Did Bush earn his discharge? (maybe you will answer this)

"Your 'colonel' probably doesn't even exist.":lol :lol :lol :lol

Travis you obviously missed this part about Bush's signed service contract:

Quote:

---

<5/27/68> : H. "Satisfactory participation during my membership in the Air National Guard of the United States will be attendance and satisfactory performance of assigned duties at 48 scheduled inactive duty training periods and 15 days' field training (active duty for training) annually, unless excused therefrom by proper authority. It also includes successful completion of on-the-job upgrade training."

---

Statement of Understanding Signed by Bush

I'd like to second Brodels' emotion. In a nutshell, this is how to **** up a presidential election: become so hateful of the opponent that you seek to prove he's a bad man personally.

You'd like to show me how I am being hateful of someone by trying to get to the truth of this matter? No better yet why don't you show me how I am in anyway connected (reflective of or otherwise) to the Kerry campaign?

Your act is tired.

First you say I care to much about a non issue now you say its an act? Which is it? And why are you so interested in what I care about?

But believe it or not I wasn't doing any of this to convince anyone. I wanted to see you guys air your argument so I could decide the issue for myself. Which I have done. You guys lost and now you can't stop crying about it.

And Bush hasn't stopped lying about it.

Oh please...you don't give a **** about the truth. It's amazing you can type with Kerry's testicles slapping you in the chin.

I wonder how the judge would react if you submitted "fake but accurate" evidence in court?

You still haven't explained how the ravings of a caterer somehow "prove" your point.

You haven't shown anything other than your incompetence and your predilection for lying...but certainly not your skill at it.

Damn, DeSPURate, now your credibility is in question. Want to go down with the U.S.S. Ratherbiased?

Quote:

---

And Bush hasn't stopped lying about it.

---

Lying about what?

Can we put .wav files in here? It'd be the perfect spot for the Jeopardy theme...don't'cha think?

Spurs woman the Alabama stuff is old news. He has already been given credit for anything that was put on his statement of credits, and its still not enough.

Travis if you bothered to read anything. You would know I don't rely on one person to do an analysis. And I may not be qualified to analyze millitary code, but I am more than qualified, certainly more than you are, to analyze contract law. Bush's statement of service qualifies as a contract which he broke.

The only reason I am still posting in this thread is to give you any chance you need to disprove my case. Like Spurs woman just attempted to do. If my opinion is wrong about this I want to know.

Sheeeessssh! DeSpurado is another damn expert. Hey
Dan I'll bet he would come on your newscast and tell you
all about contracts.........oh, never mind he is full of himself,
you know like shit.:elephant :elephant :elephant :elephant

You might want to check my profile before you question my expertise on contract law.

Yeah, he's a counselor in training!

Not that you are, but, you do know there are stupid lawyers, right? I wouldn't be so quick to point to your training, it doesn't really amount to much.

The vast majority of lawyers are stupid. I'm just saying I do know a little about contract law. Bush had a contract with the millitary that didn't eave alot of room for interpretation. In fact if you find a contract that leaves anything up to intepretation you've got a stupid lawyer behind it. In this case they didn't.

I know alot about contract law, and I ain't even a lawyer. Enough to know you have absolutely no where near the relevant facts to make a conclusion about his service in the late 60's and early 70's.

The first thing you keep forgetting is "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence."

Bush has been quoted as saying when asked about a five month period of absense that he made it up, In those days in in the summer of 73. That confirms both the absence and it confirms that what we have available as proof is all that is there.

He said he made up the absences...they honorably discharged him. You have nothing to the contrary. Nothing.

Mr. D. You know damn little about anything. You prove
that daily in these forums.

You guys always like going back to that You've proven nothing tactic. Do you really like hearing me repeat everything that has already been stated over and over again?

Your argument always boils down to a demand that President Bush prove the baseless allegations are untrue.

Sorry, it's not up to him to disprove anything -- you guys brought it up, you guys prove it.

I've tried to construct the argument in such a way that it is; How is this interpretation incorrect. The Manual and the contract read that he needed 48 (he could miss 4 so really 44) inactive duty sessions and 15 active. You all seem to have conceded that point.

