47! Oh, sorry, that's the answer to life, the universe and everything...
Never mind....
Printable View
47! Oh, sorry, that's the answer to life, the universe and everything...
Never mind....
The magic number of what? 12?
No one disputes that he earned 56 hours credit in '73. Where do you get this shit, DeSPURate?
I need to go back and read more Adams than spend more time talking with this joke of a human being. The image clearly shows he didn't get 56 credits care to prove otherwise?
I have.
Care to tell us which of the following interpretations of the document you want to stick with?
Quote:
DeSPURate:
"You need proof he only earned 12 credits here it is in 73"
"The top column equals 35: 3 3 4 2 1 4 8 4 5 1"
"Uh huh, and if you take the remainder and divide by two you get the magic number."
"Uh huh, and if you take the remainder and divide by two you get the magic number."
This is a joke.
"You need proof he only earned 12 credits here it is in 73"
the quote from USnew's expert of how the time should be alotted between the years of 72-73 and 73-74.
"The top column equals 35: 3 3 4 2 1 4 8 4 5 1"
Directly from the ARF.
But then you said dividing my answer by 2 to get the "magic number" which is it?
Are you depending on the news reports or can you actually read the document?
You've never played a magic number game?
Example: they choose a Five, then a Three.
5 (doubled) = 10, plus 5 = 15, multiply by 5 = 75.
Three added to total = 78. You subtract 25 = 53.
They picked a Five and a Three!
If this is supposed to represent '72 - '74, why are there no May '72 - May '73 dates on it?
And, if you multiply the TD by the PTS and add you get 58 (although I'm still having trouble making out some of the numbers).
Ask a guardsman from the period, he'll set you straight.
" If this is supposed to represent '72 - '74"
- its only supposed to represent those dates in terms of credits he had to earn.
"why are there no May '72 - May '73 dates on it?"
- it would be a different ARF, but guard members can not apply one years credit to the next.
And, if you multiply the TD by the PTS and add you get 58 (although I'm still having trouble making out some of the numbers).
- TD represents total days like I said. The points accrued in those days are represented to the right. which is why it says total points. You can't just add numbers haphazzardly until you get over fifty.
It wasn't haphazard.
This document has been used to prove he accrued the requisite hours for '73 - '74. You're just arguing for arguments sake.
This must be hard for you realizing that Bush isn't telling the truth. Look I was really pissed when I left the republican party because of the lies I had bought into hook line and sinker. Bush didn't earn the points to get a discharge. He was about thirty short which was why he was ordered to join a unit in Mass, when he left texas, He never did.
Keep your Kerry flip-flopping to yourself. Who cares why you left what party. I don't.
You nor anyone else has shown anything, beyond wild-assed conspiracy theories, the President has been less than forthcoming about his Guard Service.
WHy the orders to join a position in a Mass unit then? If he was truly done why did they order him to do that?
Quote:
A Boston Globe investigation, published Wednesday, pointed out that Bush had twice signed documents, in 1968 and again in 1973, in which he acknowledged a "responsibility to locate and be assigned" to a new guard unit when he moved away from Texas -- or risk a possible punishment of facing 24 months of active duty.
The Globe concluded that on at least two occasions -- when he moved to Alabama to help on a Senate campaign in 1972 and later in 1973 when he left for Massachusetts to attend Harvard Business School -- he failed to sign up with the local units.
link
So?Quote:
"The Globe concluded..."
[Of course, there's no proof that he didn't either. - Y.]
Excerpts:
But note they do not say he didn't fulfill his Guard committment.Quote:
"Washington -- Files released by the White House Friday night from President Bush's Vietnam-era service in the National Guard show that the future president was an exemplary pilot whose military record contains numerous gaps in the last two years of his six-year commitment."
Okay, DeSPURate, this is from a paper that is not exactly kind to the President. Read the entire article for a regurgitation of your insinuations that he was AWOL or Deserted but, notice, they never say he didn't fulfill his obligation.Quote:
"For Bush's fifth year of Guard service, May 1972 to May 1973, he earned 41 "points" for his Guard service and was granted another 15 "gratuitous" points by his superiors, bringing him above the 50-point minimum requirement for the year. There are no records confirming that he participated in any Guard activities from May 1972 through the end of October 1972."
