If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#261
|
|||
|
|||
Have you ever seen more than one?
Senator Kerry has three. http://awolbush.com/images/KerryDD214-box24.gif Walt |
#262
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
kontiki wrote: Very well stated Sir. I could distill it down to its simplest terms: The Demos (lead by Kerry) are running towards socialism while the Repubs (lead by Bush) are jogging towards the same ultimate destination. Neal Boortz (boortz.com) put it succintly on one of his radio show one day: Today's Democrats are where the Socialists were in 1960, while today's Republicans are where the Democrats were in 1960. The Libertatians are where the Republicans were in 1960. |
#263
|
|||
|
|||
One, Bush learned to fly in the military at government expense, did not complete his assigned commitment, and flew, if I understand , fourteen months after UPT and has not flown as PIC or SIC since. Neither military or elsewise. (Not counting the ride out to the boat of late.) Well, your inclusion of the "if I understand" is the bailout clause for spouting a lot of crap. Learning to fly in the military at government expense is quite simply the best way to get the best aviation training in the world. Qualifying after UPT in an operational single-seat jet takes, on average another eight to ten months and then becoming operationally ready takes another six months. Whether one flies as PIC again after completion of military service is totally irrelevant. I have not flown as PIC or in any level of control of an aircraft since my retirement from active duty in 1987. Doesn't mean crap. He's certainly under no obligation to fly after his service agreement, the point is _he didn't do that_. They got less than a year and a half out of their half-million dollar investment (in 1972). And tell me someone in his position with his quals would have got the deal he got if his father hadn't been a war hero congressman. Apparently his UPT performance should have put him in multi or helos: and normally someone without specifically in demand attributes should have had to go active duty to get UPT at that time anyway. Yes, that's as I understand it and no, I wasn't there. I'm waiting for someone to prove to me he could have got that commission and training slot with his academics in the National Guard at that time if his name had been Joe Bagodonuts. I was thirteen years old when he went to UPT, old enough to remember public sentiment was rapidly turning against the war-and bitterly so-even in Dogpatch USA. As far as not being able to afford to fly-my neighbor drives a UPS truck and he bought a Decathlon, cash, in February. He's trying to get me to sign off on a top overhaul he wants to do, since I'm an A&P. I'm not about to, and since I haven't used my ticket in fifteen years (since I got it) it wouldn't be legal anyway. But in America the middle class can fly if they want to. Now, mind you, I don't like Bush or Kerry as a candidate. Bush was born on third base and thinks he hit a triple. Kerry is also apparently something of a rich kid, married Big Ketchup, Ivy League (yecch), and to top it off is closely associated with a family I detest and which makes my skin crawl for many reasons (not least of which the same reason a certain baseball player hated them for every day of the last 36 years of his life). I can tell you right now I'm voting third party. Voting third party is your privilege. But, you should note that the government will continue despite your effective lack of participation. Doesn't mean crap. My Presidential vote isn't going to count anyway since my state is not remotely up for grabs and it's a winner-take-all state. But-be honest-is there any reason I should prefer Bush over Kerry from an aviation standpoint? Bush, a nonpilot as far as I'm concerned, has done nothing for aviation in this country. Kerry isn't likely to either, but how much worse could he be? Voting from an "aviation standpoint" doesn't make any sense at all. Voting from a principles, performance, and ideological standpoint does. How much worse could he be? Gimme a break. They both suck. If I voted on pure principle I couldn't even vote Libertarian-although they're closer. Kerry might really screw things up so bad people would have to pull their heads out and in the long run, like a dope bust,it might be beneficial for an addict. Dr. Joe Bagadonutz, the wealthy proctologist buys a Mustang or even a MiG-17 and successfully takes off and lands. He isn't, by any stretch