Michael Moore
- Thread starter Goblin
- Start date
georges said:
Again, you ignore the fact and just try to change the subject... the object of the message was'nt sarcasm Georges...
georges said:
So do we Georges, so do we...
Brino, your an ass. Does anybody here actually like you? And not to change the subject, but your avatars suck. As much as I like bush, your current avatar doesnt even bother me as badly as the one you had before, I still dont know if it was a man or a woman. ANNOYING is what it was.
It's pathetic how you have to try to ****** me over the 'small business' thing, so I'm really going to enjoy proving you wrong. I'll try to talk slowly, so you can understand..........
YOU SAID----
WHAT I ORIGINALLY SAID--
HERE IS WHAT STARMAN SAID
NOW.....do I STILL have to fucking explain this to you?
MY *** DOES NOT OWN PIZZA HUT. HE 'works' THERE. THEY HAVE A PROBLEM OF SOME SORT WITH THEIR MACHINARY, THEY CALL HIM.
BTW- I am not trying to throw this in starman's face. He made an honest mistake, BRINO "ALSO" made the same mistake, and tried to rub it in my face, failing miserably.
NOW, onto my next point(s)........
Do you even read/think about what your typing? You just agreed with me that there is little cons. media. THEN you said there is very little LIBERAL media. ??!?!? This type of thing goes hand-in-hand. If there is little liberal media, usually there is much cons. If there is little cons., there is usually much liberal. You said there is little of each.
The fact remains, these changes DO NOT HAPPEN RIGHT AWAY. Like I said, I am not expert ( and obviously you arent either), but I am sure ecomony changes that one president makes, could take effect/be the problem of the next president.
THEY DO. They always have, and always will. It's a nice idea to think they stay seperate, but its one of those things that will always be there.
Actually, yes it does. MANY people believe in the bible's views, therefore it DOES have something to do with marriage, whether or not you believe in the book.
And I find it funny how even non-religous people, have no problem going to a , guess what, CHURCH, to get married by a, guess what, PRIEST.
Not physically. Mentally, maybe. It's my personal opinion that they shouldn't get married, so it's harming mentally
Ok, brainiac. Tell me this.....
Us 'religious' people that DONT want gays getting married are ******* our beliefs down YOUR throat?? Thats what you think, right?
So, by your same theory, 'YOU' people, who want to CHANGE laws so gays can marry, are ******* YOUR beliefs down OUR throats. PERIOD.
Have a nice day!
It's pathetic how you have to try to ****** me over the 'small business' thing, so I'm really going to enjoy proving you wrong. I'll try to talk slowly, so you can understand..........
YOU SAID----
Brino said:
WHAT I ORIGINALLY SAID--
Dolman said:
HERE IS WHAT STARMAN SAID
Starman said:
NOW.....do I STILL have to fucking explain this to you?
MY *** DOES NOT OWN PIZZA HUT. HE 'works' THERE. THEY HAVE A PROBLEM OF SOME SORT WITH THEIR MACHINARY, THEY CALL HIM.
BTW- I am not trying to throw this in starman's face. He made an honest mistake, BRINO "ALSO" made the same mistake, and tried to rub it in my face, failing miserably.
NOW, onto my next point(s)........
Brino said:
Do you even read/think about what your typing? You just agreed with me that there is little cons. media. THEN you said there is very little LIBERAL media. ??!?!? This type of thing goes hand-in-hand. If there is little liberal media, usually there is much cons. If there is little cons., there is usually much liberal. You said there is little of each.
The fact remains, these changes DO NOT HAPPEN RIGHT AWAY. Like I said, I am not expert ( and obviously you arent either), but I am sure ecomony changes that one president makes, could take effect/be the problem of the next president.
THEY DO. They always have, and always will. It's a nice idea to think they stay seperate, but its one of those things that will always be there.
Actually, yes it does. MANY people believe in the bible's views, therefore it DOES have something to do with marriage, whether or not you believe in the book.
HAHAHA. You actually believe this? Do you have ANY idea how many religions are in the world? And you think each one practices marriage?
And I find it funny how even non-religous people, have no problem going to a , guess what, CHURCH, to get married by a, guess what, PRIEST.
Not physically. Mentally, maybe. It's my personal opinion that they shouldn't get married, so it's harming mentally
Ok, brainiac. Tell me this.....
Us 'religious' people that DONT want gays getting married are ******* our beliefs down YOUR throat?? Thats what you think, right?
So, by your same theory, 'YOU' people, who want to CHANGE laws so gays can marry, are ******* YOUR beliefs down OUR throats. PERIOD.
Have a nice day!
Foxfilm: You talked alot about all the economic problems that bush hasn't addressed, or are his fault, or whatever.
Im not going to comment much on those, because I am not educated very much on that subject. i certainly dont agree with everything you said, as I dont have hard facts for any of it. Maybe someone else will stop in that is knowledgeable on that subject to stick up for me there....
BUT, how many of these economic problems are because of the war? Hasn't there ALWAYS been economic problems during a war? Im not certain, but I would guess.
well...