You didn't answer my question why did he sign a contract to join a unit in Mass?
I'm sorry, I wasn't there. Nor can I read his mind.
But, I do know the White House has shown appropriate documentation to prove he fulfilled his obligation to the Air National Guard and he was honorably discharged.
Starting rumors, making conspiracies out of whole cloth, and generally disparaging his service because you have a partisan bone to pick, means nothing to anyone beyond your own frothing base.
:lol He really earned those gratuity points too didn't he?
www.nationalreview.com/yo...180840.asp
Quote:
The records indicate that, despite his move to Alabama, Bush met his obligation to the Guard in the 1972-73 year. At that time, Guardsmen were awarded points based on the days they reported for duty each year. They were given 15 points just for being in the Guard, and were then required to accumulate a total of 50 points to satisfy the annual requirement. In his first four years of service, Bush piled up lots of points; he earned 253 points in his first year, 340 in his second, 137 in his third, and 112 in his fourth. For the year from May 1972 to May 1973, records show Bush earned 56 points, a much smaller total, but more than the minimum requirement (his service was measured on a May-to-May basis because he first joined the Guard in that month in 1968 ).
I like that you also posted an article only four days after the documents were released. They hadn't even seen them for more than a few minutes yet.
Like I said that wasn't his last obligated year. 56 points has to be spread over two years.Quote:
For the year from May 1972 to May 1973, records show Bush earned 56 points, a much smaller total, but more than the minimum requirement (his service was measured on a May-to-May basis because he first joined the Guard in that month in 1968 ).
Keep trying. Someone might believe your lies.
But we won't.
Six year commitment travis. You know I am right about this.
It's all there in the article. You really do need to learn to read.
6 year commitment was met. Period. End of story.
Quote:
For the year from May 1972 to May 1973, records show Bush earned 56 points, a much smaller total, but more than the minimum requirement (his service was measured on a May-to-May basis because he first joined the Guard in that month in 1968 ).
Where the hell do you see this has to be split over 2 years?
Gee he signed up in what year Trav? May of 68? that would mean he was signed up to serve until 74. That he did not do.
Learn to read.
Pray what do I need to read this time. To show me 56 credits was enough to get him out of the guard a year early?
Learn to read.
He supposedly earned the 56 credits twice? look at the bottom row.
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/g...b73arfspe2.jpg
He actually did another 56 points worth of service between May and July of 73 for the '73-'74 year. DeSPURate just refuses to recognize that Bush earned the same number of credits for each of his last two years and that, after earning the 56 credits, in two months, Bush requested early discharge and it was granted.
That is the ARF statement between that period Yoni. It doesn't equal 56.
I count 37 on that sheet. 37 + 15 given to all Guardsmen for being in the Guard = 52 > 50.
Case closed.
It doesn't pray tell equal 56 twice does it?
The months on that sheet are his final year. There isn't another year after.
Give it up...you know you've lost. Start being rational.
Heres the other one you would need. Go from may to may.
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/g...-73arfspe1.jpg
There I see 41 + 15 = 56
You lose again.
Interesting.
What might that be?
Well, I was talking out my ass until someone who knew how to read those damn ARF's came along.
DeSPURate was talking out his ass too. We wasted 2 or three pages talking about something we had no knowledge of.
The 15 points. Who knew? I didn't.
Now watch those days disapear in the payroll records.
Seriously though this is crap you can't get off on the grautity points? People can't just do that can they?
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/g...3milpay-p1.jpg
I knew...plus it was in the article...
Seriously though this is crap you can't get off on the grautity points? People can't just do that can they?
What are those numbers DeSPURate?
The points count. Everyone gets them. Deal with it.
I apologize but I don't even get what Despurado is arguing.
He was supposed to get 50 credit per year. His years start in May because that's when he inlisted. So the one that shows May '73 through July '73 (which counts for his final year of 73-74) shows 37 credits. Add the 15 = 52.
So where's the discrepancy?
There isn't one.
Hey Kori, can it be Bush = Yoni instead of Bush > Yoni? Well, because they're the same. ;)
The days he showed up for. never mind. **** I give up he skimped by on gratuity points. He made up for the extra year he missed, becuase hey he was entitled to it. I had no idea that gratuity points were assessed like that. And fifty credits is a strangely low number based upon the fact you aren't allowed to have four unexcused absenses in a year.
Your problem, Kori, is that you are a rational being. :wink
Yeah, but she's beautiful...es muy bonita.
yeah, but she's taken...*sigh*:depressed
We can dream.
If you're not scheduled then you're not unexcused. 50 is what he needed, 52 is what he got. That's all you need to know.Quote:
And fifty credits is a strangely low number based upon the fact you aren't allowed to have four unexcused absenses in a year.
Seriously Travis answer my question gratuity points can allow you to skimp by and get out a year early? Why the low number of 50 when you can't miss more than four days? And shouldn't he not have need eligible to count those credits for his "retirement" when he was payed for them?
And another rational woman makes her appearance...:wink
Look, Despurado...those are the rules. Everyone gets 15. You gotta come up with the other 35.
You never did post the rest of that public law so I could evaluate the context. So I don't know under what conditions those rules apply. Until I can, I don't put any faith in your interpretation.
Yonivore...I'm traveling...I don't have that much underwear...:o
The four day make up thing was from you. It says you can only make up 4 days in an aniversary year.
Quote:6.6. Equivalent Training (EQT). A member may be allowed to make up a UTA that was missed even if the UTA was
missed without prior approval. EQTs can be performed in a pay status for excused absences and in a non pay status
(retirement points only) for unexcused absences.
6.6.1. Commanders may allow individuals to make up a maximum of four missed UTA periods in a paid EQT status per
fiscal year [U.S.C. Title 37, Section 206(e)]. An EQT in a pay status must be performed within 30 calendar days of the
missed scheduled UTA period and within the same fiscal year.
6.6.2. An EQT period without pay (for retirement points only) may be performed outside of 30 calendar days of the
missed scheduled UTA period but within the member's anniversary year. UTAs performed in a non-pay status will
be documented on NGB Form 105m/s or a locally substituted form, held separately from attendance records for UTAs
in a pay status, and forwarded directly to MPF.
6.6.3. The training received during an EQT must be of similar nature and quality to that which was missed. EQT will
be appropriate to and enhance ability of the individual to accomplish the duties of the position to which he or she is
assigned. In the case of staff or support personnel, this may include actions to enhance the training, management, or
readiness of the unit.
that's only in pay status...outside of that you get credit but no pay...
But he got paid for the ones he was trying to credit towards his retirement. Those last 35 are all on the pay records.
For example:Quote:
If you're not scheduled then you're not unexcused. 50 is what he needed, 52 is what he got. That's all you need to know.
I graduated from college in 3 1/2 years. My scholarship required I take at least 15 hours per semester. At the end of my Junior year my counselor informed me that if I took 2 classes per summer term, 18 hours my senior fall semester and a weekend college class that over-lapped the two I could graduate a semester early. I needed 129 for my degree, and I graduated with 128, with honors.
Since I didn't go the whole 4 years, is my diploma somehow negated? I mean, I missed an entire semester.
:wtf
Bush is a disgrace to the uniform.
They give out a free class credit each semester in college? Gee I wish all life were like that. I know what you are saying SW I am just trying to understand the last few issues.
No, that means I got what I needed to get.....he got what he needed to get.
I'm assuming that EVERYONE got the 15 credits just for being in the guard.
If that weren't the case, I'm sure he'd have shown up the required time to earn them.
But he didn't NEED to.
I'm just really pissed off at this though his first year he got what 300+ credits? That is an active person. Serving his counrty. Yet someone can apparently get by getting only about 10% 35 credits and be given an honourable discharge. Thats. messed up. And wouldn't he have been eligible to leave the guard after the first two years if he had that many credits racked up?
The first two years was about 80 weeks of non-stop flight training you bozo.
Still he had enough credits in two years to retire apparently if you can apply a year to your future requirements. He had 253 his first year and 310 the next.
