| |
Main
Date: 16 Oct 2006 14:35:57
From: The_Professor
Subject: Vote for a golfer
|
Looking at the past few people elected as US Presidents, one things
sticks out like a sore thumb. The country does OK when a golfer is
president, and not so well when the president doesn't golf.
I'll start with Truman. Didn't golf, so far as I know anyways. Only
leader to nuke anyone, and his administration is responsible for the
foreign policy that got the US into Korea and Vietnam. The nuke thing
is enoigh for me though. Eisenhower. Golfed. The US did OK during his
years. Nothing spectacular. Kennedy golfed, and is a much beloved
figure by many. Started the civil rights reforms. Foregn policy was a
total disaster, but he also got the space program going, and the
country did OK under his administration. LBJ, didn't golf; figured the
US could win in vietnam. Really escalated US injvolvement. A lot of
civil strife and a great loss of confidence in government. Nixon.
Showed up on the golf course with golf clubs every once in a while, but
golf? Good government. Nixon gave us the EPA, opened up China and had
good dialog with the Arab world for the day. But he was dishonest and
impeached! Sorta trumps everything else! Ford wasn't elected. Carter.
Disaster! Didn't golf. Reagan. Didn't golf. Don't want to open a can of
worms here, but borrow and spend, silly adventurism. Bush I. Golfed,
and the country did OK. Clinton. Golfed, and like it or not, the
country did OK. Paid off a lot of the Reagan deficit. Same for Bush II.
Could call Iraq a mistake, but if they don't go in and the situation
disintegrates into something really bad, everyone would have whined
about him not taking action. But that's the purpose of opposition. In
any event, the US has faced some serious challenges the last 6 years
and done OK.
|
|
| |
Date: 17 Oct 2006 04:30:26
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: Vote for a golfer
|
Dene wrote:
> Robert Hamilton wrote:
>
> > Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians like that has never been an
> > acceptable strategy of war. The Japanese were defeated at the time. The
> > military government could not have held power much longer. They were done.
> > The US military wanted total unconditional sureender though, and the only way
> > to get that was to invade Japan....or maybe via the nuke.
>
> The Japanese government was hardly in touch with their people. Tokyo
> was firebombed into ashes. Virtually all pilots were dead....Navy
> sunk.....and yet they continued the fight.
The military clique could not have survived long in any event. The only thing that
kept them in power at that time was the continuation of the war. IMHO had the
allies sough a ceasfire and surreender after Okinawa and waited a bit, the military
regeime would have fallen. The napalming of Tokyo is another one to hang on that
administration. Attacking civilian targets like that as a war tactic. We condem it
now!
|
| |
Date: 16 Oct 2006 20:09:23
From: Dene
Subject: Re: Vote for a golfer
|
The_Professor wrote:
> Looking at the past few people elected as US Presidents, one things
> sticks out like a sore thumb. The country does OK when a golfer is
> president, and not so well when the president doesn't golf.
Quayle for Prez.
-Greg
|
| | |
Date: 17 Oct 2006 04:31:04
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: Vote for a golfer
|
Dene wrote:
> The_Professor wrote:
> > Looking at the past few people elected as US Presidents, one things
> > sticks out like a sore thumb. The country does OK when a golfer is
> > president, and not so well when the president doesn't golf.
>
> Quayle for Prez.
>
There ya go!
|
| |
Date: 16 Oct 2006 20:07:32
From: Dene
Subject: Re: Vote for a golfer
|
Robert Hamilton wrote:
> Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians like that has never been an
> acceptable strategy of war. The Japanese were defeated at the time. The
> military government could not have held power much longer. They were done.
> The US military wanted total unconditional sureender though, and the only way
> to get that was to invade Japan....or maybe via the nuke.
The Japanese government was hardly in touch with their people. Tokyo
was firebombed into ashes. Virtually all pilots were dead....Navy
sunk.....and yet they continued the fight.
> But consider the consequences. The Japanese had substantial forces in China,
> and the Chinese were defeated; had nothing. Total withdrawl of the Japanese
> forces with no one to fill the power vacuum and you get the communist
> revolution (with Russians to support them). The idea that the US can maintain
> sufficient support for the Nationist government was obviouswly flawed. Total
> defeat of an enemy like the Nazis was essential, but Japan was a different
> can of worms. The Japanese still controlled Korea, and while they would have
> had to give it up (and China), if the Japanese maintain their military
> capacities, there would have been somone else there to deal with China even
> if the communist revolution succeeds. Looking at today, there would be
> someone other than China in the region to deal with N Korea even if all else
> still happens. One thing for sure, if the Japanese surrender but maintain
> their infrastructure, the world would have been different, and not
> necessarily worse. The idea that the US and UN can look after everything blew
> up pretty much in Korea. The containment policy lead to Korea and Vietnam.
> Roght now, Japan is totally pacifist, relying on the US for military
> punch...a policy imposed by the US. The idea that the US will look after the
> military needs of the free world comes from the Truman years. So in a sense,
> you could blame Iraq on Truman! (What not, everyone else seems to get blamed
> for Iraq!!)
You are presuming that the population of Korea and China would have
accepted Japanese proxy domination. You are also presuming that Japan
would have surrendered without invasion or being nuked. I don't see
any historical evidence of this. They were hanging on....even reaching
out to Russia for assistance.
> Reagan taxed the poor more than anyone else. People with real low incomes
> suddenly had to pay tax. I know, I was a grad student at the time! Could be
> the Soviets were done anyways, could be as you say. We still aren't out of
> the woods with respect to the borrowing. Anyone who complains about the
> Kuwaitis and Chinese holding so much US debt have Reagan to thank for that.
> What was to be proud of, defeating Grenada in a war?
And what was that tax....$300. Compare to the services "the poor"
receive, that is mere pittance. Furthermore, it teaches
responsibility. America is not a free lunch society, nor should it be.
> > Kennedy would have gone down in history as an awful president had he
> > not died or been caught outright with his pants down.
>
> The good things you say about Reagan with respect to national attitude apply
> 100X more, at least, to Kennedy.
Both were equally charismatic, but only one had his pants on and a
clear vision of how to deal with the Russians.
> > Hmmmm....I wonder if our next president, John McCain, golfs?
>
> McCain ain't gonna make it. If the GOP can go with someone like Guliani, they
> win easy. If not, it'll be a horse race. Dems go with a guy like Kerrey
> (Neb), they win easy...but that will never happen. He's too normal, too
> credible for the dems. Guliani could happen though.
Agree! I'd like to see Rudy run.
-Greg
|
| |
Date: 16 Oct 2006 19:11:32
From: dsc
Subject: Re: Vote for a golfer
|
zumafan wrote:
> Kevin D. Timm wrote:
> > The_Professor wrote:
> > >
> > > Looking at the past few people elected as US Presidents, one things
> > > sticks out like a sore thumb. The country does OK when a golfer is
> > > president, and not so well when the president doesn't golf.
> > >
> > <snip>
> > Clinton. Golfed,
> > </snip>
> >
>
> Does Hillary golf?
No... because her caddie, bag, balls and putter keep running of with
interns... :)
|
| |
Date: 16 Oct 2006 19:09:05
From: dsc
Subject: Re: Vote for a golfer
|
> No more Bushes.
Wouldn't count on it... :)
> Watch the movie "Why We Fight." It'll tell you all you need to know about
> why we're at war. And it's about the most non-partisan explanation I've
> seen. Scary. Ike warned us. Too bad we weren't listening.
Is it factually accurate or Hollywood spin?
|
| | |
Date: 17 Oct 2006 10:22:30
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: Vote for a golfer
|
"dsc" <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu > wrote ...
>
>> No more Bushes.
>
> Wouldn't count on it... :)
>
>> Watch the movie "Why We Fight." It'll tell you all you need to know
>> about
>> why we're at war. And it's about the most non-partisan explanation I've
>> seen. Scary. Ike warned us. Too bad we weren't listening.
>
> Is it factually accurate or Hollywood spin?
You'd have to decide for yourself, which I thought was the whole point of
the film. First of all, it's a documentary, not a screenplay. It's based
upon Eisenhower's farewell address, in which he, a career military man and
decorated war hero, warned of the build-up of what he termed the
"military-industrial complex." Most of us had heard of this address, but
many of us were either too young at the time to fully understand or
appreciate it, or we just never bothered to study what he was really talking
about. For example, it's a little known fact that in Ike's original draft
of the speech, he called it the "Military-Congressional complex," but he
removed the word "Congressional" because he prided himself on having eight
years of good relations with Congress and didn't want to offend anyone on
Capitol Hill as he was leaving office. But they showed a copy of his
first-draft of the speech, and sure enough, that's what he was going to call
it.