of the imagination, a fighter pilot. He isn't really, even that lesser level, a pilot who flies fighters. He's simply an accident waiting to happen. He's equally likely to kill himself in a Bonanza for that matter. And the civil warjet guys are killing themselves at a rate that would have embarrassed the Air Force during the glory days of "Every Man A Tiger". Excuse me, but you obviously haven't read "Every Man A Tiger." It's about Chuck Horner as the Air Component Commander of Desert Storm. The lead-in chapters about Gen. Horner's early days flying F-105s in Rolling Thunder are anything but glory days. The phrase far predates that book. It was the grinder call in the 50s era USAF and I can remember my uncle-who went through the air cadet program in the 50s-talking about it. Hated the culture of USAF where Fighter Pilots were gods-he was a C-133/C-130 pilot who dropped dead six weeks after retiring from TWA at 60 as a four striper.(And a Navion owner-I took my O&P on it,and he would have let me take my instrument rating checkride in it too,but the glideslope died and he left it that way.) Herbert Molloy Mason's book on early 70s era UPT mentions it in passing, disparagingly, as having been replaced by "Professionalism". Great T-38 photos. Made me really, really envy Chuck Thornton (until I met the prick). |
#264
|
|||
|
|||
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in
news "WalterM140" wrote in message ... Of course if its discovered that any of those were self inflicted as it is alleged that Baby Killer Kerry did... Seriously now. Have you got even a shred of proof of that? The following letter appeared in the USA Today "Letters" section on June 25th last, page 8A: [snip] Manna from heaven so to speak. Wunnerful ain't it. IBM __________________________________________________ _____________________________ Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com The Worlds Uncensored News Source |
#266
|
|||
|
|||
"WalterM140" wrote in message ... This documet shows conclusively that Bush performed no service for 16 months: http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc10.gif It does not show that he was AWOL. |
#267
|
|||
|
|||
"WalterM140" wrote in message ... Senator Kerry has three. Two of which he may have earned. |
#268
|
|||
|
|||
|
#269
|
|||
|
|||
"Regnirps" wrote
Yes, the devices embellish the medal. Maybe, but the device (oak leaf, or star) represent an additional medal. While it is true you only get one full size medal per customer, and the rest are devices, you are only making a mountain out of a mole hill. |
#270
|
|||
|
|||
"Steven P. McNicoll" ) writes:
-snip- Criticism of Kerry's Purple Heart is just Retired U.S. army colonel David Hackworth defends presidential candidate John Kerry's Purple Hearts. He correctly notes that they are awarded for a wound that necessitates treatment by a medical officer and that is received in action with an enemy ('The meaning of a Purple Heart," The Forum, June 16). I was the commanding officer to whom Kerry reported his injury on Dec. 3, 1968. I had confirmed that there was no hostile fire that night and that Kerry had simply wounded himself with an M-79 grenade round he fired too close. Basically crap, Steven. Army Regulations re the Purple Heart: (b) Individuals wounded or killed as a result of "friendly fire" in the "heat of battle" will be awarded the Purple Heart as long as the "friendly" projectile or agent was released with the full intent of inflicting damage or destroying enemy troops or equipment. I'd assume the Navy regulations are essentially similar. In any case, if I recall correctly, it was freakin' -impossible- to wound oneself by firing an M-79 round "too close". An M-79 round had to travel a certain distance before arming itself and that distance was greater than the "kill radius" of the round. If one fired an M-79 round "too close", it would simply impact with a thud and no "boom". Presenting a possible problem for the ordinance disposal folks who came along later but no particular problem for the firer. Sheesh. -- "Cave ab homine unius libri" |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Juan Jiminez is a liar and a fraud (was: Zoom fables on ANN | ChuckSlusarczyk | Home Built | 105 | October 8th 04 12:38 AM |
Bush's guard record | JDKAHN | Home Built | 13 | October 3rd 04 09:38 PM |
Two MOH Winners say Bush Didn't Serve | WalterM140 | Military Aviation | 196 | June 14th 04 11:33 PM |
bush rules! | Be Kind | Military Aviation | 53 | February 14th 04 04:26 PM |