Well, the fact that the the war was winding down and the need for an already over-abundance of fighter pilots diminished might have been very relavent as to why his *service* dropped off.
I still want to know the answers to these two questions:
Can you really apply credits to the future? If so why wasn't anyone trying to say he acquired enough points in his first years of service to qualify for the discharge?
Can You be paid for those credits and still count them as EQT?
Or the fact that was three sheets to the wind and would have failed his physical.
Or the fact that he was missing so much he never got an assignment?
Or the fact that he just plain wasn't around?
Wasn't he on "G" (non-paid) status anyway? What difference would that make?Quote:
Can You be paid for those credits and still count them as EQT?
I don't think you can apply them to the future, but it really doesn't matter. He got the 50 he needed to fulfill his requirements in the time he needed ot fulfill them. I'm stumped at why you don't understand that.
As far as I know you can't "bank" points. But as SW said, it's irrelevant...
Does this remind anyone else of a Whottt Thread?
:rollin
Actually, yes I did realize that, Spurm. However, it still beat out the disaster area I made of my kitchen for my attention.
:lol :o
Ok I am back:
50 points is apparently for active duty training right travis?
You negelcted to mention there is another 44 credit requirement for inactive duty? Combining the two in the points credited apparently is what we have been doing so far...I've been racking my brain to see where the number 12 came from for the US news report.
What does this mean travis? Have we been evaluating bush on the right system? Does he get free 15 credits for both systems?
Quote:
A review of the regulations governing Bush's Guard service during the Vietnam War shows that the White House used an inappropriate--and less stringent--Air Force standard in determining that he had fulfilled his duty. Because Bush signed a six-year "military service obligation," he was required to attend at least 44 inactive-duty training drills each fiscal year beginning July 1. But Bush's own records show that he fell short of that requirement, attending only 36 drills in the 1972-73 period, and only 12 in the 1973-74 period. The White House has said that Bush's service should be calculated using 12-month periods beginning on his induction date in May 1968. Using this time frame, however, Bush still fails the Air Force obligation standard.
Moreover, White House officials say, Bush should be judged on whether he attended enough drills to count toward retirement. They say he accumulated sufficient points under this grading system. Yet, even using their method, which some military experts say is incorrect, U.S. News 's analysis shows that Bush once again fell short. His military records reveal that he failed to attend enough active-duty training and weekend drills to gain the 50 points necessary to count his final year toward retirement.
www.nationalreview.com/yo...180840.asp
I think I'll accept the judgement of a Guard personnel officer in this matter...Quote:
Bush then racked up another 56 points in June and July of 1973, which met the minimum requirement for the 1973-74 year, which was Bush's last year of service. Together, the record "clearly shows that First Lieutenant George W. Bush has satisfactory years for both '72-'73 and '73-'74, which proves that he completed his military obligation in a satisfactory manner," says retired Lt. Col. Albert Lloyd, a Guard personnel officer who reviewed the records at the request of the White House.
A newly released document clears up everything...
http://www.dvorak.org/blog/images/letter2.gif
19 pages and the nutjobs continue to prove my point. Keep up the excellent work!
L8rs.
-TD
The guy doing the report for the USnews was a member of the national guard. Is he right in saying there are two point requirements to get out?
I did the dishes AND posted. :)Quote:
"However, it still beat out the disaster area I made of my kitchen for my attention."
How's that for a multi-tasker? ;)
I don't see where he's getting his numbers from.
As far as I know, the requirement for a satisfactory year is based on points. Nothing I've heard of from Reserve friends or seen in the regs says anything different to me.
Very nice.......although mine's still a mess. It's amazing how easily I get distracted when I don't want to do something.
:angel
Quote:
Does this remind anyone else of a Whottt Thread?
Those Were The Days
by Archie And Edith Bunker
Boy the way that Glenn Miller Played
Songs that made the Hit Parade
Guys like us we had it made
Those were the days.
And you knew who you were THEN!