YES AM radio is all conservative. But
WHO listens to AM radio? Come on....FM radio is what people listen to, and it is DOMINATED my liberals. Damn near EVERY morning talk show is anti- bush, along with stern and the likes...
TV is no better either. As mentioned earlier, FOX is the one news channel that seems to be middle ground.
HAHAH, I didn't know that. Thank you!!
Well, dude , get over it. They HAVE and WILL. You think alot of the information they have would go over well in public? I dont see what is so hard for people around these parts to get about this?
No it may not be 100% right for them to keep secrets, but do you guys actually think they aren't keeping secrets? or that they HAVEN'T been for many, many years?
And if they ARE keeping secrets(which they are!), dont you think they had a good reason to go to war? This wasnt just Bush's decision that played a part here, it wasn't some vendetta he had. This was entirely a joint decision by, I dont even know how many people. I would tend to think they had their reasoning.
Im not going to comment much on those, because I am not educated very much on that subject. i certainly dont agree with everything you said, as I dont have hard facts for any of it. Maybe someone else will stop in that is knowledgeable on that subject to stick up for me there....
BUT, how many of these economic problems are because of the war? Hasn't there ALWAYS been economic problems during a war? Im not certain, but I would guess.
well...
YES AM radio is all conservative. But
WHO listens to AM radio? Come on....FM radio is what people listen to, and it is DOMINATED my liberals. Damn near EVERY morning talk show is anti- bush, along with stern and the likes...
TV is no better either. As mentioned earlier, FOX is the one news channel that seems to be middle ground.
HAHAH, I didn't know that. Thank you!!
Well, dude
, get over it. They HAVE and WILL. You think alot of the information they have would go over well in public? I dont see what is so hard for people around these parts to get about this?No it may not be 100% right for them to keep secrets, but do you guys actually think they aren't keeping secrets? or that they HAVEN'T been for many, many years?
And if they ARE keeping secrets(which they are!), dont you think they had a good reason to go to war? This wasnt just Bush's decision that played a part here, it wasn't some vendetta he had. This was entirely a joint decision by, I dont even know how many people. I would tend to think they had their reasoning.
hi Dolman
There is one thing to remember with Brino all what does Bush is bad all what Kerry says is good. The same can be told for people sharing Brino's views.
For these people Michael Moore's movies are like the holy graal. In fact MM's are biased and unobjective.
regards
georges:georges:
There is one thing to remember with Brino all what does Bush is bad all what Kerry says is good. The same can be told for people sharing Brino's views.
For these people Michael Moore's movies are like the holy graal. In fact MM's are biased and unobjective.
regards
georges:georges:
Dolman said:Brino, your an ass. Does anybody here actually like you? And not to change the subject, but your avatars suck. As much as I like bush, your current avatar doesnt even bother me as badly as the one you had before, I still dont know if it was a man or a woman. ANNOYING is what it was.
Yes people here actually do like me believe it or not although I cant say they'll like you if your going to act like an asshole! It's typical of people like you to ****** other people the moment they dont agree with you!
btw I'm glad you like my Avatar! :thefinger
Fine! I made a mistake based off of what Starman had said! Although you still havnt answered me! Just because your fathers small business is doing well doesnt mean everybody else is doing well too! Think of others instead of just your ****** and yourself!
What I meant was that media in general is un-biased with a few exceptions like FoxNews!
btw The majority of the biased news networks are conservative!
Reagan, Bush sr., and Bush Jr.'s economy/tax policies are all almost the exact same and under each one of them there was a deficit and bad economy! For the past 20 years there has been a deficit and a bad economy with the exception of when Clinton was president! Why is that? It's because Clinton had a differnt tax policy than the rest which resulted in the better economy! When Bush Jr. became president he adopted the same failing tax policy of his ****** and as a result the economy started to go bad!
If you bothered to actually look up the statistics youd see that under Reagan the economy was bad, and then under Bush Sr it got even worse, but then Clinton came and the economy got better, after that Bush Jr. came (with the same policies of his ******) and the economy got bad again! You dont have to be an expert to notice a trend!
Ok Do you even know what the Constitution of the United States says or do you just not pay attention to history!? Do you even know what the seperation of Church and State is!? The Constitution says Church and State shall stay seperate! It says this so that people in this country can have freedom of religon no matter what the religon may be! Now this ammendment is broken a lot by people in power but nevertheless it's still there and still supposed to be followed! That's why the Ten Commandments was taken out of that Courthouse and that's why the Bible and your religious views should have nothing to do with gays getting married!
Again it has something to do with marriage in your religon but, hello, not everyone is a Christian or Catholic so why should your religious views affect them!?
All the major religons (to my knowledge) practices marriage or something like it!
Guess what, they can also go to a judge, sheriff, or anybody who has a license to marry people!
Not physically. Mentally, maybe. It's my personal opinion that they shouldn't get married, so it's harming mentally
Well whoopdie freakin doo! Go see a therapist if it harms you mentally! That's like saying that nobody can do something if it makes me sad or depressed! The world doesnt work that way, if you dont like something that somebody does because it makes you depressed or mentally unstable then that's your problem not theirs!
