Bush vs LBJ



 Politics > Politics-USA > Bush vs LBJ

LINK TO THIS PAGE  


rating :  0   |  0


  Page 1 of 1

1

 
Topic: Politics > Politics-USA
User: "Roedy Green"
Date: 18 Jan 2004 04:06:17 AM
Object: Bush vs LBJ
A little history lesson. Lyndon Baines Johnson got involved in a war
with a tiny little country called Viet Nam. It was inhabited by
people he called gooks and slopes. To his amazement, these people
gradually defeated him. How could this tiny little country defeat the
mightiest military nation on earth with an unlimited military budget?
Back then, TV was much freer. Reporters sent back footage of American
soldiers being killed. They also sent back photos of the burned and
maimed children of Viet Nam.
LBJ was a stubborn man and refused to believe the bad news coming back
from the war zone.
Protests grew, especially after the draft started sending people into
this dirty conflict who wanted no part of it.
Then one day LBJ announced we was not going to seek reelection. It
came out of the blue, surprising everyone. He left it up to Nixon to
actually wind down the war.
Bush's poll numbers dropped another 5 points today. He is now
predicted to lose. I wonder if we will see a similar announcement to
LBJ's. The Republicans may require Bush to fall on his sword for the
sins of the entire administration, to be replaced by some new
photogenic figurehead such as Arnold Schwarzenegger. This is why it
is important to blast away at the entire administration, not just the
figurehead Bush.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
Coaching, problem solving, economical contract programming.
See http://mindprod.com/jgloss/jgloss.html for The Java Glossary.
.

User: "Tom Aldrich"

Title: Re: Bush vs LBJ 18 Jan 2004 09:06:55 AM
Roedy Green wrote:

A little history lesson. Lyndon Baines Johnson got involved in a war
with a tiny little country called Viet Nam.

Nope! The French tried to retake Vietnam as a colony and Eisenhower
started that ball rolling

It was inhabited by
people he called gooks and slopes. To his amazement, these people
gradually defeated him. How could this tiny little country defeat the
mightiest military nation on earth with an unlimited military budget?

Probadly one of the greatest feats taken, but I don't have the time right
now to spare. But I'll throw in one free clue, militaryly U.S. was not
defeated, they were out persevered.

Back then, TV was much freer. Reporters sent back footage of American
soldiers being killed. They also sent back photos of the burned and
maimed children of Viet Nam.

Now that is actually true.

LBJ was a stubborn man and refused to believe the bad news coming back
from the war zone.

Protests grew, especially after the draft started sending people into
this dirty conflict who wanted no part of it.

Then one day LBJ announced we was not going to seek reelection. It
came out of the blue, surprising everyone. He left it up to Nixon to
actually wind down the war.

Bush's poll numbers dropped another 5 points today. He is now
predicted to lose. I wonder if we will see a similar announcement to
LBJ's.

Nope

The Republicans may require Bush to fall on his sword for the
sins of the entire administration,

Bush will have a bail out plan in place in Iraq in the next few months,
and the sad part is Iraq could be left a mess if real people who
quote/unquote care about human rights and the what not don't speak up.

to be replaced by some new
photogenic figurehead such as Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Arnold can't, he's not a U.S. born citizen

This is why it
is important to blast away at the entire administration, not just the
figurehead Bush.

And maybe if the Democrats would stop pandering to likes of the extreme
left like you, they could stand a chance.



--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
Coaching, problem solving, economical contract programming.
See http://mindprod.com/jgloss/jgloss.html for The Java Glossary.

.
User: "Roedy Green"

Title: Re: Bush vs LBJ 18 Jan 2004 03:23:46 PM
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 09:06:55 -0600, Tom Aldrich
<TomAlrich@usenetserver.com> wrote or quoted :

Nope! The French tried to retake Vietnam as a colony and Eisenhower
started that ball rolling

The war was tiny even into Kennedy's watch. LBJ was the one who
turned it into a full war.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
Coaching, problem solving, economical contract programming.
See http://mindprod.com/jgloss/jgloss.html for The Java Glossary.
.

