't
buy off on it) doesn't convince me.

Bull****. You are here to lie for bush and you ignore facts that don't
agree with the rightwing bull**** you believe.

In Xcxvc.9346$ni.6368@okepread01, on 08/20/2004
at 09:04 PM, "sanjian" said:

wrote:
In llcvc.7979$ni.2899@okepread01, on 08/19/2004
at 09:20 PM, "sanjian" said:

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.

He posted nonsense. bush got into the texas guard -- because daddy
had connections in texas.

I hate to tell you this, but "proof by assertion" has no legitimacy in
logical debates. Even repeated insistance that Bush got in by his
connections does not make it so. It seems that you define "nonsense" as
"That which disagrees with me."

Listen up asshole -- no one got in the ANG during the Vietnam war -- on
the day they applied -- without political power opening the door and
building the road for them.

Deal with it!




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

Its you who cannot accept facts.

I tend to prefer to have my facts supported by reason and evidence. I
guess I'm old-fashoned that way. For some reason, your method of
establishing "fact" (repeating a lie often and ridiculing those who don't
buy off on it) doesn't convince me.

Bull****. You are here to lie for bush and you ignore facts that don't
agree with the rightwing bull**** you believe.

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

In Zktuc.25886$Yf6.21127@lakeread03, on 08/18/2004
at 09:53 PM, "sanjian" said:

LawsonE wrote:
"sanjian" wrote in message
news:5TFUc.25508$Yf6.18570@lakeread03...
[...]
I'd like to see him survive flying one of the most dangerous
aircraft in US military history.



Not hardly: according to the site referred to, the F-102 was bad
compared to MODERN fighters, but compared to other models from that
time period? It was one of the safest US fighter jet to fly for many
years, at least on average. Given that bit of spin on this site, I'd
take the rest of what it says with a grain or two of salt also.

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 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?

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

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

In Zktuc.25886$Yf6.21127@lakeread03, on 08/18/2004
at 09:53 PM, "sanjian" said:

LawsonE wrote:
"sanjian" wrote in message
news:5TFUc.25508$Yf6.18570@lakeread03...
[...]
I'd like to see him survive flying one of the most dangerous
aircraft in US military history.



Not hardly: according to the site referred to, the F-102 was bad
compared to MODERN fighters, but compared to other models from that
time period? It was one of the safest US fighter jet to fly for many
years, at least on average. Given that bit of spin on this site, I'd
take the rest of what it says with a grain or two of salt also.

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 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. bush
didn't do something dangerous and daring.