BS: 68' Comin' Round to 06'

Subject: BS: 68' Comin' Round to 06'
From: GUEST,Guest Bob McD
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 11:42 AM

Lyndon was never threatened with impeachment for lying about his war.

Would subsequent military adventures have been more carefully thought out if he had been?

Dems were lucky they had Nixon. Looking back, it seems the moment it became Nixon;'s war Lyndon and Co. was off the hook.

The notion of going to war on the other side of the planet with only a fuzzy "Cops Of The World" philosophy, and no clear military objective could have, and should have, been nipped in the bud.

Dems of courst had control of impeachment machinery, but contemplating alernative history is always worth the effort.

Does TET compare with October in Iraq?

Look for Dem sweep of congress?    Ah, but what then?

Two years of political gridlock followed by a super battle that could determine the rest of the 21st century.

Lets suppose Bush gets impeached.

Dems alone? No, they would need help.

Repubs would have to turn on him like pet snakes to save their own skins.

Perhsps they've already started.

Would "Cops Of The World" mentality go into hybernation?

What pol would take on North Korea or Iran then?

Would terrorists go away?    Would they be encouraged?

Would they go nuclear?       Would they learn how to deliver?

Think about the world beyond Iraq:

A nuclear detonation somewhere would seem a virturally certainty.

Ruined your Sunday Morning?

The stakes this political season are very, very high.

But that's just my opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: 68' Comin' Round to 06'
From: Big Mick
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 11:46 AM

What is the purpose or aim or contention being put forth in this thread?

Subject: RE: BS: 68' Comin' Round to 06'
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 11:57 AM

I don't think there IS any coherent premise in there, Mick. It's just another vague, "oh yeah? Can you do any better?" ramble.

".. contemplating alernative history is always worth the effort."

until you get to thinking that your imagination is reality.

Subject: RE: BS: 68' Comin' Round to 06'
From: Alice
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 11:59 AM

Because I've worked with helping to exit people from mind control cults, I see the terrorism issue from that perspective. I'm reminded of Koresh and his followers in Waco and how STUPID the response to Koresh's cult was. People who are convinced of an afterlife reward will not be bombed or pressured into changing their mind. That was Clinton's administration and their ignorance of mind control groups. Islamist terror groups are the same, essentially, in the control over their followers. A belief in afterlife reward will not change by bombing countries to rubble or forcing regime change. It only reinforces their "us versus them" conviction that we are bad, they are good. The resolution of the problem of Islamist terrorism or any other kind of terrorism is achieved slowly through education and understanding among each new generation. We finally have progress in places like South Africa, Northern Ireland. Generations of demonizing the "other" and ideologies of hatred take generations to change to more peaceful beliefs. Bush's ideology and anti-diplomacy, shock and awe attack, just reinforces terrorist beliefs and creates more terrorists. It is like the actions at Koresh's compound, making the followers even more galvanized and reinforcing their belief that they were experiencing their leader's prophecy.

Subject: RE: BS: 68' Comin' Round to 06'
From: Cruiser
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 01:08 PM

Big Mick wrote:

"What is the purpose or aim or contention being put forth in this thread?"

The poster is trying to get you to remember the past and draw some simple corollaries to current events. To paraphrase a few common sayings: History repeats itself; we ignore history at our peril, and etc. If certain things would have been done differently in the past would current events, such as the Iraq war, have even occurred? (Do you recall what President Eisenhower said about the Middle East in 1956 during the Suez Crisis? Bill D I know you are aged enough to remember or interested and wise enough to have read about it recently).

Bill D wrote:

"I don't think there IS any coherent premise in there, Mick. It's just another vague, "oh yeah? Can you do any better?" ramble."

Bill D, I was surprised with your statement. I fully expected someone to jump in and pile-on and parrot Big Mick's ignorant words, but certainly not someone who professes to, and mostly displays the distinct ability to, think and reason. Why the blind bias?

The poster states this is his opinion. As an educated man, I followed his words very easily and quickly saw his "purpose, aim, and contention". However, anyone with a GED, or simply any average reader, should be able to follow the simple premises stated by Bob McD.

Guest Bob McD: Please consider becoming a member of Mudcat if you are not already a member.

Cruiser

Subject: RE: BS: 68' Comin' Round to 06'
From: GUEST,Bob McD
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 01:27 PM

Talking about the last time a pointless war forced a swap of politcal power a week before a major election, and what the upshot of that might led to seems a fitting topic.

What's vague about that?

We should be looking to incoming democrats for whole new sets of ideas.

Remember Nixon's secret plan for dealing with Vietnam?
Don't tell me about vague!

North Korea certainly expects to profit from their nuclear discoveries, but determind oil-righ, cash-rich adversaries
may get there first.

Subject: RE: BS: 68' Comin' Round to 06'
From: Big Mick
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 01:41 PM

Ignorant words, Cruiser? There is no premise laid out, no arguments being made, just a bunch of mumbo jumbo that we are supposed to figure out. I guess someone who has consistently demonstrated a lack of intellectual gravitas, such as yourself, would think they understand it. Thinking folks would respond with somthing like:

Is there a point in there somewhere?

Subject: RE: BS: 68' Comin' Round to 06'
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 02:23 PM

"blind bias"?

Gee, Cruiser..it's BECAUSE I admire & encourage the ability to "think and reason" and try to do so, that I was frustrated & upset by that post.
Yes, I 'can' certainly, with some work and analysis, discern some...ummm...themes...in Bob McD's first post - but it reads more like a series of off-hand remarks, tossed out as responses to something else.

If I want to really make a point, I 'try' to phrase & order it in such a way that no one can really doubt or misconstrue my meaning.

Now Bob's 2nd post comes closer, but STILL includes oblique 'you oughta know what I'm getting at' remarks.

So...Bob...I'm sure you do have something..or several somethings, to say. I'm willing to read them and respond, but I'm lousy at reading between the lines. Help me out here.

Subject: RE: BS: 68' Comin' Round to 06'
From: Cruiser
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 02:44 PM

To anyone that has read the initial post: please explain to me and others why it is difficult to see "a point in there somewhere" and difficult to "figure out" anything that was written.

There were some typos (that we all make) and I would not have used the format the poster did, but it was acknowledged as opinion not as formal postulation.

Guest Bob McD, if this thread is important to you and you really want to defend or explain your "premises", then I suggest you define the purpose of each statement or reply directly to others regarding your purpose, aim, or contention of the thread or answer any questions that arise. I followed your intent, understood why you wrote what you did, and why you titled your thread the way you did.

Bill D: Thank you for your reasoned reply; I expected that of you Sir.

Cruiser

Subject: RE: BS: 68' Comin' Round to 06'
From: bobad
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 02:44 PM

Methinks Bob is giving a bullet point presentation.

Subject: RE: BS: 68' Comin' Round to 06'
From: Big Mick
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 02:47 PM

While Cruiser now attempts to cover his ass by seeming to be reasonable, I would point out that he is the one who used the word ignorant first in his post.

A simple apology will do.

Subject: RE: BS: 68' Comin' Round to 06'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 02:48 PM

The '68 Corvette was a classic (split rear screen, 454 engine). How good is the '06 Corvette?

Subject: RE: BS: 68' Comin' Round to 06'
From: Cruiser
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 03:02 PM

"A simple apology will do." Apology given without reservation.

Please keep in mind we are all ignorant of many things (in this case, I meant uninformed on this one subject/thread). Had I said stupid, and I would not have, then I could understand any animosity.

Cruiser

Subject: RE: BS: 68' Comin' Round to 06'
From: Cruiser
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 03:06 PM

"The '68 Corvette was a classic (split rear screen, 454 engine). How good is the '06 Corvette?"

I would take the '68 'vette, as I would the '68 Mustang, over any '06.

Nice play on the title Mr. Bridge.