You see, this is why Church and State dont mix! It's an endless fucking cycle! Nobody can do something because it might go against somebody else's beliefs! Well guess what brainiac, there are a lot of things that go against the bible's beliefs but still happen everyday! ******, ****, Theft, Abortion, etc. are all against the Bible's views yet they still happen because there out of our control! Get over it! The Bible isnt right on everything! I know saying that is going to **** you off but it's the truth! And before you write me off as being a typical athiest liberal keep this in mind, I actaully come from a Born Again Christian ****** who are all republican and go to church every sunday so I kinda know what I'm talking about when it comes to the seperation of Church and State!
Dolman said:
Hope this doesnt **** you off but......
Wasnt your point about biased news!? And since when is the Howard Stern show considered news!? I mean I know they give the news at the end of the show for like 5 minutes but c'mon Howard Stern is not a news source and as far as I know there is no news on FM Radio!
Brino said:
I don't need Mr Moore Bs to know who is who.Kerry lied for his medals, he also voted against the acquisition of military airplanes when he was senator and he is just a mediocre person because after he left vietnam he made an antivietnam propaganda typical from a coward.
Between the two persons, i choose Bush, like many other people, i don't want the security of the us endangered by a liberal who cheated for his medals and i don't want the us to turn into a pro socialist country.
Think of the others.Paying for the others. big debate.
Maybe you want to benefit of other people money because you don't work or because you don't have money.
Can we be sure that the others will help us when needed? The answer is hellfuck no.
I have helped some people for doing some important things, some thanked me and others didn't show me any gratefulness and didn't help me so screw these people .
Look at China? Are people who live there happy? Hellfuck no.No human rights respected and theer are too many discrepancies between the rich and the poor. Maybe you should live there brino, you will maybe have people sharing your socialist point of views.
It is not with a policy pay for everyone that the economy will get better.
Sorry, but this post got so long I had to split it in two. Enjoy the read!
Part 1
So what are your theories here?
Well, let me do some guesses...
You believe that all the good economy during the Clinton years was something carried over from the president(s) before him?
And during his precidency he did everything wrong, and all he did during his eight years as a president didn't show until during Bush's presidency?
Or do you think Clinton did right in the beginning, and then just a couple of years before his precidency was over he began to do everything wrong to sabotage for the next person that would be president, even if that person could be his colleague, Gore?
Or maybe he was so busy trying to not get impeached for something as incredibly silly as having been unfaithful, something that really only concerns him and his wife?
Well, I have read economics for several years, so I do believe your notion that the major economic problems they've had is carried over from Clinton a bit ridiculous. Here's some easy math for you. Permanent tax cuts, permanently less money for the government. Spending more money than you actually have, deficit. Civilization requires a substantial number and variety of public services, which in turn require moderate and reasonable amounts of taxes. Despite decades of conservative rhetoric, taxes are not a bad thing. The tax money buys many good things, making it possible to for example provide medical care to millions of ********. And stop letting Bush call his tax politics "tax cuts": he is not cutting those taxes; he is just postponing them. I could go on explaining economics for you, but I fear you won't listen, and I'm just wasting my time. Read the earlier post on the political threads to find out more about economics, which me and a few others have explained occassionally.
Besides, what's the purpose of medals, trophies and cups except for "When you get 'em - flaunt 'em!"? Why do you complain? Are you jealous? *LOL*
It's not in the Bible, and you're free to try to find it, so far no one has managed. It's not in the Constitution, and you are welcome to check there too. No laws has to be changed, and no beliefs, because there's no law against it, and there's nothing in the Bible about it.
I don't understand why gays getting married would hurt anyone... The problem is only in people's minds... Their closed narrow minds... "Living in a box" people...
The Christian right seems to think it's their job to save everyone. Not that there's anything in the Bible against homosexuality.
You don't save anyone by removing people's right to be different... It's only sensible laws that help people, like don't ***** and drive...
Here comes a real shocker for you: Here in Sweden gay marriages are legal! And do you know what? The world has not come to an end! :tongue:
This is true, and no Armageddon is in sight! It has not been raining toads, locusts or fire from the sky!
Christianity is based on documents that are thousands of years old, that was written long before the Age of Enlightenment. These documents has through the ages been used to burn wise old women as witches, deny the construct of our solar system, slandering the evolution theory, justify the Inquisition, the crusades and wars. That these loonies from the Christian right gets upset over that there are gays are nothing to be surprised over. It comes pretty much naturally from their ridiculous, small minded, bigoted, moral panicky and midieval faith.
I will give a link to a little humorous (political) animation now, about gay marriages, so that no one falls ****** after my long text here, and so that everyone are able to read some more later.
Gay Marriage - Premium Link Upgrade
Ooops, that was not what I was gonna tell about, sorry, I've been a baby-sitter my whole life... *LOL*
Well, I can quote some pieces of text from an encyclopedia to tell you more about the Social Conservative, or as Bush likes to call it, the Compassionate Conservative, politics of the Bush administration.
Recently, the Bush administration joined an auto industry lawsuit that attempts to keep California from promoting hybrid vehicles.
