http://dj-astellarlife.blogspot.com/2008/06/mccain-dumped-his-disfigured-first-wife.html Heres a nice Daily Mail article on McCain. It is in England so do not blame the Dems. They question his values and do not see much to recommend him He ran around a lot .
It is always the hypocrisy.
[QUOTE=gonzomax]
http://dj-astellarlife.blogspot.com/2008/06/mccain-dumped-his-disfigured-first-wife.html Heres a nice Daily Mail article on McCain. It is in England so do not blame the Dems. They question his values and do not see much to recommend him He ran around a lot .
It is always the hypocrisy.
[/QUOTE]
Yes… The hypocrisy. Like discovering now that a 25 year old affair is a horrible character flaw, but when Bill Clinton was fighting his ‘bimbo eruptions’, getting hummers in the Oval Office, and being sued for sexual misconduct, we were told that this is a completely private affair, nothing to see here, it has nothing to do with his ability to do a good job as President. When he went so far as to lie under oath in his sexual assault trial, we were told that it still had nothing to with his ability to be president, and that a person’s private life is private.
Of course, before Bill Clinton came along, the left argued that bosses who nailed their underlings were behaving unethically because it wasn’t really a consensual relation because of the power imbalance. But then when the most powerful man in the world nailed a young intern, everyone looked the other way and said it was a private matter between the two of them.
But that was then. Now you’ve got an old affair of McCain’s to dredge up, so suddenly cheating on the wife is a horrible character flaw that must be held in account when voting for president. What a surprise.
[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
Yes… The hypocrisy. Like discovering now that a 25 year old affair is a horrible character flaw, but when Bill Clinton was fighting his ‘bimbo eruptions’, getting hummers in the Oval Office, and being sued for sexual misconduct, we were told that this is a completely private affair, nothing to see here, it has nothing to do with his ability to do a good job as President.
[/QUOTE]
I’m not sure what you mean by “we were told it was private” etc.
That’s not quite how I remember it. What we were told is Clinton was a filthy disgusting scumbag who must be impeached, and he almost was, after months & years of some pretty hellacious vitriol and slobbering at the mouth and gnashing of teeth.
You make it sound like we were told it was no big deal so it wasn’t a big deal but that’s not how it was at all, and I think Hillary is out of the running at least in part because she’s the bitch who stood by her filthy, no good cheating husband. People remember hating her, though when asked they almost can’t remember now; they just remember hating her, and vowing to hate her forever.
That’s funny. I’ve had a similar experience with people who make a claim and then say “regards”.
[QUOTE=Shayna]
Actually, it’s not even that simple, as his most recent allegation of truthiness, quotes himself from a later post than the original one that was being debunked. It’s still not true, but it’s also not an accurate representation of what he originally alleged, either.
Obviously he has no intention of posting anything useful in this thread, so it will have to be I who submits the desired recipe:
Shayna, Queen of the Jungle’s, Nummy Macaroon Recipe
Ingredients
1 14oz bag sweetened flaked coconut
1 14oz can sweetened condensed milk (not evaporated milk)
1-1/2 tablespoons pure almond extract, vanilla extract, Amaretto or Grand Marnier
2 large egg whites
Pinch of salt
Directions
Preheat the oven to 350 degrees. Line a cookie sheet with parchment paper or aluminum foil.
Mix together the coconut, condensed milk, and almond extract, keeping the coconut as fluffy as possible.
Whisk the egg whites and salt until soft peaks form. Fold the egg whites into coconut mixture.
Using a soup spoon, scoop the macaroon batter into mounds or balls about the size of a Ping-Pong ball. Place about 1 inch apart on the lined cookie sheet. The macaroon batter should be handled very gently. Do not squeeze the batter. If your fingers become sticky from sliding the batter off the spoon, dip them in cold water.
Bake the macaroons until golden brown, 18 to 20 minutes. Allow the macaroons to cool a bit before removing them, but don’t let them sit too long or they will glue themselves to the parchment.
Enjoy!
Love,
Shayna Hussein Norman, Jew, who makes these to-die-for macaroons every year for Passover.
[/QUOTE]
Amaretto or Grand Marnier??? Yum yum, This is the spiked maccaroon recipe isn’t it? How generous can I be with the Grand Marnier?
[QUOTE=Liberal]
Would that he had remained uncontentious.
That’s not accurate, even according to his own account as told in the May 14, 1973, issue of U.S.News & World Report. He thought it over for several days, weighing both the political and military consequences. The two factors that convinced him to stay were that (1) he didn’t want to be used as a propaganda tool and (2) the military Code of Conduct prohibited it.
Suddenly “The Cat” said to me, “Do you want to go home?”
I was astonished, and I tell you frankly that I said that I would have to think about it. I went back to my room, and I thought about it for a long time. At this time I did not have communication with the camp senior ranking officer, so I could get no advice. I was worried whether I could stay alive or not, because I was in rather bad condition. I had been hit with a severe case of dysentery, which kept on for about a year and a half. I was losing weight again.
But I knew that the Code of Conduct says, “You will not accept parole or amnesty,” and that “you will not accept special favors.” For somebody to go home earlier is a special favor. There’s no other way you can cut it.
I went back to him three nights later. He asked again, “Do you want to go home?” I told him “No.” He wanted to know why, and I told him the reason. I said that Alvarez [first American captured] should go first, then enlisted men and that kind of stuff.
“The Cat” told me that President Lyndon Johnson had ordered me home. He handed me a letter from my wife, in which she had said, “I wished that you had been one of those three who got to come home.” Of course, she had no way to understand the ramifications of this. “The Cat” said that the doctors had told him that I could not live unless I got medical treatment in the United States.