On the question of "spin," while it's true that many documentaries do have a
"point of view," and this one is no exception, it presents its point of view
with a decidedly more measured and thoughtful approach -- not at all like
anything from, say, a Michael Moore-type partisan. (Just to be clear, this
is NOT a Michael Moore film, although frankly, I forget the filmmaker's
name.) This film is definitely NOT an anti-Bush or anti-Republican film.
Although some Republicans may perceive it to be, because so much of
America's recent war-time efforts have come on a Republican's watch. But
the filmmaker takes very measured steps in pointing out that the issues Ike
warned us about are not unique to the current administration, and have
plagued us in each administration -- Republican and Democrat alike -- since
World War II.
The filmmaker takes Eisenhower's warnings about the military-industrial
complex and the dangers it presents to freedom and our republic, elaborates
on exactly what what Ike was warning about, traces the history of the
military-industrial complex build-up, and puts Ike's warnings into a
modern-day context, in modern-day dollars.
One of the more eerie parts of the film had less to do with the military,
per se, and more to do with a lesser-remembered part of Ike's farewell
address, where he warned not only of a growing military, but of the growing
influence in Washington of secret societies of unelected and unaccountable
individuals whose influence, while not readily apparent to the more naive
citizenry in 1960, was something he felt the need to alert the public about.
Today we know them as "lobbying groups" and "think tanks," and they wield
tremendous influence on Capitol Hill without having any accountability to
the public whatsoever. Indeed, members of the "think tank" that is largely
responsible for developing the modern-day neocon view of the world are
interviewed in this picture. (Surely you don't think George W. Bush was
smart enough to dream this stuff up. Hell, in 2000, he couldn't point to
Afganastan on a map.)
Plus, the mere vastness of the nation's budget that goes to military-related
expenses is illustrated in a way that persuasively advances the thesis that
there are far too many vested interests within our own national economy in
keeping America at war, one way or another, to ever make it feasible that
we'd stay at peace for too long. And no, this film is not merely another
cheap shot at Haliburton as a way of slapping the Bush Administration. In
fact, the film is very even-handed in pointing out that this is not merely a
concern for Republican administrations, but has been a concern for
Democratic administrations, as well.
Honestly, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find in this film anything that
could be perceived as "spin." It is, however, extremely troubling and
thought-provoking. Something every American should see, in my opinion.
There are plenty of interviews with people on both sides of the political
aisle, as well as many within the military, and also includes extensive
discussion with Eisenhower's closest living relative -- his brother --
giving the film a decidedly credible feel. It will certainly get you to
thinking, which, dare I say it, is something far too few people are willing
to do these days, regardless of their political persuasion.
Do yourself a favor and spend $5 at the movie rental store and rent "Why We
Fight." It'll be the most thought-provoking 90 minutes you'll spend this
month.
Randy
|
| | | |
Date: 17 Oct 2006 10:03:14
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Vote for a golfer
|
On Tue, 17 2006 10:22:30 -0400, "\"R&B\""
<noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote:
<clip >
>Do yourself a favor and spend $5 at the movie rental store and rent "Why We
>Fight." It'll be the most thought-provoking 90 minutes you'll spend this
>month.
>
>Randy
>
Better yet, read Eisenhower's "military industrial complex" speech.
Pay particular attention to part IV.
http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html
___,
\o
|
| |
Date: 16 Oct 2006 19:02:32
From: dsc
Subject: Re: Vote for a golfer
|
Robert Hamilton wrote:
> Dene wrote:
>
> >
> > I luv ya Rob but you theory reaks. Truman made the right choice re.
> > the bomb. Watch Clint's new flick this weekend. Imagine the bloodbath
> > had we been forced to invade the mainland. Also, how can you claim his
> > administration got us into Vietnam? As for Korea, he enlisted many
> > countries to save them, then made the long overdue, smart decision to
> > can an egomaniac McArthur who was demanding that he be allowed to nuke
> > the Chinese.
>
> Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians like that has never been an
> acceptable strategy of war. The Japanese were defeated at the time. The
> military government could not have held power much longer. They were done.
They were beaten... but by no means done.
> The US military wanted total unconditional sureender though, and the only way
> to get that was to invade Japan....or maybe via the nuke.
Isn't that a result of what they learned from mistakes made at the end
of WWI.
> But consider the consequences. The Japanese had substantial forces in China,
> and the Chinese were defeated; had nothing.
You do remember he totally brutal method they used to get control of
China?
>Total withdrawl of the Japanese
> forces with no one to fill the power vacuum and you get the communist
> revolution (with Russians to support them).
How would you have played it?
> The idea that the US can maintain
> sufficient support for the Nationist government was obviouswly flawed. Total
> defeat of an enemy like the Nazis was essential, but Japan was a different
> can of worms. The Japanese still controlled Korea, and while they would have
> had to give it up (and China), if the Japanese maintain their military
> capacities
That gets back to WWI Germany and WWII Germany. The world wanted to
make sure that Japan was never a problem again. Hindsight might point
out some flaw in that theory, but could you have seen it back then
looking forward?
>, there would have been somone else there to deal with China even
> if the communist revolution succeeds. Looking at today, there would be
> someone other than China in the region to deal with N Korea even if all else
> still happens.
How long would it take us to arm Japan to the hilt... if that was what
was needed?
One of the biggest outcomes was that we helped them rebuild to a level
ahead of us and they didn't have to waste money on arms, etc and they
beat us in manufacturing, etc.
>One thing for sure, if the Japanese surrender but maintain
> their infrastructure, the world would have been different, and not
> necessarily worse. The idea that the US and UN can look after everything blew
> up pretty much in Korea. The containment policy lead to Korea and Vietnam.
> Roght now, Japan is totally pacifist, relying on the US for military
> punch...a policy imposed by the US. The idea that the US will look after the
> military needs of the free world comes from the Truman years. So in a sense,
> you could blame Iraq on Truman! (What not, everyone else seems to get blamed
> for Iraq!!)
>
If true... still a whole lot easier to determine in hindsight...
> >
> >
> > Reagan. Got the country feeling proud about itself, finally shaking
> > Vietnam, winning the Cold War. Sure he borrowed but the economy
> > righted itself, due to his tax breaks, while spending the Soviet Union
> > into the ground.
Yes... he broke their bank...
>
> Reagan taxed the poor more than anyone else. People with real low incomes
> suddenly had to pay tax. I know, I was a grad student at the time! Could be
> the Soviets were done anyways, could be as you say. We still aren't out of
> the woods with respect to the borrowing.
Let's face it... we're never going to pay of that debt... just isn't
going to happen.
I suppose as long as we make payments (even token ones) all will be
well. But what happens on the day we decide to not make payments or the
day when we simply can't make payments?
> > Hmmmm....I wonder if our next president, John McCain, golfs?
>
> McCain ain't gonna make it. If the GOP can go with someone like Guliani, they
> win easy. If not, it'll be a horse race. Dems go with a guy like Kerrey
> (Neb), they win easy...but that will never happen. He's too normal, too
> credible for the dems. Guliani could happen though.
So does Rudy golf? :)
What we really need is a pres that golfs, hunts and rides dirt bikes...
:) I volunteer to bring them up to speed on any of the three. :)
|
| |
Date: 16 Oct 2006 18:44:52
From: dsc
Subject: Re: Vote for a golfer
|
The_Professor wrote:
> Looking at the past few people elected as US Presidents, one things
> sticks out like a sore thumb. The country does OK when a golfer is
> president, and not so well when the president doesn't golf.
>
> I'll start with Truman. Didn't golf, so far as I know anyways. Only
> leader to nuke anyone,
I can give him a pass on that. You have to remember he was operating
under 1945 knowledge (which was much different than 2006 knowledge).
His decision to kill a whole lot of the enemy probably saved who knows
how many allied troops that would have died if an invasion of Japan
would have taken place. It could well be that the devestation (and
resulting horor) of those two small nukes prevented the use of many
larger ones in either Korea or Vietnam... who knows? I think nukes
inevetibly had to be used (once or twice) to fully understand why they
shouldn't be used again. I think it has kept reasonable people from
using them again thus far. But it's just a matter of time before
unreasonable people (radical terrorists) aquire them and they WILL use
them at the first opportunity.
