OT: Why Obama is Mum About Harvard

[drboom]

[quote=jficquette]
That’s just the intellect part. Consider the guts one has to have to fly jets. Especially the F-103 which many considered a death trap.[/quote]

You mean the Republic XF-103 project that was cancelled before it ever flew in the 1950s? I agree that the crazy looking bird looked like a death trap, but no one ever flew it.

[quote]Obama doesn’t even have the guts to quit smoking.

John[/quote]

He doesn’t have the guts to go against the grain and hire a Secretary of the Treasury who might do us some good. I don’t care if he smokes or not as long as he’s not smoking a crack pipe.

[drboom]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]John: I think it was the F-106 that Dubya flew.[/quote]

Ah, right–the ANG flew these for quite a while. One of the coolest looking planes ever, and quite impressive in person. They have one over at Gillespie Field. Quite the death trap:

“During its long service life, the F-106A had the distinction of recording the lowest single-engined aircraft accident record in USAF history.”

(reference)

[drboom]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]John: I think it was the F-106 that Dubya flew.[/quote]

Ah, right–the ANG flew these for quite a while. One of the coolest looking planes ever, and quite impressive in person. They have one over at Gillespie Field. Quite the death trap:

“During its long service life, the F-106A had the distinction of recording the lowest single-engined aircraft accident record in USAF history.”

(reference)

[drboom]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]John: I think it was the F-106 that Dubya flew.[/quote]

Ah, right–the ANG flew these for quite a while. One of the coolest looking planes ever, and quite impressive in person. They have one over at Gillespie Field. Quite the death trap:

“During its long service life, the F-106A had the distinction of recording the lowest single-engined aircraft accident record in USAF history.”

(reference)

[drboom]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]John: I think it was the F-106 that Dubya flew.[/quote]

Ah, right–the ANG flew these for quite a while. One of the coolest looking planes ever, and quite impressive in person. They have one over at Gillespie Field. Quite the death trap:

“During its long service life, the F-106A had the distinction of recording the lowest single-engined aircraft accident record in USAF history.”

(reference)

[drboom]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]John: I think it was the F-106 that Dubya flew.[/quote]

Ah, right–the ANG flew these for quite a while. One of the coolest looking planes ever, and quite impressive in person. They have one over at Gillespie Field. Quite the death trap:

“During its long service life, the F-106A had the distinction of recording the lowest single-engined aircraft accident record in USAF history.”

(reference)

[patb]

[quote=drboom][quote=EconProf]
A
If history is going to be kind to Bush, historians first need something to be kind to him for. ,,,,,,.

I can’t point to anything similar for Bush other than his finest hour in the immediate aftermath of September 11th when he stood on a pile of rubble in NYC and let it all hang out. That’s better than anything Ford could point to, but I don’t know if it results in enough historical brownie points to rank above, say, Taft. [/quote]

Let’s not Forget, Bush ignored all the CIA warnings about “Bin Laden
Determined to Attack” and how he demoted his Counter-Terrorism
Chief so as to not get direct reports from him.

And lets not forget in the Immediate aftermath of 9/11 Bush went
and did not fly to DC to take command of the government, no, no, no,
He went and hid in a hole in the ground at SAC for 2 days.

For 2 days all we had was Bush in his little chicken Bunker and
Cheney in the Fuhrer Bunker under pennsylvania Avenue.

All we had for Leadership was Giuliani.

During the Civil War Lincoln rode up to Silver Spring to inspect the
troops and give morale to the men defending the capitol from Stuart’s
Raiders.

During WW2, FDR inspected troops on the line.

Bush. Cowardice.

[patb]

[quote=drboom][quote=EconProf]
A
If history is going to be kind to Bush, historians first need something to be kind to him for. ,,,,,,.

I can’t point to anything similar for Bush other than his finest hour in the immediate aftermath of September 11th when he stood on a pile of rubble in NYC and let it all hang out. That’s better than anything Ford could point to, but I don’t know if it results in enough historical brownie points to rank above, say, Taft. [/quote]

Let’s not Forget, Bush ignored all the CIA warnings about “Bin Laden
Determined to Attack” and how he demoted his Counter-Terrorism
Chief so as to not get direct reports from him.

And lets not forget in the Immediate aftermath of 9/11 Bush went
and did not fly to DC to take command of the government, no, no, no,
He went and hid in a hole in the ground at SAC for 2 days.

For 2 days all we had was Bush in his little chicken Bunker and
Cheney in the Fuhrer Bunker under pennsylvania Avenue.

All we had for Leadership was Giuliani.

During the Civil War Lincoln rode up to Silver Spring to inspect the
troops and give morale to the men defending the capitol from Stuart’s
Raiders.

