Teabaggers reject racism claims
in [Toyota]
|
Prev: Obama Saves Gulf of Mexico
Next: Rip Van Tea Partyer
From: Lookout on 20 Jul 2010 12:27 On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 10:50:15 -0500, Liberal Hypocrite Detector <grey_ghost471-newsgroups(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >Michael Ejercito <mejercit(a)hotmail.com> wrote in news:c5c6f202-d1d8-4274- >a834-e8114b0d650a(a)p22g2000pre.googlegroups.com: > >> On Jul 20, 4:24�am, Lookout <mrLook...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>> On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 23:09:19 -0500, Liberal Hypocrite Detector >>> >>> >>> >>> <grey_ghost471-newsgro...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >Lookout <mrLook...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in >>> >news:6s6946dv0hdovta6h17fsvppqbddlfdp07(a)4ax.com: >>> >>> >> On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 12:14:12 -0500, Liberal Hypocrite Detector >>> >><grey_ghost471-newsgro...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>>Only if avoidance means joining the Texas Air National guard, >learning >> to >>> >>>fly a Mach plus interceptor and then standing alerts. >>> >>> >> No. Only if it means getting in a unit that was already at 100% >>> >> capacity...which was ILLEGAL. And getting into a unit that flew jets >>> >> that were no longer used in Viet Nam SO HE COULDN'T GO. He claimed he >>> >> wanted to..then why join a unit that can't be deployed? >>> >>> >Um, no. >>> >>> >http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/history/q0185.shtml >>> >George W. Bush's military service began in 1968 when he enlisted in the >>> >Texas Air National Guard after graduating with a bachelor's degree in >>> >history from Yale University. The aircraft he was ultimately trained to >> fly >>> >was the F-102 Delta Dagger, popularly known as "the Deuce." The F-102 >ma >> y >>> >have been old but was far from useless, and it continued to serve in >lar >> ge >>> >numbers with both Air Force and Air National Guard units well into the >>> >1970s. Furthermore, the F-102 was deployed to Vietnam throughout most >of >>> >the conflict, and the aircraft proved its value early by deterring >North >>> >Vietnamese pilots from crossing the border to attack the South. Perhaps >>> >more importantly, the F-102 and its Air National Guard pilots performed >> a >>> >vital role in defending the continental United States from nuclear >attac >> k. >>> >>> >http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-102a-ops.htm >>> >Four F-102s were sent from Clark AB, P. I., to South Vietnam in March >19 >> 62, >>> >after radars had detected low flying, unidentified aircraft along the >>> >Cambodian border. This started a series of rotations every 6 weeks by >Na >> vy � >>> >EA-1F all weather fighters and USAF F-102s to Tan Son Nhut. The >rotation >>> >ended in May 1963 due to base overcrowding. Nonetheless, from the >summer >> of >>> >1963 to mid 1964, Thirteenth Air Force conducted no-notice deployments >o >> f >>> >F-102s to South Vietnam and brief training flights to Tan Son Nhut and >D >> a >>> >Nang. The small number of aircraft �committed to SEA air defense befor >> e >>> >1965 tripled by the end of 1966. At that time 12 F-102s stood alert in >>> >South Vietnam (6 at Bien Hoa and 6 at Da Nang) and another 10 in >Thailan >> d >>> >(6 at Udorn and 4 at Don Muang). Little change occurred in 1967 and >1968 >> , >>> >the Air Force keeping a minimum of 14 F-102s on 5 minute alert with the >>> >remainder of the force on 1 hour call. F-102 operations �in SEA ended >> in >>> >December 1969 (The last F-102 squadron at Clark was inactivated. >However >> , a >>> >few F-102s remained at the Royal Thai Air Base of Don Muang until the >>> >summer of 1970.) with a remarkable safety record. In almost 10 years of >>> >flying air defense and a few combat air patrols for SAC B-52s, just 15 >F >> - >>> >102s were lost. >>> >>> His unit was at 100% when he was allowed to join. That's been >>> documented repeatedly. >> Documented repeatedly by WHOM? > >By Lookout. > >> >>> >>> There were NO NEW F-102 units be sent to Viet Nam WHEN HE JOINED. >>> Therefore HE COULD NOT GO and his daddy knew that. The only one flying >>> them were AD Air Force. >>> >> And there was some sort of guarantee that it would not change in >> the future? > >Of course, lookout say's so. Of course he snipped the 2 refernces I posted >that suggest otherwise, Ya think maybe he's lieing or just batshit crazy? > >> >> >> Michael >> What you posted wasn't pertinent to this topic. It said NOTIHNG about whether F 103 units were being deployed to Viet Nam. Only ACTIVE DUTY pilots were still flying them.