> and his administration is responsible for the
> foreign policy that got the US into Korea and Vietnam.
I guess the Soviet Union, Korea and Vietnam played no part in that?
> The nuke thing
> is enoigh for me though.
See above...
> Eisenhower. Golfed. The US did OK during his
> years. Nothing spectacular. Kennedy golfed, and is a much beloved
> figure by many. Started the civil rights reforms. Foregn policy was a
> total disaster, but he also got the space program going, and the
> country did OK under his administration. LBJ, didn't golf; figured the
> US could win in vietnam. Really escalated US injvolvement. A lot of
> civil strife and a great loss of confidence in government. Nixon.
> Showed up on the golf course with golf clubs every once in a while, but
> golf? Good government. Nixon gave us the EPA, opened up China and had
> good dialog with the Arab world for the day.
>But he was dishonest and impeached! Sorta trumps everything else!
Well, he did end the war... I guess that's a good thing even though we
didn't/couldn'/wouldn' win?
>Ford wasn't elected. Carter.
> Disaster! Didn't golf. Reagan. Didn't golf. Don't want to open a can of
> worms here, but borrow and spend, silly adventurism. Bush I. Golfed,
> and the country did OK. Clinton. Golfed, and like it or not, the
> country did OK.
The country did VERY well in he Clinton years (times were very good)...
but was it because of him or just coincidence?
> Paid off a lot of the Reagan deficit. Same for Bush II.
> Could call Iraq a mistake, but if they don't go in and the situation
> disintegrates into something really bad, everyone would have whined
> about him not taking action. But that's the purpose of opposition. In
> any event, the US has faced some serious challenges the last 6 years
> and done OK.
We have gotten by OK... but things could have been much better. We are
loosing jobs right and left, we have immigration problems, terrorism
problems, war problems, health care problems, energy problems, etc. But
after 8+ very good years maybe we were just overdue for a downcycle to
kick in and things to no be so good for a few years. I'm not sure that
Gore or Kerry would have faired any better in some ways? But I doubt
eiher would have taken on afghanistan or Iraq? Gore in office on
9-11-01... scares h3!! out of me. Glad it didn't happen.
|
| | |
Date: 17 Oct 2006 04:25:20
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: Vote for a golfer
|
dsc wrote:
snippit...
You need to review your history of Europe between WWI and WWII. Germany was
reduced to third world nation status following WWI. They weren't supposed to
be allowed to rearm, but the actions of the other nations during the Nazi
rearmament was somewhat similar to what we see with Iran and NK these days.
The milatarists would have been kicked out of power in Japan fairly quickly
after Okinawa, IMHO. There were other political forces in Japan at the time
(unlike Germany that had only Nazis at the time). They also could have nuked
military targets, not civilian targets, at least first. They also napalmed
Tokyo. Pretty barbaric, especially from people who considered Coventry a
atrocity..which is was, but nowhere near the level.
Of course it's now OK to nuke a country if you have their army defeated but
they don't surrender unconditionally. Also OK to use nuking and napalming of
civilian targets as a military tactic: Truman set the standard, the US
certtainly can't complain if anyone else does it.
So far, it is we who write the history, but when it is not, it would be
interesting to see what they say. Hopefully that will happen after my life
has ended! I can't see it being looked on favorably. If it were the US that
was nuked in the same situation, I don't think you would see it the same way.
|
| |
Date: 16 Oct 2006 16:07:10
From: zumafan
Subject: Re: Vote for a golfer
|
Kevin D. Timm wrote:
> The_Professor wrote:
> >
> > Looking at the past few people elected as US Presidents, one things
> > sticks out like a sore thumb. The country does OK when a golfer is
> > president, and not so well when the president doesn't golf.
> >
> <snip>
> Clinton. Golfed,
> </snip>
>
Does Hillary golf?
|
| |
Date: 16 Oct 2006 17:15:37
From: Kevin D. Timm
Subject: Re: Vote for a golfer
|
The_Professor wrote:
>
> Looking at the past few people elected as US Presidents, one things
> sticks out like a sore thumb. The country does OK when a golfer is
> president, and not so well when the president doesn't golf.
>
<snip >
Clinton. Golfed,
</snip >
From what I've heard, Bill didnt' (doesn't) golf.
He walks around a golf course, alternately kicking and hitting golf
balls (but only counting the hits)
|
| | |
Date: 16 Oct 2006 17:31:05
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Vote for a golfer
|
On Mon, 16 2006 17:15:37 -0500, "Kevin D. Timm"
<kevindtimm@comcast.net > wrote:
>The_Professor wrote:
>>
>> Looking at the past few people elected as US Presidents, one things
>> sticks out like a sore thumb. The country does OK when a golfer is
>> president, and not so well when the president doesn't golf.
>>
><snip>
>Clinton. Golfed,
></snip>
>
>From what I've heard, Bill didnt' (doesn't) golf.
>He walks around a golf course, alternately kicking and hitting golf
>balls (but only counting the hits)
Well, there have been those on this news group that admit to playing
mulligans, preferred lies and gimmes, and they claim to be golfers.
(Hint, hint)
--
___,
\o
|
| | | |
Date: 16 Oct 2006 18:21:21
From: Kevin D. Timm
Subject: Re: Vote for a golfer
|
Bobby Knight wrote:
>
> On Mon, 16 2006 17:15:37 -0500, "Kevin D. Timm"
> <kevindtimm@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >From what I've heard, Bill didnt' (doesn't) golf.
> >He walks around a golf course, alternately kicking and hitting golf
> >balls (but only counting the hits)
>
> Well, there have been those on this news group that admit to playing
> mulligans, preferred lies and gimmes, and they claim to be golfers.
>
> (Hint, hint)
>
My point exactly.
|
| |
Date: 16 Oct 2006 15:05:34
From: Dene
Subject: Re: Vote for a golfer
|
The_Professor wrote:
> Looking at the past few people elected as US Presidents, one things
> sticks out like a sore thumb. The country does OK when a golfer is
> president, and not so well when the president doesn't golf.
>
> I'll start with Truman. Didn't golf, so far as I know anyways. Only
> leader to nuke anyone, and his administration is responsible for the
> foreign policy that got the US into Korea and Vietnam. The nuke thing
> is enoigh for me though. Eisenhower. Golfed. The US did OK during his
> years. Nothing spectacular. Kennedy golfed, and is a much beloved
> figure by many. Started the civil rights reforms. Foregn policy was a
> total disaster, but he also got the space program going, and the
> country did OK under his administration. LBJ, didn't golf; figured the
> US could win in vietnam. Really escalated US injvolvement. A lot of
> civil strife and a great loss of confidence in government. Nixon.
> Showed up on the golf course with golf clubs every once in a while, but
> golf? Good government. Nixon gave us the EPA, opened up China and had
> good dialog with the Arab world for the day. But he was dishonest and
> impeached! Sorta trumps everything else! Ford wasn't elected. Carter.
> Disaster! Didn't golf. Reagan. Didn't golf. Don't want to open a can of
> worms here, but borrow and spend, silly adventurism. Bush I. Golfed,
> and the country did OK. Clinton. Golfed, and like it or not, the
> country did OK. Paid off a lot of the Reagan deficit. Same for Bush II.
> Could call Iraq a mistake, but if they don't go in and the situation
> disintegrates into something really bad, everyone would have whined
> about him not taking action. But that's the purpose of opposition. In
> any event, the US has faced some serious challenges the last 6 years
> and done OK.
I luv ya Rob but you theory reaks. Truman made the right choice re.
the bomb. Watch Clint's new flick this weekend. Imagine the bloodbath
had we been forced to invade the mainland. Also, how can you claim his
administration got us into Vietnam? As for Korea, he enlisted many
countries to save them, then made the long overdue, smart decision to
can an egomaniac McArthur who was demanding that he be allowed to nuke
the Chinese.
Reagan. Got the country feeling proud about itself, finally shaking
Vietnam, winning the Cold War. Sure he borrowed but the economy
righted itself, due to his tax breaks, while spending the Soviet Union
into the ground.
Kennedy would have gone down in history as an awful president had he
not died or been caught outright with his pants down.