During WW2, FDR inspected troops on the line.

Bush. Cowardice.

[patb]

[quote=drboom][quote=EconProf]
A
If history is going to be kind to Bush, historians first need something to be kind to him for. ,,,,,,.

I can’t point to anything similar for Bush other than his finest hour in the immediate aftermath of September 11th when he stood on a pile of rubble in NYC and let it all hang out. That’s better than anything Ford could point to, but I don’t know if it results in enough historical brownie points to rank above, say, Taft. [/quote]

Let’s not Forget, Bush ignored all the CIA warnings about “Bin Laden
Determined to Attack” and how he demoted his Counter-Terrorism
Chief so as to not get direct reports from him.

And lets not forget in the Immediate aftermath of 9/11 Bush went
and did not fly to DC to take command of the government, no, no, no,
He went and hid in a hole in the ground at SAC for 2 days.

For 2 days all we had was Bush in his little chicken Bunker and
Cheney in the Fuhrer Bunker under pennsylvania Avenue.

All we had for Leadership was Giuliani.

During the Civil War Lincoln rode up to Silver Spring to inspect the
troops and give morale to the men defending the capitol from Stuart’s
Raiders.

During WW2, FDR inspected troops on the line.

Bush. Cowardice.

[patb]

[quote=drboom][quote=EconProf]
A
If history is going to be kind to Bush, historians first need something to be kind to him for. ,,,,,,.

I can’t point to anything similar for Bush other than his finest hour in the immediate aftermath of September 11th when he stood on a pile of rubble in NYC and let it all hang out. That’s better than anything Ford could point to, but I don’t know if it results in enough historical brownie points to rank above, say, Taft. [/quote]

Let’s not Forget, Bush ignored all the CIA warnings about “Bin Laden
Determined to Attack” and how he demoted his Counter-Terrorism
Chief so as to not get direct reports from him.

And lets not forget in the Immediate aftermath of 9/11 Bush went
and did not fly to DC to take command of the government, no, no, no,
He went and hid in a hole in the ground at SAC for 2 days.

For 2 days all we had was Bush in his little chicken Bunker and
Cheney in the Fuhrer Bunker under pennsylvania Avenue.

All we had for Leadership was Giuliani.

During the Civil War Lincoln rode up to Silver Spring to inspect the
troops and give morale to the men defending the capitol from Stuart’s
Raiders.

During WW2, FDR inspected troops on the line.

Bush. Cowardice.

[patb]

[quote=drboom][quote=EconProf]
A
If history is going to be kind to Bush, historians first need something to be kind to him for. ,,,,,,.

I can’t point to anything similar for Bush other than his finest hour in the immediate aftermath of September 11th when he stood on a pile of rubble in NYC and let it all hang out. That’s better than anything Ford could point to, but I don’t know if it results in enough historical brownie points to rank above, say, Taft. [/quote]

Let’s not Forget, Bush ignored all the CIA warnings about “Bin Laden
Determined to Attack” and how he demoted his Counter-Terrorism
Chief so as to not get direct reports from him.

And lets not forget in the Immediate aftermath of 9/11 Bush went
and did not fly to DC to take command of the government, no, no, no,
He went and hid in a hole in the ground at SAC for 2 days.

For 2 days all we had was Bush in his little chicken Bunker and
Cheney in the Fuhrer Bunker under pennsylvania Avenue.

All we had for Leadership was Giuliani.

During the Civil War Lincoln rode up to Silver Spring to inspect the
troops and give morale to the men defending the capitol from Stuart’s
Raiders.

During WW2, FDR inspected troops on the line.

Bush. Cowardice.

[patb]

[quote=drboom][quote=surveyor][quote=drboom][quote=surveyor]
[/quote]

The nature and magnitude of Duke’s “mistakes” argue against being smart. If he was so bright he would have been a smidge less obvious, and I don’t think you can call a sustained pattern of corruption a “mistake”.

Anyway, House staffers voted Cunningham the prestigious “No Rocket Scientist” award in 2004, a year before the corruption story broke. Otnay ootay ightbray, according to those who worked with him. Yet he was a hot fighter pilot.

Next genius theory, please?[/quote]

I work around a bunch of test pilots, some are incredibly bright, well read,
lots of math background, lots of historical background,,,

Some just have a really good spatial awareness, and are otherwise ignorant hicks.

To be a good pilot you have to have a good 3D feel, you need to sense
what the vehicle state vector is and you need to sense what you can do to control it.

Look some real gibbering idiots in Pakistan fly F-16’s and we were selling
fighters to some real third world hellholes.

