Conference back40::soapbox

    Hey Phil, you didn't overdose on Prosac, didya?  :-))

    Just another boring day, staring out that window at all those
    waterfowl...

    Hummmm.... Perhaps he is taken back by the rise in interest rates due
    to good money being given to Mexico... Just like it was done in the
    late 70's. Then no one could buy a house.... But I didn't vote for this
    bone head!!
    

RE Make this a better world for our children, elect the GOP.

  The last time we elected both a Republican president and a Republican
Congress was 1952. We spent 2 years wallowing in McCarthyism.

  The time before that was the roaring twenties. It ended in 1932 a year
away from the pit of the great depression.

  The time before that was the turn of the century. The rich got so rich and
the poor and middle class got so poor they invented labor unions.

  Yeah, can't wait. Let's do it again. One thing about the GOP, they sure
aren't dull.

  George

    
    Ah yes.... the old "McCarthyism" bugaboo again...
    
    Had some looney citing McCarthyism  as the mind set of the people who
    opposed the Enola Gay thing...

    
    
    
    Just maybe a Repub pres will work with the congress to shrink the
    federal govt and give the power back to the states where it belongs on
    many issues.
    

RE <<< Note 275.5 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Be vewy, vewy caweful awound Zebwas!" >>>

>    Ah yes.... the old "McCarthyism" bugaboo again...
>    
>    Had some looney citing McCarthyism  as the mind set of the people who
>    opposed the Enola Gay thing...

  Hey, all I'm saying is that the last 3 times the GOP had control of both
the Congress and the White House it lead to disaster.

  That being the case I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that doing it
again is the only hope for our children.

  George

    
    RE: disaster...
    
    In your most humble opinion of course....
    

RE           <<< Note 275.6 by GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER "Space for rent" >>>
    
>    Just maybe a Repub pres will work with the congress to shrink the
>    federal govt and give the power back to the states where it belongs on
>    many issues.
    
  Maybe. In fact I believe that is what they did during the 20's. I'm trying
to think of the name, it was called something like "le saie fair?". Some
foreign phrase. Anyway the idea was that government would keep it's hands
off the economy and no doubt state matters.

  It resulted in the great depression but you have to admit there were fewer
regulations.

  George

    
    Keep spewing your revisionist history George.  It really makes my
    day.  Thank god Reagan came along after Carter and Ford, who both
    make excellent ex-presidents but were hopeless in office.
    
    Keep pretending the wonderful Reagan years weren't the tremendous
    success they were.  Denial in democrats is one of the conservative
    movement's geatest current assets.
    
    Alas, a good presidential candidate like Reagan has not yet appeared.
    It's starting to look like Gramm.  He would be better than Clinton
    for sure, but he would not be my first choice.
    
      bb

Re                      <<< Note 275.10 by GAAS::BRAUCHER >>>

>    Keep spewing your revisionist history George.  

  Oops, where's that P&K note?

>It really makes my
>    day.  Thank god Reagan came along after Carter and Ford, who both
>    make excellent ex-presidents but were hopeless in office.

  Yes, in the words of that great American Ronald Reagan: " Ah ... Yah ... Ah
... Nancy was just ... Ah ... Yah ... [nod, nod] ...".
    
>    Keep pretending the wonderful Reagan years weren't the tremendous
>    success they were.  Denial in democrats is one of the conservative
>    movement's greatest current assets.

  Can't beat those double digit deficits. The prison population doubled, we
built a giant department of defense by 1988 that was all dressed up with no one
to fight, the "me" decade was replaced by the "my" decade, greed reached an
all time high... What a time!!! what a guy!!!
    
  George

    George:
    
    Don't be a sap.  The Clinton administration is all evil Reaganites. 
    All millionaires!  
    
    -Jack

	In light of George's listing of cause and effect, we would
	be remiss in not remarking on the fact that when the Democrats
	are in control of Congress we go to war.

	How many dead should be laid at the feet of those evil
	war-mongering Democrats?

Jim

  Well not really. That was the claim back when we were kids and the wars in
question were WWI, WWII, and Korea. 

  But then we got involved in Vietnam when Ike was president and the Persian
Gulf happened while George Bush was President. If you count McKinley who was
President during the Spanish American war that evens things up.

  Also, in the case of WWII we didn't exactly have a choice.

  George

    meowski forgot grenada (ronbo) and panama (bushbaby).  two more repubs.
    
    and you can also count lincoln, who was prez during the civil war. 
    weights things a little on the other side, nyet?

                     <<< Note 275.15 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  But then we got involved in Vietnam when Ike was president and the Persian
>Gulf happened while George Bush was President. If you count McKinley who was
>President during the Spanish American war that evens things up.

	Go back an re-read my entry George. Note the word CONGRESS.
	Then get back to us.

