Nah, Obama looks like Horass' boyfriend.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Bobsprit" wrote in message
...
which the French-looking John
Kerry DID NOT.


If Horvath is enough of a racist to keep making a point that he find's
Kerry
"French looking" expect even worse when Obama runs.

RB

On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 01:45:12 GMT, felton wrote
this crap:

Lets get back on topic. Why can't we take a look at Kerry's
record as a reservist? Perhaps he was not reporting as required
by law.

How much reporting was he required to do in the "Ready
Reserves-Inactive" status?

http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilse...by_Reserve.pdf


Why don't you tell us?

BTW, that document you posted only applies to those who have completed
their, "statutory military obligation" which the French-looking John
Kerry DID NOT. (paragraph 2)


Not that you will be able to read down to paragraph 3, which states:


It's not applicable because he is not in compliance with paragraph 2.





Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 23:02:50 -0400, Horvath
wrote:

On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 01:45:12 GMT, felton wrote
this crap:

Lets get back on topic. Why can't we take a look at Kerry's
record as a reservist? Perhaps he was not reporting as required
by law.

How much reporting was he required to do in the "Ready
Reserves-Inactive" status?

http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilse...by_Reserve.pdf


Why don't you tell us?

BTW, that document you posted only applies to those who have completed
their, "statutory military obligation" which the French-looking John
Kerry DID NOT. (paragraph 2)


Not that you will be able to read down to paragraph 3, which states:


It's not applicable because he is not in compliance with paragraph 2.

Then why don't you take it up with the Navy, as they obviously differ
with your interpretation? Until such time as you can convince the
Navy that your position should take precedence over their's, I think
I'll accept that you are out of step with the Navy, rather than they
were wrong and you and Ted Sampley are right.

In article ,
Bart Senior wrote:
Can't stay on topic eh Rob?

It looks like Kerry was a deserter.

The liberals won't scrutinize Kerry after putting Bush
under a microscope. Put Kerry under the same
microscope and he fails miserable, while nothing could
be proven against Bush.

What else?

The liberals are afraid to publish Zel Millers speach.

Actually, the text of Zell Miller's speech was published
months ago, in http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/weapons.asp,
where the claims are debunked. If Zell was a little brighter than
a two pound rock, he would have checked his facts before spewing
them on prime time.

What does that tell you? Zel Millers speach was perhaps
the most important speach of the year and the liberal
bias in the media is afraid to show it or a transcript of it.

Freedom, means freedom of the press. There is no freedom
of the press in this country when things like this are censored.

Frankly, if I were you I'd be afraid to vote for Kerry
since so much is unknown about the man. What little
is known is scary. The proof of liberal censorship in the media
should be enough to vote for Bush.

Since you entire premise is false, maybe your conclusions could
stand re-examination.

On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 03:20:52 GMT, felton wrote
this crap:

Then why don't you take it up with the Navy, as they obviously differ
with your interpretation? Until such time as you can convince the
Navy that your position should take precedence over their's, I think
I'll accept that you are out of step with the Navy, rather than they
were wrong and you and Ted Sampley are right.


You whacko liberals are taking the Navy's side? How unusual.





Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

In article ,
Horvath wrote:
On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 01:45:12 GMT, felton wrote
this crap:
It's not applicable because he is not in compliance with paragraph 2.

Horass is a benefit of title ix.
--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

In article ,
Horvath wrote:
Then why don't you take it up with the Navy, as they obviously differ
with your interpretation? Until such time as you can convince the
Navy that your position should take precedence over their's, I think
I'll accept that you are out of step with the Navy, rather than they
were wrong and you and Ted Sampley are right.


You whacko liberals are taking the Navy's side? How unusual.

We actually think for a living.

--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 07:12:58 -0400, Horvath
wrote:

On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 03:20:52 GMT, felton wrote
this crap:

Then why don't you take it up with the Navy, as they obviously differ
with your interpretation? Until such time as you can convince the
Navy that your position should take precedence over their's, I think
I'll accept that you are out of step with the Navy, rather than they
were wrong and you and Ted Sampley are right.


You whacko liberals are taking the Navy's side? How unusual.


Well, in this case everyone is free to have an opinion, but only the
Navy has a vote, so yeah, I tend to believe the official record over
the musings of the uninformed, but that is just me:)