User: "Steven Litvintchouk"

Title: Re: Bush vs LBJ 18 Jan 2004 11:36:30 AM
Tom Aldrich wrote:


Roedy Green wrote:


A little history lesson. Lyndon Baines Johnson got involved in a war
with a tiny little country called Viet Nam.



Nope! The French tried to retake Vietnam as a colony and Eisenhower
started that ball rolling

Actually Truman started that ball rolling. Truman was the first
President to aid the French in Indochina. Go research it for yourself
or I'll supply the references if you wish.

It was inhabited by
people he called gooks and slopes. To his amazement, these people
gradually defeated him. How could this tiny little country defeat the
mightiest military nation on earth with an unlimited military budget?



Probadly one of the greatest feats taken, but I don't have the time right
now to spare. But I'll throw in one free clue, militaryly U.S. was not
defeated, they were out persevered.

I'll throw in a free clue: The U.S. had actually taken the option of
totally defeating North Vietnam off the table, because we were afraid of
China and Russia getting militarily involved and escalating to global
war. (The Pentagon Papers prove this beyond doubt.) So we never did
what we should have done: Marched to Hanoi, taken the capital, and
arrested Ho Chi Minh. IOW, exactly what we've done in Iraq.
Our military wasn't as capable then as now, so we would have needed
maybe 6 months to a year to completely conquer North Vietnam. OK, in
that case the war might have been over by 1967 or so.

Back then, TV was much freer. Reporters sent back footage of American
soldiers being killed. They also sent back photos of the burned and
maimed children of Viet Nam.



Now that is actually true.

But highly unfortunate.
In WW2, the U.S. news media didn't show pictures of the incinerated
children of Dresden or the incinerated children of Tokyo (after U.S.
bombing raids there), as a way to turn americans off to the war. As a
result, the American public was largely unaware that hundreds of
thousands of enemy civilians were being systematically killed by U.S.
bombing. That's because back then, the U.S. news media saw itself as
patriotic and backed the war.
Only since Korea has the news media seen itself as so "objective" that
when the U.S. soldiers are fighting for their lives, they no longer take
sides between America and the enemy.

And maybe if the Democrats would stop pandering to likes of the extreme
left like you, they could stand a chance.

roedy green isn't even an american. He's a left-wing Canadian.
And the Democrats seem compelled to suck up to the Canadians and the
French as well.
-- Steven L.
.
User: "Andrew"

Title: Re: Bush vs LBJ 18 Jan 2004 01:05:48 PM

roedy green isn't even an american. He's a left-wing Canadian.
And the Democrats seem compelled to suck up to the Canadians and the
French as well.

I thought Canada was in North America so its citizens would be "Americans"
as surely as the British and French are "Europeans", but then I'm not a US
citizen so my views probably don't count to morons who post rubbish like
that.
Still, makes you wonder- how many US high school graduates could find Canada
on a map?
.
User: "Winston Smith, American Patriot"

Title: Re: Bush vs LBJ 18 Jan 2004 02:40:09 PM
"Andrew" <prostetnic_vogon@hotmail.com> wrote in inimitable style:


roedy green isn't even an american. He's a left-wing Canadian.
And the Democrats seem compelled to suck up to the Canadians and the
French as well.

I thought Canada was in North America so its citizens would be
"Americans" as surely as the British and French are "Europeans", but
then I'm not a US citizen so my views probably don't count to morons
who post rubbish like that.

Canadians are Americans. As are Mexicans, Guatemalans, and Brazilians.
But Canadians and the rest understand the awkwardness of referring to the
citizens of the United States as something like "United States-ites," and
so all those people are willing to give us a real pass since the name of
our country is more of a description than an appellation.
A good name might be "USAns", or "usans" (you-sans). Or perhaps
"USAians" or "usians" (you-see-ans). It's a matter of getting used to a
new idea.

Still, makes you wonder- how many US high school graduates could find
Canada on a map?