Jim

    
    Oh, I see.  Ike got us into Viet Nam.  As if sending a few advisors,
    or a few more by JFK, was the cause of the debacle.  No doubt this
    is what all these unionized democrat teachers are saying nowadays.
    Just like how the big bad racist Truman sent the Enola Gay to blow
    up a people who otherwise would have just spent their days on origami.
    
    Unfortunately for you, we were alive when LBJ (and his White House
    advisors) unilaterally caused the biggest US foreign policy disaster
    in our history, and persisted through this mistake in a way that
    neither Ike or JFK (or Nixon) would have done.  This was after he got
    re-elected by showing the ad of the little girl and the mushroom cloud,
    to scare people off of Barry with the biggest smear job in modern
    times.
    
    When he discovered he was unelectable, he didn't run in 68, and it took
    Nixon nearly 4 years to get out of the mess he had made.
    
      bb

  You are the 1st person I've heard that has swallowed that "adviser" nonsense
in almost 30 years. 

  It was during the 50's that the Vietmin in North Vietnam beat the French and
the U.S. sent troops into the south to fight the Vietcong and northern troops.
They were called "advisers" to keep the U.S. public from getting nervous but
when soldiers came back and retired they generally laughed at the expression. 

  When I was at UMASS I met guys going to school under the GI bill who had been
there during that time who said that they were anything but advisers and that
they were involved in a shooting war. 

  Johnson escalated the conflict but it was already going hot and heavy when
he took office.

  George

    
    So George....
    
    What was the number of "advisors" at the time JFK took office....?
     "    "   "   "      "     "      "   "   "   LBJ   "   "

  As far as I know there were hardly any advisors. Granted this was 30 years
ago but from what I read at the time there were regular troops who were both
fighting and teaching the South Vietnam army to fight.

  It started under Ike, build up during JFK, LBJ, and Nixon then finally ended
in 1972 with the evacuation of the U.S. Embassy.

  George

    
    By the end of 1963, total US govt personnel in Viet Nam had reached
    15,000 and aid got to nearly $500M.  The Tonkin Gulf resolution was
     8/7/64.  Johnson ordered the bombing in 2/65, and by the end of 1965,
    US forces numbered 184,300.  1966, 385,300 in country plus 60K offshore
    and 33K in Thailand.  1967, 475,000 incountry and the antiwar movement
    took off.  Peak was under Johnson in early 68 at a half million, but
    after he withdrew his name for re-election he started a small
    withdrawal.  Nixon reduced their number every year to none by the
    1973 ceasefire.  The annexation took place after Nixon resigned.
    
      It was Johnson's war, nobody elses.  For everybody else involved,
    it was an annoyance or a minor sideshow.
    
      bb

I believe most US "advisors" in S.E. Asia during the Eisenhower
administration were actually in Laos and Cambodia rather than in
Vietnam. If you'll recall, the entire area was rather unstable
after the French "left".

    
    RE: .21
    
    Okay George... whatever you want to call them....
    
    .22 has it pretty much on target, but you seem to want to give Ike the
    "credit", and I'm calling you on it...
    
     What was the number of troops when JFK took over and started to call
    the shots??

    .7
    
    And like the last 40+ years old Democratic rule haven't lowered the
    average per capita standard of living adjusted for inflation?????

RE <<< Note 275.24 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Be vewy, vewy caweful awound Zebwas!" >>>

>    .22 has it pretty much on target, but you seem to want to give Ike the
>    "credit", and I'm calling you on it...
>    
>     What was the number of troops when JFK took over and started to call
>    the shots??

  If you could read you'd see the numbers in .22

  Why should I print them over again.

  In any case, what difference does it make? In 1960 JFK beat Richard Nixon
partly because he did a better job during the debate of saying he'd save the
world from Communism.

  Ike started the intervention and it increased as described in the previous
note. Nixon did his share of escalation by bombing the north just as JFK and
LBJ had increased troops.

  When Congress voted on the Tonkin Gulf resolution there was just a small
handfull of votes against it consisting of George McGovern and a couple others.

  This was a bipartisan effort to get into the war and it was public outrage
that forced Washington to pull out.

  It is ludicrous to take the position that the Democrats did this over the
resistance of Republicans. Talk about revisionist history.

  George

    .22
    
    > It was Johnson's war, nobody elses.
    
    crap.  johnson poured men and armament in with the hope of finishing
    something a repub got us into.  calling it johnson's war is not an
    accurate representation.  but then one doesn't expect objective
    accuracy from the right wing, does one?

 
    
     >  Keep pretending the wonderful Reagan years weren't the tremendous
     >  success they were.  Denial in democrats is one of the conservative
     >  movement's geatest current assets.
    
