Reply With QuoteI'd like to second Brodels' emotion. In a nuts , 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.
"Your 'colonel' probably doesn't even exist."
Travis you obviously missed this part about Bush's signed service contract:
Statement of Understanding Signed by Bush<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."
I'd like to second Brodels' emotion. In a nuts , 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?
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 .
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?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions