On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 11:26:12 -0700, Rudy Canoza <js@phendrie.con>
wrote:

>On 7/27/2021 11:21 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>> On 7/27/21 11:48 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
>>> On 7/27/2021 10:07 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> On 7/27/2021 Just Wondering wrote:
>>>>> On 7/27/2021 8:26 AM, Kurt Nicklas wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We need to have the ability to draft men and women into the armed
>>>>>> forces as part of our capability of defending this nation.
>>>>>
>>>>> No we don't. We need the ability to raise (and supply) a national
>>>>> military force. That's been done on a voluntary basis since 1976.
>>>>
>>>> Since 1973
>>>
>>> '73 or '76 is not important to the main point, it's been a very
>>> long time and the U.S. military doesn't need the ability to draft
>>> people, it can use financial incentives to raise as large of a
>>> military that the nation needs.
>>
>> Today they do not, but that doesn't mean that next year, or 30 years from now
>> the need will not arise.
>
>There will never be a need for a draft for actual defense of the country. The
>only reason for one would be if not enough people volunteer to go fight in some
>ill-advised, doomed-to-fail foreign adventure like Vietnam or Iraq or Afghanistan.

Oh, my! Listen to military expert Oberleutnant Rudolf von
Clauswitz-Kanoza!

LOL

"Hello,
We have handled this in accordance with our Terms of Service; thank
you for bringing it to our attention.
Regards,
Abuse Team"
---abuse@easynews.com 7/1/21

On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 13:30:32 -0500, David Hartung
<d_hartung@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 7/27/21 1:27 PM, Kurt Nicklas wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 13:19:44 -0500, David Hartung
>> <d_hartung@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/27/21 1:05 PM, Kurt Nicklas wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 13:23:41 -0400, "Scout"
>>>> <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "David Hartung" <d_hartung@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:MJmdnb5uhs8Au538nZ2dnUU7-QvNnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>>>> On 7/27/21 9:42 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 17:26:10 +0300, Kurt Nicklas
>>>>>>> <kurtnicklas@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 04:30:57 -0500, David Hartung
>>>>>>>> <d_hartung@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 7/26/21 11:49 PM, Mainspring wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 07/26/2021 09:39 AM, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>>>> | Conservatives are expressing outrage about a pending Senate
>>>>>>>>>>> | National Defense Authorization Act that would require women
>>>>>>>>>>> | to register for the draft
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I can agree with this proposed rule change - not
>>>>>>>>>> a single reason to exempt females from the draft
>>>>>>>>>> rules. Fair is fair - equal is equal.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If you don't like it, DROP registration entirely.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Makes sense.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We need to have the ability to draft men and women into the armed
>>>>>>>> forces as part of our capability of defending this nation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We also need to enforce our borders and prevent entry by persons
>>>>>>>> breaking our laws by entering illegally. This is also a part of
>>>>>>>> defending our nation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is no reason to have a draft that excludes women. Period.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I disagree, but only to a point.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I believe that to put women into combat positions is wrong, but so long as
>>>>>> we are going to send women into combat, women should be eligible to be
>>>>>> drafted.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, I think she should be able to perform what is necessary in such a
>>>>> combat position, and if she can't then like any other recruit that can't cut
>>>>> it is either discharged or transferred to some other rating.
>>>>
>>>> I can only speak about the Army but I can tell you that women are held
>>>> to a lower standard than men and have been for decades. Women have
>>>> different standards on the physical fitness test. That's official. And
>>>> I can tell you from experience that in everyday physical tasks, less
>>>> was expected of women. I saw this happen personally. My MI company in
>>>> Germany (A Co. 108th MI BN) had about 1/4 women. When we ran in
>>>> company formation during daily PT, the women ran at the front of the
>>>> formation. They set the pace. Did we all know that the women reduced
>>>> the overall ability of the company? Of course. Could we say it? Of
>>>> course not. It was Army policy set by civilians and so we had to find
>>>> ways around it.
>>>
>>> I saw the same double standards in my world, at least to the extent that
>>> the chain of command was less likely to come down on a woman performing
>>> in a substandard manner. The funny thing was that when the chain of
>>> command let a woman slide, the first people to complain were other
>>> women. In our world, except for physical stuff, like hanging a
>>> Sidewinder on an F 15, or rolling an engine into the Aircraft engine
>>> bay, the women had little trouble keeping up.
>>>
>>> At Bitburg I was a flight-line expediter and one of my better load crews
>>> was run by a woman.
>>
>> My company had a few team chiefs and some did okay. Nothing
>> outstanding.
>>
>> On the other hand, when I first arrived the then company commander was
>> having an affair with one of the female 1st lieutenant platoon
>> leaders. Not the sort of thing to improve morale over all!
>
>Yeah I saw something similar happen at another assignment.

To top it off, they were both married. His wife was, conveniently,
back in the USA and her's was stationed in Berlin.

On 7/27/2021 11:36 AM, Scout wrote:
> Just Wondering wrote:
>> On 7/27/2021 10:07 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>> On 7/27/2021 Just Wondering wrote:
>>>> On 7/27/2021 8:26 AM, Kurt Nicklas wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> We need to have the ability to draft men and women into the armed
>>>>> forces as part of our capability of defending this nation.
>>>>
>>>> No we don't. We need the ability to raise (and supply) a national
>>>> military force. That's been done on a voluntary basis since 1976.
>>>
>>> Since 1973
>>
>> '73 or '76 is not important to the main point, it's been a very
>> long time and the U.S. military doesn't need the ability to draft
>> people, it can use financial incentives to raise as large of a
>> military that the nation needs.
>
> Fine, then eliminate the draft.

Well, the point is that we don't actually have a draft and
have not for several decades.

> UNTIL then, women should be subject to the draft.

The current selective service registration has a lot of
inequities. If it's necessary for the federal government
to impose compulsory involuntary servitude for some, it should
be for all. That includes scions of the wealthy and powerful,
not just women. Those who don't serve in the military should
have to serve somewhere in a civilian capacity. We could have
something like the Depression-era Civilian Conservation Corps
to employ non-military draftees. But the whole idea of forced
involuntary servitude for anyone but convicted criminals as part
of their sentence should leave a sour taste in the mouths of
everyone who values personal liberty.

On 7/27/2021 11:38 AM, F. Mark Hansen <fmhlaw@comcast.net>, sleazy rent-skip
chaser, possible polygamist and irrational gun nut, lied:

> On 7/27/2021 11:36 AM, Scout wrote:
>> F. Mark Hansen <fmhlaw@comcast.net>, sleazy rent-skip chaser, possible polygamist and irrational gun nut, lied:
>>> On 7/27/2021 10:07 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> On 7/27/2021 F. Mark Hansen <fmhlaw@comcast.net>, sleazy rent-skip chaser, possible polygamist and irrational gun nut, lied:
>>>>> On 7/27/2021 8:26 AM, Kurt Nicklas wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We need to have the ability to draft men and women into the armed
>>>>>> forces as part of our capability of defending this nation.
>>>>>
>>>>> No we don't. We need the ability to raise (and supply) a national
>>>>> military force. That's been done on a voluntary basis since 1976.
>>>>
>>>> Since 1973
>>>
>>> '73 or '76 is not important to the main point, it's been a very
>>> long time and the U.S. military doesn't need the ability to draft
>>> people, it can use financial incentives to raise as large of a
>>> military that the nation needs.
>>
>> Fine, then eliminate the draft.
>
> Well, the point is that we don't actually have a draft and
> have not for several decades.
>
>> UNTIL then, women should be subject to the draft.
>
> The current selective service registration has a lot of
> inequities.  If it's necessary for the federal government
> to impose compulsory involuntary servitude for some, it should
> be for all.  That includes scions of the wealthy and powerful,
> not just women.  Those who don't serve in the military should
> have to serve somewhere in a civilian capacity.

No one should ever be obliged to "serve" [sic] at any time for any purpose.
"Ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your
country" is commie collectivism. Move to Venezuela or North Korea or some other
commie paradise if you believe in that kind of commie collectivist bullshit.

"David Hartung" <d_hartung@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a6adnX3_opsp0p38nZ2dnUU7-audnZ2d@giganews.com...
> On 7/27/21 12:55 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 7/27/2021 10:26 AM, Scout wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Just Wondering" <JW@jw.com> wrote in message
>>> news:8YVLI.27184$sI4.11949@fx40.iad...
>>>> On 7/27/2021 8:26 AM, Kurt Nicklas wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> We need to have the ability to draft men and women into the armed
>>>>> forces as part of our capability of defending this nation.
>>>>
>>>> No we don't. We need the ability to raise (and supply) a national
>>>> military force. That's been done on a voluntary basis since 1976.
>>>> Rather than forced conscription, we could get more volunteers by
>>>> offering better financial incentives and other perks.
>>>
>>> Except that doesn't address emergency conditions where you need a lot of
>>> people quickly and there just aren't enough volunteers.
>>
>> There is never any such situation, scooter, you dumb drunken queer.
>
> Really?

Well, let's consider what Rudy has said. If there is NEVER any such
situation then the existence of such legislation for a draft is a moot point
and who cares who will could be drafted, if as according to Rudy, no one
will ever be drafted. past, present or future?

So, there is absolutely no reason then to exclude women from a draft which
Rudy claims will never occur.

"Just Wondering" <JW@jw.com> wrote in message
news:7fYLI.73745$dp5.40442@fx48.iad...
> On 7/27/2021 11:26 AM, Scout wrote:
>> Just Wondering wrote:
>>> On 7/27/2021, Kurt Nicklas wrote:
>>>>
>>>> We need to have the ability to draft men and women into the armed
>>>> forces as part of our capability of defending this nation.
>>>
>>> No we don't. We need the ability to raise (and supply) a national
>>> military force. That's been done on a voluntary basis since 1976.
>>> Rather than forced conscription, we could get more volunteers by
>>> offering better financial incentives and other perks.
>>
>> Except that doesn't address emergency conditions where you need a lot of
>> people quickly and there just aren't enough volunteers.
>> Now, I agree that in the normal course of events there should not be
>> conscription, but we're talking emergency conditions.
>
> If the unlikely even an emergency occurred, Congress could enact
> a new conscription law. The remote prospect of such an emergency
> does not require the current selective service registration requirement.

