as that is where they have been located since his discharge.
Quit humiliating yourself Dave--it is embarassing!..
![]() | Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years. Thanks, CNET Support |
Discussion is locked
as that is where they have been located since his discharge.
Quit humiliating yourself Dave--it is embarassing!..
is that the charges against Clinton were provable, and he lost his law license as a result. He also wound up impeached.
That's what REALLY sticks in your craw isn't it. The charges against Clinton were provable, and the charges against Bush are little more than wishful thinking from the left.
The real question is how well Kerry will do when the full weight of inuendo and speculation hit him. The Dems are leading the way and showing how it is done.
that is the term for the vote in the House. He was not convicted and removed from office by the Senate.
Evie ![]()
I stand corrected Evie. I was under the impression it would only be Impeachment had they found him guilty. ![]()
I agree, Bo. I hope you're just as outraged at the laughable attempt by Newsmax to suggest that John Kerry and Jane Fonda were working closely together in the early 70s.
weren't they, and they did collaberate didn't they? Do you think Jane suddenly decided later to side with the North Vietnamese? If you do, I've got a bridge I'ld like to sell to you. It's named after Brooklyn.
Wishful thinking all, Kiddpeat. They were "on the same side" only in the sense that they both opposed the war. So did I. That doesn't make me a collaborator with Jane Fonda.
I assume from your third question that you think Kerry was somehow involved in Jane Fonda's movement to the far left and her trip to Hanoi? Care to back that accusation up with a fact or two? And do try to avoid links to Newsmax. Might as well be linking to the Weekly World News.
together, they were a lot closer to each other than you were to them. They are also friends although the current cover story is that their friendship started later. Do you think they published details of their organization and strategy? Do you think they documented these things to reporters? The press wouldn't have cared to expose such things anyway.
The only inference I draw is that they were at some of the same meetings and had at the time similar views. Later, Jane's views became more virulent.
I do respect the fact that Kerry publicly espoused the anti war views AFTER putting in his service rather than running to Canada.
Bo
if he had a dental exam appointment on January 6 of '73 it is a pretty good indicator that he was there to make the appointment in November of '72 at least.
The gap in the attendance and pay records has been adequately explained if you would simply listen or better yet contact your local Guard unit and see what they say about attendance and absences and meeting credits and any other questions you have because you can't believe there is no insidious story here.
Those promoting the AWOL story count on total ignorance to make it believable to their sheep like followers.
I thought you claimed to have served in the Air Force.
The National Guard as you should be aware is a State force that falls under the auspices of the Army Reserve Forces. The proponent of the National Guard Bureau happens to be NGB-ARF http://www.ngbpdc.ngb.army.mil/pubfiles/10/101.pdf
The ARF is NOT "a paper unit based in Denver" nor are ARF Statement of Points Earned indicative of "disciplinary action". The unit code on the page will tell where the points were earned and others codes indicate whether the points earned are ADT points or IADT points and like most he had both.
The worst it shows is that he missed meetings for 6 months and 11 days BUT it also shows that the missed meetings were made up. With more than the minimum 9 points in the quarter prior to the 6 months there was no concern.
Rather than relying on someone who is guessing and making things up as he goes why not simply verify info with the local Air Guard? They can readily explain that they are an element of the ARF and that all their pilots get ARF points and there is no "paper unit in Denver".
Dave K is, as usual, trolling for trash and laughing when you "refute". Don't play his game...it'll drive him nuts.
Pay no attention to the irrelevant.
We have only seen the pre-game warm up of the democrats and the republicans have yet to come out of the clubhouse. I certainly hope the republicans stay with their game plan, and don't waste time and resources 'refuting', which the democrats are hoping will become a 24/7 enterprise.
...only a bunch of knee jerk media hounds and lesser democrats, many who managed to slink back from Canada during the amnesty period of the Carter years, some that didn't serve so admirably and then joined the antiwar protestor groups, cozying up to Hanoi Jane, and thereby giving comfort to the enemy.
that of those who lapped up that fiction you linked to definitely is.
biased (adj.) Having a view or result not favorable to conservatives or conservatism.
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
as I have stated here several times that the polls are biased and have further pointed out that the bias is regardless of who takes them.
When you posted a poll about bush slipping and kerry overtaking him I posted a response to a list of polls and pointed out that the results depended on who took the poll because all the left leaners showed results similar to what you posted while the right leaners showed the opposite.
Your definition of biased is well known Dave but like your own personal bigotry you can't see the bias in the sources you refer to and avoid others sources because they don't present the results you want. Pretty much like the polls themselves and who funds them--they want to get what they paid for.
Nothing wrong with being skeptical but O'Reilly
"O'Reilly places the blame on intelligence officials for their pre-war assessments. "
Did Bush have desires to remove Saddam, possibly. Did he lie about the intelligence to do it? don't see when same intelligence had been held by many from before him taking office.
Did he phrase things to convince in a political speech? who doesn't?