I figure maybe 3 in 10 adult Americans can do that. Some could as
children----when it was hammered ceaselessly into them----but grew up as
"so what" adults.
America is a great country only because it is carried by a infinitesimal
fraction of its people (smaller than for other nations of the planet),
often immigrants ("new blood") to this country.
--
The world is too dangerous to live in---not because of the people
who do evil, but because of the people who sit and let it happen."
--- attributed to Albert Einstein
.
User: "John Starrett"

Title: Re: Bush vs LBJ 18 Jan 2004 02:55:37 PM
Winston Smith, American Patriot wrote:

"Andrew" <prostetnic_vogon@hotmail.com> wrote in inimitable style:


roedy green isn't even an american. He's a left-wing Canadian.
And the Democrats seem compelled to suck up to the Canadians and the
French as well.


I thought Canada was in North America so its citizens would be
"Americans" as surely as the British and French are "Europeans", but
then I'm not a US citizen so my views probably don't count to morons
who post rubbish like that.



Canadians are Americans. As are Mexicans, Guatemalans, and Brazilians.
But Canadians and the rest understand the awkwardness of referring to the
citizens of the United States as something like "United States-ites," and
so all those people are willing to give us a real pass since the name of
our country is more of a description than an appellation.

A good name might be "USAns", or "usans" (you-sans). Or perhaps
"USAians" or "usians" (you-see-ans). It's a matter of getting used to a
new idea.

<snip>
I like "Vespuccians". All the names involving US or USA sound sort of
clumsy.
--
John Starrett
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
User: "0o"

Title: Re: Bush vs LBJ 18 Jan 2004 04:22:40 PM
"John Starrett" <jstarret@nmt.edu> wrote in message
news:400af257$1_4@corp.newsgroups.com...

Winston Smith, American Patriot wrote:

"Andrew" <prostetnic_vogon@hotmail.com> wrote in inimitable style:


roedy green isn't even an american. He's a left-wing Canadian.
And the Democrats seem compelled to suck up to the Canadians and the
French as well.


I thought Canada was in North America so its citizens would be
"Americans" as surely as the British and French are "Europeans", but
then I'm not a US citizen so my views probably don't count to morons
who post rubbish like that.



Canadians are Americans. As are Mexicans, Guatemalans, and Brazilians.
But Canadians and the rest understand the awkwardness of referring to

the

citizens of the United States as something like "United States-ites,"

and

so all those people are willing to give us a real pass since the name of
our country is more of a description than an appellation.

A good name might be "USAns", or "usans" (you-sans). Or perhaps
"USAians" or "usians" (you-see-ans). It's a matter of getting used to a
new idea.

<snip>

I like "Vespuccians". All the names involving US or USA sound sort of
clumsy.

