(OT) : 2008 Election Politics - The"Clintonistas" to Sabotage...
 

I want those Klintoons and Obamas to HURRY UP and get the HELL OUT of
Mississippi!!!!!!!!!
cuhulin

( OT ) 5 passengers, 4 parachutes . ..
 

D Peter Maus wrote:

Not only a pilot, but an F102 pilot...one of the hardest aircraft to
fly. And his own wing commander proudly stated he was one of the MOST
accomplished F102 pilots in the Guard.

Let me ask a legitimate question...

Do you think the wing commander's statement may have been influenced by
the commander knowing that W's daddy was a big shot in Washington?

Or maybe he should have committed a career ending move by telling the
truth. What would you do?

P.S.

Speaking of career ending moves, how about the Generals in Iraq 2 or 3
years ago who said "We need more troops" (a 'surge', if you will) and
got forced into early retirement for their trouble.

A few years later, W 'came up' with the brilliant idea of a 'surge'. I
wonder if W ever apologized (or re-instated) those generals who
originally brought it up...

( OT ) 5 passengers, 4 parachutes . ..
 

Bernard Peters wrote:

On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 14:56:42 -0400, dxAce wrote:

Bernard Peters wrote:

On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 06:52:27 -0700, dave wrote:

Rather was set up. This removed "AWOL Bush" as an issue; even
though there's plenty of evidence beside the 60 Minutes fake letter.
I concur.
The only reason none of the other media don't follow this line is that
all were threatened with loosing access to the Pres and white house
media pool. The republicants management of the media is pretty similar
to how Putin managed the media. The question is, who learned from whom?
OK, you post the 'proof'. See if you can come up with something better
than your retarded brother, David Rickets.
The proof was already presented. From multiple prospectives even. The
real issue is that you have chosen to believe the "controlled" media
inspite of the fact of the other evidence and also the lack of evidence
(where was he during this time?).

Concluding, Bush's record poor performance as president and his inability
as a corporate manager is example enough of his inability to make
intelligent decisions that one would have gained if he had server as a
pilot in the AF.

dxAce wrote:

Inability as a corporate manager?

Please recall that he severely bungled and botched several of his
business ventures before he got into politics and was bailed out of the
mess by Daddy's Saudi Arabian friends. Look it up.

How quickly we forget...

( OT ) 5 passengers, 4 parachutes . ..
 

Billy Burpelson wrote:

Bernard Peters wrote:

On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 14:56:42 -0400, dxAce wrote:

Bernard Peters wrote:

On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 06:52:27 -0700, dave wrote:

Rather was set up. This removed "AWOL Bush" as an issue; even
though there's plenty of evidence beside the 60 Minutes fake letter.
I concur.
The only reason none of the other media don't follow this line is that
all were threatened with loosing access to the Pres and white house
media pool. The republicants management of the media is pretty similar
to how Putin managed the media. The question is, who learned from whom?
OK, you post the 'proof'. See if you can come up with something better
than your retarded brother, David Rickets.
The proof was already presented. From multiple prospectives even. The
real issue is that you have chosen to believe the "controlled" media
inspite of the fact of the other evidence and also the lack of evidence
(where was he during this time?).

Concluding, Bush's record poor performance as president and his inability
as a corporate manager is example enough of his inability to make
intelligent decisions that one would have gained if he had server as a
pilot in the AF.

dxAce wrote:

Inability as a corporate manager?

Please recall that he severely bungled and botched several of his
business ventures before he got into politics and was bailed out of the
mess by Daddy's Saudi Arabian friends. Look it up.

How quickly we forget...

That's fine Billy, but please post the proof that G.W. was AWOL...

( OT ) 5 passengers, 4 parachutes . ..
 

Let me turn on my Radio and listen to what JT and Dave are saying on
www.supertalkms.com Radio.Sometimes, JT and Dave are on WLBT
www.wlbt.com tb mid day Radio tb.Tell Those eggheads, I say JT and
Dave, SUCK!!!!!.email, phone them and tell them Larry in
Jackson,Mississippi says so.Tell that stupid asshole Paul Gallo asshole
at Supelalkms, old Larry says he SUCKS too.
cuhulin

( OT ) 5 passengers, 4 parachutes . ..
 

Billy Burpelson wrote:
D Peter Maus wrote:

Not only a pilot, but an F102 pilot...one of the hardest aircraft to
fly. And his own wing commander proudly stated he was one of the MOST
accomplished F102 pilots in the Guard.

Let me ask a legitimate question...

Do you think the wing commander's statement may have been influenced by
the commander knowing that W's daddy was a big shot in Washington?


No, I don't think so. GHW Bush was a military hero, himself. He knew
and understood the value of the truth in training pilots to serve in
combat.

More importantly, a wing commander doesn't get to be a wing commander
without the hide to tell the truth and fade the heat.



Or maybe he should have committed a career ending move by telling the
truth. What would you do?