Subject: RE: BS: 68' Comin' Round to 06'
From: catspaw49
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 03:49 PM

Well at least one thing is obvious.....Neither Cruiser nor Richard Bridge know jackshit about Vettes. The "Split Rear Window Coupe" was what it was called and it ONLY happened in ONE YEAR and that year was 1963....a completely different body style than the '68. Additionally, the '68 did not have the option of the 454 (and neither did the '63 for that matter). The venerable "Big Rat" 427 was the top available mill and coupled to an M22 Muncie Rock Crusher it would not only shake the fillings out of your teeth but shake your teeth out as well.

AND.......As much as many of us loved other vintages and that roaring, shaking, ground pounding, feel, there is equally no doubt that the sophistication and technology of the new Vettes make them truly world cars capable of competing with any in their price range........and sadly leaving their ancestors behind.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: 68' Comin' Round to 06'
From: katlaughing
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 03:59 PM

How 'bout them 'Vettes?:-)

Subject: RE: BS: 68' Comin' Round to 06'
From: GUEST,Cruiser
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 04:02 PM

Very funny Spaw.

Since you and I are about the same age, I also remember the 'vettes of the day . I had an uncle that had one (midlife crisis thing) but I don't recall the year of his but just know it was not brand new. I certainly would not have remembered the split rear window and would still take a '68, with vibrating fenders and all, over an '06.

Subject: RE: BS: 68' Comin' Round to 06'
From: catspaw49
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 04:09 PM

Well, I'm 57 and owned 7 of them.aaa Vette junkie of sorts back then. I'd love to have another but those were much better days $$$wise and no family or responsibility!!! All of them but a '69 were small blocks as they handled infinitely better without the added 185 pounds on the nose. I would take any of them back over a new one but not because the old ones were better or faster.....they weren't. But I'd just love to have just one more and reclaim a little of those times/lost youth/whatever.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: 68' Comin' Round to 06'
From: GUEST,Bob McD
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 04:13 PM

If debating points are goal, I concede, you win.

If the outgoing inventors of shlock and awful (typos?) get away without challenging incomers to come clean about their vision of
"what happens next", you lose.

Bob McD

Subject: RE: BS: 68' Comin' Round to 06'
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 04:30 PM

Bob...I almost see the 'thrust' of that last remark, but I honestly do not get enough detail to comment. I don't follow who "outgoing inventors" are, how they are "getting away", or who, precisely the "incomers" are. I 'almost' understand "coming clean about their vision"....I think. It means being honest about how they respond to questions about comparisons of current events with similar past events, and what the implications might be? maybe?

Cruiser...wanta interpret?

BTW..I do try to ignore typos, as I make 'em myself typing fast in here.

Subject: RE: BS: 68' Comin' Round to 06'
From: Cruiser
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 05:09 PM

Geewillikers Bob McD!!

You can't (shouldn't) start a thread, have another poster try to explain your meaning while running afoul with 2 of Mudcat's finest members, and then say you concede before any substantive questions are raised!

Bill D, I think I can interpret what was said, but at this point I am going to let Bob McD reply. If he doesn't reply, then this thread should be closed and preserved a historical evidence of how not to start a thread.

Subject: RE: BS: 68' Comin' Round to 06'
From: GUEST,Bob McD
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 05:46 PM

How's this,

If Nixon had been honest, on January 20, 1969 he would have said the following.

Thank you for making me President. I want you to know that I would have done or said anything necessary to make this happen.

I know you didn't really vote for me, you voted against the mess the Democrats created these past eight years.

As far as what to do next, in Vietnam or anything else, I haven't got a clue.

Now,

If, at this crossroads of history we don't expect anymore from Nancy Pelosi or Charles Schumer, then we deserve no better.

Does that help.

Bob McD

Subject: RE: BS: 68' Comin' Round to 06'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 05:52 PM

I don't know, I try to talk to the natives and they get hostile. What do you know about English cars Spaw? I got the window style and an engine size right, just for the wrong years. How are you on a 109E rear window as distinct from a 107E, and what were the engine sizes on that?

Subject: RE: BS: 68' Comin' Round to 06'
From: Big Mick
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 06:32 PM

Apology accepted unreservedly. To there and no further.

