McCain finished 894th out of 899 at the Naval Academy and lost five jets! Could that really be true? That he was a partying and carousing brat whose high-ranking admiral father kept him from getting kicked out of the Naval Academy? Gosh, that seems a little harsh. That's what they're saying at this Ron Paul site.
Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.
McCain's Record
#1
Posted 05 June 2008 - 06:21 AM
McCain finished 894th out of 899 at the Naval Academy and lost five jets! Could that really be true? That he was a partying and carousing brat whose high-ranking admiral father kept him from getting kicked out of the Naval Academy? Gosh, that seems a little harsh. That's what they're saying at this Ron Paul site.
#2
Posted 05 June 2008 - 07:35 AM
#3
Posted 05 June 2008 - 09:32 AM
McCain finished 894th out of 899 at the Naval Academy and lost five jets! Could that really be true?
No.
That he was a partying and carousing brat whose high-ranking admiral father kept him from getting kicked out of the Naval Academy? Gosh, that seems a little harsh.
A partier perhaps, but a brat? He was offered early release from Hanoi Hilton by his captors because his father was an admiral, but refused it.
That's what they're saying at this Ron Paul site.
Excellent source.
sponsored ad
#4
Posted 05 June 2008 - 10:36 AM
Don't know if it's true. Even if it is, that was a long time ago, people change.
Quite true. Why I remember its was only a week ago that Barak Obama was a 20+ year member of a racist, black nationalist church, and today he is (once again) our post-racial national savior.
#5
Posted 05 June 2008 - 03:44 PM
#6
Posted 05 June 2008 - 06:15 PM
Go Ron Paul!McCain finished 894th out of 899 at the Naval Academy and lost five jets! Could that really be true? That he was a partying and carousing brat whose high-ranking admiral father kept him from getting kicked out of the Naval Academy? Gosh, that seems a little harsh. That's what they're saying at this Ron Paul site.
But yes McCain was a very poor student. I saw a documentary on the History Channel about McCain and he had to apply several times to get into the Naval Academy, eventually his father pulled some strings and he got in.
And how good of a pilot was he to get shoot down to begin with?
I heard he finished with a D average, but I wouldn't be surprised if he came last in his class. At least Bush got a C, and at least Bush WENT to a real University and studied law.
He was probably released because he cracked in prison and betrayed all his comrades ... lol, just kiddingHe was offered early release from Hanoi Hilton by his captors because his father was an admiral, but refused it.
#7
Posted 06 June 2008 - 03:43 AM
From what I read, it appears that the class ranking is true. It also appears to be true that he lost five jets, but several of them were not his fault. They said Bush changed, but look how that turned out.Don't know if it's true. Even if it is, that was a long time ago, people change.
#8
Posted 06 June 2008 - 03:46 AM
When Conservatives are presented with facts that conflict with their ideology, they prefer to change the facts.McCain finished 894th out of 899 at the Naval Academy and lost five jets! Could that really be true?
No.
#9
Posted 06 June 2008 - 04:07 AM
I have this eerie feeling that if McCain becomes President my ass is going to get drafted. #*%&!
#10
Posted 06 June 2008 - 04:32 AM
The question is, would you like to sit down and have a beer with him?Who cares about the facts. McCain is so damn likable. And he's also got the cutest chipmunk chunky cheeks.
I have this eerie feeling that if McCain becomes President my ass is going to get drafted. #*%&!
Technosophy, be proactive!
#11
Posted 06 June 2008 - 04:42 PM
Yes, he is The Hanoi Candidate. Modern version of the Manchurian Candidate. Sorry, I couldn't resist.A partier perhaps, but a brat? He was offered early release from Hanoi Hilton by his captors because his father was an admiral, but refused it.
We know that the republicans are going to swift-boat Obama. So we have to gather material to double swift-boat McCain. Our future is at stake.
#12
Posted 07 June 2008 - 04:35 AM
When Conservatives are presented with facts that conflict with their ideology, they prefer to change the facts.McCain finished 894th out of 899 at the Naval Academy and lost five jets! Could that really be true?
No.
