Reply With QuoteI am admitting that I haven't read it nor care. But that's just me.
So basically yall are admitting that his interpretation of the manual is correct?
I am admitting that I haven't read it nor care. But that's just me.
so you're sticking you're fingers in your ears saying "nah nah I can't hear you." And thats your argument that you are presenting here today?
Read slowly:
I do not care.
Pretty much. And, do you know why?
Because, it doesn't ing matter. A bigger problem is that there is a mainstream media giant, CBS, and their poster boy, Dan Rather, willing to lie in an effort to sway an election. That should be of more concern to you than anything that happened 30 years ago.
You guys sure cared enough when you thought you could win the argument. You cared 30 pages enough.
DeSPURate, we've won the argument. Now, we're just taunting, mocking, and engaging in excessive celebration.
Throw a flag...
I said I didn't care before and I certainly don't care now. The only issue that really matters is who tried to influence an election with "fake, but accurate" do ents and why does Dan Rather look like he was more than an unwilling participant?
Memo to Senator John Kerry: I Joe Chalupa, request that you release all you military records, even those that may have been conveniently lost. If they make you look bad?
Who cares? It was 32 years ago. Thanks bud.
I don't care about blow jobs (unless I'm receiving from a beautiful woman) and I don't care if Dubya was making road pizzas after a night of binge drinking.
It was Burkett. You said yourself that doesn't lead back to the DNC.
Now who is going to challenge me on whether Bush earned his discharge.
Uh oh, this newly discovered 'fake, but accurate' do ent might just spell the end of the Kerry campaign...
The issue was exhausted.
A better one came along...media bias and the lengths to which CBS and Dan Rather are willing to go to get John Kerry elected.
Guess what? It's a more contemporary and germain issue than something that happened 30 years ago which no one, outside the extreme base of each party, cares about.
John Q. Public is keenly interested in what Dan Rather did last Wednesday -- he could care less what George W. Bush did in 1972.
Still can't do it? This is looking like my case is won.
Bush was AWOL. Didn't deserve his discharge. Was only given it becuase his commanding officers were unwilling to use the the real standards of the air national guard for their golden child.
Issue over.
It doesn't seem to lead back to the DNC at the present time.
Fake but accurate, The new motto of CBS.
I'm not posting in this thread again until you challenge me on the issues.
Unless you ever try to say Bush got an honorable discharge because he earned it.
Well since you put it that way I feel quite inclined to not "challenge you on the issues" in this thread.
May I suggest you make that offer in as many other threads as you like on this ezboard?
I thought that was Pamela Anderson's motto.Fake but accurate, The new motto of CBS.
"Fake but doable," is hers.
President Bush earned his discharge. Paul Lukasiak is not qualified to render judgement on this issue.
Issue closed.
Received is different than earned.
You know, the way conservatives talk about Kerry's medals.
Okay, Dan...I mean, Joe, unless you come up with proof that he didn't earn his honorable discharge, he earned it.
Basing a belief on some CBS theory and the edited (and some say coached) recollections of an 86 year old woman, is pretty thin.
The proof is there black and white in Lloyds memorandum.
He clearly adds two the two seperate categories Active duty and inactive duty together, to get above the number fifty.
Lloyd's analysis
Problem is you can't do that according to his own manual.
Damn, TD, we must have "challenged him on the issue." Will we ever learn?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions