[QUOTE=Shodan]
…Kerry commited adultery[/list]Claims 1-4 are true. I have not made claim A…
[/QUOTE]
Have you big brown innocent eyes? Would be a help, here…
[QUOTE=Shodan]
Geez, RT, if you don’t know what you are talking about, I think it is a bit much to ask me to explain it to you.
[/QUOTE]
How about if we stop cluttering up this thread with this nonsense? You’re invited to the Pit.
One talking head on MSNBC today (Ed O’Keefe of the Washington Post) raised the interesting point that what General Clark said yesterday is pretty much the same thing Bush’s campaign was saying about McCain in 2000.
[QUOTE=kaylasdad99]
Sounds nummy, all right. I’d make a batch right now, except that my family won’t eat coconut. 
I wonder if they served macaroons at The Last Supper?
[/QUOTE]
Maybe at the Last Brunch.
[QUOTE=elucidator]
No. The carrying capacity of a Canaanite swallow is less then 3 ounces…
[/QUOTE]
So? Macaroons weigh less than 3 ounces each…
Can’t carry a coconut. Accounts for the lack of coconut shells for horse-clop sound effects in Jerusalem as well.
[QUOTE=Lobohan]
It’s just silly, admit you used sleazy untrue implications to make a stupid partisan point and move on.
[/QUOTE]
Two chances that that’ll happen - slim and none. And Slim left town.
I don’t mind sharing my Pit thread, which is about the fundamental inanity of these sorts of runarounds. Shodan will refuse to acknowledge the ‘for,’ and will get some mysterious pleasure out of it.
Hell, I think that thought needs to be completed in the Pit anyway.
[QUOTE=elucidator]
Have you big brown innocent eyes? Would be a help, here…
[/QUOTE]
His name is Shodan, not Dondi.
[QUOTE=Frank]
His name is Shodan, not Dondi.
[/QUOTE]
Damn, are you ever* old!*
[QUOTE=elucidator]
Can’t carry a coconut. Accounts for the lack of coconut shells for horse-clop sound effects in Jerusalem as well.
[/QUOTE]
They could have sent for a package of coconut. Well, three 3-ounce packages…
[QUOTE=Liberal]
One talking head on MSNBC today (Ed O’Keefe of the Washington Post) raised the interesting point that what General Clark said yesterday is pretty much the same thing Bush’s campaign was saying about McCain in 2000.
[/QUOTE]
Except for General Clark not bringing up the black kid, of course.
[QUOTE=elucidator]
I recall hearing that you had to have an open chute at least one hundred feet in the air to have any effect. IIRC, in Wolfe’s book The Right Stuff, anything less than that was referred to as “commiting suicide to avoid getting killed.”
[/QUOTE]
Check my Project 90 link. They may not have been trusted that well, but they did work. If, of course, you had one. John McCain did not.
The question is… why do I even know about that?
[QUOTE=mlees]
Where are you finding the info on what seats were installed?
[/QUOTE]
http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/portland/971/Reviews/60s/a-4e-f_48.htm
It’s not the best link, being about the model, but it says that “The A-4F also introduced the zero/zero ejection seat into the type for the first time.”
I’ll believe that. The project 90 link was to find out when the Zero-Zero was invented. I can’t find a model earlier than the F that has a mention of a zero-zero. I can find references about McCain that say his Skyhawk didn’t have one, but they’re emotionally involved and less trustworthy.
http://www.airtoaircombat.com/background.asp?id=57&bg=373
This discusses the TA-4E(renamed into the 4F) two seater version with Escapac zero-zero seats. This suggests the E and D did not have them.
It is possible there was a refit that I can’t find a source for, but it seems unlikely, considering the era.
Hm. Okay, we’re confirming Douglas Escapacs on A-4s, and we’re confirming the earliest models did not have (much plausible) zero-zero capability. (No stability.)
Okay, so we’re looking at 1-A1s on the E, and C-3s in the F, and the C had the rocket stability if I understand correctly.
That would be the point of difference.
I may be in error, as I wasn’t there. I am going to say that the capability had only existed for two years at that point… which probably wasn’t enough for widespread deployment.
I am sure Kerry is not running for president. Why his life is being brought up I can not imagine, unless of course Obama was not guilty of such transgressions against his marriage and McCain is. But,if you are looking for a bastions of family values, politicians are not where I would look.
The difference is that the Repugs have marriage and family values as a campaign plank. The Dems do not. The Repubs need to start by living the values they hold so important for the rest of us. It is hypocritical.
[QUOTE=gonzomax]
The difference is that the Repugs have marriage and family values as a campaign plank. The Dems do not. The Repubs need to start by living the values they hold so important for the rest of us. It is hypocritical.
[/QUOTE]
You think the Democrats don’t have family values as a campaign plank?
[QUOTE=gonzomax]
I am sure Kerry is not running for president. Why his life is being brought up I can not imagine…
[/QUOTE]
Buried up there is an actual, if not very good, reason for it. I’ll try to give the short, short version: Somebody said or implied that a mark against John McCain is the nature of the transition from his first to second wife. Someone else responded that Kerry did something similar, but it wasn’t considered a mark against Kerry in 2004 by those who would fault McCain for the transgression in 2008.
The analogy breaks down because whatever similarities there are between the two end right where the part where the bad moral behaviors begin. Plus the contention that Kerry “dumped” his wife because she was having health problems is dubious at the least.
I will confess that I made the analogy in another thread, but only to argue that it didn’t matter much for either man. I didn’t get too far into the weeds in the analogy because I was arguing that it didn’t matter.
And it doesn’t - if anyone believes after a divorced Reagan and the soap opera that was Clinton voters actually give a shit about this stuff, they’re nuts.
Sorry to interrupt, but I thought it might be worth mentioning that Obama has shown a lot of sense in his public reaction to the article in the original post.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080630/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_clark
[QUOTE=Shayna]
I’m not convinced that it’s ambition that has degraded his political character. I mostly fault the current incarnation of the Religious Right Wing Republican Party, who has taken such a stranglehold on the party and the process, that no one who didn’t purport to uphold their policies has a chance in hell of being elected.
I think John McCain (has come to) love this country so much that he truly wants to be at the helm so that he can make it the place he thinks would be better, same as Barack Obama. Sure, some ambition is requisite, but I don’t think ambition alone is poisonous.
But he simply can’t run as the same John McCain of 2000. That guy didn’t win the nomination then, and he won’t win the Presidency now. Unfortunately, I think down deep that’s who he really is, but having to mold himself to this other guy is so difficult that it causes him to constantly contradict himself.
Now, no matter how you look at it, I think that’s still a bad thing for this country. But I don’t ascribe nefarious motives to him based on ambition.
[/QUOTE]
See, I can get behind this. But don’t ALL politicians do this, to varying degrees?
Even Obama shifts his message to play to the crowd they’re speaking in front of. Not to mention that a candidate has to submit to a certain amount of pressure on certain key issues wirthin the scope of their party just in order to even be electable and have party support (read: money).
I still like McCain, and I also like Obama’s fresh perspective, but I am going to hold out on a voting decision until the debates have taken place.
Alternatively, I can’t find out when the Escapacs were mounted on the Skyhawks. They could have been a refit. Either way, the first successful zero-zero test was late '65, and the Forrestal fire was '67. And Project 90 was a different company from Douglas. So… slightly more than a year for a company other than the originator to start mass production and perform a refit… not likely, and even if they did, it’d be the very first model. Not worth trusting.
… probably didn’t have the stabilization needed, though, as per the Escapac site cite.