No one awards themselves medals.

Rick wrote:

It will have to be a
"rolling age" law until we are all dead :-).


Good point, consider that added to the amendment.

I will support your effort if you include 80plus year old college student,
photographer, retired ad-men. Also ex Warrant officer bomb aimer/navigators
and
anyone who even remotely kisses their rears on a newsgroup.


You've got a deal.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

ArtKramr wrote:

I'm at the point now where I'm ready to support a Constitutional amendment
barring *any* person between the age of 50 and 65 (Vietnam era service age)
from serving as President of the U.S. Sorry Ed


BUFDRVR

Except of course unless they have actually seen combat.


WRONG! "Seeing" combat has exactly the square root of jack **** to do with
being President. The prisons and mental institutions of this country are chock
full of people who have "seen" combat and I don't consider them qualified to
serve in the nations highest office. The DNC was correct 12 years ago when they
said what a person did (or didn't do) during the Vietnam conflict has nothing
to do with their qualifications to be President, hell, Kerry himself said that!



BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Subject: No one awards themselves medals.
From: (BUFDRVR)
Date: 8/19/2004 8:54 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

ArtKramr wrote:

I'm at the point now where I'm ready to support a Constitutional amendment
barring *any* person between the age of 50 and 65 (Vietnam era service age)
from serving as President of the U.S. Sorry Ed


BUFDRVR

Except of course unless they have actually seen combat.


WRONG! "Seeing" combat has exactly the square root of jack **** to do with
being President. The prisons and mental institutions of this country are
chock


Since you have zero experience being president, you have zero credibility on
that subject. BTW, what is your real name and why are you hiding it?


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

(ArtKramr) wrote:

From: (BUFDRVR)

WRONG! "Seeing" combat has exactly the square root of jack **** to do with
being President. The prisons and mental institutions of this country are
chock

Since you have zero experience being president, you have zero credibility on
that subject.

Just like *you*. So; close your insipid yap, you rotten old
goof.


Billy

http://www.two--four.net/weblog.php

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: No one awards themselves medals.
From: (OXMORON1)
Date: 8/19/2004 5:31 PM Pacific Standard Time

I will support your effort if you include 80plus year old college
student,
photographer, retired ad-men. Also ex Warrant officer bomb
aimer/navigators
and
anyone who even remotely kisses their rears on a newsgroup.

Rick

You are a moron aren't you? You are well named. Go screw yourself.

Methinks the truth was well aimed and the target didn't like hearing the
truth.

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: No one awards themselves medals.
From: (BUFDRVR)
Date: 8/19/2004 8:54 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

ArtKramr wrote:

I'm at the point now where I'm ready to support a Constitutional
amendment
barring *any* person between the age of 50 and 65 (Vietnam era service
age)
from serving as President of the U.S. Sorry Ed


BUFDRVR

Except of course unless they have actually seen combat.


WRONG! "Seeing" combat has exactly the square root of jack **** to do
with
being President. The prisons and mental institutions of this country are
chock


Since you have zero experience being president, you have zero credibility
on
that subject. BTW, what is your real name and why are you hiding it?

And what are your credentials to talk about who should be president? Hmmmm?

Funny, this little thing that Art wrote several weeks ago:

"Let's suppose you hav never been laid but want to know what it is like. So
you
buy every book and read them carefully. Now you know. You feel quite expert
even though you have never actually been laid. But one day you meet a guy
who
has been laid and he tells you what it is like. But you are outraged. That
is
not what it said in the books. This guy is obviously a fraud, He knows
nothing
and you have the books to prove it. And these books are written by expertss
on
sex. So you know best. Now lets take war, Yu have never been to war but read
lot of books, reports etc so you feel you really have it all down cold. Then
you meet a guy who has actually been to war and what he tells you doesn't
agree
with what you read. So obviously this guy who has been to war knows nothing
while you who have never been to was know everything. You accuse him of
lying
and call him a fraud. Maybe you need to do two things:"

Looks like Art is a hypocrit (again) . . . . . .

(BUFDRVR) wrote in message ...

I'm at the point now where I'm ready to support a Constitutional amendment
barring *any* person between the age of 50 and 65 (Vietnam era service age)
from serving as President of the U.S. Sorry Ed


BUFDRVR


Well, I am 70 and served in NAM. I also know a lot of folks older
than that who did.

Gene Myers
Older BUFDRIVER

Gene wrote:
Well, I am 70 and served in NAM. I also know a lot of folks older
than that who did.


But Gene, Do you want to be President?
If so, Bufdrvr will write an exclusion for you in his amendment. He has about
as much political pull as anyone else in this newsgroup :-)

If you you are a "Senior" Buffdriver, did you also have some B-47 time? That
would probably put you in the LeMay era, any comments on him?

Rick Clark

Art wrote:
You are a moron aren't you? You are well named. Go screw yourself.


Gee Art, that hurt my feelings, well maybe not considering your attitude
lately.

Rick
aka oxmoron1 (oxymoron1 was taken years ago and I lost it in a computer change,
so I do know how to spell oxymoron)

ArtKramr wrote:

From: (BUFDRVR)

what is your real name and why are you hiding it?

If he's active military (as he is), he is exercizing reasonable caution. For
those not, the reasons could be many, including being too well known. For
example, if George Bush 41 wanted to chat about naval aviation in world war too
would he post under his real name?