--
John Starrett

We all know that America was named for Amerigo Vespucci. Amerigo by
Vespucci's day was an established if not especially common name whose
original meaning, it is safe to say, had long been forgotten. AV apparently
got it for no more profound reason than that it was his grandfather's name.
Since you asked, there are a couple of theories on the name's origin. One is
that it is a variant of Enrico, the Italian form of Henry, and derives from
the Old German Haimirich (in later German Emmerich, in English Americus),
from haimi, home, plus ric, power, ruler. Alternatively, it may come from
the old German Amalricus, from amal, work, plus ric. (Amalricus the foreman?
Beats me.) Amerigo shows up in Italian writing from around the 12th century
and may have been introduced by the Ostrogoths six centuries earlier (this
from Dictionary of First Names, Hanks and Hodges, 1990).
A more interesting question is why the cartographer Martin Waldseemueller in
1507 named the New World (actually, just South America) America rather than
Vespucciland--although I guess to ask the question is to answer it.
Amerigo's first name was a lot more euphonious than his last name, and (no
small matter) could be latinized into a word that started and ended with the
letter A, just like Asia and Africa before it. Also, unlike Christopher
Columbus, invariably referred to by his last name, Vespucci was one of those
people known in his own lifetime mostly by his first.
The most interesting question of all is why America was named after a guy
who was otherwise so obscure. For centuries it was argued that Amerigo
Vespucci was a fraud who had never traveled to the continent that bore his
name and did not deserve to have either of his names applied to anything.
But it is now fairly well established that he made at least two voyages to
the Americas, not as leader of an expedition but possibly as navigator, the
first time in 1499. He was not the first European of his era to set foot on
the mainland, as was once thought, but probably was the first to realize
that the land he helped explore was a separate continent and not merely the
coast of Asia, as Columbus and others believed.
Vespucci came to the world's attention chiefly through the publication in
1503 and 1504 of two brief letters he purportedly wrote to Lorenzo de Medici
about a voyage undertaken for the king of Portugal. Obviously the work of an
educated man (the Vespuccis were a prosperous family in Florence), the
letters managed to be both scholarly and entertaining, combining a sober
discussion of navigational issues with the news that the natives of the New
World would have sex with anybody, including Mom. Vespucci, or perhaps his
anonymous publisher, also had the wit to entitle the first letter Novus
Mundus, the New World, an audacious and as it turned out accurate claim.
The letters were by far the most interesting account of explorations in the
Americas that had appeared up to that time and caused a sensation that if
anything exceeded that created by Columbus's description of his first voyage
ten years earlier. The letters were reprinted in every European language and
soon came to the attention of Waldseemueller and his friends, who were
members of a think tank of sorts in the town of Saint-Die, Lorraine, now
part of France. The Waldseemueller group published Cosmographiae
Introduction (Introduction to Cosmography), the first attempt to update the
geography texts of the ancients. They were quite taken with Vespucci's idea
that the Americas were a new land, since it meant they had gone beyond the
knowledge of the ancients, in whose shadow they had long toiled. They
thought it only appropriate that AV's name grace the new land, of whose
extent they had at that point only the vaguest inkling. The naming of
America after Amerigo Vespucci was thus a bit capricious but not entirely
undeserved.
.
User: "John Starrett"

Title: Re: Bush vs LBJ 18 Jan 2004 04:34:02 PM
0o wrote:

"John Starrett" <jstarret@nmt.edu> wrote in message
news:400af257$1_4@corp.newsgroups.com...

Winston Smith, American Patriot wrote:


"Andrew" <prostetnic_vogon@hotmail.com> wrote in inimitable style:



roedy green isn't even an american. He's a left-wing Canadian.
And the Democrats seem compelled to suck up to the Canadians and the
French as well.


I thought Canada was in North America so its citizens would be
"Americans" as surely as the British and French are "Europeans", but
then I'm not a US citizen so my views probably don't count to morons
who post rubbish like that.



Canadians are Americans. As are Mexicans, Guatemalans, and Brazilians.
But Canadians and the rest understand the awkwardness of referring to


the

citizens of the United States as something like "United States-ites,"


and

so all those people are willing to give us a real pass since the name of
our country is more of a description than an appellation.

A good name might be "USAns", or "usans" (you-sans). Or perhaps
"USAians" or "usians" (you-see-ans). It's a matter of getting used to a
new idea.


<snip>

I like "Vespuccians". All the names involving US or USA sound sort of
clumsy.

--
John Starrett



We all know that America was named for Amerigo Vespucci. Amerigo by
Vespucci's day was an established if not especially common name whose
original meaning, it is safe to say, had long been forgotten. AV apparently
got it for no more profound reason than that it was his grandfather's name.

Since you asked, there are a couple of theories on the name's origin. One is
that it is a variant of Enrico, the Italian form of Henry, and derives from
the Old German Haimirich (in later German Emmerich, in English Americus),
from haimi, home, plus ric, power, ruler. Alternatively, it may come from
the old German Amalricus, from amal, work, plus ric. (Amalricus the foreman?
Beats me.) Amerigo shows up in Italian writing from around the 12th century
and may have been introduced by the Ostrogoths six centuries earlier (this
from Dictionary of First Names, Hanks and Hodges, 1990).

A more interesting question is why the cartographer Martin Waldseemueller in
1507 named the New World (actually, just South America) America rather than
Vespucciland--although I guess to ask the question is to answer it.
Amerigo's first name was a lot more euphonious than his last name, and (no
small matter) could be latinized into a word that started and ended with the
letter A, just like Asia and Africa before it. Also, unlike Christopher
Columbus, invariably referred to by his last name, Vespucci was one of those
people known in his own lifetime mostly by his first.

