Case in point:

1.  We did not invade South Vietnam, we replaced the French in helping the
current Government repress their people.  Much different.  Oh, and we were
fighting the invaders than.  Small differences, but important.
2.  The number of deaths in Vietnam was much higher.  Frankly, the current
death toll is much less than I expected.
3.  You and I really have no clue what the majority of Iraq's think.  My best
guess is a mixed bag.  Glad  that we threw the bum out, but anxious about the
future.
4.  I believe that the latest polls still show majority support for the war,
which was NOT the case in Vietnam

So yes in compares in that both were/are countries and we sent military people
there.  But then so does France, Germany, Italy....
  -----Original Message-----
  From: Matthew Small [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 2:25 PM
  To: CF-Community
  Subject: Re: Bush resume

  Sure I can...

  We invade country to save it from a totalitarian regime and threat to the US
  We engage in a public affairs campaign to get the native people behind us.
  Everything starts off well then collapses into quagmire
  US public widely decries the involvement in a foreign country
  Soldiers get killed every day defending a country that detests their
presence.

  That compares somewhat to Vietnam, doesn't it?

  - Matt Small

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Andy Ousterhout
    To: CF-Community
    Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 3:03 PM
    Subject: RE: Bush resume

    You may be able to spell.  But it appears that you can't compare.
      -----Original Message-----
      From: Matthew Small [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
      Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 1:28 PM
      To: CF-Community
      Subject: Re: Bush resume

      I can spell and say it.

      I - R - A - Q.  Vietnam.

      - Matt Small
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: Andy Ousterhout
        To: CF-Community
        Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 2:15 PM
        Subject: RE: Bush resume

        Nope.  LBJ.  Can you say Vietnam.
          -----Original Message-----
          From: Matthew Small [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
          Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 1:18 PM
          To: CF-Community
          Subject: Re: Bush resume

          He might have meant Andrew Johnson...

          - Matt Small
            ----- Original Message -----
            From: Larry C. Lyons
            To: CF-Community
            Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 2:06 PM
            Subject: RE: Bush resume

            Given Johnson's record on the Civil Rights bill and continuing
    Kennedy's
            legislative agenda, I think its rather inappropriate for him to be
on
    this
            list.

            Nixon on the other hand...

            larry

            At 01:16 PM 11/20/2003, you wrote:
            >Jimmy C., Johnson,  and the current list of contenders...
            >   -----Original Message-----
            >   From: Jim Campbell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
            >   Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 11:52 AM
            >   To: CF-Community
            >   Subject: Re: Bush resume
            >
            >   If that bunch of presidents includes Ulysses S. Grant, Gerald
Ford
    and
            >   the one in Superman 2 who knelt before Zod like a bitch, I
might
    just
            >   agree with you :)
            >
            >   - Jim
            >
            >   Andy Ousterhout wrote:
            >
            >   >LOL.  And probably not too far off.
            >   >
            >   >I clearly don't think that Bush is a great president, he just
    happens
            > to be
            >   >the best of the bunch.
            >   >  -----Original Message-----
            >   >  From: Jim Campbell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
            >   >  Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 11:25 AM
            >   >  To: CF-Community
            >   >  Subject: Re: Bush resume
            >   >
            >   >
            >   >  I think "thinking big" is a large part of Bush's
popularity.  I
        don't
            >   >  think he has a clue about how to manage the economy (or
give
    the
            >   >  impression of managing the economy), but there were a _lot_
of
    big,
        bold
            >   >  "big picture" initiatives that were pushed through after
the
        attacks.
            >   >  War On Terrorism! (Swoosh!), Department of Homeland
Defense!
        (Shazam!),
            >   >  PATRIOT Act! (Kerpow!), Operation Enduring Freedom!
(Kaboom!).
        They
            >   >  were impressive feats of bureaucratic manipulation, but the
        economic
            >   >  policies seem wan and uncreative.
            >   >
            >   >  Here's a check for $300 - have fun.  I'm cutting taxes,
sort
    of.
        Oh,
            >   >  uh, here's another check for $400, go get yourself
something
    nice,
        ok?
            >   >
            >   >  It seems to me that the "Economy" as a whole is sort of
rooted
    in
            >   >  large-group psychology.  While I don't believe the
president
        himself has
            >   >  that much *actual* control over the economy, I think his
and
    his
            >   >  administration's attitude towards it can play into the
general
            >   >  perception of how things are going and make people more
    optimistic
        about
            >   >  things.
            >   >
            >   >  - Jim
            >   >
            >   >  Andy Ousterhout wrote:
            >   >
            >   >  >And that is news to who?
            >   >  >
            >   >  >Presidents need to think big.  Short term fixes create a
    pendulum
            >effect,
            >   >long
            >   >  >term changes have long term impacts.
            >   >  >  -----Original Message-----
            >   >  >  From: Howie Hamlin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
            >   >  >  Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 10:49 AM
            >   >  >  To: CF-Community
            >   >  >  Subject: Re: Bush resume
            >   >  >
            >   >  >
            >   >  >  Nobel winners attack Bush economics
            >   >  >
            >   >  >  "Regardless of how one views the specifics of the Bush
plan,
        there is
            >   >wide
            >   >  >agreement that its purpose is a permanent change in the
tax
        structure
            >and
            >   >not
            >   >  >the creation of jobs and growth in the near term," the
    economists
        said
            >in a
            >   >  >statement published by the Economic Policy Institute.
            >   >  >
            >   >  >
            >

