Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Castle -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (3746)	9/9/2004 11:17:54 AM
From: TimF	Respond to of 7936

The arguments that are being refuted are ones frequently used to push the case that Bush didn't fulfill his obligation. The disciplinary unit claim wasn't made by the Boston Globe article but its floating around all the "AWOL Bush" sites. The other points do deal with the overall claim made in the Boston Globe article. Particularly the solidly established point that Bush had enough points in each year of his enlistment and continued drill performance in 1973. <font COLOR=blue> Let's examine his Training Year 1973 (TY 73): In the first quarter (military years start in October) Bush received 12 points for drill performance. That is perfect. Apparently, he drilled extra in November to make up for December. This is entirely appropriate and very frequently done to accommodate holiday plans. TY731Q - PERFECT. In the second quarter, Bush received 12 points for drill performance - perfect. He did them all in January. That is a little unusual, but so long as all of the periods in question fall in the same quarter that is legal. It is also unusual, though again legal, that he crammed his drills into four-day periods. Actually, that MIGHT be a little less than kosher because I thought that the MAX time period for a drill was a MUTA-6 (three full days) but that may be only for full units. I expect commanders have some discretion for individuals. Also, since this was still in a "wartime" period (though obviously not actively so by then) such rules may have been more flexible. Nevertheless, Bush's TY73-2Q is also PERFECT. Third Quarter: Bush received 8 drill points and 9 active duty points. Where is the other Drill period? Must have missed one, eh? NOPE. But I'll save that for next quarter. So he had two drills for that quarter, with a "summer camp" period thrown in. (Again, the standard unit Annual Training (AT) period is fourteen days but individual soldiers can and do perform alternate duties and frequently split the time up to accommodate civilian employment or personal needs. This is at the discretion of the commander.) So, TY73-3Q is not perfect, UNLESS . . Fourth Quarter. There is no recorded performance of duty during this period. Got that bastard now!!! TY73-4Q Crash and Burn!! Umm, not quite . . . Look at that TNG form. Note the EXTREMELY important date called Anniversary Retirement Date: 27 May 68. Well, right off I know this is wrong. Huh? Well the correct retirement date is actually 26 May. PERIOD. No year and NOT 27 May. WTF is Pooch talking about? Well this is another admin type's pet peeve. The clerk who prepared this form made a very common error - two in fact - in this block. He put a year on the date. This is ONLY supposed to be a month and a day. And this date will always be ONE DAY BEFORE your original enlistment date. It is the day of the year on which YOUR PERSONAL RETIREMENT YEAR ends. In the reserves today it is called the RYE (Retirement Year End) date. It is the day BEFORE your enlistment date because a year goes from 1 Jan to 31 Dec - not 1 Jan to 1 Jan. (Get it? Bush's retirement year went from 27 May to 26 May EACH YEAR.) Don't believe me? Look at those lines on the bottom of the form in pencil. Each year just like it belongs there. Whaddaya know? The reason the computer form cuts off in May is because MAY 27th STARTED A NEW YEAR!!!!! And guess what? Click on that link for the next year's form and we have, yet again, PROOF that Bush DID serve both inactive and active duty time for the remainder of that TY. In other words, this "damning" evidence is anything but. It is CLEAR PROOF THAT BUSH WAS SERVING ON DUTY (and gittin' paid) DURING THAT TIME! Now let's look at the retirement year as a whole. A reservist/guardsmen is required to obtain 50 points to make a "good" year. During this year (or at least the period from October - May that we see documented) Bush obtained 9 AD points, 32 drill points (for a total of 41) and also (as every guardsman or reservist) 15 points for membership (freebies, they all get 'em.). This gives Bush 56 total points for a good year. In fact, since we do not know what Bush had during the FIRST half of this year it is very likely more. </font> Other replies I made your posts (or replies to my replies) deal with issues like the "statement of understanding" that pledging to achieve ''satisfactory participation", which is apparently what Bush signed on enlistment and is relatively meaningless in the context of what happened in 1972 or 1973. Bush's service years stated and ended in May. He had enough service each year through May 1973. He continued to drill after May 1973 but didn't finish up the year because <font COLOR=blue> Sept. 18, 1973 Bush receives permission to transfer to reserve status and is placed on inactive guard duty about six months before six-year commitment ends. Attends Harvard Business School in the fall. Oct. 1, 1973 Receives honorable discharge

To: tejek who wrote (3746)	10/7/2004 6:19:02 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 7936

Kerry Ad Falsely Accuses Cheney on Halliburton Contrary to this ad's message, Cheney doesn't gain financially from the contracts given to the company he once headed. factcheck.org Cutting Combat Pay? Edwards twice accused the administration of having "lobbied the Congress" to cut the combat pay of troops in Iraq, when in fact the White House never supported such a plan. Rather, the Defense Department proposed allowing a temporary pay increase for all troops worldwide (even those not in Iraq or Afghanistan) to expire, and promised to maintain current pay levels for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan with separate pay raises if necessary. Army Times reported in its issue for the week ending Aug. 18, 2003 that a Pentagon budget assessment sent to Congress in July called for letting a temporary combat pay raise enacted earlier that year for troops worldwide expire at the end of the fiscal year, Sept. 30. The result would have been a cut of $75 a month in "imminent danger pay" and $150 a month in "family separation allowances." But according to an Aug. 15 American Forces Press Service report, David S.C. Chu, defense undersecretary for personnel and readiness, said the department could raise hardship duty pay or incentive pay. The bottom line: "We are not going to reduce their compensation," Chu said. The Pentagon also said in an Aug. 14 news release : "This is an issue of targeting those most deserving, and certainly people serving in Iraq and Afghanistan are in these categories." factcheck.org siliconinvestor.com

To: tejek who wrote (3746)	11/1/2004 6:01:10 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7936

GOP beats Dems on tech-friendliness news.com.com Republicans trounced Democrats in a scorecard of key technology votes compiled by CNET News.com that illuminates stark differences in the two parties' voting history in the U.S. Congress over nearly a decade. Senate Republicans scored an average of 61 percent--15 points higher than their Democratic counterparts, who on average scored 46 percent. The gap was mirrored in the ratings garnered by their counterparts in the U.S. House of Representatives, where Republicans boast a 68 percent collective score compared with 52 percent for Democrats. Of the 25 most tech-friendly members of the House, 19 are Republicans. (The Senate scorecard can be found here, and the House version is here). Sen. John Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate, scored in the bottom half of senators with a lifetime voting rating of 44 percent--thanks in part to his votes on Internet taxes and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. On average, U.S. senators received a score of 53 percent... news.com.com Other tech scorecards show Dems with worse records Posted by: Declan Mccullagh Posted on: October 29, 2004, 2:31 PM PDT Story: GOP beats Dems on tech-friendliness Okay, so some folks don't like our scorecard. Fair enough. But it's not right to accuse us of being biased against the Dems. Other tech scorecards have reported similar results. Check out these: source: information technology industry council avg house republican: 89 avg house democrat: 43 avg senate republican: 84 avg house democrat: 43 news.com.com source: tech law journal avg republican score: 60 avg democrat score: 36 techlawjournal.com source: wired news avg overall republican score: 50 avg overall democrat score: 47 (but looking at just the two chambers, senate dems did better than senate republicans) wired.com news.com.com