A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #571  
Old July 21st 04, 10:13 PM
Fred the Red Shirt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(WalterM140) wrote in message ...
That is the problem. The US Constitution gives the state legislature the
right to enact election law. The Florida Supreme Court CANNOT use the state
constitution to change those codes. See the article above.


Very interesting. Thanks.

Saw Howard Fineman of Newsweek on 'Hardball' last night. He said the Dems were
ouy-lawyered in 2000 and they had admitted as much. Kerry is working to be
better prepared this year.


Many states use different voting technologies in different precints and
probably most will have different defacto standards for how they handle
the ballots. We will probably see a lot of court cases arising pursuant
to the precedent set by Bush v Gore.

--

FF
Ads
  #572  
Old July 21st 04, 10:20 PM
Brett
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Fred the peabrained moron" wrote
"Brett" wrote in message

...
"George Z. Bush" wrote:

... in my day the law didn't

require
you to register if you had volunteered and were waiting for your

reporting date.


It did,



You sure about htat?


Well since you eliminated what the response was given to I'm sure my
response to the comment originally presented that you cut away was correct.



  #573  
Old July 21st 04, 10:21 PM
ian maclure
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 20:06:33 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote in message . ..
On 18 Jul 2004 23:06:39 -0700, (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:



You need to read some good history of the war and stop reading Terry
McAullife dispatches.


I am not familiar with Mr McAullife.


Chairman of Dumbocrapic Nazi Comintern or DNC.

[snip]

I find it very hard to beleive that you blame all that on Kerry's
testimony.


No, he had help. But it was still TREASON.

[snip]

Why? It was the same view that was help by a great many ordinary
Americans at that time.


Kennedy and Johnson's legacy to the body politic.

[snip]

If we killed that many and they didn't give up, or we killed fewer
and they didn't give up, isn't the essential fact that they
didn't give up?


Having the ability to indecriminately execute anybody who says
you nay helps a great deal.
Wonder how docile the North Vietnamese population would have been
had they known just how bad the losses actually were.

[snip]

Do you really think that absent domestic protests the US would
ever have pulled our ground forces out of Vietnam while the war
continued?


Wouldn't have been any need to absent the RVN capitulating.

[snip]

I find it odd that you think that would be a good thing.


Who says it is?
Trotskerry is a cowardly TREASONOUS SWINE.

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 -
http://www.uncensored-news.com
The Worlds Uncensored News Source

  #574  
Old July 21st 04, 10:23 PM
Fred the Red Shirt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(Bill Shatzer) wrote in message ...
"ian maclure" ) writes:
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 23:34:06 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt wrote:


[snip]


Elected by the Congress, like all Presidents in a joint session that
most Americans regard as a formality if they know about it at all.


Not quite.
The size of the electoral college is approximately the same
as Congress ( both houses ).
Congress only gets a direct vote if the Electoral College is
a dead heat.


'Tis the House of Representives, not congress as a whole, which can
select a president. And that duty falls on the HoR when no one
receives a majority of the votes in the electoral college. A dead
heat is not required.

The HoR selected John Quincy Adams over Andrew Jackson in 1825 even
though Jackson received more electoral votes - Henry Clay finished
3rd but secured enough electoral votes to deny either Jackson or
Adams a majority.


What you and Mr McClure and others are not considering is that it
is the Congress, meeting in joint session, that decides which
Elecotral votes to accept and which to reject. The USSC held in
1877 that the decision of the Congress in doing so is not
subject to judicial review.

So the Congress can see to it that no candidate recceives a
majority in the EC by selective rejecting electoral votes.

Not as silly as it sounds. Consider:

State laws dictating to electors how they should vote have been
ruled unconstitutional. So in a close election a small number
of maverick or corrupt electors could swing the vote in the
EC for a candidate who would otherwise have lost, and the Congress
can reject their votes.

--

FF
  #575  
Old July 21st 04, 10:23 PM
ian maclure
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 00:57:14 +0000, WalterM140 wrote:

[snip]

Congresswoman Brown indicated that 16,000 of her constituents were not allowed
to vote at all, mooting recounts.


Congresswoman Brown is a barking moonbat.
She gives lunatics a bad name.

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
The Worlds Uncensored News Source

  #576  
Old July 21st 04, 11:17 PM
Paul J. Adam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In message , Fred the
Red Shirt writes
My point is that I've heard other folks say that using a .50 cal
machine gun against people is a war crime, though I didn't agree
with them.