    What a joke! The main direct result of the Reagan years was crippling
    deficits that will haunt us for decades. (Some of us are old enough to
    remember when Republicans worried about deficits)
    
    The main indirect result is the continued economic decline of the
    majority, as the rich absorb the highest percentage of income and
    wealth in our history, the poor grow in percentage, and the middle
    class continues its twenty-year losing battle with keeping even.
    
    Can't blame Reagan directly, but his policies contributed to it, he
    ignored it, and he led the "conservative" sleight of hand in blaming
    all kinds of irrelevant groups for that decline. 
    
    At least Clinton can articulate this economic decline, but he hasn't
    the guts or the ability to do anything other than what twenty years of
    Republican presidents and Republican-clone presidents have done.
    
    Kit

    Re: 28
    
    	Did a Democratic Congress have any part in those crippling deficits
    of the Reagan years?

RE                      <<< Note 275.29 by CSOA1::BROWNE >>>
    
>    	Did a Democratic Congress have any part in those crippling deficits
>    of the Reagan years?

  Yes, the Democratic Congress was stupid enough to go along with Reaganomics.
The line they kept getting every time they tried to resist was "We were elected
by a mandate, you have to give Reaganomics a chance" and they did.

  It was a terrible idea. They should have passed his balanced budget amendment
right then and there and rejected his entire budget proposal telling him to
go back and come up with one that was balanced. 

  Reagan (or who ever was pulling Reagan's strings) knew the Democrats would
not do that because they were, and to some extent are, politically soft so they
got just about everything they wanted.

  Going along with Reagan was the stupidest thing the Democrats ever did.

  George

    Sickening. Just plain sickening. Democrats will create any lie
    they want to make it appear that in fact for a vast majority
    of Americans, life was never better than in the 1980s during
    Raegan's term in office. You will never hear one admit that
    Raegan had very little to do with the deficit, other than
    the fact that he did not tax the hell out of everyone to
    head off the entitlement disaster the Democrats themselves
    put into motion.
    
    This lie will not stand. You can keep telling it, but it simply
    will not stand. You can heap whatever abuse you want to upon
    me, it doesn't change the fact that it's a lie.
    
    -b

RE       <<< Note 275.31 by MPGS::MARKEY "Llamas are larger than frogs" >>>

>    Sickening. Just plain sickening. Democrats will create any lie
>    they want to make it appear that in fact for a vast majority
>    of Americans, life was never better than in the 1980s during
>    Raegan's term in office. 

  Say that you had a neighbor who was just scraping by. Then say that one day
you looked over and noticed that he was putting an extension on his house,
he had two new cars, a new boat in the back yard, new cloths and he was going
out to dinner every night.

  Then say you went over and asked him what was up.

  What if he responded "Heck, I've got it figured out. I went out and got a ton
of credit cards. I'm using them to pay my daily expense, go out to dinner, and
buy cloths. Then I'm taking my earnings and using them to make down payments on
things like cars, boats, and home improvement loans. This is great, look at
all the new stuff I have."

  Now would you say that your neighbor was better off than he had been two
years ago? Why not? Bigger house, cars, boats, going out to dinner? What's
wrong with this picture?

  Well the problem is that if you borrow money with no clue as to how you will
ever pay it back, you will appear to be better off but only until you hit your
credit limit. And that is exactly what Ronald Reagan got the Democrats to go
along with in the mid 80's. 

  Yes, in 1984 we were better off than were were 4 years ago. That is, as long
as you don't mind a trillion dollars worth of new debt and no hope of ever
paying it off in our life time.

  George

    re:                      <<< Note 275.32 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>
    
    Great analogy!  For people who had no fear whatsoever of either public
    or private debt, the eighties were heaven!
    
    Businessman of the eighties:  I have a problem.  I really want to
    expand beyond my means, but I'm afraid of the possible long-term
    ramifications to my business and society [yeah, right].
    
    Reagan:  The solution is simple - DON'T BE AFRAID.
    
    Businessman:  Oh!  Cool!
    
    Thank you Mr. Reagan for the S&Ls.  You were at your best on those!
    

    Well, yes, if that's what actually happened I would be jumping
    up and down in agreement with you. But your foil Ronald didn't
    make people live longer; people who had the expectation that
    the government was now going to give them money, now did he?
    Who gave people that expectation in the first place? Hmmm?
    The only way to avoid that particular problem would have been
    a huge tax increase. But the burden of taxation was already
    overwhelming and a tax increase would have totally tubed an
    already anemic economy that Raegan inherited from Carter.
    
    Stuck between a rock and a hard place, Raegan decided that
    kickstarting the American economy was the better option.
    Further, Raegan, being much smarter than you will ever give
    him credit for, also realized that spending money on technology
    in the defense sector was perhaps the greatest possible
    economic incentive because it takes tax dollars and directly
    puts them back into the economy in the form of high-paying
    industrial (not service) sector jobs. All the while, Raegan
    wanted to cut (gut is more like it) social welfare programs.
    Amen Ron. My only fault with him is that he did not stand
    up to to AARP and tell them to stuff social security and
    medicaire. Someday, some politician will have the guts to
    do that.
    