I will leave further analysis to Bill D.

Subject: RE: BS: 68' Comin' Round to 06'
From: Ron Davies
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 06:53 PM

It's an easy call.

Do you think it's time for somebody else than the Bushites to start calling shots--without telegraphing-- before the election-- exactly what they plan to do--on Iraq or any other issue?

Suppose, Bob McD, that Nancy Pelosi et al. do your bidding and admit they have no clue exactly what to do in Iraq? Exactly how do you think that would help their campaigns?

Therefore, anybody who advocates this is remarkably naive about politics--or, just possibly, is looking for an excuse to stay home on 7 November.

Also, it's a particularly pointless exercise, since what any Americans do over there will be heavily influenced by internal Iraqi politics--which nobody, with the possible exception of you, can foretell.

Subject: RE: BS: 68' Comin' Round to 06'
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 09:15 PM

Thank you Ron. I agree...

Bob...you simply can't base any platform on 'honest' responses to imaginary historical situations. Nixon would never have said any such thing: he was a politician. Pelosi is in the business of HAVING ideas about what to do. She may not guess right, but shrugging and saying "heck, I dunno" is not what gets her the chance to try her ideas.

Politics is a game...a serious one, but still a game. Some politicians make their decisions based on what they REALLY perceive as best for the country...some on their own interests. Our job is to watch and vote for the ones who guess right most often and who seem to care...

Over & out.

Subject: RE: BS: 68' Comin' Round to 06'
From: GUEST,Bob McD
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 09:30 PM

Do you expect nothing from NP or CS besides what was expected of RN in 68'?

As a voter, that's your right!

History and information are supposed to guide those who hold the power to vote.

I tried to point out similarities between Johnson's predicament in 68'
and Bush's situation now.

I wish we who vote could agree that, based on the events of 68' either party, left in power too long will eventually wear out its welcome.

Tom Paine reflected on that in Common Sense, my country's founding political treatise (published Jan. 10, 1776).

The constitution gives the House of Representatives the power of the purse (Artical I of the Constitution).

Accordingly, democrats in control would have the power to cut funding.

Wisely, representatives are also the group most influenced by the people they represent.

Some might propose that whether we support Irag for ten more weeks or ten more years, the result would be the same.

I'm glad I won't have to carry Nancy's burden.

A great deal and many lives are at stake these next few days.

I'll agree to respect your opinion on these matters if you will agree to respect mine.

Bob McD

Subject: RE: BS: 68' Comin' Round to 06'
From: Ron Davies
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 10:48 PM

Bob--

Just don't assume that Nancy et al. would do a worse job--on any issue--than the current crop of Bushites.

That would be a tall order.

And, by the way, I am a registered Republican--but one who thinks.

So I have a problem, to say the least, with the "leadership" of the US now.

Subject: RE: BS: 68' Comin' Round to 06'
From: catspaw49
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 11:56 PM

Well I dunno' Richard. I'd guess you must be referring to the Ford 109E engine used in the Classics, I think the Prefect, and the Capri. Mostly I associate that very durable little engine with the Lotus Sevens and a couple of early TVR models (pre-Tuscan) but I'd have to think real hard about what they were. Size? Without going to look, as I recall it was around 1350cc. Or are you referring to some other usage of "109E" in Brit cars that I don't know? BTW, if I also recall correctly the 107 was about a liter.

You're a lawyer Richard, a professional. I might ask but would never argue legalities with you. But in our cultures it is often thought "unmanly" not to be knowledgeable about cars. So everyone argues with professional mechanics because no one really sees it as a profession in the same way they see law or medicine. Frankly that pisses off a lot of us with grease under our nails. Always hoped myself that it would change, but in my working life it never did. Like Rodney Dangerfield, we get no respect.(;<))

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: 68' Comin' Round to 06'
From: Ron Davies
Date: 30 Oct 06 - 07:43 AM

But welcome to Mudcat, Bob McD--especially if you're willing to contribute knowledge or opinions above the line ---(music threads).