So why could they be against an enviromental friendly option? Well, let's check some suspicious connections.
Vice President / Oil Biz CEO
Chief-of-Staff / Auto Lobbyist
Commerce Secretary / Oil & Gas CEO
Energy Secretary / Auto Industry Enthusiast
National Security Advisor / Chevron
President / Oilman
Doesn't seem like completely altruistic reasons to me, seems more like they are doing doing it for their own, and their rich buddies, greed and gain.
This is just one example from a long list of very questionable things they've done.
Part 1
You're no expert? Yes, you've just proved that?
So what are your theories here?
Well, let me do some guesses...
You believe that all the good economy during the Clinton years was something carried over from the president(s) before him?
And during his precidency he did everything wrong, and all he did during his eight years as a president didn't show until during Bush's presidency?
Or do you think Clinton did right in the beginning, and then just a couple of years before his precidency was over he began to do everything wrong to sabotage for the next person that would be president, even if that person could be his colleague, Gore?
Or maybe he was so busy trying to not get impeached for something as incredibly silly as having been unfaithful, something that really only concerns him and his wife?
Well, I have read economics for several years, so I do believe your notion that the major economic problems they've had is carried over from Clinton a bit ridiculous. Here's some easy math for you. Permanent tax cuts, permanently less money for the government. Spending more money than you actually have, deficit. Civilization requires a substantial number and variety of public services, which in turn require moderate and reasonable amounts of taxes. Despite decades of conservative rhetoric, taxes are not a bad thing. The tax money buys many good things, making it possible to for example provide medical care to millions of ********. And stop letting Bush call his tax politics "tax cuts": he is not cutting those taxes; he is just postponing them. I could go on explaining economics for you, but I fear you won't listen, and I'm just wasting my time. Read the earlier post on the political threads to find out more about economics, which me and a few others have explained occassionally.
And your point is? Have I ever denied that? I just stated that he's not only talking about that, but are pretty much ****** to continue to bring it up now when the Republicans has made it an issue, instead of keeping letting it be a parenthesis and an anecdote.
Besides, what's the purpose of medals, trophies and cups except for "When you get 'em - flaunt 'em!"? Why do you complain? Are you jealous? *LOL*
No, it's not a different subject. It's within the same subject. I've already told you some of the discrimination in the earlier post, but I can do some more explaining.
It's not in the Bible, and you're free to try to find it, so far no one has managed. It's not in the Constitution, and you are welcome to check there too. No laws has to be changed, and no beliefs, because there's no law against it, and there's nothing in the Bible about it.
I don't understand why gays getting married would hurt anyone... The problem is only in people's minds... Their closed narrow minds... "Living in a box" people...
The Christian right seems to think it's their job to save everyone. Not that there's anything in the Bible against homosexuality.
You don't save anyone by removing people's right to be different... It's only sensible laws that help people, like don't ***** and drive...
Here comes a real shocker for you: Here in Sweden gay marriages are legal! And do you know what? The world has not come to an end! :tongue:
This is true, and no Armageddon is in sight! It has not been raining toads, locusts or fire from the sky!
Christianity is based on documents that are thousands of years old, that was written long before the Age of Enlightenment. These documents has through the ages been used to burn wise old women as witches, deny the construct of our solar system, slandering the evolution theory, justify the Inquisition, the crusades and wars. That these loonies from the Christian right gets upset over that there are gays are nothing to be surprised over. It comes pretty much naturally from their ridiculous, small minded, bigoted, moral panicky and midieval faith.
I will give a link to a little humorous (political) animation now, about gay marriages, so that no one falls ****** after my long text here, and so that everyone are able to read some more later.
Gay Marriage - Premium Link Upgrade
Well, how much do you actually know about Conservatism and the politics of Conservatives? Do I have to give a lesson in Conservatism now? Okay, why don't you sit right back and I, I may tell you a tale, A tale of three little pigs and a BIG BAD wolf!!!
Ooops, that was not what I was gonna tell about, sorry, I've been a baby-sitter my whole life... *LOL*
Well, I can quote some pieces of text from an encyclopedia to tell you more about the Social Conservative, or as Bush likes to call it, the Compassionate Conservative, politics of the Bush administration.
I do have a lot to say about Bush's "good causes" for the things he and his administration does, but I'll save that long list for another post. Instead I'll just give a short example.
Recently, the Bush administration joined an auto industry lawsuit that attempts to keep California from promoting hybrid vehicles.
So why could they be against an enviromental friendly option? Well, let's check some suspicious connections.
Vice President / Oil Biz CEO
Chief-of-Staff / Auto Lobbyist
Commerce Secretary / Oil & Gas CEO
Energy Secretary / Auto Industry Enthusiast
National Security Advisor / Chevron
President / Oilman
Doesn't seem like completely altruistic reasons to me, seems more like they are doing doing it for their own, and their rich buddies, greed and gain.
This is just one example from a long list of very questionable things they've done.