    -b

    
    RE: .26
    
    George,
    
     You're attempt at deflection is really pathetic
    
    
    >If you could read you'd see the numbers in .22
    
    
      It stated "... at the end of 1963..."
    
     There is a looooooooooooooong time between when JFK took over from
    Ike, and the end of 1963...
    
      You're so versed in the Viet Nam conflict....
    
    
     Answer the question!!!!!!!
    
      What was the number of troops/advisors/whatever at the time (let me
    make this as plain as possible)... ie 1960... that JFK took over from
    Ike...???
    
      Simple... no??

                  <<< Note 275.33 by HANNAH::BAY "Jim Bay" >>>
                      -< Life ain't nothin but a B movie >-
    
   > Thank you Mr. Reagan for the S&Ls.  You were at your best on those!
    
    Psst, Jimmy Carter ring a bell?

    daryll

    re: .32
    
    I can agree with this analogy to a point, but it seems overly
    simplistic.  All the growth was not borrowed.  I also find it hard to
    believe that the Democratic Congress, long known to be big on entitlement
    spending, were innocent bystanders in the debt accumulation.  
    
    I'm not saying that Reagan has no blame in this, that would be silly. 
    However, it is eqully silly that you seem to aim your blame solely at
    the President and seem to consider the Democratic Congress as a victim
    of Reagan. 
    
    
    -steve 

RE <<< Note 275.35 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Be vewy, vewy caweful awound Zebwas!" >>>

>     You're attempt at deflection is really pathetic
    
  And you aught to know, master of pathetic.

>      What was the number of troops/advisors/whatever at the time (let me
>    make this as plain as possible)... ie 1960... that JFK took over from
>    Ike...???
    
  I'm not making any claims as to numbers so I don't see where this is
relevant. Ike was the one that committed the U.S. to Vietnam. The fact that the
north didn't have their act together and didn't put up a fight in the south
that required more troops has nothing to do with Democrats in the U.S. 

  From Ike through Nixon, U.S. Presidents did what they thought they had to do
to win the Vietnam war but it was hopeless because right from the start it was
a civil war, not a take over by the Communist world as everyone in the west
believed. 

  Ironic thing is that had we won the Vietnam war no doubt they along with
South Korea and Indonesia would be flooding markets with cheap goods and people
would be complaining more about the trade imbalance than they are now. 

  George 

    RE: democratic Congressional responsibility for the deficits --
    yep, they didn't have the guts to stand up to Reagan's
    something-for-nothing gimmick (aka supply-side-economics).  
    
    Incidentally, those who push the argument have a very limited
    understanding of how the government works. Congress was nominally
    Democratic, but for most of the 40 yrs of nominal control a coaliton of
    Republicans and conservative Democrats could usually get what they
    wanted if they could attract a handful of moderate Dems, or at least
    stop what they didn't want.  
    
    And thus it was in 1981, when liberal democrats screamed bloody murder
    at the simultaneous massive tax cuts and massive defense increases.
    They said it would lead to massive deficits and they were right. But
    the Repub/conservative-Dem coalition easily got enough moderate Dems to
    go along -- the rest is history, and debt.
    
    Re: how well folks did in the 80s.  Absolute rubbish. The Reagan years
    had moderate economic growth, in line with historic post-war trends.
    What growth there was went heavily to the upper income levels. The
    stagnation and fall of real wages for the working class and most of the
    middle class continued, masked by the growth of two-income families,
    two job careers.  White males without a college degree lost the most.
    
    These trends continue, as workers are simply not getting any of the
    benefits of their increased productivity.  You can go on blaming the
    poor, or overtaxation til you're blue in the face -- it is simply of
    minor importance in the face of these inexorable economic trends. Get
    used to it.
    
    Reagan?  Ha!
    
    Kit 

    
    RE: .38
    
    >And you aught to know, master of pathetic.
    
      "ought".... NNTTM
    
    and you continue to be pathetic in your never ending search to lay
    blame on the Republicans, and to revise history to suit your witch
    hunt...
    
      Here's some free clues and a short history lesson...
    
    JFK took office, when? 1960?
    
     The U.S. started its military assistance program in Sout Viet Nam at
    the beginning of 1962 (Feb. I believe). Up to that point, there was a
    grand total of.... ready?..... 700 American "advisers" in SVN.. that's
    "seven hundred"...
    
      By the middle of that year (1962) the total rose from 700 to 12,000..
    that's twelve thousand...
    
      Ike.. "committed" a whole whopping 700 advisers to do just that....
    advise... They were not to engage in combat (although some of them
    did).
    