Subject: RE: BS: 68' Comin' Round to 06'
From: GUEST,Bob McD
Date: 30 Oct 06 - 08:30 AM

Subject: RE: BS: 68' Comin' Round to 06'
From: GUEST,Bob McD
Date: 30 Oct 06 - 08:53 AM

One thing left to say.

When Johnson was in charge in 68' he had the fortune to have his party in control of both legislative branches, as Bush does now.

I didn't say good fortune, but one look at the mess that existed and that wouldn't have been necessary.

Bush is about to loose his fortune to the great relief of just about everyone (including many republican).

I can't conceive the democrats ever cutting the funding that finally ended the misery in Southeast Asia while Johnson was in office.

When the war finally ended it was because those same democrats, acting as the opposition party, in the house of representatives did their job.

Next week Bush will loose his fortune, and perhaps the mess he made will begin to wane.

To make sure that happens, you might want to think about going out to vote, if it isn't too much trouble.

Of course you might have more important stuff goin on.

Bob McD

Subject: RE: BS: 68' Comin' Round to 06'
From: catspaw49
Date: 30 Oct 06 - 11:57 AM

Just how loose do you figger it'll get? Reckon his pants will fall down? (The word is LOSE)

So Bob........If what all this mess is about, and I'm not sure it is, are you asking us to vote for reform in Congress and get Bush out of the driver's seat? If so, and again I can't really tell from your shotgunning "speech" patterns, then you're preaching to the choir.

Try to keep in mind that folks respond well to passion but not to zeal. Zealots are scary (read: assholes) Bob.......Try to come back from there a bit.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: 68' Comin' Round to 06'
From: GUEST,Bob McD
Date: 31 Oct 06 - 10:29 AM

Johnson's war had no strategic objective: no Berlin, no Richmond.

The only goal was to get through each day.

If perimeters remained in tact, and the body count was acceptable
that was another good day.

The enemy called the shots. Where to bomb, where ground troops could go.

The only thing that changed each day was another row of crosses in veteran cemetaries.

Everyone involved knew the cost of keeping a North Vietnamese Soldier in the field, and the human resources available to the enemy, meant that no progress could ever be expected.

Eventually one side would simply get tired and go home.

How stupid would a populace have to be to figure which side that would be, and how long it would take?

DeGaulle had figured that out long before we ever got there.

It took eight long horrible years after Johnson left office for the Americans to reach the same conclusion.

I don't have to go on any further pointing out that history has come full circle.

Now it's our turn.

What, of the above, is different in Bush's situation.

How long will it be before "cut and run" is no longer a dirty phrase?

People asked me to make a point. Why? This isn't about me?

Like Vietnam, the whole business has no point.

You say this is ground-zero for the pull the plug crowd?

Then get busy.

Tell whomever you vote for, the time to "cut & run" is now!

If you wake up next week and find democrats didn't, in fact, secure the house of representatives, you may wish you had worked harder to make sure people knew what the stakes were.

And if you know anyone too busy to vote, don't be afraid to make a few of them angry by insisting they reconsider.

Don't be afraid to seek internet forums and post silly stuff using what happened to LBJ as your example of a military gone mad.

Don't worry about typos or debating points, that might infuriate, The whole point is to infuriate.

I can't imaging a more important political moment in your lives.

How can possibly stop people from building nuclear weapons when all we do is count the dead on the streets of BagDad.

But that's just my opinion.

Bob McD

Subject: RE: BS: 68' Comin' Round to 06'
From: catspaw49
Date: 31 Oct 06 - 10:51 AM

And it sure is nice of you to come here and tell us all what it is. Now if you had the least fuckin' clue, you'd know you are in fact preaching to the choir. Tell ya' something else, if it wasn't so damn important to me to flush Bush, I'd vote the other way simply because you're such an incredible fuckwit. I mean I wouldn't want anyone associating me with your pathetic, broke-dick, self.