Part 2
So nowhere in my earlier posts have I stated that your *** runs a Pizza Hut restaurant. You made a mistake when you read my post. I'm gonna tell you, as I often tell others (no names mentioned), READ my posts CAREFULLY. Okay? Misunderstandings are one of my major pet-peeves, I don't want to have to spank you! :tongue:
Bush ran 3 businesses into the ground before becoming President, couldn't it be likely that he has now destroyed the budget and economy in the country as well? Getting USA into very costly wars doesn't really help either.
Originally posted by Dolman
"Since when has Pizza Hut been a "small business""
I didn't say it was.....?
We were talking about small business, and you wrote that your *** has a (small) business where "He does restaurant repair, at big name, expensive restaurants(Red lobster, applebees, longhorn, pizza hut, etc)". And that "THEY are all doing GREAT as well." And I repeat once again, since when has these "big name" restaurants been considered small businesses? There are "big name", the word BIG, as in big business. You are trying to prove your point that small business are doing well by mentioning several big businesses. Where's the logic in that? And ONLY comparing with your ***'s (small) business, is not sufficient.
So nowhere in my earlier posts have I stated that your *** runs a Pizza Hut restaurant. You made a mistake when you read my post. I'm gonna tell you, as I often tell others (no names mentioned), READ my posts CAREFULLY. Okay? Misunderstandings are one of my major pet-peeves, I don't want to have to spank you!
:tongue:georges said:
This only proves my point that everything Bush does is gold and everything Kerry does is a sin! Although I should add something onto it. To you everything Bush or Bush supporters say is the truth regardless of whether it actually is true and everything Kerry says is a lie even if you have no poof to prove it's a lie!
A perfect example of this is Kerry's medals! You keep saying he lied to get his medals yet there is a multitude of evidence to prove otherwise but you ignore the evidence because it would prove you wrong and portray Kerry in a good light! Now your again going to say that Kerry lied to get his medals but I'm not going to fight with you over that anymore because I know your wrong and you will never accept the truth because you cant admit your wrong or that your hero really isnt a hero!
That quoted encyclopedia text was about American Conservatives, not Swedish, and it wasn't from a Swedish encyclopedia. I wrote it was about Bush and the Republicans, but I guess you didn't care to read that.georges said:
And sorry, Georges, but one can move a mountain, even if it's just one rock at the time, and even a drop of water can eventually bore a hole in a stone. There is no such thing as "impossible".
Last edited:
And Georges... Guess what? It seems you're wrong, because there are actually Social Democrats within the Democratic party. How do I know? Because the Social Democrats here in Sweden support them, the Democrats, and Kerry.
Democratic Socialists of America - Premium Link Upgrade
Excerpt from the article:
Many Democratic Socialists are also members of the Democratic Party.
Brino said:
I can back up my arguments, look:
For Immediate Release
Aug 31, 2004 Contact: Press Office
202-646-5172
KERRY SHOULD REMOVE SILVER STAR CITATION FROM HIS INTERNET SITE PENDING REVIEW BY U.S. NAVY
Combat “V” Never Awarded with Silver Star
Former Navy Secretary Lehman Never Approved Citation
Additional Questions Remain Over Service Medal and Purple Hearts
(Washington, DC) Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption and *****, today called on Senator John Kerry to remove the Silver Star citation from his political campaign Internet site pending a review of the granting of the award by the U.S. Navy.
On August 18, 2004, Judicial Watch filed a complaint and request for investigation and final disposition of awards granted to Kerry with the Inspectors General of the Department of Defense and the Department of the Navy, as well as the Chief of Naval Operations and the Navy’s Board of Decorations and Medals. See the complaint by clicking here.
Senator Kerry’s DD Form 214 (a Defense Department form detailing a veteran’s service upon separation from the military) lists his “Silver Star with Combat ‘V’” and is posted on the Internet at JohnKerry.com. The Combat “V” device is never awarded with the nation’s third highest award for heroism.
Journalist Thomas Lipscomb, writing in the Chicago Sun-Times quoted a Navy spokesperson stating: “The Navy has never issued a ‘Combat V’ to anyone for a Silver Star.” Additionally, former Navy Secretary John Lehman was quoted with respect to the Silver Star citation as saying: “It is a total mystery to me. I never saw it. I never signed it. I never approved it. And the additional language it contains was not written by me.”
Furthermore, Senator Kerry’s records also reflect the award of a Vietnam Service Medal with 4 bronze stars. Military experts consulted by Judicial Watch believe Kerry’s brief tour of duty in Vietnam would have merited no more than 2 bronze stars on a Vietnam Service Medal. Many Swift Boat Veterans have questioned the circumstances of Kerry’s Purple Heart awards.
“There is something amiss in Senator Kerry’s service records. John Kerry should stop touting an award that has never been awarded to anyone in the U.S. Navy. The U.S. Navy needs to get on the ball and thoroughly scrub John Kerry’s service record by conducting a complete investigation of Kerry’s service,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “And, of course, John Kerry may answer many of these questions by authorizing the release of all his service and medical records,” Fitton added.
Premium Link Upgrade
Kerry's campaign now says is possible first Purple Heart was awarded for unintentional self-inflicted wound...