From: Lookout on 20 Jul 2010 12:29 On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 08:47:48 -0700 (PDT), Michael Ejercito <mejercit(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >On Jul 19, 7:22�pm, Tankfixer <paul.carr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> In article <6s6946dv0hdovta6h17fsvppqbddlfd...(a)4ax.com>, >> mrLook...(a)yahoo.com says... >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 12:14:12 -0500, Liberal Hypocrite Detector >> > <grey_ghost471-newsgro...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> > >Lookout <mrLook...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in >> > >news:4ev8465mv0ufra0jg9t6ic27hnrle8j7cb(a)4ax.com: >> >> > >> He avoided serving and then claimed he could have gone. That was a >> > >> lie. >> >> > >Only if avoidance means joining the Texas Air National guard, learning to >> > >fly a Mach plus interceptor and then standing alerts. >> >> > No. Only if it means getting in a unit that was already at 100% >> > capacity...which was ILLEGAL. And getting into a unit that flew jets >> > that were no longer used in Viet Nam SO HE COULDN'T GO. He claimed he >> > wanted to..then why join a unit that can't be deployed? >> >> Feel free to cite the law or regulation that makes it illegal to enlist >> over 100% in a unit. > And who defines the capacity of a unit? You obviously weren't around for the war. Because it was known which units could and couldn't be deployed many tried to get into units that couldn't or wouldn't be deployed. Those units were ALWAYS at 100%. It was watched carefully by anyone of draft age. It was reported repeatedly that his unit was at 100% and that daddy got him in anyways. You obviously weren't reading the papers or watching the news when he was running for president. > > > Michael
From: Liberal Hypocrite Detector on 20 Jul 2010 12:54 Lookout <mrLookout(a)yahoo.com> wrote in news:1hjb46lgrofqeqdmfqo1dvdvcqhrm5fhd3(a)4ax.com: > On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 10:50:15 -0500, Liberal Hypocrite Detector ><grey_ghost471-newsgroups(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>Michael Ejercito <mejercit(a)hotmail.com> wrote in >>news:c5c6f202-d1d8-4274- a834-e8114b0d650a(a)p22g2000pre.googlegroups.com: >> >>> On Jul 20, 4:24�am, Lookout <mrLook...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 23:09:19 -0500, Liberal Hypocrite Detector >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> <grey_ghost471-newsgro...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> >Lookout <mrLook...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in >>>> >news:6s6946dv0hdovta6h17fsvppqbddlfdp07(a)4ax.com: >>>> >>>> >> On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 12:14:12 -0500, Liberal Hypocrite Detector >>>> >><grey_ghost471-newsgro...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> >>>Only if avoidance means joining the Texas Air National guard, >>learning >>> to >>>> >>>fly a Mach plus interceptor and then standing alerts. >>>> >>>> >> No. Only if it means getting in a unit that was already at 100% >>>> >> capacity...which was ILLEGAL. And getting into a unit that flew >>>> >> jets that were no longer used in Viet Nam SO HE COULDN'T GO. He >>>> >> claimed he wanted to..then why join a unit that can't be deployed? >>>> >>>> >Um, no. >>>> >>>> >http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/history/q0185.shtml >>>> >George W. Bush's military service began in 1968 when he enlisted in >>>> >the Texas Air National Guard after graduating with a bachelor's >>>> >degree in history from Yale University. The aircraft he was >>>> >ultimately trained to >>> fly >>>> >was the F-102 Delta Dagger, popularly known as "the Deuce." The >>>> >F-102 >>ma >>> y >>>> >have been old but was far from useless, and it continued to serve in >>lar >>> ge >>>> >numbers with both Air Force and Air National Guard units well into >>>> >the 1970s. Furthermore, the F-102 was deployed to Vietnam throughout >>>> >most >>of >>>> >the conflict, and the aircraft proved its value early by deterring >>North >>>> >Vietnamese pilots from crossing the border to attack the South. >>>> >Perhaps more importantly, the F-102 and its Air National Guard >>>> >pilots performed >>> a >>>> >vital role in defending the continental United States from nuclear >>attac >>> k. >>>> >>>> >http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-102a-ops.ht >>>> >m Four F-102s were sent from Clark AB, P. I., to South Vietnam in >>>> >March >>19 >>> 62, >>>> >after radars had detected low flying, unidentified aircraft along >>>> >the Cambodian border. This started a series of rotations every 6 >>>> >weeks by >>Na >>> vy � >>>> >EA-1F all weather fighters and USAF F-102s to Tan Son Nhut. The >>rotation >>>> >ended in May 1963 due to base overcrowding. Nonetheless, from the >>summer >>> of >>>> >1963 to mid 1964, Thirteenth Air