And if it's such a remote prospect then having such legislation wouldn't
matter and so no reason not to have it on hand and current.

"Just Wondering" <JW@jw.com> wrote in message
news:loYLI.34582$rr3.7653@fx34.iad...
> On 7/27/2021 11:36 AM, Scout wrote:
>> Just Wondering wrote:
>>> On 7/27/2021 10:07 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> On 7/27/2021 Just Wondering wrote:
>>>>> On 7/27/2021 8:26 AM, Kurt Nicklas wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We need to have the ability to draft men and women into the armed
>>>>>> forces as part of our capability of defending this nation.
>>>>>
>>>>> No we don't. We need the ability to raise (and supply) a national
>>>>> military force. That's been done on a voluntary basis since 1976.
>>>>
>>>> Since 1973
>>>
>>> '73 or '76 is not important to the main point, it's been a very
>>> long time and the U.S. military doesn't need the ability to draft
>>> people, it can use financial incentives to raise as large of a
>>> military that the nation needs.
>>
>> Fine, then eliminate the draft.
>
> Well, the point is that we don't actually have a draft and
> have not for several decades.

However the process to do so exists.

After all, I've not had my home burn down in decades, but I still carry fire
insurance.

>> UNTIL then, women should be subject to the draft.
>
> The current selective service registration has a lot of
> inequities. If it's necessary for the federal government
> to impose compulsory involuntary servitude for some, it should
> be for all. That includes scions of the wealthy and powerful,
> not just women.

Agreed, but this is a step in that direction. Personally I would like a
provision that if a draft occurs then all the members of Congress, the
President and the VP are replaced and then immediately inducted into the
military for service on the front lines. After all, seems only fair that
those that got us into this mess should be there helping to clean it up.

"Kurt Nicklas" <kurtnicklas@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e7i0gg9vschv26rdpiqskl6lt6hd1um5va@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 13:23:41 -0400, "Scout"
> <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"David Hartung" <d_hartung@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:MJmdnb5uhs8Au538nZ2dnUU7-QvNnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>> On 7/27/21 9:42 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 17:26:10 +0300, Kurt Nicklas
>>>> <kurtnicklas@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 04:30:57 -0500, David Hartung
>>>>> <d_hartung@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 7/26/21 11:49 PM, Mainspring wrote:
>>>>>>> On 07/26/2021 09:39 AM, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>> | Conservatives are expressing outrage about a pending Senate
>>>>>>>> | National Defense Authorization Act that would require women
>>>>>>>> | to register for the draft
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I can agree with this proposed rule change - not
>>>>>>> a single reason to exempt females from the draft
>>>>>>> rules. Fair is fair - equal is equal.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you don't like it, DROP registration entirely.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Makes sense.
>>>>>
>>>>> We need to have the ability to draft men and women into the armed
>>>>> forces as part of our capability of defending this nation.
>>>>>
>>>>> We also need to enforce our borders and prevent entry by persons
>>>>> breaking our laws by entering illegally. This is also a part of
>>>>> defending our nation.
>>>>
>>>> There is no reason to have a draft that excludes women. Period.
>>>
>>> I disagree, but only to a point.
>>>
>>> I believe that to put women into combat positions is wrong, but so long
>>> as
>>> we are going to send women into combat, women should be eligible to be
>>> drafted.
>>
>>Well, I think she should be able to perform what is necessary in such a
>>combat position, and if she can't then like any other recruit that can't
>>cut
>>it is either discharged or transferred to some other rating.
>
> I can only speak about the Army but I can tell you that women are held
> to a lower standard than men and have been for decades. Women have
> different standards on the physical fitness test. That's official.

Well, I can't speak from experience. Women weren't allowed to be stationed
aboard combat ships during my time in the service and other than the
Captain's wife and one combat pilot I can't recall of any other women aboard
while we were deployed.

On 7/28/2021 8:40 AM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "Just Wondering" <JW@jw.com> wrote in message news:loYLI.34582$rr3.7653@fx34.iad...
>> On 7/27/2021 11:36 AM, Scout wrote:
>>> Just Wondering wrote:
>>>> On 7/27/2021 10:07 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>> On 7/27/2021 Just Wondering wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/27/2021 8:26 AM, Kurt Nicklas wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We need to have the ability to draft men and women into the armed
>>>>>>> forces as part of our capability of defending this nation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No we don't. We need the ability to raise (and supply) a national
>>>>>> military force. That's been done on a voluntary basis since 1976.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since 1973
>>>>
>>>> '73 or '76 is not important to the main point, it's been a very
>>>> long time and the U.S. military doesn't need the ability to draft
>>>> people, it can use financial incentives to raise as large of a
>>>> military that the nation needs.
>>>
>>> Fine, then eliminate the draft.
>>
>> Well, the point is that we don't actually have a draft and
>> have not for several decades.
>
> However the process to do so exists.
>
> After all, I've not had my home burn down in decades, but I still carry fire
> insurance.
>
>
>>> UNTIL then, women should be subject to the draft.
>>
>> The current selective service registration has a lot of
>> inequities.  If it's necessary for the federal government
>> to impose compulsory involuntary servitude for some, it should
>> be for all.  That includes scions of the wealthy and powerful,
>> not just women.
>
> Agreed, but this is a step in that direction. Personally I would like a
> provision that if a draft occurs then all the members of Congress, the President
> and the VP are replaced and then immediately inducted into the military for
> service on the front lines.