Hmmmm....I wonder if our next president, John McCain, golfs?
-Greg
|
| | |
Date: 16 Oct 2006 22:29:43
From: Tom K
Subject: Re: Vote for a golfer
|
"Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1161036334.313249.51230@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> I luv ya Rob but you theory reaks. Truman made the right choice re.
> the bomb. Watch Clint's new flick this weekend. Imagine the bloodbath
> had we been forced to invade the mainland. Also, how can you claim his
> administration got us into Vietnam? As for Korea, he enlisted many
> countries to save them, then made the long overdue, smart decision to
> can an egomaniac McArthur who was demanding that he be allowed to nuke
> the Chinese.
>
> Reagan. Got the country feeling proud about itself, finally shaking
> Vietnam, winning the Cold War. Sure he borrowed but the economy
> righted itself, due to his tax breaks, while spending the Soviet Union
> into the ground.
>
Your theory may have a few "holes"... as well...
Reagan didn't spend the Soviet Union into the ground. They just changed the
corporate name. It's still the same guys who became instant billionaires
when Yeltsin divvied up all the national businesses (like Oil) and gave them
to his "Party" buddies. Same guys still around, just with new clothing (pin
stripe suits with light blue ties, instead of grey wool coats with shoulder
stripes). Now these former Soviets bring Lukoil gas stations to the US and
we welcome them with open arms.
Were the same exact people more evil when they wore grey instead of blue
pinstripe?
If they're not evil now... maybe they really weren't that evil before?
How much of a cold war was it, when the same people are now selling gas in
the US for two bucks a gallon????
--Tom
|
| | |
Date: 16 Oct 2006 19:59:57
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: Vote for a golfer
|
"Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote ...
>
> The_Professor wrote:
>> Looking at the past few people elected as US Presidents, one things
>> sticks out like a sore thumb. The country does OK when a golfer is
>> president, and not so well when the president doesn't golf.
>>
>> I'll start with Truman. Didn't golf, so far as I know anyways. Only
>> leader to nuke anyone, and his administration is responsible for the
>> foreign policy that got the US into Korea and Vietnam. The nuke thing
>> is enoigh for me though. Eisenhower. Golfed. The US did OK during his
>> years. Nothing spectacular. Kennedy golfed, and is a much beloved
>> figure by many. Started the civil rights reforms. Foregn policy was a
>> total disaster, but he also got the space program going, and the
>> country did OK under his administration. LBJ, didn't golf; figured the
>> US could win in vietnam. Really escalated US injvolvement. A lot of
>> civil strife and a great loss of confidence in government. Nixon.
>> Showed up on the golf course with golf clubs every once in a while, but
>> golf? Good government. Nixon gave us the EPA, opened up China and had
>> good dialog with the Arab world for the day. But he was dishonest and
>> impeached! Sorta trumps everything else! Ford wasn't elected. Carter.
>> Disaster! Didn't golf. Reagan. Didn't golf. Don't want to open a can of
>> worms here, but borrow and spend, silly adventurism. Bush I. Golfed,
>> and the country did OK. Clinton. Golfed, and like it or not, the
>> country did OK. Paid off a lot of the Reagan deficit. Same for Bush II.
>> Could call Iraq a mistake, but if they don't go in and the situation
>> disintegrates into something really bad, everyone would have whined
>> about him not taking action. But that's the purpose of opposition. In
>> any event, the US has faced some serious challenges the last 6 years
>> and done OK.
>
> I luv ya Rob but you theory reaks. Truman made the right choice re.
> the bomb. Watch Clint's new flick this weekend. Imagine the bloodbath
> had we been forced to invade the mainland. Also, how can you claim his
> administration got us into Vietnam? As for Korea, he enlisted many
> countries to save them, then made the long overdue, smart decision to
> can an egomaniac McArthur who was demanding that he be allowed to nuke
> the Chinese.
>
> Reagan. Got the country feeling proud about itself, finally shaking
> Vietnam, winning the Cold War. Sure he borrowed but the economy
> righted itself, due to his tax breaks, while spending the Soviet Union
> into the ground.
>
> Kennedy would have gone down in history as an awful president had he
> not died or been caught outright with his pants down.
>
> Hmmmm....I wonder if our next president, John McCain, golfs?
>
> -Greg
Agree about Truman. Had no other choice but to drop the bomb. But boy, oh,
boy, did he ever open up a can of worms in doing so...haunts the world to
this day....and may one day be the end of us all.
Ike was an honorable man. I like Ike.
JFK is easily dismissed because of his pecadillos, but hey, no President in
our lifetime got so many people thinking about public service, which ain't
such a bad thing. Probably the last true "statesman" to occupy the White
House.
LBJ was a crook who cared only about his own political legacy.
Nixon was an embarrassment. China, yeah, nice. But where has it gotten us?
They're not exactly our friends today. So what was the real accomplishment
here? Whatever trust existed between the government and the people was
forever tainted by Nixon's presidency.
Ford. Pardoned Nixon. Never elected to a national office. Can this guy
even be taken seriously? Also a member of the Warren Commission, so I'll
always remain skeptical about his honesty.
Carter, one of the few true humanitarians to be President. His approach was
seen as "weak" in the Iran hostage crisis, but the hostages were
returned...safely. So just how dumb was he, really? It's not like Reagan
negotiated their release. They were released on Ronnie's inauguration day.
Reagan -- I'm not a fan, but I admired his ability to rally the country. He
did too many things that I think over the years will prove to be damaging to
the country, not the least of which was his revamping of the FCC and
rescinding of the Fairness Drine, which opened the floodgates leading to
today's polarizing rancor that heats up the airwaves of talkradio, virtually
silencing the vast "middle of the road" of America, instead focusing
attention on the fringe elements on both sides. History will not look
kindly upon that move, as it has divided this nation more profoundly than
anything since the Civil War.
Bush 41 -- A one-termer from the day he was elected. Read my lips: No more
Bushes.
Clinton -- Take away Monica Lewinsky and this is a Presidency that would
have been regarded as one of the best ever. But Bubba pissed off even his
most liberal followers. Should have gone down as a great president, but
will instead be remembered as a president with potential for greatness best
remembered for going down.
Son of Bush -- Squandered historic global goodwill with a foreign policy of
arrogance and "with us or against us" mindset. Once he's out of office,
more of the lies that led up to the Iraq War will no doubt be revealed. But
even most of us on the left supported the war in the beginning
because...well...we believed his claims of WMDs. Turns out even his own
advisors said the evidence was thin at best, something he didn't exactly
share with the world during the propoganda campaign. A simple "He tried to
kill my daddy and I'm gonna kill him" statement would have at least been
more honest, and some might have even gone along with that.
In the end, the only President in that whole bunch that I think was a keeper
was Ike.
I still like Ike.
Watch the movie "Why We Fight." It'll tell you all you need to know about
why we're at war. And it's about the most non-partisan explanation I've
seen. Scary. Ike warned us. Too bad we weren't listening.
Randy
|
| | | |
Date: 16 Oct 2006 20:09:48
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Vote for a golfer
|
On Mon, 16 2006 19:59:57 -0400, "\"R&B\""
<noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote:
>In the end, the only President in that whole bunch that I think was a keeper
>was Ike.
>
>I still like Ike.
>
>Watch the movie "Why We Fight." It'll tell you all you need to know about
>why we're at war. And it's about the most non-partisan explanation I've
>seen. Scary. Ike warned us. Too bad we weren't listening.
>
>Randy
>
Farewell military-industrial complex speech. The neocons would
probably call it leftist propaganda if said now.
|
| | |
Date: 16 Oct 2006 23:14:30
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: Vote for a golfer
|
Dene wrote:
>
> I luv ya Rob but you theory reaks. Truman made the right choice re.
> the bomb. Watch Clint's new flick this weekend. Imagine the bloodbath
> had we been forced to invade the mainland. Also, how can you claim his
> administration got us into Vietnam? As for Korea, he enlisted many
> countries to save them, then made the long overdue, smart decision to
> can an egomaniac McArthur who was demanding that he be allowed to nuke
> the Chinese.
Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians like that has never been an
acceptable strategy of war. The Japanese were defeated at the time. The
military government could not have held power much longer. They were done.
The US military wanted total unconditional sureender though, and the only way
to get that was to invade Japan....or maybe via the nuke.