Girls were girl and men were men
Mister, we could use a man like Herbert Hoover again
Didn't need no Welfare state
Everybody pulled his weight
gee that old LaSalle Ran great
THOSE WERE THE DAYS!
http://www.fdg.unimaas.nl/educ/Erik/...Bunker%207.jpg
Bush was not eligable for the gratuitous points according to this :Quote:
Air Force Manual (“AFM”) 35-3, “Air Reserve Forces Personnel Administration,” dated June 25, 1969 (“AFM 35-3”), with its periodic amendments was the primary controlling authority available for this analysis.[2] “Satisfactory Participation” was defined as “the manner in which a member meets the training requirements of his reserve assignment.” Training consisted of Annual Active Duty for Training (“ANACDUTRA”) and Inactive Duty for Training (“INACDUTRA”).[3]
LinkQuote:
The largest difference is attributable to the number of gratuitous points awarded to Bush, Lloyd’s “15” and the F526RCS “5” points, and a lesser two-point difference between total and retirement points earned: The latter are “38” instead of “40” points. Presumably, the difference between the F526’s “5” and Lloyd’s “15” gratuitous points is the result of calculating them on the duration of creditable service. The former is for four months, while the latter is for the full year. On October 2, 1973, Bush was transferred to the ARPC (ORS) and was not eligible to receive any gratuitous membership points.[66] Lloyd erroneously added the “10” remaining gratuitous points for the anniversary year through May 26, 1974. Lloyd’s conclusion that Bush “did in fact have a satisfactory year for retirement/retention” is, therefore, wrong even if the “10” gratuitous points were authorized because they still leave Bush at “48” points, two short for a satisfactory retention/retirement year.
linkQuote:
Based upon my extensive research, observation, and perusal of various refereed academic journals I have reached the conclusion that none of the leftists who have participated in this thread are clinically sane.
Hey, DeSPURate, heed your own signature guy!
Quote:
"If you don't change your beliefs, your life will be like this forever. Is that good news?"
Well this proves that Bush missed a meeting 30 years ago. But they could be true. Well you haven't proven they are not true. Well even if they aren't true you know it's true.
www.latimes.com/news/opin...-headlines
A Black Eye for CBS News
CBS News has been had. It's hard to reach any other conclusion about newly discovered documents that CBS and anchor Dan Rather are defending as revealing the truth about George W. Bush's military service.
Despite Rather's statement Monday that the network "believes the documents are authentic," the evidence keeps mounting that they are not. As The Times reported, conservative bloggers detected glaring inconsistencies, such as a Microsoft Word type style. So many other discrepancies have since emerged that it would require a willful suspension of disbelief to take them as merely coincidental.
For example, the alleged memos from Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian, who was Bush's squadron commander, contain stylistic problems, such as the fact that Killian signs his rank not in accordance with National Guard procedure. In addition, Killian's signature on a memo dated May 4, 1972, is different from one on file in the Pentagon. The part of a memo supposedly written by Killian that refers to pressure from an earlier Bush commander to help out the young fighter pilot is highly dubious. The 1973 memo is dated almost a year and a half after the commander had resigned from active duty. The best CBS can do is to declare that he remained a powerful behind-the-scenes figure. Well, maybe. But how does CBS know that? CBS could tell us more about where these documents came from without having to reveal the names of its sources.
As CBS flounders, conservatives are citing this episode as an egregious case of liberal media bias, while some liberals are indulging in the comforting notion that Karl Rove, who is responsible for everything bad that happens everywhere, must be behind the documents.
Whatever the truth, CBS' real error was trying to prove a point that didn't really need to be proved. It doesn't take documents for anyone to realize that . Bush pulled strings to get into the National Guard. And, during the Vietnam draft, nobody went into the National Guard out of passion to defend his country. It also doesn't take new documents to establish that Bush shirked even his National Guard duties when he moved to Alabama and then to Harvard Business School.
CBS may have managed to place Bush's Vietnam-era service off-limits as a campaign issue, after weeks when John F. Kerry's impressive record has been under savage attack. Bush gave a smirky speech Monday to the National Guard Assn., waxing on about the patriotic sacrifices of the Guard's men and women over the years.
http://www.impossibleescapes.com/ima...aitjacket1.jpg
You see Yoniovore apparently those TD credits presumably mean something after all. You are suppposed to acquire 44 (or is it 48?) of those in a given year in addition to the 50 active duty points acrued by Bush. (Also Bush had to serve the full year to be eligable for the full +15 gratuity credit.) The only reason I am dragging this thread out (And I apologize to all of your sensibilities everyone) is because there are very few of us who understand this shit. We are given a magic number (50 in this case) and we don't know what it means, least of all me. I am highly skeptical of a guard system where you can attend roughly 12 days of drills to accrue enough points for a whole year. In a rational world that makes no sense.