scooter shows just how long divorced from reality he is. That's what weekend
after weekend of getting shit-faced drunk while camping in the woods with his
fellow Virginia Campers will do to a person.

On Wed, 28 Jul 2021 11:46:07 -0400, "Scout"
<me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:

>Well, I can't speak from experience. Women weren't allowed to be stationed
>aboard combat ships during my time in the service and other than the
>Captain's wife and one combat pilot I can't recall of any other women aboard
>while we were deployed.

So nothing this century?

On 7/28/2021 9:16 AM, M I Wakefield wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Jul 2021 11:46:07 -0400, "Scout"
> <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> Well, I can't speak from experience. Women weren't allowed to be stationed
>> aboard combat ships during my time in the service and other than the
>> Captain's wife and one combat pilot I can't recall of any other women aboard
>> while we were deployed.
>
> So nothing this century?
>

First of all, it is not established that scooter was ever in the military. He
claims he was, but we've never seen a DD-214. Secondly, even if he was, we
don't know the quality of his discharge; it could well be he received an other
than honorable discharge like Hartung. However, if he was, it was several
decades ago.

On Wed, 28 Jul 2021 12:16:27 -0400, M I Wakefield <none@present.com>
wrote:

>On Wed, 28 Jul 2021 11:46:07 -0400, "Scout"
><me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>Well, I can't speak from experience. Women weren't allowed to be stationed
>>aboard combat ships during my time in the service and other than the
>>Captain's wife and one combat pilot I can't recall of any other women aboard
>>while we were deployed.
>
>So nothing this century?

So when did you do your military time, scruffy?

On 7/28/2021 9:35 AM, Scout wrote:
> Just Wondering wrote:
>> On 7/27/2021 11:26 AM, Scout wrote:
>>> Just Wondering wrote:
>>>> On 7/27/2021, Kurt Nicklas wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> We need to have the ability to draft men and women into the armed
>>>>> forces as part of our capability of defending this nation.
>>>>
>>>> No we don't. We need the ability to raise (and supply) a national
>>>> military force. That's been done on a voluntary basis since 1976.
>>>> Rather than forced conscription, we could get more volunteers by
>>>> offering better financial incentives and other perks.
>>>
>>> Except that doesn't address emergency conditions where you need a lot
>>> of people quickly and there just aren't enough volunteers.
>>> Now, I agree that in the normal course of events there should not be
>>> conscription, but we're talking emergency conditions.
>>
>> If the unlikely even an emergency occurred, Congress could enact
>> a new conscription law.  The remote prospect of such an emergency
>> does not require the current selective service registration requirement.
>
> And if it's such a remote prospect then having such legislation wouldn't
> matter and so no reason not to have it on hand and current.

It's an unnecessary exercise in raw government power. For people who
put value personal liberty, that's reason enough not to require it.

On 7/28/21 11:30 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> On 7/28/2021 9:16 AM, M I Wakefield wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Jul 2021 11:46:07 -0400, "Scout"
>> <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Well, I can't speak from experience. Women weren't allowed to be
>>> stationed
>>> aboard combat ships during my time in the service and other than the
>>> Captain's wife and one combat pilot I can't recall of any other women
>>> aboard
>>> while we were deployed.
>>
>> So nothing this century?
>>
>
> First of all, it is not established that scooter was ever in the
> military.  He claims he was, but we've never seen a DD-214.  Secondly,
> even if he was, we don't know the quality of his discharge; it could
> well be he received an other than honorable discharge like Hartung.
> However, if he was, it was several decades ago.

Yet again Rudy demonstrates his ignorance.

On Wed, 28 Jul 2021 12:11:54 -0500, David Hartung
<d_hartung@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 7/28/21 11:30 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 7/28/2021 9:16 AM, M I Wakefield wrote:
>>> On Wed, 28 Jul 2021 11:46:07 -0400, "Scout"
>>> <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well, I can't speak from experience. Women weren't allowed to be
>>>> stationed
>>>> aboard combat ships during my time in the service and other than the
>>>> Captain's wife and one combat pilot I can't recall of any other women
>>>> aboard
>>>> while we were deployed.
>>>
>>> So nothing this century?
>>>
>>
>> First of all, it is not established that scooter was ever in the
>> military.  He claims he was, but we've never seen a DD-214.  Secondly,
>> even if he was, we don't know the quality of his discharge; it could
>> well be he received an other than honorable discharge like Hartung.
>> However, if he was, it was several decades ago.
>
>Yet again Rudy demonstrates his ignorance.