Kerry received Purple Heart for wounds suffered on 12/2/68...
In Kerry's own journal written 9 days later, he writes he and his crew, quote, 'hadn't been shot at yet'...
Funny how even GWB commented that the Swift boat crew ad was inappropriate, but no one on Kerry's side has taken Michael Moore to task over being inappropriate. Then people like you say that the GOP is only running "smear campaigns." Riiiiight. But since the Swift boat vets that produced the ads are ALSO vietnam vets, don't they deserve the same respect you feel Kerry should get? Considering he called ALL of them war criminals after getting out of vietnam, he lost all respect decades ago. Smear campaign? He did it to himself. Kerry decided to run on his war hero platform, a position he actively campaigned AGAINST when he came back from Vietnam.
Considering that the dems have yet to run on any actual ISSUES, then their whole campaing has been built on Kerry's 4 month stint in the Vietnam war and smearing everything GWB has done. Kind of the pot calling the kettle black, if you ask me. I don't remember this level of indignation from people like you with Moore, Soros, or Moveon.org.
Kerry received Purple Heart for wounds suffered on 12/2/68...
In Kerry's own journal written 9 days later, he writes he and his crew, quote, 'hadn't been shot at yet'...
Funny how even GWB commented that the Swift boat crew ad was inappropriate, but no one on Kerry's side has taken Michael Moore to task over being inappropriate. Then people like you say that the GOP is only running "smear campaigns." Riiiiight. But since the Swift boat vets that produced the ads are ALSO vietnam vets, don't they deserve the same respect you feel Kerry should get? Considering he called ALL of them war criminals after getting out of vietnam, he lost all respect decades ago. Smear campaign? He did it to himself. Kerry decided to run on his war hero platform, a position he actively campaigned AGAINST when he came back from Vietnam.
Considering that the dems have yet to run on any actual ISSUES, then their whole campaing has been built on Kerry's 4 month stint in the Vietnam war and smearing everything GWB has done. Kind of the pot calling the kettle black, if you ask me. I don't remember this level of indignation from people like you with Moore, Soros, or Moveon.org.
ok, since we are being shown kerry's war record, let's go back and look at Bush's...
A 1971 ANG evaluation said Bush had the potential to "promote well ahead of his contemporaries" and added, "Lt. Bush's main strengths are his eagerness to participate in the unit's activities and his ability to work harmoniously with others." A 1970 letter recommending him for a promotion from second to first lieutenant called him "a dynamic outstanding young officer." Perhaps you mean the letter from the then Lt. Col Jerry Killian saying "Lt. Bush is possessed of sound judgment, yet is a tenacious competitor and an aggressive pilot. He is mature beyond his age and experience level."?
I am aware of the controversy once he requested transfer to equivalent duty with the 187th, and understand that people have questions. However, I would would question the assertaitions stated elswhere that he recieved poor evaluations and was frequently AWOL.
It has been said that Bush joined the ANG to skirt duty. But if you're trying to skirt combat duty, there are safer ways of doing it that volunteering for flight training in a fighter jet that is known to be extremely dangerous (the F102 ****** over 70 pilots in that time period), in a guard unit known to depoy fighters to shadow MiGs in Vietnam, and then excel at being a pilot (which would guarantee you a tour flying in combat).
AerospaceWeb.org, which is an apolitical, non-profit aerospace education and information site, did some research into the role of the F-102 in Vietnam, and the role of Bush's ANG unit during the period. Here are some excerpts:
.......................................................
It really bothers me that a coward like George W. Bush spent the Vietnam War training to fly old and useless planes in Texas while John Kerry was heroically risking his life in combat and got three purple hearts!
- Jennifer Braun
We normally shy away from the world of politics, but we get variations of this kind of question regularly and feel it necessary to clarify some information. We'll do our best to avoid bringing our own political biases into this article since we are more interested in defending an "old and useless" aircraft than any particular politician! George W. Bush's military service began in 1968 when he enlisted in the Texas Air National Guard after graduating with a bachelor's degree in history from Yale University. The aircraft that he was ultimately trained to fly was the F-102 Delta Dagger. A number of sources have claimed that Bush sought service in the National Guard to avoid being sent to Vietnam, and that the F-102 was a safe choice because it was an obsolete aircraft that would never see any real combat. However, those perceptions turn out to be incorrect, as will be seen shortly.
It is a common misconception that the Air National Guard was a safe place for military duty during the Vietnam War. In actuality, pilots from the 147th Fighter Interceptor Group [Bush's unit], as it was called at the time, were actually conducting combat missions in Vietnam at the very time Bush enlisted. In fact, F-102 squadrons had been stationed in South Vietnam since March 1962. It was during this time that the Kennedy administration began building up a large US military presence in the nation as a deterrent against North Vietnamese invasion.