I want to know why I should buy the fifty point method. Can you find any piece of evidence in the books that that was ever a legitimate method of counting attendance. Here's the tricky part, you can't keep using an appeal to authority. (IE- Lloyd says its right so it is becuase he is an authority on it.) Find it for me in the books. I have been trying to do that myself. Its been a wild goose chase that always leads back to LLoyd.

LLoyd himself has said something to the effect that the other method of counting is correct but no one could have ever lived up to that standard.

You're incorrect because everyone with any direct knowledge of the President's Air National Guard service say he comleted his obligation and was honorably discharged.

I've seen Lloyd Hodges and Staudt say something like that, yes. But I have never seen them actually use anything other than their own authority to back that claim up. Have you?

So?

You remember the circular argument thingie. An appeal to authority is another form of a logical fallacy. It doesn't on its own make an argument. If you want I can list the six main logical fallacies for you. They are kind of helpful to know. And fun to watch most newscasters completely favor the fallacy because its more interesting.

Sound's to me like you need to send your evidence to CBS, DeSPURate. No one here is buying it.

Everyone related to his services says he completed it and was honorably discharged. You're the only person in the country, that I'm aware of, who is disputing that.

I swear you've got this automated responce. If I hit a nerve you switch into autopilot and switch back to partisan rhetoric. You're not very honest with yourself are you?

Honestly, you haven't hit a nerve. You're just talking about irrelevant bullshit.

I asked you the other night if the manual you were reading from were of '72 vintage. I asked if you could produce all the other relevant passages from the manual related to authorities and other leaves and early discharges and on and on and on.

You choose to keep your argument very narrow and focused on one cite, and that negates it. There is a body of law and regulations related to Air National Guard Service. I dare say it has evolved in 32 years. I also dare say you have no fucking idea what the terms of service were in 1972.

The bottom line is, you've come up with an out of context passage and expect everyone to buy is as some evidence when, in fact, you haven't even demonstrated it is a rule that was in effect in 1972.

I could see your argument if I didn't also have the statement of understanding signed by Bush when he signed up. It not only is worded in exactly the same way as the analysis. It has the exact same requirements:

Quote:

---

<5/27/68> : H. "Satisfactory participation during my membership in the Air National Guard of the United States will be attendance and satisfactory performance of assigned duties at 48 scheduled inactive duty training periods and 15 days' field training (active duty for training) annually, unless excused therefrom by proper authority. It also includes successful completion of on-the-job upgrade training."

---

Statement of Understanding Signed by Bush

Jeeze! Deja vu...

Quote:

---

"...unless excused therefrom by proper authority."

---

Hello, are you not paying attention?

I have a documet saying who has authority to excuse someone form the required attendence:

Turns out to be the secretary of the air force.
http://www.glcq.com/obligations_files/image014.gif

(This message was left blank)

Are you saying that, with the connections Bush had, he couldn't have wrangled an excuse from the Secretary of the Air Force?

That's the angle I'd attack. Saying he didn't meet the requirements is a lost cause...go back to he's a privileged boy with a silver spoon in his mouth.

Oh yeah, the public doesn't care about that either.

I'm saying he didn't deserve it. That is all. Connections don't make it justified, plus we then have to go find that exception which would be even worse for Bush politically.

No, you've been saying he didn't complete his obligation to the Guard and wrongly received an honorable discharge.

C'mon get your story straight.

And, by all means, go find the exception. Look, you don't have enough information to make an informed decision....face it.

"Look, you don't have enough information to make an informed decision....face it."

If that argument holds true for me it does for you too.

But, I'm not trying to prove anything.

It's like you coming up to me and saying, "you're a liar now prove you're not!" It's silly.

For those of you interested, there's a nice overview of this issue available from the New York Times...

Portrait of George Bush in '72: Unanchored in Turbulent Time

My overview:

WGAF?

:served

"the New York Times". Now there is a nice un-biased news
source and they never have a problem with their reporting,
do they? I will stick with Fox News.

Maybe See-BS hired Jayson Blair? Ya think?