Force conducted no-notice >>>> >deployments >>o >>> f >>>> >F-102s to South Vietnam and brief training flights to Tan Son Nhut >>>> >and >>D >>> a >>>> >Nang. The small number of aircraft �committed to SEA air defense >>>> >befor >>> e >>>> >1965 tripled by the end of 1966. At that time 12 F-102s stood alert >>>> >in South Vietnam (6 at Bien Hoa and 6 at Da Nang) and another 10 in >>Thailan >>> d >>>> >(6 at Udorn and 4 at Don Muang). Little change occurred in 1967 and >>1968 >>> , >>>> >the Air Force keeping a minimum of 14 F-102s on 5 minute alert with >>>> >the remainder of the force on 1 hour call. F-102 operations �in SEA >>>> >ended >>> in >>>> >December 1969 (The last F-102 squadron at Clark was inactivated. >>However >>> , a >>>> >few F-102s remained at the Royal Thai Air Base of Don Muang until >>>> >the summer of 1970.) with a remarkable safety record. In almost 10 >>>> >years of flying air defense and a few combat air patrols for SAC >>>> >B-52s, just 15 >>F >>> - >>>> >102s were lost. >>>> >>>> His unit was at 100% when he was allowed to join. That's been >>>> documented repeatedly. >>> Documented repeatedly by WHOM? >> >>By Lookout. >> >>> >>>> >>>> There were NO NEW F-102 units be sent to Viet Nam WHEN HE JOINED. >>>> Therefore HE COULD NOT GO and his daddy knew that. The only one >>>> flying them were AD Air Force. >>>> >>> And there was some sort of guarantee that it would not change in >>> the future? >> >>Of course, lookout say's so. Of course he snipped the 2 refernces I >>posted that suggest otherwise, Ya think maybe he's lieing or just >>batshit crazy? >> >>> >>> >>> Michael >>> > What you posted wasn't pertinent to this topic. It said NOTIHNG about > whether F 103 units were being deployed to Viet Nam. Only ACTIVE DUTY > pilots were still flying them. > To my knowledge the F-103 was a concept fighter never assembled even in prototype. However F-102s were still active in Vietnam at the time Mr Bush enlisted. That is simply a fact. And Palace Alert was the program under which ANG pilots rotated to Vietnam, Thailand specifically, to fly Mig Caps for B-52s. You are entitled to your own delusions, you may not, however, modify history to suit your hate. -- I'm sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you're not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we're Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration. Hillary Rodham Clinton
From: Gray Ghost on 20 Jul 2010 12:58 Lookout <mrLookout(a)yahoo.com> wrote in news:djjb46tgs1tr04gd7pusuefpqudpluabsh(a)4ax.com: > On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 08:47:48 -0700 (PDT), Michael Ejercito ><mejercit(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >>On Jul 19, 7:22�pm, Tankfixer <paul.carr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> In article <6s6946dv0hdovta6h17fsvppqbddlfd...(a)4ax.com>, >>> mrLook...(a)yahoo.com says... >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 12:14:12 -0500, Liberal Hypocrite Detector >>> > <grey_ghost471-newsgro...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>> > >Lookout <mrLook...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in >>> > >news:4ev8465mv0ufra0jg9t6ic27hnrle8j7cb(a)4ax.com: >>> >>> > >> He avoided serving and then claimed he could have gone. That was >>> > >> a lie. >>> >>> > >Only if avoidance means joining the Texas Air National guard, >>> > >learning to fly a Mach plus interceptor and then standing alerts. >>> >>> > No. Only if it means getting in a unit that was already at 100% >>> > capacity...which was ILLEGAL. And getting into a unit that flew jets >>> > that were no longer used in Viet Nam SO HE COULDN'T GO. He claimed >>> > he wanted to..then why join a unit that can't be deployed? >>> >>> Feel free to cite the law or regulation that makes it illegal to >>> enlist over 100% in a unit. >> And who defines the capacity of a unit? > > You obviously weren't around for the war. Really? And how old are you? Because it was known which > units could and couldn't be deployed many tried to get into units that > couldn't or wouldn't be deployed. Those units were ALWAYS at 100%. It > was watched carefully by anyone of draft age. It was reported > repeatedly that his unit was at 100% and that daddy got him in > anyways. You obviously weren't reading the papers or watching the news > when he was running for president. >> >> >> Michael > -- "Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure." �Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 1823
From: Lookout on 20 Jul 2010 14:05
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 11:48:51 -0500, Liberal Hypocrite Detector <grey_ghost471-newsgroups(a)yahoo.com> wrote: HAHAAHAH JUST LIKE kraut...the lonely little LYING twerp is nym shifting because he's LONELY! And now..a complaint to Giganews for nym shifting. AHAHAHAHAH You whiney little twerp! And you're in the filter again! |