I'm no stranger to politically sensitive situations in my career. And
while not as visible as the President and his son, I have been put in a
situation where telling the truth to a corporate vice president about
his own kid could have been instantly fatal to my career, and being out
of the public eye, I could have been launched from the building and no
one would have been the wiser.

I told the truth.

Things got a little warm in my chair for a while. But the VP knew
that truth is a much more actionable, and substantive commodity than a
lie. And though he didn't like it....he accepted it, and acted accordingly.

I was with the company for another 11 years.

A wing commander worth his salt would tell the truth, as well.

P.S.

Speaking of career ending moves, how about the Generals in Iraq 2 or 3
years ago who said "We need more troops" (a 'surge', if you will) and
got forced into early retirement for their trouble.


As I recall, there was no forced retirement.

And as I recall, the politics of the comments didn't involve only the
White House.

The problems with the comments is the way they were made, and where
they were made. Not what was actually said.



A few years later, W 'came up' with the brilliant idea of a 'surge'. I
wonder if W ever apologized (or re-instated) those generals who
originally brought it up...


The surge had been under discussion for some time well before it was
discussed publicly. And it didn't originate with Mr Bush. It originated
with his Generals. And would not have been publicly discussed had it not
been for political opposition leaking the strategy to the press.

( OT ) 5 passengers, 4 parachutes . ..
 

dxAce wrote:

Inability as a corporate manager?

Billy wrote:

Please recall that he severely bungled and botched several of his
business ventures before he got into politics and was bailed out of the
mess by Daddy's Saudi Arabian friends. Look it up.

How quickly we forget...

dxAce wrote:

That's fine Billy, but please post the proof that G.W. was AWOL...

Why?

Not my topic to defend. YOU questioned his ability as a corporate
manager. (see -your- question above) I responded to THAT question...let
the OP defend -his- statements.

( OT ) 5 passengers, 4 parachutes . ..
 

www.usvetdsp.com

The only ''thingys'' I have a ''hard on'' for are those wimmins in my
Playboy magazines.
cuhulin

( OT ) 5 passengers, 4 parachutes . ..
 

Billy Burpelson wrote:
dxAce wrote:

Inability as a corporate manager?

Billy wrote:

Please recall that he severely bungled and botched several of his
business ventures before he got into politics and was bailed out of the
mess by Daddy's Saudi Arabian friends. Look it up.

How quickly we forget...

dxAce wrote:

That's fine Billy, but please post the proof that G.W. was AWOL...

Why?

Not my topic to defend. YOU questioned his ability as a corporate
manager. (see -your- question above) I responded to THAT question...let
the OP defend -his- statements.

I see, you're just changing the subject and hoping everyone will follow you
away from the topic that hurts.

--
Iran tells us what the mainstream media won't:
"A new opinion poll suggests that over 54 percent of Americans do not trust
mainstream media and consider news websites more reliable."
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=46837&sectionid=3510203

( OT ) 5 passengers, 4 parachutes . ..
 

Billy Burpelson wrote:
dxAce wrote:
Inability as a corporate manager?
Billy wrote:

Please recall that he severely bungled and botched several of his
business ventures before he got into politics and was bailed out of the
mess by Daddy's Saudi Arabian friends. Look it up.

How quickly we forget...
dxAce wrote:

That's fine Billy, but please post the proof that G.W. was AWOL...
Why?

Not my topic to defend. YOU questioned his ability as a corporate
manager. (see -your- question above) I responded to THAT question...let
the OP defend -his- statements.

clifto wrote:

I see, you're just changing the subject and hoping everyone will follow you
away from the topic that hurts.

Again, what part of the post don't you understand??? I'm not changing
the subject at all.

It's really very simple...Steve *specifically* asked about W's
"inability as a corporate manager". I specifically addressed *his
specific question*. I leave it up to the *original poster* to defend
-his- AWOL statement.

Please pay attention and please try and get your IQ up to room temperature.

( OT ) 5 passengers, 4 parachutes . ..
 

In article ,
Billy Burpelson wrote:

Billy Burpelson wrote:
dxAce wrote:
Inability as a corporate manager?
Billy wrote:

Please recall that he severely bungled and botched several of his
business ventures before he got into politics and was bailed out of the
mess by Daddy's Saudi Arabian friends. Look it up.

How quickly we forget...
dxAce wrote:

That's fine Billy, but please post the proof that G.W. was AWOL...
Why?

Not my topic to defend. YOU questioned his ability as a corporate
manager. (see -your- question above) I responded to THAT question...let
the OP defend -his- statements.

clifto wrote:

I see, you're just changing the subject and hoping everyone will follow you
away from the topic that hurts.

Again, what part of the post don't you understand??? I'm not changing
the subject at all.

It's really very simple...Steve *specifically* asked about W's
"inability as a corporate manager". I specifically addressed *his
specific question*. I leave it up to the *original poster* to defend
-his- AWOL statement.

Please pay attention and please try and get your IQ up to room temperature.

I know you are a dim bulb but I never expected you to call yourself
stupid.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California