Road Cycling · Public discussion

0.41 seconds

Started by Robert Chung · · Last activity · 160 posts · 3,261 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Road Cycling
Published
12 September 2004
Last activity
26 September 2004
Original author
Robert Chung
Posts
160
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
3,261
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 141–160 of 160
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. In article <[email hidden]>,

    Donald Munro said:
    Tom Kunich said:


    Hmm, how long before Kerry begins to criticize the Israelis for protecting
    themselves? oh, that's right. He already has....

    http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040304-082410-7067r.htm


    ..

    Quoted message said:

    But American leaders must also heed Sharon's other lessons. That means an
    ability to endure criticism from abroad and even to risk international
    isolation, a willingness to define the war on terrorism as a total war,
    and a commitment to focus one's political agenda on winning, not on
    divisive or extraneous concerns. Fulfilling those conditions does not
    guarantee success. But it does make success possible - as Israel is, at
    great cost, showing the world.

    Perhaps it would be much harder for terrorist organizations to recruit new
    suicide bombers if it was not for Israels illegal occupation of
    Palestinian territory.

    http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/images/war.275.gif

    --
    tanx,
    Howard

    A billion + 2 followups...

    remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

  2. Howard Kveck said:

    By the way, you keep mentioning that the media is so far to the left
    that they can't be objective in covering the present administration. If
    that were indeed true, then why have we heard nothing at all in the
    mainstream media about this issue, or the Cheney/Halliburton/Iran story,
    among many others?

    My question is what newspapers do you read that haven't reported it in
    multiple aritcles? I'm guessing that of the four papers in our area
    (Washington DC-Baltimore-Annapolis), only the Annapolis Capital
    hasn't. Then, again, they would report a nuclear attack on DC with the
    following headlines:

    Route 50 backup to Eastern Shore
    Traffic Boon to Local Merchants

    Redskin Game in Doubt on Sunday

    National Capital reported missing (in much smaller print)

    Curtis L. Russell
    Odenton, MD (USA)
    Just someone on two wheels...

  3. "Howard Kveck" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    In article <[email hidden]>,

    Tom Kunich said:

    I'm saying that Bush had WAY more points than necessary to get out of


    the

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    National Guard.

    Did you read the whole article, T? It lays it out pretty plainly that


    he

    Quoted message said:

    DID NOT have enough points. If that one wasn't good enough for you, read


    on.

    Here's the rule Howard - In order to put in your time you have to have 50
    points per year. For a six year hitch that's 300 points.

    Bush accumulated 253 points his first year, and a total of 589 points in the
    succeeding three years, before his Alabama leg and his discharge.
    http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ucwb/20040920/cm_ucwb/theinfluencebehindw&e=1

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    The Guard put Bush on desk duty just to run out his time.

    Ahh, "desk duty". Must be a new euphemism for "being down to the bar."

    When were you in the service Howard and what service was it?

  4. In article <[email hidden]>,

    Tom Kunich said:

    "Howard Kveck" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    In article <[email hidden]>,

    Tom Kunich said:

    I'm saying that Bush had WAY more points than necessary to get out of


    the

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    National Guard.

    Did you read the whole article, T? It lays it out pretty plainly that


    he

    Quoted message said:

    DID NOT have enough points. If that one wasn't good enough for you, read


    on.

    Here's the rule Howard - In order to put in your time you have to have 50
    points per year. For a six year hitch that's 300 points.

    Bush accumulated 253 points his first year, and a total of 589 points in the
    succeeding three years, before his Alabama leg and his discharge.
    http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ucwb/20040920/cm_ucwb/theinflue
    ncebehindw&e=1

    That article contradicts every other one I've seen on the issue - why is
    that? Oh, and Bill Buckley determines the rule on this?

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    The Guard put Bush on desk duty just to run out his time.

    Ahh, "desk duty". Must be a new euphemism for "being down to the bar."

    When were you in the service Howard and what service was it?

    Would Merckx have won the Tour in '73 if he'd chosen to race it? That
    question has exactly the same bearing on this issue. Have you raced
    bicycles professionally, Tom? Then (by the standards you like to toss out)
    how do you feel qualified to discuss pro bike racing?

    --
    tanx,
    Howard

    A billion + 2 followups...

    remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

  5. In article <[email hidden]>,

    Curtis L. Russell said:
    Howard Kveck said:

    By the way, you keep mentioning that the media is so far to the left
    that they can't be objective in covering the present administration. If
    that were indeed true, then why have we heard nothing at all in the
    mainstream media about this issue, or the Cheney/Halliburton/Iran story,
    among many others?