F-102 squadrons continued to be stationed in South Vietnam and Thailand throughout most of the Vietnam War. The planes were typically used for fighter defense patrols and as escorts for B-52 bomber raids. While the F-102 had few opportunities to engage in its primary role of fighter combat, the aircraft was used in the close air support role starting in 1965. Armed with rocket pods, Delta Daggers would make attacks on Viet Cong encampments in an attempt to harass enemy soldiers. Some missions were even conducted using the aircraft's heat-seeking air-to-air missiles to lock onto enemy campfires at night. Though these missions were never considered to be serious attacks on enemy activity, F-102 pilots did often report secondary explosions coming from their targets.
Even in peacetime conditions, F-102 pilots risked their lives on every flight. Only highly-qualified pilot candidates were accepted for Delta Dagger training because it was such a challenging aircraft to fly and left little room for mistakes. According to the Air ***** Safety Center, the lifetime Class A accident rate for the F-102 was 13.69 mishaps per 100,000 flight hours, much higher than the average for today's combat aircraft. For example, the F-16 has an accident rate of 4.14, the F-15 is at 2.47, the F-117 at 4.07, the S-3 at 2.6, and the F-18 at 4.9. Even the Marine Corps' AV-8B, regarded as the most dangerous aircraft in US service today, has a lifetime accident rate of only 11.44 mishaps per 100,000 flight hours. The F-102 claimed the lives of many pilots, including a number stationed at Ellington during Bush's tenure. Of the 875 F-102A production models that entered service, 259 were lost in accidents that ****** 70 Air ***** and ANG pilots. [I wonder what the statistics were for PCF skippers, pro-rated for serving 1/3 the required length of the standard tour?]
Nevertheless, we have established that the F-102 was serving in combat in Vietnam at the time Bush enlisted to become an F-102 pilot. In fact, pilots from the 147th FIG of the Texas ANG were routinely rotated to Vietnam for combat duty under a program called "Palace Alert" from 1968 to 1970. Palace Alert was an Air ***** program that sent qualified F-102 pilots from the ANG to bases in Europe or southeast Asia for periods of three to six months for frontline duty. Fred Bradley, a friend of Bush's who was also serving in the Texas ANG, reported that he and Bush inquired about participating in the Palace Alert program. However, the two were told by a superior, MAJ Maurice Udell, that they were not yet qualified since they were still in training and did not have the 500 hours of flight experience required.
[contrast this with Kerry's volunteering for PCF duty while it was assigned to non-hazardous coastal patrols. Riverine duty wasn't assigned until AFTER Kerry volunteered for the program]
Furthermore, ANG veteran COL William Campenni, who was a fellow pilot in the 111th FIS at the time, told the Washington Times that Palace Alert was winding down and not accepting new applicants.
The point of this discussion is that the military record of George W. Bush deserves a fair treatment. Bush has been criticized for avoiding service in Vietnam, though the evidence proves that the Texas Air National Guard and its F-102 pilots where serving in Vietnam while Bush was in training. Bush has been criticized for using his ****** influence to obtain his assignment, but the evidence shows that he successfully completed every aspect of the more than two years of training required of him. Bush has been criticized for pursuing a safe and plush position as a fighter pilot, but the evidence indicates the F-102 was a demanding aircraft whose pilots regularly risked their lives. Bush has also been criticized for deserting the Guard before his enlistment was complete, but the evidence shows he was honorably discharged eight months early because his position was being phased out.
.......................................
Yes, Bush never actually SW combat, but that's because *after* he finished training, the military started to phase out ANG fighter operations (not before). That was a calculation entertained by most draft eligible men of that generation. You join up to do what you like most or dislike least before you get picked to do what you like least/**** most. Bush apparently wanted to be a fighter pilot, and this was a quick way to become one.
So before you say something brino, back upyour arguments.
Bush was in ANG.You probably never heard of it. You maybe don't care of the miltary of your country but many others do.
A 1971 ANG evaluation said Bush had the potential to "promote well ahead of his contemporaries" and added, "Lt. Bush's main strengths are his eagerness to participate in the unit's activities and his ability to work harmoniously with others." A 1970 letter recommending him for a promotion from second to first lieutenant called him "a dynamic outstanding young officer." Perhaps you mean the letter from the then Lt. Col Jerry Killian saying "Lt. Bush is possessed of sound judgment, yet is a tenacious competitor and an aggressive pilot. He is mature beyond his age and experience level."?
I am aware of the controversy once he requested transfer to equivalent duty with the 187th, and understand that people have questions. However, I would would question the assertaitions stated elswhere that he recieved poor evaluations and was frequently AWOL.
It has been said that Bush joined the ANG to skirt duty. But if you're trying to skirt combat duty, there are safer ways of doing it that volunteering for flight training in a fighter jet that is known to be extremely dangerous (the F102 ****** over 70 pilots in that time period), in a guard unit known to depoy fighters to shadow MiGs in Vietnam, and then excel at being a pilot (which would guarantee you a tour flying in combat).
AerospaceWeb.org, which is an apolitical, non-profit aerospace education and information site, did some research into the role of the F-102 in Vietnam, and the role of Bush's ANG unit during the period. Here are some excerpts:
.......................................................
It really bothers me that a coward like George W. Bush spent the Vietnam War training to fly old and useless planes in Texas while John Kerry was heroically risking his life in combat and got three purple hearts!