He crashed once in Corpus Christi Bay, TX and collided with power lines in Spain (I don't know whether the plane was lost or just damaged during that incident, though commonsense would seem to suggest the latter.) Other than that he was shot down in Vietnam. So, no he did not lose 5 planes. Please don't accuse me of changing the facts when in fact it is you who is promoting half-facts and outright misinformation.
#13
Posted 07 June 2008 - 04:40 AM
We know that the republicans are going to swift-boat Obama. So we have to gather material to double swift-boat McCain. Our future is at stake.
If by "swiftboating" you mean discussing Obama's long-term association with radicals and racists, then yeah the Republicans are certainly going to do that.
#14
Posted 07 June 2008 - 04:53 AM
Why didn't you say so? "No means No." If you look upthread, you will see that I said this:He crashed once in Corpus Christi Bay, TX and collided with power lines in Spain (I don't know whether the plane was lost or just damaged during that incident, though commonsense would seem to suggest the latter.) Other than that he was shot down in Vietnam. So, no he did not lose 5 planes. Please don't accuse me of changing the facts when in fact it is you who is promoting half-facts and outright misinformation.When Conservatives are presented with facts that conflict with their ideology, they prefer to change the facts.No.McCain finished 894th out of 899 at the Naval Academy and lost five jets! Could that really be true?
The fact remains that he was piloting five planes when they were lost. At least two of them were not his fault. Getting shot down may or may not be. So he wasn't much of a pilot, but the near failure in the Naval Academy is far more serious. What does that tell us about the man who after being a national leader for many years and now seeking the presidency, admits he knows little about economics? Presidents don't need to be good pilots. They need to be smart.From what I read, it appears that the class ranking is true. It also appears to be true that he lost five jets, but several of them were not his fault. They said Bush changed, but look how that turned out.
#15
Posted 07 June 2008 - 06:46 AM
Why didn't you say so? "No means No." If you look upthread, you will see that I said this:He crashed once in Corpus Christi Bay, TX and collided with power lines in Spain (I don't know whether the plane was lost or just damaged during that incident, though commonsense would seem to suggest the latter.) Other than that he was shot down in Vietnam. So, no he did not lose 5 planes. Please don't accuse me of changing the facts when in fact it is you who is promoting half-facts and outright misinformation.When Conservatives are presented with facts that conflict with their ideology, they prefer to change the facts.No.McCain finished 894th out of 899 at the Naval Academy and lost five jets! Could that really be true?
Sparky, your "upthread" post is actually downthread from what I wrote (where you accused me of distorting the facts.) Why not look at what I was replying (your original post in this thread) before jumping to conclusions and accusing me of distortion.
The fact remains that he was piloting five planes when they were lost.
That is not what you wrote in your first post - you wrote "[he]...lost five planes" implying that the fault was his in all five cases. That is plainly untrue, and that is why I wrote "no." As far as the number and circumstances, it is all hearsay until you have presented some reliable sources. The fact that you would present these things as fact without having cited any reliable sources doesn't speak well for your integrity or your intentions.
In any case, I don't have time for you. I've actually got real work to do for the welfare of our country that has nothing to do with politics.
Edited by ludongbin, 07 June 2008 - 07:16 AM.
#16
Posted 07 June 2008 - 09:20 AM
Still a Ron Paul page as a source? seems biased
anyways "No End in Sight" looks like a pretty good documentary about the failures in the Iraq War, you might enjoy it.
Edited by mysticpsi, 07 June 2008 - 09:24 AM.
#17
Posted 07 June 2008 - 11:35 AM
For now, Obama seems a good candidate, but he seems quite deceptive.
If he is deceptive then how do you know he is a good candidate? All we really know is that he is deceptive.
#18
Posted 07 June 2008 - 12:20 PM
For now, Obama seems a good candidate, but he seems quite deceptive.
If he is deceptive then how do you know he is a good candidate? All we really know is that he is deceptive.
Well i said "but" to signify my uncertainty . perhaps i'm suffering from the Obama syndrome lol. It's too bad Al Gore didn't run... i was beginning to like him.
Anyways, I really don't trust any of the possible presidents, they all seem like horrible picks... Obama scares me with how he's going to handle Iran and not knowing his stances, while McCain scares me with how he's going to handle pretty much everything. What would you yourself go for?