Just Rudy being Rudy once again.

"The next time that neighbor attacks [Sen. Rand] Paul, I'm going
to help him."
---"Rudy Canoza" 7/22/21

On 7/28/2021 10:11 AM, David Hartung wrote:
> On 7/28/21 11:30 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 7/28/2021 9:16 AM, M I Wakefield wrote:
>>> On Wed, 28 Jul 2021 11:46:07 -0400, "Scout"
>>> <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well, I can't speak from experience. Women weren't allowed to be stationed
>>>> aboard combat ships during my time in the service and other than the
>>>> Captain's wife and one combat pilot I can't recall of any other women aboard
>>>> while we were deployed.
>>>
>>> So nothing this century?
>>>
>>
>> First of all, it is not established that scooter was ever in the military.  He
>> claims he was, but we've never seen a DD-214.  Secondly, even if he was, we
>> don't know the quality of his discharge; it could well be he received an other
>> than honorable discharge like Hartung. However, if he was, it was several
>> decades ago.
>
> Yet again Rudy demonstrates his ignorance.

Yet again you concede defeat with a lame, stale lie/trope. You really can't
help it, can you? It's an uncontrollable reflex in you, a kind of spasm.

Fact: you received an other than (*less* than) honorable discharge. It is
extremely revealing that you won't tell us why. What that reveals to us is that
it wasn't for some petty infraction, and that the cause for the expulsion is
something that would completely undermine your positions here on just about
everything. It's not as if you have much moral or intellectual standing here
anyway, but if the cause of your expulsion from the military were known, you
would have literally *zero* moral or intellectual standing to be running your
neo-Nazi mouth. You know this, and we know you know it. Fuck off.

On 7/28/21 12:27 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> On 7/28/2021 10:11 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>> On 7/28/21 11:30 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>> On 7/28/2021 9:16 AM, M I Wakefield wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 28 Jul 2021 11:46:07 -0400, "Scout"
>>>> <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Well, I can't speak from experience. Women weren't allowed to be
>>>>> stationed
>>>>> aboard combat ships during my time in the service and other than the
>>>>> Captain's wife and one combat pilot I can't recall of any other
>>>>> women aboard
>>>>> while we were deployed.
>>>>
>>>> So nothing this century?
>>>>
>>>
>>> First of all, it is not established that scooter was ever in the
>>> military.  He claims he was, but we've never seen a DD-214.
>>> Secondly, even if he was, we don't know the quality of his discharge;
>>> it could well be he received an other than honorable discharge like
>>> Hartung. However, if he was, it was several decades ago.
>>
>> Yet again Rudy demonstrates his ignorance.
>
> Yet again you concede defeat with a lame, stale lie/trope.  You really
> can't help it, can you?  It's an uncontrollable reflex in you, a kind of
> spasm.
>
> Fact:  you received an other than (*less* than) honorable discharge.

You are welcome to try and prove that, but before you do, you might want
to consider that people discharged under "Other Than Honorable
Conditions" (UOTHC) get no VA benefits, and that the VA has provided my
health care for years. You have been told this before, and you seem to
convenient forget it.

On Wed, 28 Jul 2021 13:41:02 -0500, David Hartung
<d_hartung@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 7/28/21 12:27 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 7/28/2021 10:11 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>> On 7/28/21 11:30 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> On 7/28/2021 9:16 AM, M I Wakefield wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 28 Jul 2021 11:46:07 -0400, "Scout"
>>>>> <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, I can't speak from experience. Women weren't allowed to be
>>>>>> stationed
>>>>>> aboard combat ships during my time in the service and other than the
>>>>>> Captain's wife and one combat pilot I can't recall of any other
>>>>>> women aboard
>>>>>> while we were deployed.
>>>>>
>>>>> So nothing this century?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> First of all, it is not established that scooter was ever in the
>>>> military.  He claims he was, but we've never seen a DD-214.
>>>> Secondly, even if he was, we don't know the quality of his discharge;
>>>> it could well be he received an other than honorable discharge like
>>>> Hartung. However, if he was, it was several decades ago.
>>>
>>> Yet again Rudy demonstrates his ignorance.
>>
>> Yet again you concede defeat with a lame, stale lie/trope.  You really
>> can't help it, can you?  It's an uncontrollable reflex in you, a kind of
>> spasm.
>>
>> Fact:  you received an other than (*less* than) honorable discharge.
>
>You are welcome to try and prove that, but before you do, you might want
>to consider that people discharged under "Other Than Honorable
>Conditions" (UOTHC) get no VA benefits, and that the VA has provided my
>health care for years. You have been told this before, and you seem to
>convenient forget it.

Rudy makes a lot of claims for which he has no proof, has never
provided proof, and has no hope of ever providing proof.

He KNOWS he's lying.