But consider the consequences. The Japanese had substantial forces in China,
and the Chinese were defeated; had nothing. Total withdrawl of the Japanese
forces with no one to fill the power vacuum and you get the communist
revolution (with Russians to support them). The idea that the US can maintain
sufficient support for the Nationist government was obviouswly flawed. Total
defeat of an enemy like the Nazis was essential, but Japan was a different
can of worms. The Japanese still controlled Korea, and while they would have
had to give it up (and China), if the Japanese maintain their military
capacities, there would have been somone else there to deal with China even
if the communist revolution succeeds. Looking at today, there would be
someone other than China in the region to deal with N Korea even if all else
still happens. One thing for sure, if the Japanese surrender but maintain
their infrastructure, the world would have been different, and not
necessarily worse. The idea that the US and UN can look after everything blew
up pretty much in Korea. The containment policy lead to Korea and Vietnam.
Roght now, Japan is totally pacifist, relying on the US for military
punch...a policy imposed by the US. The idea that the US will look after the
military needs of the free world comes from the Truman years. So in a sense,
you could blame Iraq on Truman! (What not, everyone else seems to get blamed
for Iraq!!)
>
>
> Reagan. Got the country feeling proud about itself, finally shaking
> Vietnam, winning the Cold War. Sure he borrowed but the economy
> righted itself, due to his tax breaks, while spending the Soviet Union
> into the ground.
Reagan taxed the poor more than anyone else. People with real low incomes
suddenly had to pay tax. I know, I was a grad student at the time! Could be
the Soviets were done anyways, could be as you say. We still aren't out of
the woods with respect to the borrowing. Anyone who complains about the
Kuwaitis and Chinese holding so much US debt have Reagan to thank for that.
What was to be proud of, defeating Grenada in a war?
>
> Kennedy would have gone down in history as an awful president had he
> not died or been caught outright with his pants down.
The good things you say about Reagan with respect to national attitude apply
100X more, at least, to Kennedy.
>
>
> Hmmmm....I wonder if our next president, John McCain, golfs?
McCain ain't gonna make it. If the GOP can go with someone like Guliani, they
win easy. If not, it'll be a horse race. Dems go with a guy like Kerrey
(Neb), they win easy...but that will never happen. He's too normal, too
credible for the dems. Guliani could happen though.
|
| |
Date: 17 Oct 2006 10:21:21
From: Fairway
Subject: Re: Vote for a golfer
|
annika1980 wrote:
> Fairway wrote:
> > Most important, though, is that the next president be a Republican and =
not a commie.
> And you don't even live in the USA, correct? So who gives a shit what
> you think?
It=B4s of great importance to the whole world who reigns in the White
House. Ideally the whole world should have a vote. F
|
| | |
Date: 17 Oct 2006 21:37:04
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Vote for a golfer
|
Fairway wrote:
> annika1980 wrote:
>> Fairway wrote:
>>> Most important, though, is that the next president be a Republican and not a commie.
>
>> And you don't even live in the USA, correct? So who gives a shit what
>> you think?
>
> Itīs of great importance to the whole world who reigns in the White
> House. Ideally the whole world should have a vote. F
>
As long as they apply for statehood or immigrate legally and go through
the process of becoming a citizen of the US of A.
|
| |
Date: 17 Oct 2006 09:16:16
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Vote for a golfer
|
Fairway wrote:
> Most important, though, is that the next president be a Republican and not a commie.
A thoughtful, reasoned post from a typical brainwashed Republican
lemming.
And you don't even live in the USA, correct? So who gives a shit what
you think?
|
| |
Date: 17 Oct 2006 08:42:41
From: pete z
Subject: Re: Vote for a golfer
|
annika1980 wrote:
> The_Professor wrote:
> > Same for Bush II.
> > Could call Iraq a mistake, but if they don't go in and the situation
> > disintegrates into something really bad, everyone would have whined
> > about him not taking action.
>
> "Could" call it a mistake? I don't think that is in question.
> And what "situation" in Iraq are you referring to? It seems to me that
> Dumbya created the situation in Iraq that we have now. Americans dying
> every day for nothing ... no end in sight .... meanwhile, defense
> contractors such as Halliburton continue to profit.
> So why are we there again?
Funny, everyone loved JFK, who had numerous affairs, was the president
who got us involved in Viet Nam, a little more serious conflict than
Iraq, screwed up the Bay of Pigs.
Everyone forgets it was Johnson who got civil rights bills passed, and
inherited the war from
Kennedy. But Johnson hads no charisma. So what if Kennedy golfed?
Quayle would kick
his butt on his best day. I don't think we wanted Quayle as prez.
|
| | |
Date: 17 Oct 2006 10:50:40
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Vote for a golfer
|
On 17 2006 08:42:41 -0700, "pete z" <pz0326@aol.com > wrote:
>
>annika1980 wrote:
>> The_Professor wrote:
>> > Same for Bush II.
>> > Could call Iraq a mistake, but if they don't go in and the situation
>> > disintegrates into something really bad, everyone would have whined
>> > about him not taking action.
>>
>> "Could" call it a mistake? I don't think that is in question.
>> And what "situation" in Iraq are you referring to? It seems to me that
>> Dumbya created the situation in Iraq that we have now. Americans dying
>> every day for nothing ... no end in sight .... meanwhile, defense
>> contractors such as Halliburton continue to profit.
>> So why are we there again?
>
>Funny, everyone loved JFK, who had numerous affairs, was the president
>who got us involved in Viet Nam, a little more serious conflict than
>Iraq, screwed up the Bay of Pigs.
>Everyone forgets it was Johnson who got civil rights bills passed, and
>inherited the war from
>Kennedy. But Johnson hads no charisma. So what if Kennedy golfed?
>Quayle would kick his butt on his best day. I don't think we wanted Quayle as prez.
But JFK could spell potato. :-)
___,
\o
|
| |
Date: 17 Oct 2006 07:34:21
From: Fairway
Subject: Re: Vote for a golfer
|
The_Professor wrote:
> Fairway wrote:
> > Dene wrote:
> > > > Hmmmm....I wonder if our next president, John McCain, golfs?
> > >
> > Giuliani is a golfer. He played at my club not so long ago but didn=B4t
> > have time to finish the round. F
>
> That's it then! Rudy for President in 08!!!
He is a very nice man and intelligent too. Most important, though, is
that the next president be a Republican and not a commie. A bad
Republican is far better than a good Democrat. F
|
| |
Date: 17 Oct 2006 07:32:14
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Vote for a golfer
|
The_Professor wrote:
> > Giuliani is a golfer. He played at my club not so long ago but didn=B4t
> > have time to finish the round. F
>
> That's it then! Rudy for President in 08!!!
I'd rather vote for Barack Obama.
But I will admit that a McCain/Giuliani ticket would be hard to beat.
|
| | |
Date: 17 Oct 2006 10:22:45
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: Vote for a golfer
|
In article <1161095534.104355.79070@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >,
"annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote:
> The_Professor wrote:
> > > Giuliani is a golfer. He played at my club not so long ago but didnīt
> > > have time to finish the round. F
> >
> > That's it then! Rudy for President in 08!!!
>
> I'd rather vote for Barack Obama.
> But I will admit that a McCain/Giuliani ticket would be hard to beat.
I'm not sure that ticket would be all that hard to beat. The feeling I
get is that people are ready for a change and not re-treading past
candidates that didn't make it.
Giuliani and Obama would be in line with that...
|
| | |
Date: 17 Oct 2006 21:33:06
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Vote for a golfer
|
annika1980 wrote:
> The_Professor wrote:
>>> Giuliani is a golfer. He played at my club not so long ago but didnīt
>>> have time to finish the round. F
>> That's it then! Rudy for President in 08!!!
>
> I'd rather vote for Barack Obama.
> But I will admit that a McCain/Giuliani ticket would be hard to beat.
You would have quite a few Republicans staying away from the polls if
McCain is leading the Republican ticket.
|
| |
Date: 17 Oct 2006 07:29:41
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Vote for a golfer
|
The_Professor wrote:
> Same for Bush II.
> Could call Iraq a mistake, but if they don't go in and the situation
> disintegrates into something really bad, everyone would have whined
> about him not taking action.
"Could" call it a mistake? I don't think that is in question.
And what "situation" in Iraq are you referring to? It seems to me that
Dumbya created the situation in Iraq that we have now. Americans dying
every day for nothing ... no end in sight .... meanwhile, defense
contractors such as Halliburton continue to profit.
So why are we there again?
|
| |
Date: 17 Oct 2006 07:12:42
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: Vote for a golfer
|
Fairway wrote:
> Dene wrote:
> > > Hmmmm....I wonder if our next president, John McCain, golfs?
> >
> Giuliani is a golfer. He played at my club not so long ago but didn=B4t
> have time to finish the round. F
That's it then! Rudy for President in 08!!!
|
| |
Date: 17 Oct 2006 05:55:02
From: Fairway
Subject: Re: Vote for a golfer
|
Dene wrote:
> > Hmmmm....I wonder if our next president, John McCain, golfs?
>
Giuliani is a golfer. He played at my club not so long ago but didn=B4t
have time to finish the round. F
|
| |
Date: 17 Oct 2006 05:01:02
From: Larry Bud
Subject: Re: Vote for a golfer
|
> Were the same exact people more evil when they wore grey instead of blue
> pinstripe?
>
> If they're not evil now... maybe they really weren't that evil before?
I haven't seen the Russians invade and conquer an Eastern bloc country
yet. To equate Russia to the Soviet Union, and to think each goals are
the same is flawed.
|
| | |
Date: 17 Oct 2006 18:25:57
From: Tom K
Subject: Re: Vote for a golfer
|
"Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1161086462.809518.249930@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>> Were the same exact people more evil when they wore grey instead of blue
>> pinstripe?
>>
>> If they're not evil now... maybe they really weren't that evil before?
>
> I haven't seen the Russians invade and conquer an Eastern bloc country
> yet. To equate Russia to the Soviet Union, and to think each goals are
> the same is flawed.
>
They're pretty much the same exact people who live there now as did when
Reagan was in office. What changed?
Maybe they just stopped invading countries so that we can do it instead.
--Tom
|
| |
Date: 17 Oct 2006 11:07:45
From: Joe User
Subject: Re: Vote for a golfer
|
On Tue, 17 2006 04:25:20 +0000, Robert Hamilton wrote:
> So far, it is we who write the history, but when it is not, it would be
> interesting to see what they say. Hopefully that will happen after my life
> has ended! I can't see it being looked on favorably. If it were the US that
> was nuked in the same situation, I don't think you would see it the same way.
You couldn't be more wrong. If it were the US that was trying to take
over the world, and the rest of the world (that we hadn't yet conquered)
banded against us and finally dropped a couple of nukes on us to stop us,
I think most of the survivors in the US wouldn't blame them. We would
blame our crazy military and civilian commanders for trying to take over
the world in the first damn place.
Pretty much like the typical Japanese attitude is, now.
|
| |
Date: 17 Oct 2006 14:22:22
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: Vote for a golfer
|
annika1980 wrote:
> The_Professor wrote:
> > Same for Bush II.
> > Could call Iraq a mistake, but if they don't go in and the situation
> > disintegrates into something really bad, everyone would have whined
> > about him not taking action.
>
> "Could" call it a mistake? I don't think that is in question.
> And what "situation" in Iraq are you referring to?
Short memory?
Pre invasion, the US was shackeld to upholding UN sanctions,
particualrly no fly zones. It was costing the US billions and a few
lives per year. Hussein was pretty much ignoring the sanctions, and
selling oil to nations like France at bargain prices to generate
revenue to keep himself and his sons living the high life. He did
everything he could to make the world think he had some serious weapons
of mass destruction, and IMHO, I think he honestly beleived he had
them...who was going to tell him he didn't?
What we didn't know was how totally degraded the infrastructure was in
Iraq. If that regeime fell with no one to fill the power vacuum, it
would have been a real disaster; Somalia X 1,000,000. You can play the
politics all you want, but it could have been a lot worse to have not
gone in there.
Of course France was ticked that it lost it's source of cheap oil...so
now they don't like the US, who coverd their butts aftert their absurd
debacle in Rwanda with their noble Hutu government! France should have
been hauled before the international courts for that.
|
| |
Date: 17 Oct 2006 12:34:43
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Vote for a golfer
|
Fairway wrote:
> annika1980 wrote:
> > Fairway wrote:
> > > Most important, though, is that the next president be a Republican an=
d not a commie.
>
> > And you don't even live in the USA, correct? So who gives a shit what
> > you think?
>
> It=B4s of great importance to the whole world who reigns in the White
> House. Ideally the whole world should have a vote. F
I wish. Bush would've never been elected and the world would be a
better place.
|
| | |
Date: 18 Oct 2006 09:54:36
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Vote for a golfer
|
"annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1161113683.578676.212860@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Fairway wrote:
> annika1980 wrote:
> > Fairway wrote:
> > > Most important, though, is that the next president be a Republican and
> > > not a commie.
>
> > And you don't even live in the USA, correct? So who gives a shit what
> > you think?
>
> Itīs of great importance to the whole world who reigns in the White
> House. Ideally the whole world should have a vote. F
I wish. Bush would've never been elected and the world would be a
better place.
The whole world should have a say who runs the US? You guys are loons.
|
| |
Date: 17 Oct 2006 11:01:08
From: dsc
Subject: Re: Vote for a golfer
|
> I read somewhere that Quayle was sabotaged. It was misspelled on his
> little cheat sheet, and he was dumb enough to trust it, even if it didn't
> look right.
What's a politician need with a cheat.... uh... nevermind. :)
|
| | |
Date: 17 Oct 2006 21:37:49
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Vote for a golfer
|
dsc wrote:
>
>> I read somewhere that Quayle was sabotaged. It was misspelled on his
>> little cheat sheet, and he was dumb enough to trust it, even if it didn't
>> look right.
>
> What's a politician need with a cheat.... uh... nevermind. :)
>
Ever hear of a tele-promoter?
|
| |
Date: 17 Oct 2006 17:53:02
From: Joe User
Subject: Re: Vote for a golfer
|
On Tue, 17 2006 10:50:40 -0500, Bobby Knight wrote:
> On 17 2006 08:42:41 -0700, "pete z" <pz0326@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>>annika1980 wrote:
>>> The_Professor wrote:
>>> > Same for Bush II.
>>> > Could call Iraq a mistake, but if they don't go in and the situation
>>> > disintegrates into something really bad, everyone would have whined
>>> > about him not taking action.
>>>
>>> "Could" call it a mistake? I don't think that is in question. And
>>> what "situation" in Iraq are you referring to? It seems to me that
>>> Dumbya created the situation in Iraq that we have now. Americans dying
>>> every day for nothing ... no end in sight .... meanwhile, defense
>>> contractors such as Halliburton continue to profit. So why are we
>>> there again?
>>
>>Funny, everyone loved JFK, who had numerous affairs, was the president
>>who got us involved in Viet Nam, a little more serious conflict than
>>Iraq, screwed up the Bay of Pigs.
>>Everyone forgets it was Johnson who got civil rights bills passed, and
>>inherited the war from
>>Kennedy. But Johnson hads no charisma. So what if Kennedy golfed?
>>Quayle would kick his butt on his best day. I don't think we wanted
>>Quayle as prez.
>
> But JFK could spell potato. :-)
> ___,
> \o
>
|
| | |
Date: 17 Oct 2006 13:08:30
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Vote for a golfer
|
On Tue, 17 2006 17:53:02 GMT, "Joe User" <juser@yourhome.com >
wrote:
>On Tue, 17 2006 10:50:40 -0500, Bobby Knight wrote:
>
>> On 17 2006 08:42:41 -0700, "pete z" <pz0326@aol.com> wrote:
>> So what if Kennedy golfed?
>>>Quayle would kick his butt on his best day. I don't think we wanted
>>>Quayle as prez.
>>
>> But JFK could spell potato. :-)
>> bk
>
>I read somewhere that Quayle was sabotaged. It was misspelled on his
>little cheat sheet, and he was dumb enough to trust it, even if it didn't
>look right.
Operative word here is????
|
| |
Date: 18 Oct 2006 09:18:22
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Vote for a golfer
|
Chris Bellomy wrote:
> :>
> :> You would have quite a few Republicans staying away from the polls if
> :> McCain is leading the Republican ticket.
> :
> : Why? Because he opposes torture?
>
> He does? Then why did he vote for the torture bill?
Bush and Rumsfeld held him down and showed him naked pics of Condi Rice
and Dennis Hastert.
|
| |
Date: 18 Oct 2006 05:30:17
From: dsc
Subject: Re: Vote for a golfer
|
Bert Robbins wrote:
> dsc wrote:
> >
> >> I read somewhere that Quayle was sabotaged. It was misspelled on his
> >> little cheat sheet, and he was dumb enough to trust it, even if it didn't
> >> look right.
> >
> > What's a politician need with a cheat.... uh... nevermind. :)
> >
>
> Ever hear of a tele-promoter?
Let me re-phrase... Why would a politicion need a sheet to tell them
how to cheat... they seem to already know that by heart.
|
| |
Date: 18 Oct 2006 05:29:23
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Vote for a golfer
|
Bert Robbins wrote:
> > I'd rather vote for Barack Obama.
> > But I will admit that a McCain/Giuliani ticket would be hard to beat.
>
> You would have quite a few Republicans staying away from the polls if
> McCain is leading the Republican ticket.
Why? Because he opposes torture?
I don't agree with McCain on a lot of things, but I do believe he is a
good man.
|
| | |
Date: 18 Oct 2006 16:02:17
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Vote for a golfer
|
annika1980 <annika1980@aol.com > wrote:
:
: Bert Robbins wrote:
: > > I'd rather vote for Barack Obama.
: > > But I will admit that a McCain/Giuliani ticket would be hard to beat.
: >
: > You would have quite a few Republicans staying away from the polls if
: > McCain is leading the Republican ticket.
:
: Why? Because he opposes torture?
He does? Then why did he vote for the torture bill?
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | |
Date: 18 Oct 2006 14:19:15
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Vote for a golfer
|
"Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message
news:0T3i883lI4qeN34@redshark.goodshow.net...
> annika1980 <annika1980@aol.com> wrote:
> :
> : Bert Robbins wrote:
> :> > I'd rather vote for Barack Obama.
> :> > But I will admit that a McCain/Giuliani ticket would be hard to beat.
> :>
> :> You would have quite a few Republicans staying away from the polls if
> :> McCain is leading the Republican ticket.
> :
> : Why? Because he opposes torture?
>
> He does? Then why did he vote for the torture bill?
>
Torture bill, LOL. Silly liberals.
|
| |
Date: 18 Oct 2006 17:54:07
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: Vote for a golfer
|
Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>
> Economy is in pretty good shape, but only the well-to-do are sharing in
> that. Workers, on average, are watching their pay decline in real
> spending power as well as real dollars. That is, if they have a job.
> Keep in mind that unemployment only tracks those actually still looking
> for that new, lower paying job.
I don't know what kind of glasses you see the world through, but I see
ordinary "working people" (whatever that's supposed to mean?!?) people
driving around in Tahoes. Seem to be a lot of well to do people around,
like the great majority. I guess auto workers making 10 bucks and hour
in Mississippi somehow are better off than those in Michgan making 25+
bucks an hour..they are probably having trouble keeping up their shares
in corporate jets! Imagine if auto workers in Michgan had to fly
domestic like auto workers in Mississippi...the humanity!!!! I don't
see any where, any time the average person lived as well as Americans
do today..right now!
>
> And the 'war on terror' is in shambles. Afghanistan almost re-taken by
> the Taliban and warlords, and outside of Kabul it IS re-taken. Illicit
> drug sales are up to nearly pre-war levels.
Again, you getting your news from the comedy channel? The Taliban
sticks their nose out at all and they get massacred. Afghans control
Afghanistan, as they always have. Tribal leaders have always been the
real power, except under the Taliban. If certain urbanites in a certain
country, most of whom vote for a certain party when they vote, didn't
buy the illicit drugs, the warlords in Afghanistan wouldn't produce
them. The Taliban sticks their nose out, and local leaders sic NATO
troops on them, who massacre them.
>
> And Iran is in the middle of a religious civil war in all but name.
Don't see a civil war in Iran. I see vicious fascists looking to take
over the middle east. One good thing about having a strong US presence
in Iraq is that if Iran produced some nukes, the US could position a
deterrent in Iraq. The EU wants to take the lead in negotiations with
Iran, BTW.
I get it; Move On is your source of news! Right?!
|
| | |
Date: 18 Oct 2006 20:04:37
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: Vote for a golfer
|
In article <1161219247.278580.164440@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com >,
"The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote:
> Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>
> >
> > Economy is in pretty good shape, but only the well-to-do are sharing in
> > that. Workers, on average, are watching their pay decline in real
> > spending power as well as real dollars. That is, if they have a job.
> > Keep in mind that unemployment only tracks those actually still looking
> > for that new, lower paying job.
>
> I don't know what kind of glasses you see the world through, but I see
> ordinary "working people" (whatever that's supposed to mean?!?) people
> driving around in Tahoes. Seem to be a lot of well to do people around,
> like the great majority. I guess auto workers making 10 bucks and hour
> in Mississippi somehow are better off than those in Michgan making 25+
> bucks an hour..they are probably having trouble keeping up their shares
> in corporate jets! Imagine if auto workers in Michgan had to fly
> domestic like auto workers in Mississippi...the humanity!!!! I don't
> see any where, any time the average person lived as well as Americans
> do today..right now!
>
All things are relative, our poor would be someone else's rich. But
that doesn't change the decline in real wages for the working men and
women.
> >
> > And the 'war on terror' is in shambles. Afghanistan almost re-taken by
> > the Taliban and warlords, and outside of Kabul it IS re-taken. Illicit
> > drug sales are up to nearly pre-war levels.
>
> Again, you getting your news from the comedy channel? The Taliban
> sticks their nose out at all and they get massacred. Afghans control
> Afghanistan, as they always have. Tribal leaders have always been the
> real power, except under the Taliban. If certain urbanites in a certain
> country, most of whom vote for a certain party when they vote, didn't
> buy the illicit drugs, the warlords in Afghanistan wouldn't produce
> them. The Taliban sticks their nose out, and local leaders sic NATO
> troops on them, who massacre them.
>
You must listen to Rush and watch Fox all the time. We are not in
control of anywhere in Afghanistan except for Kabul and haven't been for
some time. Things outside Kabul are disintigrating on a daily basis.
> >
> > And Iran is in the middle of a religious civil war in all but name.
>
> Don't see a civil war in Iran. I see vicious fascists looking to take
> over the middle east. One good thing about having a strong US presence
> in Iraq is that if Iran produced some nukes, the US could position a
> deterrent in Iraq. The EU wants to take the lead in negotiations with
> Iran, BTW.
>
> I get it; Move On is your source of news! Right?!
Never been to that website. But I read my local paper, NYT, LaTimes,
CNN, Fox and BBC to name a few. Occasionally I will hear a bit from the
right wing yakkers, but not often and not for very long.
But your outlook for Iraq and Iran is pure fantasy.
|
| | | |
Date: 19 Oct 2006 04:49:00
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: Vote for a golfer
|
Lloyd Parsons wrote:Never been to that website. But I read my local paper,
NYT, LaTimes,
> CNN, Fox and BBC to name a few. Occasionally I will hear a bit from the
> right wing yakkers, but not often and not for very long.
>
> But your outlook for Iraq and Iran is pure fantasy.
Every one of those sources are grinders of a political axe or another, although
CNN is getting more like People Magazine on TV, virtually devoid of news. Like
I care about the life of some bimbo or beefcake actor. BBC is high comedy. They
literally invent the news. I am personally sick of idiot politics. If you do
not know for a fact that ordinary people in the US live better than ordinary
people in anywhere else in the world, at any time, you are a total fool. My
neighbor works at WalMart. They have 2 late model cars and own their own home.
As for politics, I know for a fact that if the republicans lose control of
either the house or the senate, I will pay about $2,000 dollars more in taxes
for sure because there is no way a democrat authority will renew the tax breaks
that need to be renewed each year. That means something to me. How much I pay
in taxes is relevant to me, and the hard fact is people like me, not anywhere
near the high end of the wage scale unless you count every person who mowed a
lawn for 10 bucks once in a given year, will pay more in taxes is democrats
gain control of either the house or the senate. Maybe that 2K doesn't mean
anything to John Kerry, but it means a lot to me. That's not a matter of what
someone thinks, but a matter of fact. If it weren't for that, I could care less
who wins the election. I really don't see any difference between the way
Clinton ran things and the way Bush runs things other than the tax issue. You
can feel free to think what you want, of course!
|
| | | | |
Date: 18 Oct 2006 23:57:35
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: Vote for a golfer
|
In article <453701E4.D13F8579@att.net >, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net>
wrote:
> Lloyd Parsons wrote:Never been to that website. But I read my local paper,
> NYT, LaTimes,
>
> > CNN, Fox and BBC to name a few. Occasionally I will hear a bit from the
> > right wing yakkers, but not often and not for very long.
> >
> > But your outlook for Iraq and Iran is pure fantasy.
>
> Every one of those sources are grinders of a political axe or another,
> although
> CNN is getting more like People Magazine on TV, virtually devoid of news.
> Like
> I care about the life of some bimbo or beefcake actor. BBC is high comedy.
> They
> literally invent the news. I am personally sick of idiot politics. If you do
> not know for a fact that ordinary people in the US live better than ordinary
> people in anywhere else in the world, at any time, you are a total fool. My
> neighbor works at WalMart. They have 2 late model cars and own their own
> home.
>
When you start to learn to read again, note where I said that ordinary
people here aren't better off than elsewhere. Since I didn't say that
at all, I won't hold my breath.
As for the specific places I gave as to where I get my news, you failed
to notice the 'among others' part of that. Fact is I read a lot and I
like reading politics and news more than most things. So here are a few
more I read. Drudge, Conservative Voice and a few other right of center
spots. I also read some left of center places too, hoping to be able to
seperate the wheat from the chaff.
> As for politics, I know for a fact that if the republicans lose control of
> either the house or the senate, I will pay about $2,000 dollars more in taxes
> for sure because there is no way a democrat authority will renew the tax
> breaks
> that need to be renewed each year. That means something to me. How much I pay
> in taxes is relevant to me, and the hard fact is people like me, not anywhere
> near the high end of the wage scale unless you count every person who mowed a
> lawn for 10 bucks once in a given year, will pay more in taxes is democrats
> gain control of either the house or the senate. Maybe that 2K doesn't mean
> anything to John Kerry, but it means a lot to me. That's not a matter of what
> someone thinks, but a matter of fact. If it weren't for that, I could care
> less
> who wins the election. I really don't see any difference between the way
> Clinton ran things and the way Bush runs things other than the tax issue. You
> can feel free to think what you want, of course!
While I would like to keep tax cuts also, reality says that regardless
of who is in office, the bills that this bunch have racked up with
borrowing have to be payed at some point. I don't like it, but that is
the way it is.
And it doesn't matter which party is in control when those bills come
due, they will cause a tax increase. I know, all the reaganomics (or
voodoo economics as Bush 1 used to call them) types will swear that
trickle down will pay it all off. Fact is, it never has before and
won't this time either.
|
| |
Date: 18 Oct 2006 15:31:19
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: Vote for a golfer
|
Carbon wrote:
> On Mon, 16 2006 14:35:57 -0700, The_Professor wrote:
>
> > Looking at the past few people elected as US Presidents, one things
> > sticks out like a sore thumb. The country does OK when a golfer is
> > president, and not so well when the president doesn't golf.
>
> [ snip ]
>
> > Same for Bush II. Could call Iraq a mistake, but if they don't go in and
> > the situation disintegrates into something really bad, everyone would
> > have whined about him not taking action. But that's the purpose of
> > opposition. In any event, the US has faced some serious challenges the
> > last 6 years and done OK.
>
> Is this a joke?
What joke? All the political bull aside, the US economy is booming, and
despite that interest rates are still low. Unemployment is low. The was
in Iraq has seen the near eradication of foreign "insurgents".
Sectarian violence continues, but they are less and less able to hit
polical and military. being the cowards they are, these sorts are no
killing women and children, kidnapping workers and the like, and bad as
that is, it indicates the security forces are inflicting losses when
they are attacked, and the thugs are avoinding them. US losses have
been rather low in this war; it is still safer for an American male to
be serving in Iraq that living in the inner city of a large US city. US
casualties in Iraq in total will probably be less than 1 year of
casualties in Vietnam after the escalation of the early 1960's.
Of course the media likes to scream at the government, and people want
the government to "do something that costs me nothing", but thats all
political bull. Fact is, despite some serious challenges, the US is
doing better than any other nation on earth right now. It could have
been a lot worse. Terrorists could really be having a field day, but
instead they have beem slammed hard to the ground...for example.
|
| | |
Date: 18 Oct 2006 18:34:00
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: Vote for a golfer
|
In article <1161210679.880881.291290@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com >,
"The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote:
> Carbon wrote:
> > On Mon, 16 2006 14:35:57 -0700, The_Professor wrote:
> >
> > > Looking at the past few people elected as US Presidents, one things
> > > sticks out like a sore thumb. The country does OK when a golfer is
> > > president, and not so well when the president doesn't golf.
> >
> > [ snip ]
> >
> > > Same for Bush II. Could call Iraq a mistake, but if they don't go in and
> > > the situation disintegrates into something really bad, everyone would
> > > have whined about him not taking action. But that's the purpose of
> > > opposition. In any event, the US has faced some serious challenges the
> > > last 6 years and done OK.
> >
> > Is this a joke?
>
> What joke? All the political bull aside, the US economy is booming, and
> despite that interest rates are still low. Unemployment is low. The was
> in Iraq has seen the near eradication of foreign "insurgents".
> Sectarian violence continues, but they are less and less able to hit
> polical and military. being the cowards they are, these sorts are no
> killing women and children, kidnapping workers and the like, and bad as
> that is, it indicates the security forces are inflicting losses when
> they are attacked, and the thugs are avoinding them. US losses have
> been rather low in this war; it is still safer for an American male to
> be serving in Iraq that living in the inner city of a large US city. US
> casualties in Iraq in total will probably be less than 1 year of
> casualties in Vietnam after the escalation of the early 1960's.
>
> Of course the media likes to scream at the government, and people want
> the government to "do something that costs me nothing", but thats all
> political bull. Fact is, despite some serious challenges, the US is
> doing better than any other nation on earth right now. It could have
> been a lot worse. Terrorists could really be having a field day, but
> instead they have beem slammed hard to the ground...for example.
Cheney & Bush called, they want their speech back!
Economy is in pretty good shape, but only the well-to-do are sharing in
that. Workers, on average, are watching their pay decline in real
spending power as well as real dollars. That is, if they have a job.
Keep in mind that unemployment only tracks those actually still looking
for that new, lower paying job.
And the 'war on terror' is in shambles. Afghanistan almost re-taken by
the Taliban and warlords, and outside of Kabul it IS re-taken. Illicit
drug sales are up to nearly pre-war levels.
And Iran is in the middle of a religious civil war in all but name.
yeah, you're right, things are much better...
|
| |
Date: 19 Oct 2006 05:57:12
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: Vote for a golfer
|
Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>
> And it doesn't matter which party is in control when those bills come
> due, they will cause a tax increase. I know, all the reaganomics (or
> voodoo economics as Bush 1 used to call them) types will swear that
> trickle down will pay it all off. Fact is, it never has before and
> won't this time either.
I don't know if I could argue with you there, but I would rather
"invest" my money myself rather than have the government "inveest" it
for me!
There is no political blog that I would waste the time booting up. That
stuff is all rubbish (to me) who's only purpose is to inflame people. I
have enough real things to get upset about!
|
| | |
Date: 19 Oct 2006 09:17:37
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: Vote for a golfer
|
In article <1161262632.588747.199290@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >,
"The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote:
> Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> >
> > And it doesn't matter which party is in control when those bills come
> > due, they will cause a tax increase. I know, all the reaganomics (or
> > voodoo economics as Bush 1 used to call them) types will swear that
> > trickle down will pay it all off. Fact is, it never has before and
> > won't this time either.
>
> I don't know if I could argue with you there, but I would rather
> "invest" my money myself rather than have the government "inveest" it
> for me!
>
> There is no political blog that I would waste the time booting up. That
> stuff is all rubbish (to me) who's only purpose is to inflame people. I
> have enough real things to get upset about!
I'd rather invest mine myself, but I guess we don't always get what we
want. And while I'm certainly unhappy with the current make up of
Congress and the Presidency, I have been upset in the past when it was
Democrat controlled.
I keep thinking that maybe it is well past time that some 3rd party come
up to really challenge the corporate owned gov't we have these days. As
long as our politicos are deep into the pockets of the corporates, we
will keep getting less than we voted for.
|
|
