DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: BT on August 06, 2008, 02:25:30 AM
-
The Molten Core of Barack: Why Obama Can't Win
In which science-fiction movie do aliens visit the people of earth and insist, "Take me to your leader"? If they landed today, America's news media would direct them to Barack Obama, the first American to run a global campaign for President. Like Coca-Cola and Nike, brand Obama has gone global. His web-site retails a Wall-Mart sized inventory of candidate-themed winter and summer gear, though the well-dressed Obama enthusiast is advised he may have to wait one to two weeks to slip on the candidate-for-all seasons.
Obama returned from Europe triumphant. An America that yearns to regain the world's respect saw one foreign leader after another throw open their arms to the American President-in-waiting who arrived on his own Air Force One. Obama was not only treated with respect, he was received enthusiastically, a public affront to an administration, lest we forget, still in power. One way for the Illinois Senator to overcome doubts about his experience is to let Americans see him doing the job. That he did, making the world his stage, fitting the role of President comfortably and demonstrating presidential stature. Yet Obama's international success is only one wave of the storm that has been pounding John McCain's campaign.
McCain took another blow when Iraqi Prime Minister Malaki stamped the Good Housekeeping seal of approval on Obama's Iraq exit strategy. A real "mission accomplished" in Iraq is a political minus for McCain: If the war is done, why do we need a warrior President? It would be one of the great ironies of the election for McCain to be defeated by his own success in Iraq, the triumph of the surge strategy that he singly and doggedly championed. Yet John McCain may soon find himself in the position of buying the voters the tie they just got for Christmas: In the latest NBC/WSJ survey, the war in Iraq is no longer the most important election issue, plunging 14%. It is a success that allows the economy, not security, to take center stage, recalling the theme with which Labour deposed Churchill in July of 1945, "Victory In War Must Be Followed By A Prosperous Peace". That is not necessarily a plus for the candidate who declared "The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should." Perhaps Senator McCain is trying to lower our expectations.
Add the steepest drop in home prices in 20 years, the weakest auto sales in 15 years, gas prices that have tripled since the Bush Administration took office, the "lets-stay-in-bed" lack of enthusiasm among McCain's own voters who support him as "the lesser of two evils", and a president whose approval ratings have rocketed to one point above his all-time low, and this election should be slam dunk for the gangly, three-point jump shot artist once known as "Barry O'Bomber."
Could Barack Obama possibly get any luckier? It turns out, yes, he can. The caricature of everything wrong with the Republican party, the longest-serving, biggest-spending, pork-devouring Republican in Washington, Senator Ted Stevens, has been indicted on seven felony charges. A timely poster-boy for Republican corruption, he will be cooked publicly on his own clandestinely secured Viking grill.
Barack Obama should not have to hit a three-pointer to win this election. It should be a lay-up. Yet if Senator Obama is doing so well, why is he doing so poorly? And if John McCain is doing so poorly, why is he doing so well?
The Rasmussen Reports Daily Tracking has McCain down only 1%, 43% to Obama's 44%. Real Clear Politics National Average of surveys pegs McCain less than 3% behind, with Gallup showing it tied, and USA Today actually placing McCain ahead of Obama, 49% to 45%. CNN reports McCain is in a better position in Colorado, Michigan, and Wisconsin than he was a month ago and they have moved Minnesota toward McCain into the toss-up category. Give them credit, despite the occasional criticism from this McCain supporter and others, John McCain's maverick band of campaign warriors are keeping this race competitive and, yes, even winning a hand or two, in the face of the worst political environment Republicans could have envisioned and the best global media exposure any Democratic presidential candidate has managed. McCain's recent attacks have worked. McCain's attacks on Obama's tax increases, his elitism and celebrity, his canceled visit to wounded troops, as well as McCain's sharp response to Obama's imagined Republican racial attacks, all dumped cold-water on the Obama campaign, stunting momentum from his European swing and creating a Berlin backlash.
Despite the McCain campaign's effectiveness, however, the best campaign against Barack Obama is not being run by his opponent, but by Barack Obama. It is Obama's campaign that presents their candidate as an ever-changing work-in-progress. It is his own campaign that occludes our ability to know this man, depicting him as authentic as a pair of designer jeans.