On Wed, 28 Jul 2021 20:05:30 +0300, Kurt Nicklas
<kurtnicklas@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 28 Jul 2021 12:16:27 -0400, M I Wakefield <none@present.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 28 Jul 2021 11:46:07 -0400, "Scout"
>><me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Well, I can't speak from experience. Women weren't allowed to be stationed
>>>aboard combat ships during my time in the service and other than the
>>>Captain's wife and one combat pilot I can't recall of any other women aboard
>>>while we were deployed.
>>
>>So nothing this century?
>
>So when did you do your military time, scruffy?

Perhaps if we were at war, and getting soundly beaten, and the
military was desperate for men and supplies, Rudy *MIGHT* qualify as a
sandbag.

On 7/28/2021 11:41 AM, David Hartung wrote:
> On 7/28/21 12:27 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 7/28/2021 10:11 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>> On 7/28/21 11:30 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> On 7/28/2021 9:16 AM, M I Wakefield wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 28 Jul 2021 11:46:07 -0400, "Scout"
>>>>> <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, I can't speak from experience. Women weren't allowed to be stationed
>>>>>> aboard combat ships during my time in the service and other than the
>>>>>> Captain's wife and one combat pilot I can't recall of any other women aboard
>>>>>> while we were deployed.
>>>>>
>>>>> So nothing this century?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> First of all, it is not established that scooter was ever in the military.
>>>> He claims he was, but we've never seen a DD-214. Secondly, even if he was,
>>>> we don't know the quality of his discharge; it could well be he received an
>>>> other than honorable discharge like Hartung. However, if he was, it was
>>>> several decades ago.
>>>
>>> Yet again Rudy demonstrates his ignorance.
>>
>> Yet again you concede defeat with a lame, stale lie/trope.  You really can't
>> help it, can you?  It's an uncontrollable reflex in you, a kind of spasm.
>>
>> Fact:  you received an other than (*less* than) honorable discharge.
>
> You are welcome to try and prove that,

You've already done that for us. *Any* involuntary separation from the military
is automatically other than honorable, and you have admitted you were booted out.

> but before you do, you might want to
> consider that people discharged under "Other Than Honorable Conditions" (UOTHC)
> get no VA benefits,

No, that's false. As the degree of "less than honorable" increases, the number
of benefits for which one is eligible decreases, so that when the degree reaches
"dishonorable," there are no benefits at all.

1 – Honorable discharge. This is the highest discharge a military member can
receive. It indicates the service member performed duties well, faithfully
executed the mission, and was an asset to the branch of the military where
the member served.

2 – General discharge under honorable conditions. This type of military
administrative discharge is motivated by different things depending on the
branch of service. The overall conduct of the military member may have been
exemplary in some areas, but other areas of misconduct or failure to adapt to
the military environment may have resulted in such a discharge.

The separation paperwork for these military discharges may be quite specific
about the reasons for the discharge, so while it’s not stigmatized the same
as a dishonorable discharge, the general discharge under honorable conditions
may still hurt the veteran in some ways where a DD Form 214 Report of
Discharge is required for employment or other reasons.

Depending on the severity of the problems mentioned in the DD Form 214, the
veteran may receive a reenlistment code that determines the service member’s
eligibility for any future military service.

3 – Other than honorable (OTH) discharge. This is the most severe of the
administrative discharges (which do not require a court-martial). Reasons for
the OTH discharge may depend on the severity of the offenses, how a
particular branch of the military has traditionally handled such issues, and
other variables.

Security violations, trouble with civilian authorities, assault, drug
possession or various degrees of drug violations or other problems could all
potentially motivate an other than honorable discharge. The OTH discharge
should be considered to be a barrier to future military service.

4 – Bad conduct discharges. a bad conduct discharge comes as the result of a
court-martial and may be followed by prison time depending on the nature and
severity of the conduct. This type of military discharge is not considered an
administrative one and is a barrier to future military service.

5 – Dishonorable discharge. This is the most punitive of all military
discharges and is given as the result of a court-martial. Desertion, murder,
fraud, and other crimes performed in uniform can result in court-martial
proceedings that lead to a dishonorable discharge. No military benefits or
future military service is possible with a military discharge characterized
as dishonorable.

https://www.delgazette.com/opinion/88217/types-of-military-discharges-explained

You did not have an honorable discharge. We know this.
--
If you're not reading the New York Times, you're not following the news.