Seriously from the documentary i had posted they had 5 plans that were going to work out from among 500 (rough estimates i'm assuming), they didn't use them. I've heard many messed up stories about Iraq. I'm just lost ludongbin; a technological superpower such as the US messing up in such a manner... something smells funny.
#19
Posted 07 June 2008 - 07:14 PM
Even if it is, that was a long time ago, people change.
Yeah, I don't like McCain...but if that's the strongest argument anyone has against him, that's not much.
#20
Posted 07 June 2008 - 08:10 PM
#21
Posted 07 June 2008 - 08:24 PM
My post #7 is upthread of your post #12. That's what I meant by that.Sparky, your "upthread" post is actually downthread from what I wrote (where you accused me of distorting the facts.) Why not look at what I was replying (your original post in this thread) before jumping to conclusions and accusing me of distortion.
"Sparky". Gosh, that's cute. You sure are quick to jump to adolescent name calling when things aren't going your way.
Oh, that's rich. You have plenty of time for endless threads slagging off Obama, but as soon as we're bringing your boy's faults to the light of day, you have work to do. What kind of sources do you want? Something authoritative, like Fox News?That is not what you wrote in your first post - you wrote "[he]...lost five planes" implying that the fault was his in all five cases. That is plainly untrue, and that is why I wrote "no." As far as the number and circumstances, it is all hearsay until you have presented some reliable sources. The fact that you would present these things as fact without having cited any reliable sources doesn't speak well for your integrity or your intentions.The fact remains that he was piloting five planes when they were lost.
In any case, I don't have time for you. I've actually got real work to do for the welfare of our country that has nothing to do with politics.
#22
Posted 07 June 2008 - 08:32 PM
If losing some planes were the best argument against him, he'd be a pretty good candidate. Unfortunately, it's not. I'm a lot more concerned that "893 were smarter than he..." but on the bright side, there were five guys who did worse. We've seen the consequences of electing an idiot, and I'd rather not see us repeat that error. One might make the argument that McCain has learned a lot in the school of hard knocks, but he hasn't learned squat about economics, by his own admission. His "economic advisor" is Phil Graham, the guy who brought us the enabling legislation for the subprime mortgage crisis and Enron. He can't seem to tell the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite, so his qualifications for leading Mideast wars seems in question.Even if it is, that was a long time ago, people change.
Yeah, I don't like McCain...but if that's the strongest argument anyone has against him, that's not much.
#23
Posted 07 June 2008 - 10:23 PM
I'm a lot more concerned that "893 were smarter than he..." but on the bright side, there were five guys who did worse. We've seen the consequences of electing an idiot, and I'd rather not see us repeat that error.
Since when did this become a valid argument? None of us have any clue as to what went on in his head while he was at college. Why not go back further? I think we overestimate the importance of formal education.
I mean, Yudkowsky didn't even go to college. I think he's pretty sharp.
Edited by shepard, 07 June 2008 - 10:31 PM.
#24
Posted 07 June 2008 - 11:31 PM
I think it speaks either to intelligence or character. By the time you are that age, you should at least have a shred of work ethic. Especially if you displaced another young man from the Academy, which he certainly did. Maybe he grew in Hanoi, I don't know. I think the Phil Graham/economics problem and the Sunni/Shiite problem are a lot more important 40 years on. Along with the joking about bombing Iran. These are all signs. Gas Tax Holiday, continuance of Bush economic policies... All signs.I'm a lot more concerned that "893 were smarter than he..." but on the bright side, there were five guys who did worse. We've seen the consequences of electing an idiot, and I'd rather not see us repeat that error.
Since when did this become a valid argument? None of us have any clue as to what went on in his head while he was at college. Why not go back further? I think we overestimate the importance of formal education.
I mean, Yudkowsky didn't even go to college. I think he's pretty sharp.
#25
Posted 08 June 2008 - 02:39 AM
My first post on this thread is #3. That is my post to which to originally replied and where you attacked me with the claim that I was changing the facts.My post #7 is upthread of your post #12. That's what I meant by that.