To earn the Democratic nomination, as Fred Thompson points out, Obama ran as George McGovern without the experience, a left-of-center politician who would meet unconditionally with Iran, pull us precipitously out of Iraq, prohibit new drilling for oil, and grow big government in Washington by all but a trillion dollars. In his general election TV ad debut, however, Obama pirouetted like Baryshnikov. With a commercial Mike Huckabee could have run in a Republican primary, Obama now emphasizes his commitment to strong families and heartland values, "Accountability and self-reliance. Love of country. Working hard without making excuses." In this yet unwritten chapter of his next autobiography, Obama tells us he is the candidate of "welfare to work" who supports our troops and "cut taxes for working families." The shift in his political personae has been startling. Obama has moved right so far and so fast, he could end up McCain's Vice-Presidential pick.
General-election Obama now billboards his doubts about affirmative action. He has embraced the Bush Doctrine of pre-emption saying, "I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon...everything." He tells his party "Democrats are not for a bigger government." Oil drilling is a consideration. His FISA vote and abandonment of public campaign finance introduce us to an Obama of recent invention. And as he abandons his old identity for the new, breeding disenchantment among his formerly passionate left-of-center supporters and, equally, doubts among the center he courts, he risks becoming nothing at all, a candidate who is everything and nothing in the same moment. In one of the most powerful marketing books of the past few years, Authenticity, an exploration of our demand for what's real in an increasingly contrived world, authors Gilmore and Pine quote philosophy professor Crispin Sartwell about Al Gore. "Every attempt to regain authenticity," Crispin says, "only casts a new, infinitely repeated image through the hall of mirrors that is his political life and our media experience of that life." Those reflections set the authenticity of John McCain in high-relief. McCain has revealed himself to his core.
In the defining moment of his life, McCain was willing to give everything for one thing, and that one thing was his country. Contrast that with Obama, who has told America that he is "a proud citizen of the United States and a fellow citizen of the world." Obama is the talented salesman who seduced one state after another saying "Iowa, this is our moment," "Virginia, this is our moment," "Texas, this is our moment," and then tells Europe, "people of Berlin, people of the world, this is our moment." How many times can Barack Obama sell the same moment to everyone, before he becomes Mel Brooks in "The Producers"? Who is Barack Obama? His campaign, as it reupholsters him before our eyes, says we can never know -- perhaps because Barack Obama does not know himself.
Dreams from My Father is a staggeringly beautiful book, lyrical, powerful and poetic. It is also the story of a man who has been many men, all named Barack Obama. In his own eyes, he is one race, but also another. He is an American, but also a Kenyan. He is from Hawaii and also the Kansas heartland. He is Harvard elite, then the Chicago streets. At times he decries the very clay from which he was made, only to remake himself again.
At each place and stage, as Barack Obama chronicles the chapters of his life, he tells us how he has re-invented himself, becoming the role he inhabits, though not falsely or in-authentically, like Bill Clinton. He actually seems to transform himself, becoming what must be next. He has been called distant, aloof and somewhat unapproachable, perhaps because we cannot approach what he does not have, a solid core. His soul seems to be molten and made up of dreams, which is at once breathtakingly inspiring and forbiddingly indeterminate. When this young man with the flowing, passionate core, when this candidate without the solid-center changes positions and transforms himself as we watch, it leaves Americans much more in doubt about who he is and how he would lead us. It also reveals an Obama of unapproachable arrogance and inestimable self-regard: He appears confident voters will appreciate his superiority regardless of where he journeys or what he becomes to meet his political ambitions.
John McCain is a complete and well-formed man. Barack Obama is completing himself. As he moves to fit what he perceives to be a right-of-center country, he distances himself from the simple and authentic passion of a young candidate who once pledged "Change We Can Believe In."
This is the trap Barack Obama has made for himself, the one he cannot escape, the one Hillary Clinton foresaw, the one that may doom him. The Obama campaign knows it too. In fear the dream is being lost drop-by-drop, they are going negative on John McCain. Maybe the aliens should ask to meet McCain, as well.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alex-castellanos/the-molten-core-of-barack_b_116904.html?view=print (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alex-castellanos/the-molten-core-of-barack_b_116904.html?view=print)
-
The vote may be very close , we don't know yet , but the Obama strength in states with lots of electorial votes gives him a better margin in electorial votes than he has in total polling.