    My question is what newspapers do you read that haven't reported it in
    multiple aritcles? I'm guessing that of the four papers in our area
    (Washington DC-Baltimore-Annapolis), only the Annapolis Capital
    hasn't. Then, again, they would report a nuclear attack on DC with the
    following headlines:

    Route 50 backup to Eastern Shore
    Traffic Boon to Local Merchants

    Redskin Game in Doubt on Sunday

    National Capital reported missing (in much smaller print)

    You're correct, Curtis, that "heard nothing" is an overstatement -
    apologies for that. There has been some coverage in the print media, but it
    seems to be quite sparse on TV. But I haven't seen much in the mainstream
    media that take Cheney to task for criticizing Kerry for voting for his own
    proposals. The fact that people are still making the point that Kerry voted
    against defense spending tells me *that* story hasn't hit the public's
    perceptions with as much vigor as the one's that the Bush campaign are
    pushing ("Kerry cuts defense spending"😉.

    Your Annapolis Capital bit is good, btw. There's reasons why small(ish)
    town newspapermen usually *stay* small town newspapermen. A couple years
    ago, an older woman got hit by a train in Palo Alto, Calif - the headline
    on the local paper read (in huge type), "She Had No Next Of Kin".

    --
    tanx,
    Howard

    A billion + 2 followups...

    remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

  6. Tom Kunich said:


    When were you in the service Howard and what service was it?

    I don't know about Howard, but I had other priorities in the '60s than
    military service.

  7. Tom Kunich said:
    Quoted message said:

    When were you in the service Howard and what service was it?

    Robert Chung said:

    I don't know about Howard, but I had other priorities in the '60s than
    military service.

    Getting laid ?

  8. "Robert Chung" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    Tom Kunich said:


    When were you in the service Howard and what service was it?

    I don't know about Howard, but I had other priorities in the '60s than
    military service.

    http://www.kenpapai.com/cycling/rbr/rbr8.html

    (2nd from bottom) ?

  9. Carl Sundquist said:

    "Robert Chung" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    Tom Kunich said:


    When were you in the service Howard and what service was it?

    I don't know about Howard, but I had other priorities in the '60s than
    military service.

    http://www.kenpapai.com/cycling/rbr/rbr8.html

    (2nd from bottom) ?

    My first experience with a fixed gear.

  10. "Tom Kunich" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:


    When were you in the service Howard and what service was it?

    By the way, Howard, that isn't an attack. I'm trying to find out if
    you've been in the service and so whether you actually have had
    experience with the way it works.

    Those who chose not to offer their service to the country are allowed
    that option in this country. Those who do find that service life isn't
    much like the real world out there at all.

    In the days of the draft those who couldn't be trained for anything
    else ended up as clerks and cooks and military police. Some turned out
    to be good at their jobs but most didn't want to be there and were a
    continuous pain in the butt.

    Things like paperwork that COULD be avoided often was and so it isn't
    unusual to see gaps in records. And remember, these same guys would
    join the Guard after they got out because they generally could pick up
    a load of rank as experienced servicemen, make a little pay, get the
    government to pay for education and only have to serve a couple of
    weeks a year and some weekends.

    The flip side of this coin is that becoming a fighter pilot in the Air
    Force was DAMNED HARD. There was all hell and gone a ton of
    competition and regardless of Bush's abilities it's unlikely that he
    could have made it. In the ANG he stood a whole lot better chance and
    indeed the ratings demonstrate that he took that position seriously.
    His fellow officers and his commanding officers thought well of him.

    You would think from the SeeBS follow-up report that missing a
    physical was the same thing as going AWOL despite the fact that 1/3rd
    of the pilots missed a physical at some time in their service lives.
    Fact is that it was no big deal and you came off flight duty, had to
    do all of the scut office duty, and had to wait for the next cycle of
    physicals. In other words - it was worse for the guy who missed his
    physical than the service.

    The real problem here isn't with Bush's service which while perhaps
    not exemplary was a hell of a lot better than mine. I was put up on
    charges for doing my job TOO GOOD!

    One of the other airmen and myself got in a competition to see who
    could do a Terrain Avoidance Radar Alignment the fastest. Originally
    the alighment took about 12 hours. And the computer's expected
    lifespan was 11 hours between shop alighnments. Doesn't work out does
    it?

    Slowly the field alignment came down to 8 hours as we memorized the
    procedures and didn't have to read each step out loud. Then we started
    putting working teams together - one guy to sit at the radar target to
    set the echo return knobs. Another to sit there and read each step out
    of the procedure (required by regulation) and the third to actually do
    the alignment.