      Who do you think started the "committed" ball rolling then oh Polish
    Democrat???

RE <<< Note 275.40 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Be vewy, vewy caweful awound Zebwas!" >>>

>    and you continue to be pathetic in your never ending search to lay
>    blame on the Republicans, and to revise history to suit your witch
>    hunt...

  Republicans, they can dish it out but can't take it. I'm surprised that
you are not accusing me of a patent infringement on revising history and
complaining about the other party.
    
>      Ike.. "committed" a whole whopping 700 advisers to do just that....
>    advise... They were not to engage in combat (although some of them
>    did).

  I don't buy your 700 number. If that's true then I met all 700 guys.
    
  That destroyer that was fired on in the gulf would have had that many sailors
itself. One carrier off the coast would have put the number in the thousands.

  George

    RE: .41
    
    I can give two squats about republicans and/or democrats!!!
    
    I just don't like you shooting off your mouth when you don't know what
    you're talking about...
    
    You lay the blame at Ike's feet because of your "phobia" re: repubs...
    
    I countered your revisionist history with factual history.... Simply
    because you "don't buy it" doesn't change the facts... Go read and/or
    look up a chronology of the "conflict" at your local library...
    
      Keep spouting those "facts" about the ships during Ike's tenure....
    all it does is reaffirm the stereo-type of "Dumb Polack"...

RE <<< Note 275.42 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Be vewy, vewy caweful awound Zebwas!" >>>

>    I just don't like you shooting off your mouth when you don't know what
>    you're talking about...

  More hypocrisy, you do that all the time.
    
>    You lay the blame at Ike's feet because of your "phobia" re: repubs...

  Is it really a phobia? Can you back that up with medical evidence? Now
who's shooting from the hip.
    
>      Keep spouting those "facts" about the ships during Ike's tenure....
>    all it does is reaffirm the stereo-type of "Dumb Polack"...

  Right, if you just toss numbers out and I don't swallow them like a seal
going after a fish then I'm a "Dumb Polack"

  Ok, since as we all know "Dumb" is a slang reference to not being able to
hear, show me one thing that I've said that suggests I have a hearing problem.

  George

I believe "Dumb" is a slang reference to not being able to _speak_,
hence the expression "Deaf and dumb".

    
    
    	I also believe this debate has degraded WAY beyond what I've seen
    in a while....:*)
    
    

    RE: .43
    
    > More hypocrisy, you do that all the time.
    
    Make believe I'm from Missouri...
    
    
    >re: phobia
    
     Listen Meowski..... whay do you think I put it in qoutes??? It was a
    sarcasm directed at your looking for all sorts of boogie-men repubs
    under every bed and in your anxiety closet...
    
      As for the rest.... You can keep blowing smoke with your inane
    responses, but until you control your ego and think you know best, AND
    do as I suggested with any... ANY reliable work written about the
    subject, you'll still look like the hypocrite you keep telling that I
    am...

    
    RE: Dumb Polack stereo-type...
    
     I'm sure it referred to many immigrants who came here, but specifically
    to those who did not understand english when they arrived. Because the
    INS workers couldn't understand them in their own language, they
    labeled them "dumb"... 
    
      Saw it first hand when the INS jerk laughed at my father at the
    processing center in New York...
    

   IN COMING!!!!!!!!!

   RIGHT WING WACKO ALERT!!!!!

   RIGHT WING WACKO ALERT!!!!!

   RUN FOR YOUR LIIIIIIIIIIIIIIVES!!!!




  They do not like it one bit when someone challenges their ideas.

  George

    
    
    another intellectual response.....
    
    

                     <<< Note 275.48 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

George,	
	Do you dispute the fact that the Democrats controlled Congress
	at the start of every war the US has been involved in during
	this Century?

Jim

    
    RE: .48
    
    I rest my case....
    
    
    I've extracted that response Meowski, so that when you accuse others of
    entering content-free replies, I can always refer them to you...
    
     Thanks much...
    

I can tell my grandchidren I witnessed the Polish civil war of 1995! 

...and I thought life was passing me by

    
    <-------
    
    Just make sure you get it right....
    
    I'm using the tanks.... he's using the cavalry...
    

RE <<< Note 275.51 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Be vewy, vewy caweful awound Zebwas!" >>>

>    I've extracted that response Meowski, so that when you accuse others of
>    entering content-free replies, I can always refer them to you...
    
  Be my guest and every time you do that I'll remind everyone that it was
a response to a content free note.

  George

RE    <<< Note 275.50 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>George,	
>	Do you dispute the fact that the Democrats controlled Congress
>	at the start of every war the US has been involved in during
>	this Century?

  Yes, I believe the Republicans were in control of Congress during the Spanish
American war which was right at the turn of the century. 