We went through this routine and still I told him “No.” Three nights later we went through it all over again. On the morning of the Fourth of July, 1968, which happened to be the same day that my father took over as commander in chief of U. S. Forces in the Pacific, I was led into another quiz room.
“The Rabbit” and “The Cat” were sitting there. I walked in and sat down, and “The Rabbit” said, “Our senior wants to know your final answer.”
"My final answer is the same. It’s ‘No.’ "
“That is your final answer?”
“That is my final answer.”
John McCain, Prisoner of War: A First-Person Account, U.S.News & World ReportNo spitting. No hanging arm sockets. Just a methodical thinking process.
[/QUOTE]
Thanks for the correction, I was ten when that report came out. BTW, I’m not voting for him, but I still believe that he’s an honorable man that shouldn’t be ‘Swift Boated’
[QUOTE=Merijeek]
They have ejection seats that will actually work from a standing plane and not kill the pilot?
-Joe
[/QUOTE]
I understand that they’re called ‘zero/zero’ as in zero altitude and zero MPH.
They’re not supposed to kill the pilot.
[QUOTE=chacoguy420]
I understand that they’re called ‘zero/zero’ as in zero altitude and zero MPH.
They’re not supposed to kill the pilot.
[/QUOTE]
Half a day late and a dollar-twenty short.* Plus the contention that McCain didn’t have one on his plane.
Anyway, welcome aboard.
*That’s calculating 60 posts at everybody’s $.02
McCain may have thought the matter over in peace for several days, but according to his own account and those of others there, when he gave the “wrong” answer to the North Vietnamese, they beat him severely for it.
So let’s not try to paper over what went down over there.
I have said before that a man’s veteran’s status really doesn’t matter in an election - but this has gone way past silly and is heading right into offensive.
[QUOTE=chacoguy420]
I understand that they’re called ‘zero/zero’ as in zero altitude and zero MPH.
They’re not supposed to kill the pilot.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t think you can fairly call climbing out of the airplane a heroic act - even if that plane had a zero-zero ejection seat, most pilots didn’t trust them, and many would choose to try to land a crippled airplane rather than risk ejection. A lot of them died trying.
Back then, if the ejection didn’t kill you, you had a good chance of being kneecapped, or having spinal injuries from the explosive force of the ejection, or ejecting and coming down in front of the ship - or into the fire.
And finally, I don’t think it would have occurred to a typical pilot to attempt an ejection from an airplane sitting still on the ground like that. McCain probably just thought, “Jesus, I’d better get the hell out of dodge” and scrambled out as fast as he could. And since he did get out safely, it would seem he made a good judgment call.
However, just being a carrier pilot in combat back then was heroic. Hell, just landing on a carrier at night takes giant brass balls, let alone doing it in a war zone day in and day out with 60’s era technology. There are no cowards flying fighters off of carrier decks - even in peacetime.
[QUOTE=E-Sabbath]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Ok. Thanks for the info. I hope my questions were not viewed as hostile cite requests. 
Another possibilty to consider is that McCain’s aircraft was sitting amongst several others on the aft section of the flightdeck, all fully fueled, and most had pilots in them preparing for a strike mission. When the crap hit the fan, several wing mounted gas pods ruptured, spilling fuel all over the deck, which ignited.
I don’t know what McCain could see from his cockpit, but even if he had a zero-zero ejection seat, using it might not have been a good idea. An ejection seat uses rockets to fire the pilot away, and the rocket flames might ignite the fuel in and around McCain’s jet, further endangering the pilots in the aircraft near him.
I am not a pilot, so I don’t know for sure, but it’s possible that pilots are told/trained not to eject from their aircraft when they are parked close together like that.
[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
Of course, before Bill Clinton came along, the left argued that bosses who nailed their underlings were behaving unethically because it wasn’t really a consensual relation because of the power imbalance. But then when the most powerful man in the world nailed a young intern, everyone looked the other way and said it was a private matter between the two of them.
[/quote]
I missed the part where ‘everyone’ looked the other way. The whole freakin’ “liberal media” was outraged.
I realize you’re in Canada, Sam, so you may have missed this, but daily readers of the ‘liberal’ Washington Post sure didn’t.
The only debate was, was it grounds for impeachment? Remember the much-maligned MoveOn.org? It started life as “Censure and Move on.”
Let’s get back to its relevance, OK?
It doesn’t disqualify McCain for the Presidency in and of itself. What it does is undermine (decisively, IMHO) the claim that his immediately preceding experience in Vietnam somehow made him a man of character and integrity in other areas of his life.
If (generic) you want to vote for McCain because he’s better on the issues, that’s fine. If you want to vote for him because you think his recent political track record demonstrates character and integrity (yeh, riiiight!), then whatever. But McCain’s five years in the Hanoi Hilton say absolutely zero about his present character and integrity.
That is what his tawdry past says. That’s all I’m arguing it says: that was a long time ago, and people do grow and change. (Can’t speak for gonzomax, of course, but I’m gonna make you respond to stronger arguments than his if you want to do these comparisons.) But Vietnam was even longer ago, and McCain’s life in the wake of Vietnam clearly shows no carryover of character from that experience.
If Bill Clinton were to run for elective office again, I doubt that anyone would say, “vote for him because his Arkansas days demonstrate his character and integrity.” But if they did, I’d agree that that argument would have similarly been proven ludicrous.
No hostile cite request, that’s what we’re here for. I can’t say anything about currently, I can just say that at that time, pilots would, rule of thumb, be pretty sure that a zero/zero meant death.
Not to mention exploding something in the middle of a fire is probably not a great idea.
Cause he was dead center in the fire.
I thought this article was relevant to the thread.
I think Wes Clark accurately and honorably defended himself and his comments without backing down while Obama wisely distanced himself from the controversy.