The Irony would be very thick if BHO were to win by electorial votes in a near tie of popular votes .
-
That's a good article and it sums up very well the doubts and resentments that I am having about Obama.
However, I totally disagree with the article's assessment of McCain, specifically
<<In the defining moment of his life, McCain was willing to give everything for one thing, and that one thing was his country.>>
This is total bullshit. McCain made propaganda broadcasts for the Vietnamese in which he admitted to serious war crimes, and also provided technical information about Navy pilots' tactics, in return for which he received special treatment in Vietnamese hospitals that was not available to his tighter-lipped comrades. Furthermore, the guy is a crook, as his record clearly shows. He was one of the Keating Five.
Obama's problem is a problem of Democrats generally - - they're wimps. Whereas Republicans have no problem at all attacking the lack of manly and martial virtues even in real war heroes, the Democrats can't seem to get their shit together to mount a really effective Swift-Boating campaign against fakes like John Insane or even combat-avoiders like Cheney and his "boss." (McSame at least put his life at risk, as did George H.W. Bush, just by getting into the cockpit and taking off.) No guts. Do they never learn from their past mistakes? Not only will the Democrats never win, they will never deserve to win, unless they are prepared to fight for it the same way the Republicans do - - down and dirty. That's what politics is - - it's not tea with the Queen.
-
I do not think that bravery or patriotism is nearly as important as vision and leadership abilities.
Hitler was a very brave German soldier, even though he wasn't German, and was granted the Iron Cross. He was also quite patriotic.
His vision thing, however, was his major drawback.
-
Mikey,
A couple points of minor clarification.
McCain was found innocent in the Keating Investigations. You are well aware of the truth of the matter as it has been pointed out to you numerous times.
GWBush flew jets, which means he put his life on the line every time he got into the cockpit, just like Pappy and McCain. Even more so if he was loaded whilst flying.
-
GWBush flew jets, which means he put his life on the line every time he got into the cockpit, just like Pappy and McCain. Even more so if he was loaded whilst flying.
Are you kidding me?
Papi flew jets in WWII and was shot down and was a real hero.
W is a punk kid who was trained to fly jets. I seriously doubt his "life [was] on the line every time he got in the cockpit". (Perhaps it was if he was actually allowed to control the jet.)
-
W is a punk kid who was trained to fly jets. I seriously doubt his "life [was] on the line every time he got in the cockpit". (Perhaps it was if he was actually allowed to control the jet.)
Yeah he was allowed to fly the planes. And yes his life was in danger each time he took the controls. You never know what can go wrong on a flight.
Remember these planes were maintained by the low lying knuckle dragging fruit that make up the armed services and the Guard. Ask Mikey.
-
W is a punk kid who was trained to fly jets. I seriously doubt his "life [was] on the line every time he got in the cockpit". (Perhaps it was if he was actually allowed to control the jet.)
Yeah he was allowed to fly the planes. And yes his life was in danger each time he took the controls. You never know what can go wrong on a flight.
Remember these planes were maintained by the low lying knuckle dragging fruit that make up the armed services and the Guard. Ask Mikey.
HEY!
-
W is a punk kid who was trained to fly jets. I seriously doubt his "life [was] on the line every time he got in the cockpit". (Perhaps it was if he was actually allowed to control the jet.)
Yeah he was allowed to fly the planes. And yes his life was in danger each time he took the controls. You never know what can go wrong on a flight.
GOV. BUSH: I learned that there's a way to train a person who knew nothing about flying into being a good pilot. The service did a wonderful job of training. And I'm most impressed about how they drew a rote exercise into one's daily schedule until you got it right. And that's particularly important when you fly.
I'll never forget getting in the airplane and the guy said, "Okay, now do a 30-degree bank and do the turn at 60 degrees." And I did a 28-degree bank and turned 50 degrees, and he bangs his hand on the dashboard there and says, "I said a 30-degree bank at 60 degrees, and that's exactly what we mean." And from that point forward, I got my banks right and the degrees right. And it came in handy in the long run, because there's not much margin for error when you're flying jets.
http://www.seanet.com/~johnco/bush102.htm (http://www.seanet.com/~johnco/bush102.htm)
-
http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/AC/aircraft/Convair-F102/f102.php (http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/AC/aircraft/Convair-F102/f102.php)
-
come on BT!
NoBama hits a basket and all we hear are "ews & awes"
but flying fighter jets is to be dismissed as rubbish!
i am telling you Michael Savage is correct!
It's a freaking "mental disorder"!
-
W is a punk kid who was trained to fly jets. I seriously doubt his "life [was] on the line every time he got in the cockpit". (Perhaps it was if he was actually allowed to control the jet.)
Yeah he was allowed to fly the planes. And yes his life was in danger each time he took the controls. You never know what can go wrong on a flight.
Remember these planes were maintained by the low lying knuckle dragging fruit that make up the armed services and the Guard. Ask Mikey.
Then by that measure, you should be giving him major kudos and praise for having gotten behind the wheel of a car. Or maybe we should give him a medal for that time that he survived that Segway crash.
Flying planes over Alabama and such is not the same as his daddy flying missions in WWII.
-
GOV. BUSH: I learned that there's a way to train a person who knew nothing about flying into being a good pilot. The service did a wonderful job of training. And I'm most impressed about how they drew a rote exercise into one's daily schedule until you got it right. And that's particularly important when you fly.
I'll never forget getting in the airplane and the guy said, "Okay, now do a 30-degree bank and do the turn at 60 degrees." And I did a 28-degree bank and turned 50 degrees, and he bangs his hand on the dashboard there and says, "I said a 30-degree bank at 60 degrees, and that's exactly what we mean." And from that point forward, I got my banks right and the degrees right. And it came in handy in the long run, because there's not much margin for error when you're flying jets.
http://www.seanet.com/~johnco/bush102.htm (http://www.seanet.com/~johnco/bush102.htm)
Just goes to show that he is always trying to do stuff on the cheap.
-
Flying planes over Alabama and such is not the same as his daddy flying missions in WWII.
Ever fly a fighter jet, Brass? Just like driving your dad's Buick, right?
-
GWBush flew jets, which means he put his life on the line every time he got into the cockpit, just like Pappy and McCain. Even more so if he was loaded whilst flying.
Yeah, he definitely learned how to fly an F102 & the trainer planes they used at the time.
The big difference being nobody was shooting at him in Texas or Alabama & nobody would ever be shooting at him in Vietnam because there were no F102's in Vietnam. There were a few there in the early part of the war however they only fired air to air missles, it's armarment capabilities weren't any good for bombing & close combat support.
It would be hard to believe W didn't know that at the time he enlisted.
-
NoBama hits a basket and all we hear are "ews & awes"
It was a 3 pointer when it counted. The "ews & awes" came from the troops that were watching him.
I'll bet McCain gets the same reaction from his handlers & Cindy after he successfully takes a leak.
-
"It was a 3 pointer when it counted, The "ews & awes" came from the troops that were watching him.
Yeah I bet these troops were impressed!
(http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i99/plwise/obamaat.jpg)
-
Flying planes over Alabama and such is not the same as his daddy flying missions in WWII.
Ever fly a fighter jet, Brass? Just like driving your dad's Buick, right?
No, I haven't but I guarantee that with the same training that Cokey McDrinkydrink got back in the day, I could do it just as well as he did or better.
And don't think your artful dodge goes un-noticed, my friend. Rather than continuing to talk about the comparison you made between W and Papi, you now want to do a comparison between W and myself.
-
Oh, you mean there's training involved? How much you think? Good in math, with vectors and all that? Good with multi-tasking, in order to fly and train to attack targets, with live ordinace, while housed in a flying gas tank, with volitile fuel all around that ordinance. Piece of cake right?
-
Oh, you mean there's training involved? How much you think? Good in math, with vectors and all that? Good with multi-tasking, in order to fly and train to attack targets, with live ordinace, while housed in a flying gas tank, with volitile fuel all around that ordinance. Piece of cake right?