How about Chimpy - is that sophisticated enough for your tastes? By the way, my original post (#3 in case you are having trouble with that) on this thread to you was not in the least bit rude - it was *you* who decided to turn it ugly by falsely accusing me of distorting the facts. Is it so surprising that someone would react negatively to an unprovoked attack?"Sparky". Gosh, that's cute. You sure are quick to jump to adolescent name calling when things aren't going your way.
Edited by ludongbin, 08 June 2008 - 02:49 AM.
#26
Posted 08 June 2008 - 02:45 AM
I'm a lot more concerned that "893 were smarter than he..." but on the bright side, there were five guys who did worse. We've seen the consequences of electing an idiot, and I'd rather not see us repeat that error.
Since when did this become a valid argument? None of us have any clue as to what went on in his head while he was at college. Why not go back further? I think we overestimate the importance of formal education.
I mean, Yudkowsky didn't even go to college. I think he's pretty sharp.
According to the accounts that I have read, McCain's low rank in large part was due to rule infractions and not poor academic performance. This would seem to mesh up with his current reputation as something of a maverick.
#27
Posted 08 June 2008 - 03:58 AM
I'm a lot more concerned that "893 were smarter than he..." but on the bright side, there were five guys who did worse. We've seen the consequences of electing an idiot, and I'd rather not see us repeat that error.
Since when did this become a valid argument? None of us have any clue as to what went on in his head while he was at college. Why not go back further? I think we overestimate the importance of formal education.
I mean, Yudkowsky didn't even go to college. I think he's pretty sharp.
The two previous Democratic candidates for POTUS were by no means stand out students. Kerry's performance was about on par with George W. Bush, with Gore's only slightly better.
My apologies to niner as I was unable to find any suitable rumors or half-truths floating around on Ron Paul websites to back up my claims. I hope the following two citations from the Boston Globe and the Washington Post will suffice:
http://www.boston.co...luster_student/
http://www.washingto...37397-2000Mar18
By the way, check out the picture of Kerry on the Boston Globe article. Damn. I'd vote for him just out of pity. I'm hopeful that advances in genetic engineering will be able to avert these sorts of tragedies in the not-so-distant future.
#28
Posted 08 June 2008 - 04:05 AM
Why is simple diplomacy scary? Nixon talked to China, and to Russia. Wars are avoided by diplomacy. America has sure turned weird. I guess the problem is that diplomacy is scary when people who want to have wars make it sound scary.Anyways, I really don't trust any of the possible presidents, they all seem like horrible picks... Obama scares me with how he's going to handle Iran and not knowing his stances, while McCain scares me with how he's going to handle pretty much everything. What would you yourself go for?
#29
Posted 08 June 2008 - 04:11 AM
Human Dignity and the Sanctity of Life:
For this reason, John McCain opposes the intentional creation of human embryos for research purposes. To that end, Senator McCain voted to ban the practice of "fetal farming," making it a federal crime for researchers to use cells or fetal tissue from an embryo created for research purposes. Furthermore, he voted to ban attempts to use or obtain human cells gestated in animals. Finally, John McCain strongly opposes human cloning and voted to ban the practice, and any related experimentation, under federal law.
Anyways, for a better (but biased) understanding of what he believes here's what his campaign seems to be about:
John McCain Issues
Edited by mysticpsi, 08 June 2008 - 04:15 AM.
#30
Posted 08 June 2008 - 04:27 AM
Why is simple diplomacy scary? Nixon talked to China, and to Russia. Wars are avoided by diplomacy. America has sure turned weird. I guess the problem is that diplomacy is scary when people who want to have wars make it sound scary.Anyways, I really don't trust any of the possible presidents, they all seem like horrible picks... Obama scares me with how he's going to handle Iran and not knowing his stances, while McCain scares me with how he's going to handle pretty much everything. What would you yourself go for?
diplomacy isn't simple. You may have a point at the end, but i still don't see why we trust nations who have went into Iraq to attack us and supplied weaponry. They have an agenda, diplomacy doesn't always solve the problem... especially when time is of the essence.
Edited by mysticpsi, 08 June 2008 - 04:29 AM.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users