  But so what? Do you disagree with any decision by Congress to declare war
this century? 

  I suppose it could be argued that World War I was really a European war
rather than a World war but we have tended to favor Great Britain. Was that
wrong? Perhaps but it did seem to end the stale mate in the trenches. 

  In the case of World War II would you have asked your Congressman to vote
against the declaration after the "day which will live in infamy?". I believe a
nation is justified in defending itself if it is attacked and I think we were
definitely on the right side in Europe. Fighting against the Kaiser may have
been taking sides in a local dispute but I have no problem with fighting
against Hitler. 

  If we had not gotten involved in Korea the government of the north would now
be controlling the South. That seems to have worked out ok. Also I support the
U.N. and if we had not joined the other U.N. nations it's not clear that we
would have held on to our leadership position in that organization. 

  As for the Persian Gulf, that worked out as well. 

  Just which one of those votes would you have wanted to see go the other way? 

  George 

    Face it George, the only reason you pin pubs as bad guys and dims as
    good guys is cuz you want your abortions...well ittaint gunna happen!

RE    <<< Note 275.56 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>

>    Face it George, the only reason you pin pubs as bad guys and dims as
>    good guys is cuz you want your abortions...well ittaint gunna happen!

  That's funny, almost the entire Supreme Court consists of people appointed
by Republicans but they can't get Roe v. Wade overturned.

  If there is one thing I'm NOT worried about it's abortion. There seems to be
a solid pro-choice block in the Republican party.

  George

                     <<< Note 275.55 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  Yes, I believe the Republicans were in control of Congress during the Spanish
>American war which was right at the turn of the century. 

	Check your history books.

>  But so what? Do you disagree with any decision by Congress to declare war
>this century? 

	Not the point really. I just wanted to set the record straight
	concerning the Democratic warmongers to counterbalance your
	demonization of the Republicans.

Jim

    I know George...I was just busting ya!

RE    <<< Note 275.58 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>	Not the point really. I just wanted to set the record straight
>	concerning the Democratic warmongers to counterbalance your
>	demonization of the Republicans.

  To me the term "warmonger" had a negative connotation as one who tries to stir
up a war when it is not really necessary. Are you claiming that Congress made
bad choices in declaring those wars? 

  If not, then in what way were they "demons"?

  George

                     <<< Note 275.60 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  If not, then in what way were they "demons"?

	If you can blame the Republicans for all the evils you listed
	I can blame the Democrats for all the war dead.

	Neither point of view has any validity, but turnabout is
	certainly fair play.

Jim

RE    <<< Note 275.61 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>	If you can blame the Republicans for all the evils you listed
>	I can blame the Democrats for all the war dead.
>
>	Neither point of view has any validity, but turnabout is
>	certainly fair play.

  But there is a difference. When I complain about the Republicans I complain
about something that they did where I hold a different point of view. For
example, I don't believe they should have conducted the McCarthy hearings.
I disagree with their economic policies during the 20's that lead to the
great Depression.

  I agree with those cases where the Democrats lead the effort to pass
a declaration of war or resolution to support the U.N.

  George

    
    RE: .54
    
    
    Good!!! So you remind everyone (BTW... my "content free" response is
    .46) when I blast you with yours....  deal?
    
    Make sure you keep the header intact so people can browse and get the
    fullest appreciation for your historical prowess...

RE <<< Note 275.63 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Be vewy, vewy caweful awound Zebwas!" >>>

>    Make sure you keep the header intact so people can browse and get the
>    fullest appreciation for your historical prowess...

  It's funny. Some people are aware of the fact that different people have
different points of view. They know that conservatives will read our notes
and think you are right while liberals will read our notes and think I am
right.

  Then there are those who don't see that and view every two sided argument
as a case of the "correct" side telling it like it is to the "incorrect" side.

  Sure, leave the headers. I fully realize that right wing wackos everywhere
will all agree that you are always right and I am always wrong.

  So what else is new?

  George

    
      OK, I admit it.  I don't get TANSTAAFL.  What is it, Phil ?
    
      bb

	T here
	A in't
	N o
	S uch
	T hing
	A s
	A
	F ree
	L unch

Clear?


Phil

  That's just like we've been saying for the past 67 notes.

  George

 Thank you .65



 I've been laying awake nights trying to figure it out!





Jim

    
    RE: .64
    
    >It's funny. Some people are aware of the fact that different people have
    >different points of view.
    
     Once again, this has nothing to do with different points of view. It
    has to do with what is historical fact and what isn't...
    
      Your "point of view" was based on historical innaccuracies... 
    
    I took you to task for those historical innaccuracies... not your point
    of view...
    

RE <<< Note 275.69 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Be vewy, vewy caweful awound Zebwas!" >>>

>     Once again, this has nothing to do with different points of view. It
>    has to do with what is historical fact and what isn't...
>    
>      Your "point of view" was based on historical inaccuracies... 