With proper training, I can do anything.
-
So the point being, do you realize how much training and flight time it takes to not just fly a fighter jet, but to perform numerous offensive and defensive acts, with the firing of live ordinance, and the dangers that are exponentially more involved than driving your dad's Buick??
Or is it still just no big deal?
-
Yeah I bet these troops were impressed!
A fake letter from Obama being read by a fake amputee vet....very impressive.
Here's a real letter I read earlier today with a less than impressive opinion of Senator McGoo written by real vets.
North Carolina veterans urge McCain to stop playing politics with troops
Thursday, 07 August 2008
In response to Sen. John McCain’s efforts to spread false information about Sen. Obama’s support for U.S. troops, a group of North Carolina veterans today wrote an open letter to the Republican candidate, calling on him to end his divisive attacks:
An Open Letter from North Carolina Veterans to Senator John McCain:
As Americans and North Carolina veterans, we are disappointed in your treatment of Sen. Barack Obama and his visit to our troops while in Afghanistan, Kuwait and Iraq. You may differ with Senator Obama on the strategy in Iraq, but we should be united in support for our brave troops and their fight to protect this nation. When you attempt to distort Sen. Obama’s actions – at a time when we face enormous challenges abroad – you do not honor your promise to run a civil campaign. While we respect your service to our country, we cannot stand by while you falsely attack Senator Obama.
Your campaign knew that Sen. Obama planned to visit Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany but he did not want the trip to be perceived as a campaign appearance. By using false advertising and television interviews to question Sen. Obama’s motives, your campaign accomplished exactly what he sought to avoid and what you yourself had previously warned against; doing a disservice to those who fought by playing politics with their service. These false accusations do not honor our troops – it demeans the debate in this campaign.
Your attempt to sully Sen. Obama’s intentions is particularly discouraging because your own record on veterans does not measure up to his. While Obama consistently voted to provide funding and badly needed equipment for troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, you voted to authorize President Bush to send troops into combat without adequate vehicle and body armor. Sen. Obama supported the 21st Century GI Bill from the beginning - giving every returning veteran a real chance to go to college. You opposed it when your support was really needed. Sen. Obama voted for increased funding for military and veterans hospitals when a $1.2 billion shortfall was identified. You did not. Sen. Obama introduced legislation to improve the disgraceful conditions at some of our military hospitals, but your support of wounded veterans has so neglected their needs, the Disabled American Veterans consistently rank your record at below 50 percent.
Sen. Obama knows that support for troops fighting today must continue when they become veterans returning to the country they served. He visited American troops last week to express his deep gratitude for their dedication – a gratitude he makes good on with his support of veterans here at home. We ask that you put an end to these attacks and conduct the honest and honorable campaign you promised the American people.
Glen D. Howard, US Army Veteran • Fayetteville, NC
Martin A. Dyckman, US Army Veteran • Waynesville
Grier Martin, US Army Reserve • Raleigh, NC
Rodger Koopman, USAF Veteran • Raleigh, NC
Michael L. Buie. ET1(SS), US Navy Veteran • Garner
Valencia Applewhite, USAF Veteran • Fayetteville
Catherine M. Bowen, USAF Veteran • Durham, NC
Russell T. Bowen, USAF Veteran • Durham, NC
-
Here's a real letter I read earlier today
yeah like your images are all "real"....what a joke!
what is real is NoBama chose to not visit the injured troops
-
So the point being, do you realize how much training and flight time it takes to not just fly a fighter jet, but to perform numerous offensive and defensive acts, with the firing of live ordinance, and the dangers that are exponentially more involved than driving your dad's Buick??
Or is it still just no big deal?
No the point is that W is not half the pilot Papi. My jet-flying experience or expertise or potential expertise is moot.
