ocdude

Why?? Because I have an opinion?? America was founded on people with different opinions. BTW...it's WOLVES.

Actually, I probably WILL vote for Trump...A Trump nomination will ensure a win for Clinton. Yes, the crazies are all fired up about the Donald....and are ignoring the people who actually have a vision for the country, as well as a plan to make it work...people like Carson or Fiorina or even Rubio, who think more of this country than themselves.

LOL...Trump has zero chance against Clinton. He's firing up the crazies who haven't noticed that his rhetoric has no substance, no plan, no way to pay for his demands. Now he has ticked off Fox News and no republican can win without Fox News. More than likely. They looked awfully cozy at his wedding.

Please, please PLEASE give Trump the nomination..... General Election: Trump vs. Clinton Poll Date Sample MoE Clinton (D) Trump ® Spread RCP Average 7/9 - 7/28 -- -- 51.8 37.0 Clinton +14.8 Quinnipiac 7/23 - 7/28 1644 RV 2.4 48 36 Clinton +12 McClatchy/Marist 7/22 - 7/28 964 RV 3.2 54 38 Clinton +16 CNN/Opinion Research 7/22 - 7/25 898 RV 3.5 56 40 Clinton +16 PPP (D) 7/20 - 7/21 1087 RV 3.0 50 37 Clinton +13 USA Today/Suffolk 7/9 - 7/12 1000 LV 3.0 51 34 Clinton +17 All General Election: Trump vs. Clinton Polling Data

No, Granny. Only the top ten will debate. The rest will participate in an "also ran" debate afterwards. http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/07/28/how-will-10-candidates-fox-news-gop-presidential-primary-debate-be-selected-bret-baier

The video shows the planes with their tail ends facing the ocean, as does the pictures and carrier plans. which proves that the original article was a lie..

You can't trust any publication that is slanted to either side. His daddy couldn't "clear" the video which clearly shows the tail ends of the planes were facing the ocean. Even I can see that. Nor could it have placed McCains plane on the opposite side of the ship.

Not really.One is a guy who has no idea what he is talking about throwing out a bunch of "could have"s and "might have"s.and the other is the Navy reports showing that it would be impossible for McCain to have caused this.

No 'Wet Start' A special note is in order here. We have seen some baseless claims that McCain was somehow responsible for the Forrestal disaster. One incorrect but widely quoted theory has him triggering the Zuni missile with the exhaust of his own plane by "wet-starting" – deliberately dumping fuel into the afterburner before starting in order to shoot a large flame from the tail of the aircraft. This is a preposterous notion. For one thing, A-4 jets flew at subsonic speeds and were not equipped with afterburners. According to the Military Analysis Network site maintained by the Federation of American Scientists, the A-4 was powered by a "Single, http://iqd.me/l/11 & Whitney, J-52-P-408A non-afterburning, turbojet engine." The manufacturer's description of the aircraft also describes the powerplant as "One 11,187-pound-thrust P&W J52-P408 engine," with no mention of an afterburner. And while pilots tell us that a “wet start” is possible even without an afterburner, the theory fails for another reason. The tail of McCain's plane was pointed over the side of the carrier and away from other planes at the time, and the F4 Phantom fighter that fired the missile was facing McCain's plane from the opposite side of the deck, as shown in Caiella’s diagram, in other diagrams, and in Navy film of the fire. This bogus theory appears to have gotten its start from a report by New York Times reporter R. W. Apple. Jr, who reported on July 31, 1967 – two days after the fire – that the Forrestal’s captain, John K. Beling, believed an “extreme wet start” had created “a thick tongue of flame” that set off the Zuni. Beling did not identify McCain’s plane as the source, however, and said only that the aircraft was “parked near the carrier’s island,” which would have put it far forward and on the opposite side of the flight deck from where McCain’s plane was getting ready to launch. Not usually noted by the conspiracy theorists is that Capt. Beling “repeatedly said that he had been unable fully to sort out the conflicting reports” that circulated on the 5,000-man vessel in the hours after the fire, according to Apple, who also called the wet-start theory “tentative.” In any case, Beling’s early theory was soon dismissed by Navy investigators, who found that the Zuni had been touched off by a stray electrical charge, not by a jet exhaust. Author Freeman summarizes the findings succinctly in in "Sailors to the End:" Freeman, 2002 (p. 250): The investigation revealed that the rocket (fired) because a freak surge of electricity jumped through the plane's system at the moment the pilot switched from the outside electrical generator to the plane's internal power system. And as Caiella also notes in his account, the investigation found that in the wartime pressure to get planes launched quickly crews had not observed two key safety precautions that could have prevented the stray spike of electricity from firing the rocket. The “pigtail” that connects the plane’s wiring to the missile had been plugged in prematurely, before the plane was on the catapult, and a safety pin that also would have prevented the firing also had been removed. Freeman has posted an item on his own Web site flatly stating that McCain was in no way responsible for the accident. "McCain was never suspected of causing the fire because investigators determined immediately that the rocket misfired from the other side of the flight deck," writes Freeman. Caiella agrees. He told us: “There is no possible way John McCain could have caused the fire on board the Forrestal. … McCain's only connection with the investigation was as a witness, in both a written deposition shortly after the fire and later in sworn testimony to the board.” http://www.factcheck.org/2008/09/mccains-plane-crashes/

No defense of this...as I said, he is an ass. However, it still does not excuse a draft dodger making fun of what he endured as a POW. And there is an awful lot of speculation and "may have been"s in this article.

As I said....as a senator and a man, McCain is an ass. That doesn't mean that it is okay for someone who didn't care to serve to make fun of what he endured.

Didn't disparage anything....your post was very similar to mine. I have not disparaged your service at all. I thank you for it. As I posted later, any person who served voluntarily in the service is a hero. I just cannot understand why any military person would allow a draft dodger to make fun of those who served honorably and were captured. As for reading and writing skills....that's really funny. My typing needs work, my grammar and comprehension does not.

." Oh and by the way, you may want to ask yourself how I understand so well what experiences some military men had to endure Again you have no Idea what anyone here has or has not experienced. And I say that with as much compassion as is humanly possible. " Read more: http://dinarvets.com/forums/index.php?/topic/205607-donald-trump-attack-on-john-mccain-war-record-is-new-low-in-us-politics/page-4#ixzz3glsKZO4d