- Jennifer Braun
We normally shy away from the world of politics, but we get variations of this kind of question regularly and feel it necessary to clarify some information. We'll do our best to avoid bringing our own political biases into this article since we are more interested in defending an "old and useless" aircraft than any particular politician! George W. Bush's military service began in 1968 when he enlisted in the Texas Air National Guard after graduating with a bachelor's degree in history from Yale University. The aircraft that he was ultimately trained to fly was the F-102 Delta Dagger. A number of sources have claimed that Bush sought service in the National Guard to avoid being sent to Vietnam, and that the F-102 was a safe choice because it was an obsolete aircraft that would never see any real combat. However, those perceptions turn out to be incorrect, as will be seen shortly.
It is a common misconception that the Air National Guard was a safe place for military duty during the Vietnam War. In actuality, pilots from the 147th Fighter Interceptor Group [Bush's unit], as it was called at the time, were actually conducting combat missions in Vietnam at the very time Bush enlisted. In fact, F-102 squadrons had been stationed in South Vietnam since March 1962. It was during this time that the Kennedy administration began building up a large US military presence in the nation as a deterrent against North Vietnamese invasion.
F-102 squadrons continued to be stationed in South Vietnam and Thailand throughout most of the Vietnam War. The planes were typically used for fighter defense patrols and as escorts for B-52 bomber raids. While the F-102 had few opportunities to engage in its primary role of fighter combat, the aircraft was used in the close air support role starting in 1965. Armed with rocket pods, Delta Daggers would make attacks on Viet Cong encampments in an attempt to harass enemy soldiers. Some missions were even conducted using the aircraft's heat-seeking air-to-air missiles to lock onto enemy campfires at night. Though these missions were never considered to be serious attacks on enemy activity, F-102 pilots did often report secondary explosions coming from their targets.
Even in peacetime conditions, F-102 pilots risked their lives on every flight. Only highly-qualified pilot candidates were accepted for Delta Dagger training because it was such a challenging aircraft to fly and left little room for mistakes. According to the Air ***** Safety Center, the lifetime Class A accident rate for the F-102 was 13.69 mishaps per 100,000 flight hours, much higher than the average for today's combat aircraft. For example, the F-16 has an accident rate of 4.14, the F-15 is at 2.47, the F-117 at 4.07, the S-3 at 2.6, and the F-18 at 4.9. Even the Marine Corps' AV-8B, regarded as the most dangerous aircraft in US service today, has a lifetime accident rate of only 11.44 mishaps per 100,000 flight hours. The F-102 claimed the lives of many pilots, including a number stationed at Ellington during Bush's tenure. Of the 875 F-102A production models that entered service, 259 were lost in accidents that ****** 70 Air ***** and ANG pilots. [I wonder what the statistics were for PCF skippers, pro-rated for serving 1/3 the required length of the standard tour?]
Nevertheless, we have established that the F-102 was serving in combat in Vietnam at the time Bush enlisted to become an F-102 pilot. In fact, pilots from the 147th FIG of the Texas ANG were routinely rotated to Vietnam for combat duty under a program called "Palace Alert" from 1968 to 1970. Palace Alert was an Air ***** program that sent qualified F-102 pilots from the ANG to bases in Europe or southeast Asia for periods of three to six months for frontline duty. Fred Bradley, a friend of Bush's who was also serving in the Texas ANG, reported that he and Bush inquired about participating in the Palace Alert program. However, the two were told by a superior, MAJ Maurice Udell, that they were not yet qualified since they were still in training and did not have the 500 hours of flight experience required.
[contrast this with Kerry's volunteering for PCF duty while it was assigned to non-hazardous coastal patrols. Riverine duty wasn't assigned until AFTER Kerry volunteered for the program]
Furthermore, ANG veteran COL William Campenni, who was a fellow pilot in the 111th FIS at the time, told the Washington Times that Palace Alert was winding down and not accepting new applicants.
The point of this discussion is that the military record of George W. Bush deserves a fair treatment. Bush has been criticized for avoiding service in Vietnam, though the evidence proves that the Texas Air National Guard and its F-102 pilots where serving in Vietnam while Bush was in training. Bush has been criticized for using his ****** influence to obtain his assignment, but the evidence shows that he successfully completed every aspect of the more than two years of training required of him. Bush has been criticized for pursuing a safe and plush position as a fighter pilot, but the evidence indicates the F-102 was a demanding aircraft whose pilots regularly risked their lives. Bush has also been criticized for deserting the Guard before his enlistment was complete, but the evidence shows he was honorably discharged eight months early because his position was being phased out.
.......................................
Yes, Bush never actually SW combat, but that's because *after* he finished training, the military started to phase out ANG fighter operations (not before). That was a calculation entertained by most draft eligible men of that generation. You join up to do what you like most or dislike least before you get picked to do what you like least/**** most. Bush apparently wanted to be a fighter pilot, and this was a quick way to become one.
So before you say something brino, back upyour arguments.
Bush was in ANG.You probably never heard of it. You maybe don't care of the miltary of your country but many others do.
Similar threads