Whatever it is you're smokin' has got you so wired that you might have to hitch a ride home on the Shuttle. Ya' need to layoff that narcotic before it makes you completely null and void. Your next post might evenbe deleted as political SPAM so try to get a grip and go flake out on some other forum.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: 68' Comin' Round to 06'
From: Big Mick
Date: 31 Oct 06 - 10:57 AM

He certainly has an image of himself as a prophet and a guru, doesn't he Spaw? And loves to here himself talk. I would bet he sits around all day just wishing someone would listen to his platitudes. Wonder if he has actually done anything constructive with regard to changing shit, or if he just sits around spouting oblique references to the obvious?

I second the motion.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: 68' Comin' Round to 06'
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 01 Nov 06 - 08:36 AM

New Faces of 1946, Smithsonian Magazine, November 2006, draws a (coherent) parallel between the 1946 US election and what some see as the current-coming one.

I suspect that a similar comparison is what our original poster had in mind.

While it's risky to draw conclusions, the appearance is that our poster may simply have been exposed to one too many Power Point presentations, and has not learned that "bullets" on a chart are a crutch used by mediocre speakers to give the illusion that information is being transmitted, but that the "bullets" are useless without a supporting delivery to fill in the information on why the bullets were chosen as they were.

The misuse and abuse of this "method" led several US Department of Defense divisions, a very few years ago, to remove the Power Point program from all computers in within their local organizations and to prohibit the use of the program, because it got in the way of actually informing anyone. (Quite probably, the new administration has reinstated universal use of the program because it gets in the way of actually informing anyone.)

Assuming our "presenter" is locked into bullet charts, possibly because of a required association with one of the few entrenched beaurocracies that still demands the format, it should be noted that the "rules of bulleting" have been thoroughly studied and despite the flagrant misuse of the method, the rules should be followed.

1. Chart number ONE must always tell the "audience" what the subject is and what the premise is that will be presented.

This pitch has no Chart One.

The additional "best practices" for flip chart presentation of information are mostly related to how long one can keep the attention of persons of "management mentality" occupied with pretty pictures before their attention wanders to the lint in their belly buttons or stray nose hairs that require stroking. We have only a few "management mentality" contributors here, and mostly prefer to speak in sentences in discussion.

The burden is NOT on the "audience" to understand. The burden is on the "pitchman/woman" to posit an idea and then to provide some evidence to support it, in a convincing manner.

The bullets may be relevant (to something); but we have no chart #1 to tell us the subject to which they apply.

QED?

John

Subject: RE: BS: 68' Comin' Round to 06'
From: Cruiser
Date: 01 Nov 06 - 10:52 AM

John, thank you for that thoughtful post.

Subject: RE: BS: 68' Comin' Round to 06'
From: GUEST,Bob McD
Date: 02 Nov 06 - 10:44 AM

Way too deep.

All I wanted to say was that LBJ and Bob NcNamara had too little oppostion when the democrats had all three branches in 68'.

On 1,20,1969 that changed.

That created a split between White House and House Of Representatives.

And that split, way too long later, eventually got us out of Vietnam.

Guess who has all three branches now, and will, hopefully, lose that very important one next week?

Pundits say relax, the business is done.

Nancy P and Company have it locked up.

Pundits have been wrong before.

Thats It. That's all I came to say.

Why must a person be an expert at somthing that happened in 46' to communicate that?

If someone here wants to speculate how long Nancy's patience will permit a continuation of "stay the course", it won't be me.

To the relief of everyone at mudcat, I'm outta here.

Subject: RE: BS: 68' Comin' Round to 06'
From: Cruiser
Date: 02 Nov 06 - 11:24 AM

No cause to leave Bob.

In this BS section of Mudcat you must just accept that some people are going to be hostile to your comments, opinions, and etc. Since I am a Viet Nam era veteran (not saying other veterans would think the same) I connected with some of what you were trying to convey. To do so, in this and many other such discussions here and elsewhere, I try to step out of my personal biases, think the unthinkable, and give as much or more weight to what a person is trying to say as what my biased opinions might be. At least I "got" some of what you said and those points caused me to reflect and think of some connections I had not thought of for years.

Good luck whatever you decide to do. I suggest you stay and become a member.