On Wed, 28 Jul 2021 09:11:22 -0700, Rudy Canoza <js@phendrie.con>
wrote:

>On 7/28/2021 8:40 AM, Scout wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Just Wondering" <JW@jw.com> wrote in message news:loYLI.34582$rr3.7653@fx34.iad...
>>> On 7/27/2021 11:36 AM, Scout wrote:
>>>> Just Wondering wrote:
>>>>> On 7/27/2021 10:07 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/27/2021 Just Wondering wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/27/2021 8:26 AM, Kurt Nicklas wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We need to have the ability to draft men and women into the armed
>>>>>>>> forces as part of our capability of defending this nation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No we don't. We need the ability to raise (and supply) a national
>>>>>>> military force. That's been done on a voluntary basis since 1976.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since 1973
>>>>>
>>>>> '73 or '76 is not important to the main point, it's been a very
>>>>> long time and the U.S. military doesn't need the ability to draft
>>>>> people, it can use financial incentives to raise as large of a
>>>>> military that the nation needs.
>>>>
>>>> Fine, then eliminate the draft.
>>>
>>> Well, the point is that we don't actually have a draft and
>>> have not for several decades.
>>
>> However the process to do so exists.
>>
>> After all, I've not had my home burn down in decades, but I still carry fire
>> insurance.
>>
>>
>>>> UNTIL then, women should be subject to the draft.
>>>
>>> The current selective service registration has a lot of
>>> inequities.  If it's necessary for the federal government
>>> to impose compulsory involuntary servitude for some, it should
>>> be for all.  That includes scions of the wealthy and powerful,
>>> not just women.
>>
>> Agreed, but this is a step in that direction. Personally I would like a
>> provision that if a draft occurs then all the members of Congress, the President
>> and the VP are replaced and then immediately inducted into the military for
>> service on the front lines.
>
>scooter shows just how long divorced from reality he is. That's what weekend
>after weekend of getting shit-faced drunk while camping in the woods with his
>fellow Virginia Campers will do to a person.

And Rudy-- once again-- concedes defeat at Scout's able hands.

LOL

On 7/28/21 1:55 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Jul 2021 13:41:02 -0500, David Hartung
> <d_hartung@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 7/28/21 12:27 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>> On 7/28/2021 10:11 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>> On 7/28/21 11:30 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>> On 7/28/2021 9:16 AM, M I Wakefield wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 28 Jul 2021 11:46:07 -0400, "Scout"
>>>>>> <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, I can't speak from experience. Women weren't allowed to be
>>>>>>> stationed
>>>>>>> aboard combat ships during my time in the service and other than the
>>>>>>> Captain's wife and one combat pilot I can't recall of any other
>>>>>>> women aboard
>>>>>>> while we were deployed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So nothing this century?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> First of all, it is not established that scooter was ever in the
>>>>> military.  He claims he was, but we've never seen a DD-214.
>>>>> Secondly, even if he was, we don't know the quality of his discharge;
>>>>> it could well be he received an other than honorable discharge like
>>>>> Hartung. However, if he was, it was several decades ago.
>>>>
>>>> Yet again Rudy demonstrates his ignorance.
>>>
>>> Yet again you concede defeat with a lame, stale lie/trope.  You really
>>> can't help it, can you?  It's an uncontrollable reflex in you, a kind of
>>> spasm.
>>>
>>> Fact:  you received an other than (*less* than) honorable discharge.
>>
>> You are welcome to try and prove that, but before you do, you might want
>> to consider that people discharged under "Other Than Honorable
>> Conditions" (UOTHC) get no VA benefits, and that the VA has provided my
>> health care for years. You have been told this before, and you seem to
>> convenient forget it.
>
> Rudy makes a lot of claims for which he has no proof, has never
> provided proof, and has no hope of ever providing proof.
>
> He KNOWS he's lying.

Yeah he does,

On 7/28/21 1:57 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> On 7/28/2021 11:41 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>> On 7/28/21 12:27 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>> On 7/28/2021 10:11 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>> On 7/28/21 11:30 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>> On 7/28/2021 9:16 AM, M I Wakefield wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 28 Jul 2021 11:46:07 -0400, "Scout"
>>>>>> <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, I can't speak from experience. Women weren't allowed to be
>>>>>>> stationed
>>>>>>> aboard combat ships during my time in the service and other than the
>>>>>>> Captain's wife and one combat pilot I can't recall of any other
>>>>>>> women aboard
>>>>>>> while we were deployed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So nothing this century?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> First of all, it is not established that scooter was ever in the
>>>>> military. He claims he was, but we've never seen a DD-214.
>>>>> Secondly, even if he was, we don't know the quality of his
>>>>> discharge; it could well be he received an other than honorable
>>>>> discharge like Hartung. However, if he was, it was several decades
>>>>> ago.
>>>>
>>>> Yet again Rudy demonstrates his ignorance.
>>>
>>> Yet again you concede defeat with a lame, stale lie/trope.  You
>>> really can't help it, can you?  It's an uncontrollable reflex in you,
>>> a kind of spasm.
>>>
>>> Fact:  you received an other than (*less* than) honorable discharge.
>>
>> You are welcome to try and prove that,
>
> You've already done that for us.  *Any* involuntary separation from the
> military is automatically other than honorable, and you have admitted
> you were booted out.
>
>> but before you do, you might want to consider that people discharged
>> under "Other Than Honorable Conditions" (UOTHC) get no VA benefits,

By the way, this statement is accurate. A General discharge under
honorable conditions qualifies the veteran for all benefits. A general
discharge under other than honorable conditions usually means no benefits.

> No, that's false.  As the degree of "less than honorable" increases, the
> number of benefits for which one is eligible decreases, so that when the
> degree reaches "dishonorable," there are no benefits at all.