    I did a 7 hour alignment and John did a 6. I did a 5 hour alignment
    and John did a 4. Finally I was on a shift that didn't get any
    alignments for awhile and John got in a lot of practice and pull off a
    3 hour alighment. Our NCOIC of the shop put him in for a commendation
    and he got it.

    So I went out on a TA with the expectations of setting the record to
    where John couldn't beat it. I took the two best guys for the job (who
    also happened to be the only two guys on the shift besides me) and we
    did an alignment in 1 hour and 45 minutes. As I dropped out of that
    overheated oven I was pretty happy-go-lucky and there was a Colonel
    standing below the hatchway that I almost stepped on.

    "What's up Airman," he asked? Like some smartass I said, "Well sir, we
    just pencil whipped a TA out in record time." (Pencil whipped was a
    term of derision usually meaning that instead of fixing something you
    just wrote it up as being repaired - this was because some flight
    officers would invent malfunctions to "keep the troops busy."😉

    When I got back to the shop it was shift change and everyone was
    unusually quiet. The two super-sargeants were going out the door
    without so much as saying boo and they took my truck with the TA gear
    on it. The NCOIC asked me to stay and clean up the shop. This wasn't
    really unusual but it wasn't normal.

    After two hours the super-sargeants came back in smiling and handed
    over the terrain avoidance plots which were the best I've ever seen.
    Perfectly flat with only two small dips in the clearance plane. The
    NCOIC got on the phone and called someone and talked for a couple of
    minutes and then got off and the story came out.

    That Colonel was the assistant wing commander and Sgt Scott, our NCOIC
    of the shop, had made such a big deal about how difficult the TA
    alignment was and what an unusually good technician John was, that the
    1:45 I told the Colonel made him think that I was serious about
    "pencil whipping" a TA.

    Terrain Avoidance radar was an EXTREME safety-of-flight item. A
    failure of that made it even chances that a crew on a TA mission would
    end up dead. It happened several times when I was in so I know this
    wasn't a joke.

    The assistant wing commander didn't take well to my joviality and
    actually filed charges immediately. He retracted them when the backup
    paperwork showed a nearly perfect alignment.

    But instead of getting a commendation (which was what I was going for
    - anythnig to put on in John's eye) I barely avoided court martial.

    THAT'S the way the service works Howard.

  11. "Robert Chung" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    Tom Kunich said:


    When were you in the service Howard and what service was it?

    I don't know about Howard, but I had other priorities in the '60s than
    military service.

    Did they involve furthering your education so that you could use your
    advanced economic position and social status to belittle those who did
    serve?

  12. In article <[email hidden]>,

    (Tom Kunich) said:

    "Tom Kunich" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:


    When were you in the service Howard and what service was it?

    By the way, Howard, that isn't an attack. I'm trying to find out if
    you've been in the service and so whether you actually have had
    experience with the way it works.

    I will admit that the statement comes across to me as fairly aggressive
    and seemingly with an agenda, but I'll take you at face value here.

    Both of my parents were Air Force, my mom for four years or so, and my
    dad for 26, plus another 8 or 9 doing training after retirement. We lived a
    few times on base housing and close enough to it at other times to not be
    any different. So I saw enough of the USAF to know it wasn't for me. I
    spent a lot of time hearing from him about the day to day [censored] that went
    on. Point is, I *am* pretty familiar with what goes on in the service in
    spite of not serving. Just so you know.

    --
    tanx,
    Howard

    A billion + 2 followups...

    remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

  13. Tom Kunich said:

    Robert Chung wrote

    Quoted message said:


    I had other priorities in the 60s than military service.

    Did they involve furthering your education so that you could use your
    advanced economic position and social status to belittle those who did
    serve?

    I'm not belittling those who served. I'm just belittling you, and that
    doesn't take much education, position, or status at all.

    Did you think my statement belittles those who served?

  14. "Robert Chung" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    Tom Kunich said:

    Robert Chung wrote

    Quoted message said:


    I had other priorities in the 60s than military service.

    Did they involve furthering your education so that you could use your
    advanced economic position and social status to belittle those who did
    serve?

    I'm not belittling those who served. I'm just belittling you, and that
    doesn't take much education, position, or status at all.

    Did you think my statement belittles those who served?

    I think that you shoot from the hip because you just don't give a damn what
    happens. Apparently you seem to think that the problem with Muslims isn't
    anything to worry about and certainly not worth threatening your skin over.

  15. "Howard Kveck" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:


    Both of my parents were Air Force, my mom for four years or so, and my
    dad for 26, plus another 8 or 9 doing training after retirement. We lived


    a

    Quoted message said:

    few times on base housing and close enough to it at other times to not be
    any different. So I saw enough of the USAF to know it wasn't for me. I
    spent a lot of time hearing from him about the day to day [censored] that went
    on. Point is, I *am* pretty familiar with what goes on in the service in
    spite of not serving. Just so you know.