Urban myth, I think, growing out of it being both technically illegal
and practically pointless to fire the .50" spotting rifles for 106mm
recoilless rifles at people (it fired explosive rounds designed to make
an obvious flash when they hit the tank you were aiming for, hence
violating Hague rules).

I've heard stories about how you had to claim you were shooting a .50"
Browning at the enemy's web gear or helmets or rifles and it was just
too bad their bodies got in the way. However, I've got the UK tactical
guidance for the .50" heavy machine gun at work, and it's almost
enthusiastic in its description of the effects on personnel as well as
light armoured vehicles, soft-skinned transport, patrol boats and even
helicopters and aircraft if you manage a hit. Doesn't sound like there
are legal worries about firing .50" machineguns at people in the UK.

(*Please* don't shoot one at me. They sound like very effective weapons.
I would hate to have to go through the trouble of cowering and appeasing
you at the time to persuade you to stop, and then hunting you down and
killing you later )

Digressing, were there not objections to the effect that the US
used napalm in Vietnam in a manner that violated the GCs?


I daresay a lawyer could take the case, and even that there were
instances of illegality (where a pilot didn't land pre-strike and get
signed declarations from everyone who might be hit that 'I agree that I
am (delete as applicable) (a) an active armed member of the Viet Cong
who will be carrying my weapon when this airstrike hits, (b) a uniformed
soldier of the North Vietnamese Army, (c) so strongly sympathetic to
those groups that I directly supply aid and comfort to them'.

Technically, without those signed declarations from every single person
you might possibly injure with your strike, you're potentially a war
criminal for not taking all possible precautions to protect
noncombatants. However, I don't think you'd get a case out of it. The
GCs require you to try to avoid noncombatant casualties where they would
be disproportionate to the military results, not to eschew them
completely. (As a data point, notice how few civilians were killed per
ton of bombs dropped when the B-52s hit Hanoi in late 1972)


Bear in mind that the US and UK were attacked for "illegally" using
cluster munitions in Iraq and the former Yugoslavia. While there have
been cries that assorted Presidents, secretaries of states and senior
air marshalls will be prosecuted and sentenced to life at hard labour
for their wickedness, none of these claims have amounted to much more
than hot air.

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk
  #577  
Old July 21st 04, 11:18 PM
BUFDRVR
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ed Rasimus wrote:

If you don't hurry, you'll be way behind when the new book comes out
in February.


I actually grab the copy that the comm guy used and read up to page 20 while
half paying attention to the other book reviews. I was hooked by page 20 so I'm
resolved to buy it this weekend.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"
  #578  
Old July 21st 04, 11:30 PM
WalterM140
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

The law has always required males to register (since the original
establishment of selective service.) If you were in the DEP or
awaiting a training date you reported that as well and were
immediately recategorized. Males still have to register on their 18th
birthday.


ON the 18th birthday?

Well, I joined the Marine Corps on my 18th birthday and my recruiter told me
not to worry about it.

Walt
  #580  
Old July 22nd 04, 01:34 AM
George Shirley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

B2431 wrote:
From: (WalterM140)



The law has always required males to register (since the original
establishment of selective service.) If you were in the DEP or
awaiting a training date you reported that as well and were
immediately recategorized. Males still have to register on their 18th
birthday.


ON the 18th birthday?



Actually I believe there was a grace period. Thirty days?

Well, I joined the Marine Corps on my 18th birthday and my recruiter told me
not to worry about it.

Walt



Let's asume you actually talked to a recruiter did it ever occur to you he was
not in a position where he could tell you to violate the law? If you went
straight to active duty you would have been classified 1-C. If you went DEP you
would have been classified 1-D. If the draft had stayed in effect and you had
completed the mininum total service, 6 years then (8 years now) IIRC, you would
have been classified 4-A


I registered for the draft in November 1960 and I was 21 years and two
months old. I had enlisted at 17 and wasn't required to register at that
time. I was classified as 4A, still got my draft card, and I had only
served about 3 and a half years. Didn't get my discharge until July 1963
after completion of my six-year obligation. Minor nit pick but you're
otherwise right. Shocked the hell out of the draft board ladies when I
walked in to register at 21 though. I don't think either of them had
ever registered a kiddie cruiser.

George

Based on many of your posts I seriously doubt you served a day in any branch of
the military.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 05:26 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2021 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.