Quote:
Members of the ANG were required to attend 48 INACDUTRA periods per year and complete not less than 15 days ANACDUTRA to achieve the “satisfactory participation” standard.[11] A member in Bush’s category could not have more than four absences from INACDUTRA in a fiscal year; attendance alone, however, was not sufficient, and a member had to assume “responsibilities commensurate with his grade” and had to perform “his assigned duties in a satisfactory manner as determined by the unit commander.”[12] Retention requirements were strict: “A member who, without approval of competent authority, fails to meet the fiscal year training prescribed for his assignment must be reassigned.”[13]
I want proof that Kerry did not get into the Naval Reserves in order to avoid combat and that he did not receive any special treatment when he did so.
He saw combat.
By accident. :wink
Try again.
The second tour or the first tour SW?
He didn't join the Naval Reserves for the "2nd tour."
Create your own thread this is my Whott thread:wacko
Awww man, don't make me go have to look for the link. I'm sleepy. :sleep
:lol
What do you think of Senator Byrd, Desperado?
Look closely:
http://www.bodyinmind.com/samples170...s016_large.jpg
Nip.
Not enough info to form an opinion.
Are you admitting I am right by trying to distract from the content of what I just posted Tommyboy?
Oh of course I want to set off another 20 page clusterfuck. Look, nip.
Quick recap of my latest argument:
To find out what USnews was saying when they said Bush only had 12 days of inactive duty:
Quote:
A review of the regulations governing Bush's Guard service during the Vietnam War shows that the White House used an inappropriate--and less stringent--Air Force standard in determining that he had fulfilled his duty. Because Bush signed a six-year "military service obligation," he was required to attend at least 44 inactive-duty training drills each fiscal year beginning July 1. But Bush's own records show that he fell short of that requirement, attending only 36 drills in the 1972-73 period, and only 12 in the 1973-74 period. The White House has said that Bush's service should be calculated using 12-month periods beginning on his induction date in May 1968. Using this time frame, however, Bush still fails the Air Force obligation standard.
Moreover, White House officials say, Bush should be judged on whether he attended enough drills to count toward retirement. They say he accumulated sufficient points under this grading system. Yet, even using their method, which some military experts say is incorrect, U.S. News 's analysis shows that Bush once again fell short. His military records reveal that he failed to attend enough active-duty training and weekend drills to gain the 50 points necessary to count his final year toward retirement.
I found this. It reports that there are two seperate requirements for a year. That spent in active duty training and that spent in inactive duty training:
LinkQuote:
Air Force Manual (“AFM”) 35-3, “Air Reserve Forces Personnel Administration,” dated June 25, 1969 (“AFM 35-3”), with its periodic amendments was the primary controlling authority available for this analysis.[2] “Satisfactory Participation” was defined as “the manner in which a member meets the training requirements of his reserve assignment.” Training consisted of Annual Active Duty for Training (“ANACDUTRA”) and Inactive Duty for Training (“INACDUTRA”).[3]
Members of the ANG were required to attend 48 INACDUTRA periods per year and complete not less than 15 days ANACDUTRA to achieve the “satisfactory participation” standard.[11] A member in Bush’s category could not have more than four absences from INACDUTRA in a fiscal year; attendance alone, however, was not sufficient, and a member had to assume “responsibilities commensurate with his grade” and had to perform “his assigned duties in a satisfactory manner as determined by the unit commander.”[12] Retention requirements were strict: “A member who, without approval of competent authority, fails to meet the fiscal year training prescribed for his assignment must be reassigned.”[13]
If you go to Lloyd's analysis you can clearly see he tries to add the two to get above a magic number he sets as fifty:
Albert C Lloyd's analysis.