The most interesting question of all is why America was named after a guy
who was otherwise so obscure. For centuries it was argued that Amerigo
Vespucci was a fraud who had never traveled to the continent that bore his
name and did not deserve to have either of his names applied to anything.
But it is now fairly well established that he made at least two voyages to
the Americas, not as leader of an expedition but possibly as navigator, the
first time in 1499. He was not the first European of his era to set foot on
the mainland, as was once thought, but probably was the first to realize
that the land he helped explore was a separate continent and not merely the
coast of Asia, as Columbus and others believed.

Vespucci came to the world's attention chiefly through the publication in
1503 and 1504 of two brief letters he purportedly wrote to Lorenzo de Medici
about a voyage undertaken for the king of Portugal. Obviously the work of an
educated man (the Vespuccis were a prosperous family in Florence), the
letters managed to be both scholarly and entertaining, combining a sober
discussion of navigational issues with the news that the natives of the New
World would have sex with anybody, including Mom. Vespucci, or perhaps his
anonymous publisher, also had the wit to entitle the first letter Novus
Mundus, the New World, an audacious and as it turned out accurate claim.

The letters were by far the most interesting account of explorations in the
Americas that had appeared up to that time and caused a sensation that if
anything exceeded that created by Columbus's description of his first voyage
ten years earlier. The letters were reprinted in every European language and
soon came to the attention of Waldseemueller and his friends, who were
members of a think tank of sorts in the town of Saint-Die, Lorraine, now
part of France. The Waldseemueller group published Cosmographiae
Introduction (Introduction to Cosmography), the first attempt to update the
geography texts of the ancients. They were quite taken with Vespucci's idea
that the Americas were a new land, since it meant they had gone beyond the
knowledge of the ancients, in whose shadow they had long toiled. They
thought it only appropriate that AV's name grace the new land, of whose
extent they had at that point only the vaguest inkling. The naming of
America after Amerigo Vespucci was thus a bit capricious but not entirely
undeserved.

Thanks for the background. You are a fine Vespuccian.
--
John Starrett
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
User: "0o"

Title: Re: Bush vs LBJ 19 Jan 2004 11:05:06 AM
"John Starrett" <jstarret@nmt.edu> wrote in message
news:400b0968$1_4@corp.newsgroups.com...

0o wrote:
Thanks for the background. You are a fine Vespuccian.
John Starrett

No problem but I'm not from that part of the world.
.





User: "Roedy Green"

Title: Re: Bush vs LBJ 18 Jan 2004 03:26:19 PM
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 19:05:48 +0000 (UTC), "Andrew"
<prostetnic_vogon@hotmail.com> wrote or quoted :

I thought Canada was in North America so its citizens would be "Americans"

In Canada we use the term Americans to refer to citizens of the USA.
They seem to have sites on the whole continent by their choice of term
for themselves.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
Coaching, problem solving, economical contract programming.
See http://mindprod.com/jgloss/jgloss.html for The Java Glossary.
.




User: "Don Swayser"

Title: Re: Bush vs LBJ 18 Jan 2004 10:45:18 AM
Roedy Green wrote:

A little history lesson. Lyndon Baines Johnson got involved in a war
with a tiny little country called Viet Nam. It was inhabited by
people he called gooks and slopes. To his amazement, these people
gradually defeated him. How could this tiny little country defeat
the mightiest military nation on earth with an unlimited military
budget?

Back then, TV was much freer. Reporters sent back footage of
American soldiers being killed. They also sent back photos of the
burned and maimed children of Viet Nam.

I haven't heard any complaints from TV news people. I think we'd have
heard from them if the US government had unreasonably interfered with
their broadcasts from the Iraq war. We sure heard it from the British
journalists when the leftist BBC slanted their reports to show a
negative side. What credentials do you have to make this claim? DO you
have any proofs that the press today is any less free? If so, show them.

LBJ was a stubborn man and refused to believe the bad news coming
back from the war zone.

