Rudy Canoza wrote:

> On 6/8/2021 2:43 PM, uiop@pol.com wrote:
> > Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >
> > > On 6/8/2021 5:00 AM, uiop@pol.com wrote:
> > > > Rudy Canoza wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On 6/7/2021 5:34 PM, uiop@pol.com wrote:
> > > > > > Bill Flett wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 6/7/2021 3:18 PM, David Hartung wrote:
> > > > > > > > On 6/7/21 9:20 AM, Bill Flett wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On 6/7/2021 5:12 AM, David Hartung wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On 6/7/21 6:28 AM, Impeach 46 wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > The Military Revolt Against Joe Biden An open
> > > > > > > > > > > letter by former officers calling the president
> > > > > > > > > > > a “Marxist” dictator is a greater threat to U.S.
> > > > > > > > > > > democrac The ouster of U.S. Rep. Liz Cheney from
> > > > > > > > > > > the Republican leadership on Wednesday for the
> > > > > > > > > > > sin of telling the truth about former President
> > > > > > > > > > > Donald Trump may not be the most depressing
> > > > > > > > > > > example of partisan folly this week. No less
> > > > > > > > > > > sad, in my view, was an open letter signed by
> > > > > > > > > > > more than 100 retired U.S. general and flag
> > > > > > > > > > > officers that accused President Joe Biden of
> > > > > > > > > > > installing “a Marxist form of tyrannical
> > > > > > > > > > > government.”
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > This piece of appalling partisan invective
> > > > > > > > > > > was newsworthy mainly because it was signed by
> > > > > > > > > > > retired military officers who, in so doing,
> > > > > > > > > > > violated the norms of their profession and
> > > > > > > > > > > contributed to the erosion of healthy
> > > > > > > > > > > civil-military relations in the United States.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps we should not be shocked to discover
> > > > > > > > > > > that, at a time when American society is reeling
> > > > > > > > > > > from extreme partisan polarization—when
> > > > > > > > > > > significant numbers of prominent politicians are
> > > > > > > > > > > openly promoting falsehoods such as the bogus
> > > > > > > > > > > claim that Trump’s resounding defeat at the
> > > > > > > > > > > ballot box was due to electoral fraud—some
> > > > > > > > > > > fraction of the retired military community has
> > > > > > > > > > > fallen prey to the same myths. If a problem
> > > > > > > > > > > exists in civilian society, one can expect to
> > > > > > > > > > > see it in the military assigned to protect that
> > > > > > > > > > > society as well.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > The letter’s content is not necessarily the
> > > > > > > > > > > issue. It is a dog’s breakfast of partisan
> > > > > > > > > > > hyperbole and misleading innuendo about the 2020
> > > > > > > > > > > election of the kind that is ubiquitous in the
> > > > > > > > > > > darker corners of the internet and the worst
> > > > > > > > > > > fringes of the Republican Party.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > What makes the letter so disturbing is that the
> > > > > > > > > > > 124 signatories are all retired members of a
> > > > > > > > > > > profession whose treasured principles demand that
> > > > > > > > > > > it be subject to civilian command and should
> > > > > > > > > > > remain separate from parochial partisan
> > > > > > > > > > > politics. This is a group of men—and it appears
> > > > > > > > > > > they are all men—who repeatedly pledged an oath
> > > > > > > > > > > of allegiance to the U.S. Constitution and are
> > > > > > > > > > > now doing their level best to undermine it and,
> > > > > > > > > > > in particular, the crucial principle of civilian
> > > > > > > > > > > control.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > These officers are retired and are free to speak
> > > > > > > > > > their mind. Except in specific circumstances,
> > > > > > > > > > they are no longer subject to the UCMJ.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "Retired generals who denounced Trump could be
> > > > > > > > > recalled to active duty and prosecuted, experts say"
> > > > > > > > >
> >>>>>>>>      Hartung:
> >>>>>>>>      "So it seems that all retired members, no matter their
> > > rank,
> > > > > > > > > may not      publicly attack the President."
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> >
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/c/r72lfgFV13o/m/cVv0cT51BAAJ
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > You stupid, senile fat fuck.  What you mean is that
> > > > > > > > > retired military are free to attack a Democrat, but
> > > > > > > > > not a Republiscum/QAnon.  Fuck off and die.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Or it could be that I made a mistake?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No, you're just a hypocritical lying ultra-partisan
> > > > > > > shitbag.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is Rudy compensating because he is so jealous that you have
> > > > > > a college education and he doesn't?
> > > > >
> > > > > Hartung does not have a college education, while I do.
> > > > >
> > > > > You don't.
> > > >
> >>> From the content of your posts, it is quite evident what your
> level
> > > > of education is.
> > > >
> > >
> >> From the content of your posts, "Fix-it guy at Citco," it is
> apparent
> > > you're a knuckle-dragging dumb fuck who is stupid enough to post
> > > to Usenet using your real e-mail address.
> > >
> > > My education surpasses yours by far, "Fix-it guy at Citco." You
> > > know this.
> >
> > And what is your education again?
> >
>
> Economics from a good school, "Fix-it guy at Citco," not from a
> degree mill like Georgia Tech.
>
> Why did you post using your Citco e-mail address, you stupid fuck?

Ok now it's time for me to prove you're lying.

Name the school, and the year you "graduated", along with your
transcript.

You will not, as they don't exist.