  Right, and my historical inaccuracy was that I didn't buy your number of
700 people total involved in Vietnam before 1960.

  That means not one mid sized U.S. ship was in the area supporting the troops
since those ships all have in excess of 700 people.

  Of course, you can throw these numbers around without hinting at a source
no matter how ludicrous they might be but If I don't accept your numbers then
it's my responsibility to go dig in the archives to refute them.

  Nice try,

  George

    
    Well, the numbers I posted are from the World Almanac of 1990,
    which doesn't list any official troop strength in Viet Nam before
    1963.  It does say that the US agreed to train South Vietnamese
    army soldiers in 1955, after the French withdrawal.  I know that
    such training actually did occur, and that the CIA was quite interested
    under both Eisenhower and Kennedy.
    
    But that isn't war, not like Korea or the Gulf, or 1812.  By contrast,
    Lyndon Johnson sent whole divisions and carpet-bombed the country from
    the stratosphere with B-52's, and selected the bombing sites personally
    from the War Room in the Pentagon.  Different things.
    
      bb

                     <<< Note 275.70 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>but If I don't accept your numbers then
>it's my responsibility to go dig in the archives to refute them.

	Now you are starting to get it George. You can't just stick
	your fingers in your ears and go nyaa, nyaa, nyaa. In order
	to show that a figure that someone has provided is incorrect
	you need to provide data of your own.

	There may be hope for you yet.

Jim

RE                      <<< Note 275.71 by GAAS::BRAUCHER >>>

>    Well, the numbers I posted are from the World Almanac of 1990,
>    which doesn't list any official troop strength in Viet Nam before
>    1963.  

  But wasn't the Tonken Gulf incident before 1963? 

  As I recall that involved North Vietnamese gun boats firing at a U.S.
Destroyer. The resolution passed and the U.S. Carrier Constellation (CV-64)
wiped out the North Vietnam navy.

  One carrier group, that's about 4000 men right there.

  George

    George:
    
    The Gulf of Tonkin incident was in 1964.

                     <<< Note 275.73 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  But wasn't the Tonken Gulf incident before 1963? 

	No.

	George, a history clue. Lyndon Johnson did not become President
	until November 22, 1963.

Jim

RE    <<< Note 275.72 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>	Now you are starting to get it George. You can't just stick
>	your fingers in your ears and go nyaa, nyaa, nyaa. In order
>	to show that a figure that someone has provided is incorrect
>	you need to provide data of your own.
>
>	There may be hope for you yet.

  Oh I've gotten it all along.

    - You guys throw out any number you like.

    - I say I don't like it.

    - You don't have to back it up because ... because ... because.

  But if I don't come up with a library full of references then that's no good
because of course in typical conservative fashion you get to play by the "good
'ol boys rules" and I have to play by the "under your thumb rules".

  Oh I get it all right. I've understood that from the get go.

  George

    
    <-----
    
    No you haven't... you're a Polack.. remember??
    
    I will get you the references over the weekend, something I refuse to
    do for other lazies, but for you I'll make an exception because I want
    you to finally shut up and quit whining/bellyaching about your
    historical innaccuracies...

    Meowski,
    
    If you had any non-egotistical brains, you'd go to your local library
    and do the same... 
    

                     <<< Note 275.76 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  But if I don't come up with a library full of references then that's no good

	A single reference would be sufficient, or in this case an alternate
	number (you've offered neither).

	If you offer an alternate number THEN it becomes a battle of the
	sources.

	Simply saying "you're wrong" simply doesn't cut it.

Jim

    
    jim,
    
     He didn't say "you're wrong".....
    
     It was "I don't buy it".... 
    
    Which is..... 
    
    Different??? :) :)
    

RE <<< Note 275.77 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Be vewy, vewy caweful awound Zebwas!" >>>

>    I will get you the references over the weekend, something I refuse to
>    do for other lazies, but for you I'll make an exception because I want
>    you to finally shut up and quit whining/bellyaching about your
>    historical innaccuracies...

  Fine I'll be waiting. And of course that will include a definitive report
of where all CIA operatives were during the 50's and proof that no mid to
large U.S. Navy ships were used in the area.

  Good Luck,
  George

RE <<< Note 275.78 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Be vewy, vewy caweful awound Zebwas!" >>>

>    If you had any non-egotistical brains, you'd go to your local library
>    and do the same... 
    
  Yet more hate and insults. You remind me of a highschool band, if you can't
play well play loud.

  George

    								----------->

    
    RE: .81
    
    Oh ho!!!!
    
    No big boy!!! You shot your mouth off about the ships, so you look up
    the sources!!
    
     You wanna add to the 700??? You find them!!!