Does GWB have the same minimal skill set as some degenerate camel
jockey princeling in Saudi Arabia? Probably.

Does that make him on par with US Air Force standards? Nope.

And could he work in a more technically challenging field like
flight test? I doubt it.

Look, being a football player requires a broad quick set of reflexes,
some physical toughness and the hand eye coordination to toss and throw.
Does that make these guys bright? Usually not.

Sure some are scholar athletes, but most are monkeys in pads.

[patb]

[quote=drboom][quote=surveyor][quote=drboom][quote=surveyor]
[/quote]

The nature and magnitude of Duke’s “mistakes” argue against being smart. If he was so bright he would have been a smidge less obvious, and I don’t think you can call a sustained pattern of corruption a “mistake”.

Anyway, House staffers voted Cunningham the prestigious “No Rocket Scientist” award in 2004, a year before the corruption story broke. Otnay ootay ightbray, according to those who worked with him. Yet he was a hot fighter pilot.

Next genius theory, please?[/quote]

I work around a bunch of test pilots, some are incredibly bright, well read,
lots of math background, lots of historical background,,,

Some just have a really good spatial awareness, and are otherwise ignorant hicks.

To be a good pilot you have to have a good 3D feel, you need to sense
what the vehicle state vector is and you need to sense what you can do to control it.

Look some real gibbering idiots in Pakistan fly F-16’s and we were selling
fighters to some real third world hellholes.

Does GWB have the same minimal skill set as some degenerate camel
jockey princeling in Saudi Arabia? Probably.

Does that make him on par with US Air Force standards? Nope.

And could he work in a more technically challenging field like
flight test? I doubt it.

Look, being a football player requires a broad quick set of reflexes,
some physical toughness and the hand eye coordination to toss and throw.
Does that make these guys bright? Usually not.

Sure some are scholar athletes, but most are monkeys in pads.

[patb]

[quote=drboom][quote=surveyor][quote=drboom][quote=surveyor]
[/quote]

The nature and magnitude of Duke’s “mistakes” argue against being smart. If he was so bright he would have been a smidge less obvious, and I don’t think you can call a sustained pattern of corruption a “mistake”.

Anyway, House staffers voted Cunningham the prestigious “No Rocket Scientist” award in 2004, a year before the corruption story broke. Otnay ootay ightbray, according to those who worked with him. Yet he was a hot fighter pilot.

Next genius theory, please?[/quote]

I work around a bunch of test pilots, some are incredibly bright, well read,
lots of math background, lots of historical background,,,

Some just have a really good spatial awareness, and are otherwise ignorant hicks.

To be a good pilot you have to have a good 3D feel, you need to sense
what the vehicle state vector is and you need to sense what you can do to control it.

Look some real gibbering idiots in Pakistan fly F-16’s and we were selling
fighters to some real third world hellholes.

Does GWB have the same minimal skill set as some degenerate camel
jockey princeling in Saudi Arabia? Probably.

Does that make him on par with US Air Force standards? Nope.

And could he work in a more technically challenging field like
flight test? I doubt it.

Look, being a football player requires a broad quick set of reflexes,
some physical toughness and the hand eye coordination to toss and throw.
Does that make these guys bright? Usually not.

Sure some are scholar athletes, but most are monkeys in pads.

[patb]

[quote=drboom][quote=surveyor][quote=drboom][quote=surveyor]
[/quote]

The nature and magnitude of Duke’s “mistakes” argue against being smart. If he was so bright he would have been a smidge less obvious, and I don’t think you can call a sustained pattern of corruption a “mistake”.

Anyway, House staffers voted Cunningham the prestigious “No Rocket Scientist” award in 2004, a year before the corruption story broke. Otnay ootay ightbray, according to those who worked with him. Yet he was a hot fighter pilot.

Next genius theory, please?[/quote]

I work around a bunch of test pilots, some are incredibly bright, well read,
lots of math background, lots of historical background,,,

Some just have a really good spatial awareness, and are otherwise ignorant hicks.

To be a good pilot you have to have a good 3D feel, you need to sense
what the vehicle state vector is and you need to sense what you can do to control it.

Look some real gibbering idiots in Pakistan fly F-16’s and we were selling
fighters to some real third world hellholes.

Does GWB have the same minimal skill set as some degenerate camel
jockey princeling in Saudi Arabia? Probably.

Does that make him on par with US Air Force standards? Nope.

And could he work in a more technically challenging field like
flight test? I doubt it.

Look, being a football player requires a broad quick set of reflexes,
some physical toughness and the hand eye coordination to toss and throw.
Does that make these guys bright? Usually not.

Sure some are scholar athletes, but most are monkeys in pads.

[Author]

Posts