GWB has been a good Commander-in-Chief

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 zexvc.9347$ni.1594@okepread01, on 08/20/2004
at 09:06 PM, "sanjian" said:

wrote:
In 4qcVc.7983$ni.1490@okepread01, on 08/19/2004
at 09:25 PM, "sanjian" said:

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

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

Well, first of all, dangerous to fly doesn't mean it can't be rigged
with controls, even automatic ones.

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).

That's hardly a valid conclusion. That something can be piloted by
remote doesn't mean it's easy to fly or particularly stable. So
I've got an Air Force Colonel telling me that they were a nightmare,
and I've got you saying they were "easy to fly." So, what are your
qualifications to say that?

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

Why do you leftwingers post half(at best)-truths and sheer bull****?

To counter the utter nonsense and lies of you rightwingers. -- bush
was a flop who went AWOL when he was asked to pee in the cup.

I see. When confronted by your lies, you just use another one. Do you
honestly think you're fooling anyone? Or could it be that you're
actually fooling yourself?

Bush went AWOL when he had to pee in the cup. -- What part of that
statement don't you get?

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 zexvc.9347$ni.1594@okepread01, on 08/20/2004
at 09:06 PM, "sanjian" said:

wrote:
In 4qcVc.7983$ni.1490@okepread01, on 08/19/2004
at 09:25 PM, "sanjian" said:

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

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

Well, first of all, dangerous to fly doesn't mean it can't be rigged
with controls, even automatic ones.

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).

That's hardly a valid conclusion. That something can be piloted by
remote doesn't mean it's easy to fly or particularly stable. So
I've got an Air Force Colonel telling me that they were a nightmare,
and I've got you saying they were "easy to fly." So, what are your
qualifications to say that?

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

Why do you leftwingers post half(at best)-truths and sheer bull****?

To counter the utter nonsense and lies of you rightwingers. -- bush
was a flop who went AWOL when he was asked to pee in the cup.

I see. When confronted by your lies, you just use another one. Do you
honestly think you're fooling anyone? Or could it be that you're
actually fooling yourself?

Bush went AWOL when he had to pee in the cup. -- What part of that
statement don't you get?

wrote in message news:rFJVc.10146$3O2.3077@trndny07...
: In zexvc.9347$ni.1594@okepread01, on 08/20/2004
: at 09:06 PM, "sanjian" said:
:
: wrote:
: In 4qcVc.7983$ni.1490@okepread01, on 08/19/2004
: at 09:25 PM, "sanjian" said:
:
: wrote:
: In Zktuc.25886$Yf6.21127@lakeread03, on 08/18/2004
: at 09:53 PM, "sanjian" said:
:
: 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
:
: Well, first of all, dangerous to fly doesn't mean it can't be rigged
: with controls, even automatic ones.
:
: 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).
:
: That's hardly a valid conclusion. That something can be piloted by
: remote doesn't mean it's easy to fly or particularly stable. So
: I've got an Air Force Colonel telling me that they were a nightmare,
: and I've got you saying they were "easy to fly." So, what are your
: qualifications to say that?
:
: -- Why do you rightwingers post nonsense when so many know better?
:
: Why do you leftwingers post half(at best)-truths and sheer bull****?
:
: To counter the utter nonsense and lies of you rightwingers. -- bush
: was a flop who went AWOL when he was asked to pee in the cup.
:
: I see. When confronted by your lies, you just use another one. Do you
: honestly think you're fooling anyone? Or could it be that you're
: actually fooling yourself?
:
: Bush went AWOL when he had to pee in the cup. -- What part of that
: statement don't you get?

What part of "you can never prove that" don't you understand, Le'Turd? It's
just not true, period.


:
:
:
:

wrote in message news:7XIVc.2206$IO1.635@trndny03...
: In zexvc.9347$ni.1594@okepread01, on 08/20/2004
: at 09:06 PM, "sanjian" said:
:
: wrote:
: In 4qcVc.7983$ni.1490@okepread01, on 08/19/2004
: at 09:25 PM, "sanjian" said:
:
: wrote:
: In Zktuc.25886$Yf6.21127@lakeread03, on 08/18/2004
: at 09:53 PM, "sanjian" said:
:
: 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
:
: Well, first of all, dangerous to fly doesn't mean it can't be rigged
: with controls, even automatic ones.
:
: 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).
:
: That's hardly a valid conclusion. That something can be piloted by
: remote doesn't mean it's easy to fly or particularly stable. So
: I've got an Air Force Colonel telling me that they were a nightmare,
: and I've got you saying they were "easy to fly." So, what are your
: qualifications to say that?
:
: -- Why do you rightwingers post nonsense when so many know better?
:
: Why do you leftwingers post half(at best)-truths and sheer bull****?
:
: To counter the utter nonsense and lies of you rightwingers. -- bush
: was a flop who went AWOL when he was asked to pee in the cup.
:
: I see. When confronted by your lies, you just use another one. Do you
: honestly think you're fooling anyone? Or could it be that you're
: actually fooling yourself?
:
: Bush went AWOL when he had to pee in the cup. -- What part of that
: statement don't you get?

What part of "you can never prove that" don't you understand, Le'Turd? It's
just not true, period.
:
:
:
:

wrote in message news1mVc.9452$_w.5622@trndny04...
: In 4qcVc.7983$ni.1490@okepread01, on 08/19/2004
: at 09:25 PM, "sanjian" said:
:
: wrote:
: In Zktuc.25886$Yf6.21127@lakeread03, on 08/18/2004
: at 09:53 PM, "sanjian" said:
:
: 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
:
: Well, first of all, dangerous to fly doesn't mean it can't be rigged with
: controls, even automatic ones.
:
: 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).
:
: That's hardly a valid conclusion. That something can be piloted by
: remote doesn't mean it's easy to fly or particularly stable. So I've got
: an Air Force Colonel telling me that they were a nightmare, and I've got
: you saying they were "easy to fly." So, what are your qualifications to
: say that?
:
: -- Why do you rightwingers post nonsense when so many know better?
:
: Why do you leftwingers post half(at best)-truths and sheer bull****?
:
: To counter the utter nonsense and lies of you rightwingers. -- bush was a
: flop who went AWOL when he was asked to pee in the cup.

What part of "you can never prove that" don't you understand, Le'Turd? It's
just not true, period.

wrote:
In zexvc.9347$ni.1594@okepread01, on 08/20/2004
at 09:06 PM, "sanjian" said:

I see. When confronted by your lies, you just use another one. Do
you honestly think you're fooling anyone? Or could it be that you're
actually fooling yourself?

Bush went AWOL when he had to pee in the cup. -- What part of that
statement don't you get?

The part where you mistake it for fact.

wrote:
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!

And here we have a prime example of "intellectual McCartheysim." In lieu of
fact, all you have is shouting at the top of your lungs and attacking those
who disagree with you. There was a time, long ago, when the "intellectual
elite" could actually argue their points in a convincing manner, even if
they were dead wrong. I guess those times are in the past. Whether you
make up your arugments, whole cloth, or pull them off some anti-bush site,
you still are not posting fact.

Saddly, even the Holocaust deniers do a better job of convincingly
presenting their argument than you do. Maybe you should study rhetoric, as
opposed to propaganda.

Bush served honorably. 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.

Obviously, it is far easier for you to dismiss your opponent than accept
that we may be right and you may be wrong. Go ahead, put your head back in
the sand and hope we all go away, so you can continue to live in your own
world. Don't let us nasty right-wingers challenge what you believe or force
you to face the world. If, however, you should ever wish to discuss things
like adults, come on back.

wrote:
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!

You already posted that. Resorting to spamming now?