-
No, actually the point is flying fighter jets is dangerous stuff, made even more so when flying in enemy territory, but flying the jet itself is extremely hazardous & dangerous work
-
<<Your [McCain's] attempt to sully Sen. Obama’s intentions is particularly discouraging because your own record on veterans does not measure up to his. While Obama consistently voted to provide funding and badly needed equipment for troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, you voted to authorize President Bush to send troops into combat without adequate vehicle and body armor. SenSen. Obama supported the 21st Century GI Bill from the beginning - giving every returning veteran a real chance to go to college. You opposed it when your support was really needed. . Sen. Obama voted for increased funding for military and veterans hospitals when a $1.2 billion shortfall was identified. You did not. Sen. Obama introduced legislation to improve the disgraceful conditions at some of our military hospitals, but your support of wounded veterans has so neglected their needs, the Disabled American Veterans consistently rank your record at below 50 percent.>>
Interesting, eh, how CU4 deals with the real and substantive allegations in these vets' letters: he simply IGNORES them. And focuses instead on the cheap symbolism of a visit to the troops, which costs nothing and gives them, basically, nothing. An interesting example of the OLD politics, the emphasis of form, grandstanding and publicity stunts over substance. Hopefully the voters will see past the McCain bullshit ("I didn't vote for ANY real benefits for the poor buggers but by God I DID visit them in hospital.")
Like his ancient, wrinkled ass was the one thing they all longed to see from their hospital beds. Like it would have made up for the underfunded VA hospitals, the lack of combat armour, the lack of college tuition funds. Unless they're total morons, the troops will have to examine the records of both candidates. A consistent record of under 50% from Disabled American Veterans does not seem to indicate that there is any pressing need to vote for this little crook, and they might just be smart enough to see that.
-
No, actually the point is flying fighter jets is dangerous stuff, made even more so when flying in enemy territory, but flying the jet itself is extremely hazardous & dangerous work
That seems to have been the original charge. That GWB did not put himsef in danger while he was in the Guard.
I think that particular horse is now officially dead.
Perhaps the oh-so-clever and mature name callers can come up with another fallacy that is as easily dismissed.
-
I'm confident they will
-
yeah like your images are all "real"....what a joke!
An interesting comment, considering the source.
-
oh come on BT & Sirs we all know
that the guy with degrees from Harvard
and Yale and flew fighter jets is an "idiot".
yeah all the professors and administrators @ both Harvard & Yale
were bribed to give an "idiot" passing grades and degrees
and yeah not one person ever came forward proving such non-sense.
i am sure any old "idiot" can fly a fighter jet
thats why so many do it.
oh but he didn't fly it in combat
wow so people that can fly jets but dont in combat, yeah thats an idiot
just like most of their theories work out, the theories are lunacy
-
That seems to have been the original charge. That GWB did not put himsef in danger while he was in the Guard.
I think that particular horse is now officially dead.
Perhaps the oh-so-clever and mature name callers can come up with another fallacy that is as easily dismissed.
=============================================================================
Why bother? How many guys in his National Guard unit got killed flying fighter jets in the U.S.A. and how many hours did Bush actually log flying them?
Where does this bullshit originate that flying jets in the U.S. is comparable in risk to flying them in combat? Did Bush draw combat or hazard pay for his exploits in flying from state to state?
A guy who uses connections to join a service that Colin Powell has called a refuge for rich white boys trying to stay out of combat is not a guy ready to lay down his life in the service of his country. That's an absurdity.
-
Where does this bullshit originate that flying jets in the U.S. is comparable in risk to flying them in combat?
Please show where anyone made that claim. Fact is pilots die in non combat air craft incidents.
The charge was GWB faced no danger during his stint in the guard. The truth is he did.
-
Where does this bullshit originate that flying jets in the U.S. is comparable in risk to flying them in combat?
Please show where anyone made that claim. Fact is pilots die in non combat air craft incidents.
Precisely...on both points
-
No, actually the point is flying fighter jets is dangerous stuff, made even more so when flying in enemy territory, but flying the jet itself is extremely hazardous & dangerous work
I have no doubt that may be the point of your diversion.
The original point was whether or not there is a distinction between W's "flying of jets" and Papi's "flying in WWII". I submit there most certainly is.
