USS Jimmy Carter - Page 4

The Avon Lady · 06-05-06, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scandium

Who's to say that they haven't tried to verify it, or do you not think such a story would be news worthy?

Well, now, where are the rest of the media gang's story on this? You yourself are groveling around for it.

Quote:

Or is it that you think that all of these mainstream news outlets you call "partisan left-wing" are conspiring to protect Jimmy Carter?

I was not the first here to abusively use the word "partisan." Can't you take a little subtle cynicsm?

scandium · 06-05-06, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

Quit calling it a "champagne unit". Other than young Bush's presence in it do you have any evidence to indicate it was a unit for the privileged? Also, it wasn't "airplanes" it was "fighter jets" which are several scales more difficult and dangerous to operate than your basic piper cub.

You say you aren't judging him but your posts indicate otherwise.

I wasn't, Wiki was. Wiki calls Bush's former unit "the most infamous champagne unit" so I thought, in the context of the discussion here, it was worth repeating (but to be fair to Bush I left out the part about it being the most infamous champagne unit).

As to the "airplanes" thing, that was my bad - I misspoke, and you are correct that this was not fair to Bush so allow me to correct my mistake:

While other guys, the ones who didn't have a wealthy Congressman for a father, were dodging bullets in vietnam, Bush flew aircraft over Texas in the most infamous champagne unit of its day.

Better? :-)

scandium · 06-05-06, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

Well, now, where are the rest of the media gang's story on this? You yourself are groveling around for it.

There'd be no "grovelling" if you cited mainstream sources now and then instead of the stuff operating on the fringe like WND, Powerline, Transdental Meditations, and Little Green Footballs.

The Avon Lady · 06-05-06, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scandium

There'd be no "grovelling" if you cited mainstream sources now and then instead of the stuff operating on the fringe like WND, Powerline, Transdental Meditations, and Little Green Footballs.

Now we've gone from "partisan" to "fringe". No problemo!

August · 06-05-06, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scandium

I wasn't, Wiki was. Wiki calls Bush's former unit "the most infamous champagne unit" so I thought, in the context of the discussion here, it was worth repeating (but to be fair to Bush I left out the part about it being the most infamous champagne unit).

As to the "airplanes" thing, that was my bad - I misspoke, and you are correct that this was not fair to Bush so allow me to correct my mistake:

While other guys, the ones who didn't have a wealthy Congressman for a father, were dodging bullets in vietnam, Bush flew aircraft over Texas in the most infamous champagne unit of its day.

Better? :-)

Wiki doesn't call it anything. The people who edit these entries are the ones doing the talking and they bring their political bias with them, just as you are.

scandium · 06-05-06, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

Wiki doesn't call it anything. The people who edit these entries are the ones doing the talking and they bring their political bias with them, just as you are.

Hair splitting at its finest.

August · 06-05-06, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scandium

Hair splitting at its finest.

Why? Wiki is well known for that type of thing, especially when the subject is related to politics.

TLAM Strike · 06-05-06, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

Also, it wasn't "airplanes" it was "fighter jets" which are several scales more difficult and dangerous to operate than your basic piper cub.

No it was Interceptors not Fighters. There was a diffrence back then...

August · 06-05-06, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

No it was Interceptors not Fighters. There was a diffrence back then...

Watch it or i'll sick Wiki on ya!

TLAM Strike · 06-05-06, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

Watch it or i'll sick Wiki on ya!

Wiki agrees with me! :p

Quote:

F-102 Delta Dagger
Type: Interceptor
Manufacture: Convair
...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-102

You cannot beat me for I am strong with the Force... errr... Wiki...

Fish · 06-05-06, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by *[FOX]* Bort

Bravo! Couldn't have said it better myself, August. While I personally find the current practice of naming ships after living people abhorrent, if that is what we're gonna do, than Mr. Carter deserves the honor just as much as anyone else. I hate it when people demonize Carter like he was the liberal equivalent of Hitler or something, he was well meaning, actually had some pretty good ideas, and was as honest and moral as can be. Do I disagree with some of the decisions he made, of course, but that should not lead to ragging on someone who is by all means a great American. Plus, he was a bubblehead, give him some credit!

hear, hear!

06-05-06, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

No it was Interceptors not Fighters. There was a diffrence back then...

The difference was that both sides in the Cold War were developing (or trying to develop) supersonic bombers. A fighter was considered to be gun-armed and used for air-to-air combat. The new interceptor concept was missile-armed (no guns) and meant to be able to, well, intercept incoming bombers. They didn't have to actually catch them, just getting to the general area was good enough. That said, as far as difficulty of piloting them there is no difference. The F-102 was a dangerous plane to be in and Bush risked his life plenty.

Side-note: the legendary F-4 Phantom II was developed as an interceptor. The F4E was the first version to carry guns. The navy never had that version, and the top-scoring American ace of the VietNam war, Randy 'Duke' Cunningham (yep, the same guy who admitted to doing bad things as a congressman) got all five of his kills with missiles alone, including besting their best, Colonel Toon.

TLAM Strike · 06-05-06, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

That said, as far as difficulty of piloting them there is no difference.

Couldn't the F-102 be controled totaly from the ground? Or was that the F-106? :hmm:

BTW the Navy/USMC F-4s could carry up to 3 SSU-16/A Gun Pods on the centerline or 2 SSU-23/As on the wings.

SmokinTep · 06-05-06, 02:15 PM

No way to take any pics as it is forbidden.

06-05-06, 02:15 PM	#59
SmokinTep Ace of the Deep Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Suffolk, Virginia Posts: 1,027 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	No way to take any pics as it is forbidden.