    That's all well and fine - then why are you spouting the "missing documents"
    [censored] as if there was some basis for it? I can just see Bush aids in all of
    the National Archives files jamming memos into their socks.

    Oh, wait, that was a Clintonista and Kerry aid, Sandy Burger. Do you suppose
    he was unsuccessful because of the power of the Republicans? Or because the
    National Archives managers and employess don't really give a rat's ass who
    the hell you are?

    You may not believe this but the President of the United States is not an
    all powerful tyrant. The idea that he could suppress documents from his
    files is laughable at best.

    Now if we could only get Kerry to sign HIS form 150 so that we could see his
    records. I'd even be willing to put up with some missing records as well.

  16. Tom Kunich said:

    "Robert Chung" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    Tom Kunich said:

    Robert Chung wrote
    >
    > I had other priorities in the 60s than military service.

    Did they involve furthering your education so that you could use your
    advanced economic position and social status to belittle those who did
    serve?

    I'm not belittling those who served. I'm just belittling you, and that
    doesn't take much education, position, or status at all.

    Did you think my statement belittles those who served?

    I think that you shoot from the hip because you just don't give a damn
    what happens. Apparently you seem to think that the problem with
    Muslims isn't anything to worry about and certainly not worth
    threatening your skin over.

    First, it's interesting that you think the problem is with Muslims; the
    President and I think the problem is with terrorists, not with Muslims.

    Second, it seems that you think that because I disagree with you that I
    don't care what happens. That's a misconception. Are you suggesting that
    having had other priorities than military service means that my opinions
    are somehow invalid? That's harsh.

  17. "Robert Chung" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:


    First, it's interesting that you think the problem is with Muslims; the
    President and I think the problem is with terrorists, not with Muslims.

    While obviously MOST Muslims are not terrorists, MOST terrorists are Muslims
    whether you wish to recognize that or not.

    Quoted message said:

    Second, it seems that you think that because I disagree with you that I
    don't care what happens. That's a misconception. Are you suggesting that
    having had other priorities than military service means that my opinions
    are somehow invalid? That's harsh.

    No, Robert, I don't argue with your OPINIONS, but the fact that you appear
    to have arrived at them by osmosis from the Liberal prss rather than by
    intellectual considerations.

    Men of good will can disagree but not when one side parrotts "where's the
    WMD" and "Bush lied and men died!" as if there was any basis in fact for
    such charges and not the blind groping for political power it really
    represents.

  18. Tom Kunich said:

    "Robert Chung" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:


    First, it's interesting that you think the problem is with Muslims; the
    President and I think the problem is with terrorists, not with Muslims.

    While obviously MOST Muslims are not terrorists, MOST terrorists are
    Muslims whether you wish to recognize that or not.

    Would you care to mention that to the President? He's been trying to
    convince the Muslim world that he's not involved in a war against Islam,
    but against terrorism. You message only helps our enemies. Why do you hate
    America so?

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Second, it seems that you think that because I disagree with you that I
    don't care what happens. That's a misconception. Are you suggesting
    that having had other priorities than military service means that my
    opinions are somehow invalid? That's harsh.

    No, Robert, I don't argue with your OPINIONS,but the fact that you
    appear to have arrived at them by osmosis from the Liberal prss rather
    than by intellectual considerations.

    How odd. If you're not arguing with my opinions, then you agree with me.
    First you disagree, then you agree. I'm guessing you're now going to write
    back and say that now you disagree. Sounds like a flip-flopper to me.

    Quoted message said:

    Men of good will can disagree but not when one side parrotts "where's
    the WMD" and "Bush lied and men died!" as if there was any basis in
    fact for such charges and not the blind groping for political power it
    really represents.

    It must really irk you that military service wasn't one of my priorities.

  19. "Robert Chung" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:


    Would you care to mention that to the President? He's been trying to
    convince the Muslim world that he's not involved in a war against Islam,
    but against terrorism. You message only helps our enemies. Why do you hate
    America so?

    How odd. If you're not arguing with my opinions, then you agree with me.
    First you disagree, then you agree. I'm guessing you're now going to write
    back and say that now you disagree. Sounds like a flip-flopper to me.

    It must really irk you that military service wasn't one of my priorities.

    Actually I think that your postings proved my point completely as instead of
    presenting any opion you simply parrotted Liberal whining.

  20. Tom Kunich said:


    Actually I think that your postings proved my point completely

    Its easy to think anything supports your points when you take so many
    sides on them.

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.