BT seems convinced that Bush "faced danger" while (allegedly) flying his National Guard jets. Certainly any human being who gets into any airplane and sits at the controls is facing danger but let's be honest, there are very few things to run into once you get the thing in the air. The taking off and the landing are the most difficult parts. Once in the air, you just kind of have to keep it from running into the ground. Which is what W did oh, so admirably according to the esteemed BT.
Now, if you have proof of W flying combat missions like Papi did, then please share.
The fact is what BT is calling "danger" would be more aptly referred to as "assumed risk". You drive a car, you assume the risk of being in a wreck. Now if you drive a car knowing that other drivers will be purposefully throwing bombs at you on occasion, that is "facing danger".
Papi faced danger again and again, even got shot down. W faced the basic assumed risk of being in and/or piloting a plane.
-
No, actually the point is flying fighter jets is dangerous stuff, made even more so when flying in enemy territory, but flying the jet itself is extremely hazardous & dangerous work
I have no doubt that may be the point of your diversion. The original point was whether or not there is a distinction between W's "flying of jets" and Papi's "flying in WWII". I submit there most certainly is.
which no one is denying. No, your original point was the issue as to the danger that Bush took in flying fighter jets. You clearly claimed he was in no danger, when there are non-combat fatalities all the time involving fighter jets and other military aircraft. Yes, flying over a Kansas wheatfield is less hazardous than flying over AAA batteries, but that doesn't mean flying a fighter jet is something anyone can be plugged in to do, nor does it lessen the danger every time a pilot takes off. So your asanine claim that Bush was in no danger flying for the national guard is complete horsehockey
BT seems convinced that Bush "faced danger" while (allegedly) flying his National Guard jets. Certainly any human being who gets into any airplane and sits at the controls is facing danger but let's be honest, there are very few things to run into once you get the thing in the air. The taking off and the landing are the most difficult parts. Once in the air, you just kind of have to keep it from running into the ground. Which is what W did oh, so admirably according to the esteemed BT.
See?......no frellin clue what's involved. The dogfighting, the vectoring, the attack runs, the high G manuevers. No, to you, all he was doing was flying some Cessna in tank top and shorts. Pathetic
-
As I said before, given the proper training anyone could do it. Never did I say that I could get in one and take off and land and do high G maneuvers this morning around 9am.
What I did mean is that given the proper training, anyone with eyes and two hands could do it.
This would include but not be limited to folks like:
Rosanne Barr
Barack Obama
Flavor Flav
General David Patraeus
Chelsea Clinton
Kramer
Osama bin Laden
Mary Hart
Me
Ronald Reagan Jr.
Cher
George Michael
Satchel Farrow
etc
-
As I said before, given the proper training anyone could do it. Never did I say that I could get in one and take off and land and do high G maneuvers this morning around 9am. What I did mean is that given the proper training, anyone with eyes and two hands could do it.
And anyone that goes up in a fighter jet risks their life every time
This would include but not be limited to folks like:
Rosanne Barr
Barack Obama
Flavor Flav
General David Patraeus
Chelsea Clinton
Kramer
Osama bin Laden
Mary Hart
Me
Ronald Reagan Jr.
Cher
George Michael
Satchel Farrow
etc
Yea....right.....they'd all make great fighter pilots. Stick with the Buick, Brass
::)
-
They may risk their lives every time they go up but they don't face the same risk as someone going up into live combat zones. That is the difference.
Papi did, W didn't. The END.
-
Which again, no one was denying. The original point was the danger taken in flying a fighter jet. Just as real here in the states as it is in fling over AAA batteries. Just more so in the latter.
End of story
-
Which again, no one was denying. The original point was the danger taken in flying a fighter jet. Just as real here in the states as it is in fling over AAA batteries. Just more so in the latter.
End of story
Clearly, you can't read or you are simply a liar.
BT's quote:
GWBush flew jets, which means he put his life on the line every time he got into the cockpit, just like Pappy and McCain. Even more so if he was loaded whilst flying.
So, clearly, W didn't put his life on the line "just like Pappy..."
W put his life on the line with the assumed risk of flying (which to be fair, Papi also did) but Papi put his life on the line in real danger.