Bush is a reasonable man. He tried to settle the problem diplomatically
first. Johnson did no such thing. Bush took it to the UN. Johnson did
not. Bush won. Johnson did not. Very poor analogy so far.

Protests grew, especially after the draft started sending people into
this dirty conflict who wanted no part of it.

Protests have disappeared. The protesters back then were amateurs
expressing their opinion, not semi pro's.

Then one day LBJ announced we was not going to seek reelection. It
came out of the blue, surprising everyone. He left it up to Nixon to
actually wind down the war.

Just like Truman left it to Eisenhower to end Korea. Seems like the
Democrats keep picking fights they can't handle then turn to the
Republicans to get the country out of the mess the Democrats got the
country into. Republican Presidents are winners.

Bush's poll numbers dropped another 5 points today. He is now
predicted to lose. I wonder if we will see a similar announcement to
LBJ's. The Republicans may require Bush to fall on his sword for
the sins of the entire administration, to be replaced by some new
photogenic figurehead such as Arnold Schwarzenegger. This is why it
is important to blast away at the entire administration, not just the
figurehead Bush.

You haven't provided a link. Why?
--
We knew the risks. We willingly took those risks.
Therefore when things come out against us.
We have no cause for complaint.
Robert Falcon Scott, (1868-1912)
The Antarctic death camp, March 28, 1912
.
User: "Roedy Green"

Title: Re: Bush vs LBJ 18 Jan 2004 03:27:50 PM
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 16:45:18 GMT, Don Swayser <swayser@optonline.net>
wrote or quoted :

I haven't heard any complaints from TV news people. I think we'd have
heard from them if the US government had unreasonably interfered with
their broadcasts from the Iraq war.

Exactly. The newtorks are owned by five companies who all have a
vested interest in selling Bush and his war.
The companies are not complaining, though reporters do anonymously.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
Coaching, problem solving, economical contract programming.
See http://mindprod.com/jgloss/jgloss.html for The Java Glossary.
.
User: "Roedy Green"

Title: Re: Bush vs LBJ 18 Jan 2004 04:40:03 PM
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 21:27:50 GMT, Roedy Green
<look-at-the-website@mindprod.com> wrote or quoted :

The companies are not complaining, though reporters do anonymously.

Did you miss all that kafuffle about "embedded reporters"? The
military got to decide who, what, when and where in a way
unprecedented.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
Coaching, problem solving, economical contract programming.
See http://mindprod.com/jgloss/jgloss.html for The Java Glossary.
.




  Page 1 of 1

1

 


Related Articles
Bush the Repub. LBJ
Bush (Iraq) & LBJ (Viet Nam) support loser wars, short video tape...
Re: Kerry (like LBJ) would ineptly escalate Iraq conflict.
THE TRUTH WILL OUT - LBJ AND ASSOCIATES TEXAS AND OTHERWISE BEHIND JFK ASSASSINATION
LBJ, Israel & the USS Liberty Massacre
40 Years Ago, Today, LBJ Signed The Civil Rights Act
Re: Memorial Day: Let Us Remember Conservative Myths -- How The Liberal Democrats Spat On Vietnam Vets after LBJ's Vietnam!!
Of nearly 22,000 soldiers killed, LBJ attended 2 funerals
58,200 American GIs Died In Vietnam War While Democrats JFK & LBJ Made Millions! $$$ JFK - Kerry's Hero
Besides Bush Six Other U.S. Presidents Have Been Economic "SupplySiders"--Karrt Kudlow
A Tribute to Our Troops -- And Their Betrayal by Bush.
Bush's Labor Day: Study Ties Biggest CEO Raises to Largest Layoffs
Bush gullibility caused the ghastly deaths of at least 39 today.
Bush is still AWOL.
GEORGE BUSH: MAN OF THE DECADE, INSTRUMENT OF GOD, or DEVIL'S HELPER?
 

NEWER

pg.3585     pg.2749     pg.2106     pg.1612     pg.1232     pg.940     pg.716     pg.544     pg.412     pg.311     pg.234     pg.175     pg.130     pg.96     pg.70     pg.50     pg.35     pg.24     pg.16     pg.10     pg.6     pg.3     pg.1

OLDER