<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2735269.stm>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/bu
        siness/2735269.stm
            >   >  >
            >   >  >  ----- Original Message -----
            >   >  >  From: Andy Ousterhout
            >   >  >  To: CF-Community
            >   >  >  Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 10:05 AM
            >   >  >  Subject: RE: Bush resume
            >   >  >
            >   >  >  I guess all the economists are wrong too.  If it were
not
    for
        that
            >damn
            >   >  >Bush:
            >   >  >      1   All of the world's ills would be cured.
            >   >  >      2.  All of the excesses of the 90's would have
    retroactively
            >   >  >disappeared,
            >   >  >      3.  All of those BAD business people who quickly
    realized
        that
            >BUSH
            >   >was
            >   >  >  lax on businesses would not have been able to implement
evil
        business
            >   >  >  practices SO quickly that it appeared that they had been
        following
            >them
            >   >  >since
            >   >  >  the 90's
            >   >  >      4.  Business would be ignoring the lower cost of
labor
    in
        other
            >   >  >countries
            >   >  >  and would have continued to hire people who provided
    diminishing
            > value
            >   >for
            >   >  >the
            >   >  >  love of country(sorry, God's out)
            >   >  >      5.  All of those foreigners who think that we suck
would
    not
        be
            >   >risking
            >   >  >  life and limb to sneak into OUR country voluntarily work
    for,
        god
            >forbid,
            >   >  >  below minimum wage, and send huge amounts of their
paltry
        earnings
            >back
            >   >to
            >   >  >  their highly advantaged family who stayed home to live a
    life of
            >luxury.
            >   >  >      6.  Yale's image would have remained untarnished
            >   >  >
            >   >  >  My bad.
            >   >  >
            >   >  >  -----Original Message-----
            >   >  >  From: Doug White [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
            >   >  >  Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 10:39 PM
            >   >  >  To: CF-Community
            >   >  >  Subject: Re: Bush resume
            >   >  >
            >   >  >    Actually the statement that the economy is in a
    turnaround, is
        more
            >pie
            >   >in
            >   >  >  the
            >   >  >    sky.  Jobs continue to be lost, prosecutions of those
    involved
        in
            >   >business
            >   >  >    fraud, and securities scams are still running at a
less
    than
            >   >enthusiastic
            >   >  >  rate.
            >   >  >    Our borders are still insecure.  Non-Mexican illegal
        immigrants are
            >   >still
            >   >  >    released into the streets after capture by the INS.
His
        energy and
            >oil
            >   >  >  patch
            >   >  >    friends are still not being called to account for
their
        mis-deeds.
            >Our
            >   >  >    reputation internationally has sunk to a historic low.
    But I
        do
            >have
            >   >to
            >   >  >  credit
            >   >  >    him for this, he still has a fanatic following, and
the
    big
        bucks
            >   >  >
            >   >  >
            >   >
            >   >
            >
            >----------
            >[


[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]

Reply via email to