    
    RE: .82
    
    >Yet more hate and insults.
    
    hate? Meowski..... sigh.... I don't hate you... I feel sorry for you,
    but I don't hate you...
    
    Insult? 
    
    George, you have an ego problem.... it was an observation, not an
    insult.... But! If you think your ego is insulting to you, you go right
    ahead and think that all you want!

    
    
    	re .84
    
    	gotta agree with that George. You need to substantiate that there
    were ships in the area. Innocent until proven guilty eh? :)
    
    
    jim

RE <<< Note 275.85 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Be vewy, vewy caweful awound Zebwas!" >>>

>    George, you have an ego problem.... it was an observation, not an
>    insult.... But! If you think your ego is insulting to you, you go right
>    ahead and think that all you want!

  More ad hominem attacks who's purpose is to discredit anyone who dares to go
against the right wing jahad. 

  You guys are so predictable, just like your great leaders Newt and Rush. Just
go look at the Bill Clinton note and you see note after note of hate mail the
vast majority of which is just aimed at blowing off steam with no hit of
evidence to back it up. 

  This is not an ego thing, I just find it fun to participate in this employee
interest notes file and to give my opinions. But because they dare to go 
against the "right" way of thinking, I come under intense attack.

  Hate, hate and more hate. Degrade anyone who dares to stand up for anything
but the "right way of thinking. It's the "right" way,

  George

    
    
    You're a sick puppy George...
    
    
    
    Seek help....

    George,
    
    You're full of the stuff farmers feed to vegetables.
    
    Thank you.
    
    -b

    
    -b.....
    
     Is that anything like Buffalo Chips?????
    
    
    

    
    
    	funny George, I see very little "hate postings", but alot of "info
    postings". The info postings point out why people disagree with your
    position, but you label them as "hate". When someone argues with you,
    you call it "hate". 
    
    	interesting....
    
    

    
      Oh dear, George needs a cure for the Whine liberale - perhaps
    
     a voyage on the Eisenhower fantasy armada to the South China Sea
     should be prescribed.
    
      Take two budget cuts and call us on Monday...   bb

  According to note 16.179 of the Navies notes file the  USS Kearsarge (CVA-33)
was deployed to the far East in March '61 and "Part of her Far East deployment
was spent in Southeast Asian waters off Laos where the Communists were trying
to overthrow the Government." 

  Sounds like the ball park to me. That would have been over 300 officers and
3000 sailors on that ship alone plus support ships.

  George

    > in March '61
    
    of course, it was also two months after Kennedy's inauguration so 
    it reinforces that it was Democrats who upped the involvement, not
    Republicans under Ike.
    
    DougO

    	Does "deployed" mean "floating off shore"?  Or did the ship and/or
    	her men get involved in any way?
    
    	Were these part of the "advisors"?
    
    	Is ::NAVIES 16.179 in any way authoritative?  (I wonder if
    	anyone is now using Andy's note elsewhere and saying, "In
    	SOAPBOX note 275.40 it says that there were only 700
    	advisors...")

                     <<< Note 275.93 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  According to note 16.179 of the Navies notes file the  USS Kearsarge (CVA-33)
>was deployed to the far East in March '61 and "Part of her Far East deployment
>was spent in Southeast Asian waters off Laos where the Communists were trying
>to overthrow the Government." 

>  Sounds like the ball park to me. That would have been over 300 officers and
>3000 sailors on that ship alone plus support ships.

	And the President of the United States in March of 1961 was........


Jim

According to people in DC, if you were in the military from December
1961 on you're considered a Vietnam vet.

VFW and American Legion use the same date.

HTH,

Art

    re:  .97
    
    Only if you were regular or reserve, not if you were National Gurad.
    
    
    Steve

    
    There are no waters off Laos.  Landlocked about 100 miles.
    
    Did you mean, the waters off Switzerland ?
    
      bb

 TANSTAAFS!

    
    
    Nice try George... 
    
     Here's your references...
    
      Viet Nam  A History
    
      Stanley Karnow    
    
      ISBN 0-14-014533-8
    
     BTW.... he only won a Pulitzer Prize for this, but what the hell does
    he know!!!
    
    *******************************
    
    
      Anatomy of a War
    
      Gabriel Kolko
    
     ISBN 1-56584-218-9

  I believe that note said the USS Kearsarge (CVA-33) was in the South China
sea in support of the government of Laos. It looked like it was taken from a
report based on the ship's log. 

  I looked in the Columbia Encyclopedia and they report that the Communist
threat to Laos was organized by the Viet Minh in North Vietnam. 

  But I will concede the point on Democrats being in power when we get involved
with war if you wish. You win, Republicans cause economic chaos, Democrats
fight for freedom. 

  George

    they're referred to as Viet Nam Era Veterans... NG'men are not
    classified as vets...
    
    Chip