You are going to believe what you wish.

Out of curiosity, why are you so very interested in the characterization
of my service?

On 7/28/2021 12:49 PM, David Hartung wrote:
> On 7/28/21 1:55 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Jul 2021 13:41:02 -0500, David Hartung
>> <d_hartung@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/28/21 12:27 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> On 7/28/2021 10:11 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>> On 7/28/21 11:30 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/28/2021 9:16 AM, M I Wakefield wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 28 Jul 2021 11:46:07 -0400, "Scout"
>>>>>>> <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well, I can't speak from experience. Women weren't allowed to be
>>>>>>>> stationed
>>>>>>>> aboard combat ships during my time in the service and other than the
>>>>>>>> Captain's wife and one combat pilot I can't recall of any other
>>>>>>>> women aboard
>>>>>>>> while we were deployed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So nothing this century?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> First of all, it is not established that scooter was ever in the
>>>>>> military.  He claims he was, but we've never seen a DD-214.
>>>>>> Secondly, even if he was, we don't know the quality of his discharge;
>>>>>> it could well be he received an other than honorable discharge like
>>>>>> Hartung. However, if he was, it was several decades ago.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yet again Rudy demonstrates his ignorance.
>>>>
>>>> Yet again you concede defeat with a lame, stale lie/trope.  You really
>>>> can't help it, can you?  It's an uncontrollable reflex in you, a kind of
>>>> spasm.
>>>>
>>>> Fact:  you received an other than (*less* than) honorable discharge.
>>>
>>> You are welcome to try and prove that, but before you do, you might want
>>> to consider that people discharged under "Other Than Honorable
>>> Conditions" (UOTHC) get no VA benefits, and that the VA has provided my
>>> health care for years. You have been told this before, and you seem to
>>> convenient forget it.
>>
>> Rudy

Provides proof.

>>
>> He KNOWS

Yes.

>
> Yeah he does,
>

Yeah, I do.

--
If you're not reading the New York Times, you're not following the news.

On 7/28/2021 1:06 PM, David Hartung wrote:
> On 7/28/21 1:57 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 7/28/2021 11:41 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>> On 7/28/21 12:27 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> On 7/28/2021 10:11 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>> On 7/28/21 11:30 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/28/2021 9:16 AM, M I Wakefield wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 28 Jul 2021 11:46:07 -0400, "Scout"
>>>>>>> <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well, I can't speak from experience. Women weren't allowed to be stationed
>>>>>>>> aboard combat ships during my time in the service and other than the
>>>>>>>> Captain's wife and one combat pilot I can't recall of any other women
>>>>>>>> aboard
>>>>>>>> while we were deployed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So nothing this century?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> First of all, it is not established that scooter was ever in the military.
>>>>>> He claims he was, but we've never seen a DD-214. Secondly, even if he was,
>>>>>> we don't know the quality of his discharge; it could well be he received
>>>>>> an other than honorable discharge like Hartung. However, if he was, it was
>>>>>> several decades ago.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yet again Rudy demonstrates his ignorance.
>>>>
>>>> Yet again you concede defeat with a lame, stale lie/trope.  You really can't
>>>> help it, can you?  It's an uncontrollable reflex in you, a kind of spasm.
>>>>
>>>> Fact:  you received an other than (*less* than) honorable discharge.
>>>
>>> You are welcome to try and prove that,
>>
>> You've already done that for us.  *Any* involuntary separation from the
>> military is automatically other than honorable, and you have admitted you were
>> booted out.
>>
>>> but before you do, you might want to consider that people discharged under
>>> "Other Than Honorable Conditions" (UOTHC) get no VA benefits,
>
> By the way, this statement is accurate. A General discharge under honorable
> conditions qualifies the veteran for all benefits.

It does not.

General Discharge Under Honorable Conditions

General discharge means that you met the requirements of service, likely with
some minor disciplinary actions, or failure to meet certain standards.
However, overall, your military performance was considered satisfactory.
Veterans who receive general discharges under honorable conditions are
entitled to all VA benefits, with the exception of GI Bill education benefits.

https://cck-law.com/blog/military-discharge-status-and-what-it-means-for-your-entitlement-to-va-benefits/

So, we know you didn't get GI Bill benefits. Is that why you've been unable to
complete your degree? I didn't get GI Bill benefits, and I was able to complete
my degree.

>
>> No, that's false.  As the degree of "less than honorable" increases, the
>> number of benefits for which one is eligible decreases, so that when the
>> degree reaches "dishonorable," there are no benefits at all.
>
> You are going to believe what you wish.

I believe the facts. The fact is you probably got either the general discharge
or an other-than-honorable discharge.

> Out of curiosity, why are you so very interested in the characterization of my
> service?

It's not the characterization — it's what you *did* that got you booted out.
The *reason* for your less-than-honorable discharge, if known, would completely
demolish your moral and intellectual standing — not that you ever had much — to
be taking the positions you take here. It would establish your massive and
appalling hypocrisy once and for all.