So perhaps therein lies our consensus. BT's statement is true but not complete. All three men flew jets with the assumed risk that comes with piloting a jet (which I stated anyone could be trained to do with proper time and training) but Papi and McCain flew exponentially more dangerous flight missions with true "danger" and not simply the "assumed risk" of simply being a pilot*.
*And I would be willing to bet at least one margarita that that risk is vastly less than the risk of getting into and driving a car percentage-wise.
-
It would be quite impossible for papi or McCain to fly combat missions if they didn't get into the cockput just like GWB did.
My statement was true as well as complete.
All three were in danger as soon as they buckled up.
-
What I did mean is that given the proper training, anyone with eyes and two hands could do it.
You need feet as well. The rudder controls (and steering while on the ground) are done with foot pedals. And good eyesight is required, especially for distance judgment.
-
*And I would be willing to bet at least one margarita that that risk is vastly less than the risk of getting into and driving a car percentage-wise.
I'll take that bet.
-
*And I would be willing to bet at least one margarita that that risk is vastly less than the risk of getting into and driving a car percentage-wise.
I'll take that bet.
Risk of death while driving an automobile: 1.3 per 100 million miles driven.
Risk of death while flying in a plane: 1.9 per 100 million miles flown.
Source (http://hazmat.dot.gov/riskmgmt/riskcompare.htm)
-
What I did mean is that given the proper training, anyone with eyes and two hands could do it.
You need feet as well. The rudder controls (and steering while on the ground) are done with foot pedals. And good eyesight is required, especially for distance judgment.
I'll concede then any person with feet, hands and good eyesight could be trained to fly a jet.
-
*And I would be willing to bet at least one margarita that that risk is vastly less than the risk of getting into and driving a car percentage-wise.
I'll take that bet.
Risk of death while driving an automobile: 1.3 per 100 million miles driven.
Risk of death while flying in a plane: 1.9 per 100 million miles flown.
Source (http://hazmat.dot.gov/riskmgmt/riskcompare.htm)
So, I owe you a margie. Meet me at Molly's tonight, we're celebrating my 43rd birthday then.
I won't even bother sniggling over that source saying Air Carriers and not specifically military style jets (which would be a more realistic comparison).
-
So, I owe you a margie. Meet me at Molly's tonight, we're celebrating my 43rd birthday then.
Can't make Molly's tonight. We'll coordinate next time we're in the same town. In the meantime, have a happy birthday, youngster.
-
Sounds good.
I still say we should have a 3DHS convention in Memphis. I still regret that we didn't meet that year I came through DC for a day or two.
-
Well, I'm in Charlotte most of the time currently. I'll let you know if I travel to that part of the world.
And if someone does a 3DHS convention, I'll try to make it.
-
A total of 14 or 15 F-102 fighters were lost in Vietnam. Three were shot down by anti-aircraft or small arms fire, one is believed to have been lost in air-to-air combat with a MiG-21, four were destroyed on the ground during Viet Cong attacks, and the remainder succumbed to training accidents.
Even in peacetime conditions, F-102 pilots risked their lives on every flight. Only highly-qualified pilot candidates were accepted for Delta Dagger training because it was such a challenging aircraft to fly and left little room for mistakes. According to the Air Force Safety Center , the lifetime Class A accident rate for the F-102 was 13.69 mishaps per 100,000 flight hours, much higher than the average for today's combat aircraft. For example, the F-16 has an accident rate of 4.14, the S-3 is at 2.6, the F-15 at 2.47, the F-18 at 4.9, and the F-117 at 4.07. Even the AV-8B, regarded as the most dangerous aircraft in service today, has an accident rate of only 11.05 mishaps per 100,000 flight hours. The F-102 claimed the lives of many pilots, including a number stationed at Ellington during Bush's tenure. Of the 875 F-102A production models that entered service, 259 were lost in accidents that killed 70 Air Force and ANG pilots.
http://www.lincolnheritage.org/About_Us/Resources/Weekly_Magazine/New_Articles/F-102__Vietnam___George_W__Bus/f-102__vietnam___george_w__bus.html (http://www.lincolnheritage.org/About_Us/Resources/Weekly_Magazine/New_Articles/F-102__Vietnam___George_W__Bus/f-102__vietnam___george_w__bus.html)