CJT wrote:
HeyBub wrote:

Jim Yanik wrote:

Yes,we ARE fighting a war. Gotta spend money during a war.


Plus 9-11 and the upheaval that caused. And Katrina.


Much of the Katrina resource was wasted -- acres of unused trailers,
etc.
9-11 was awful, but not "double the national debt" awful.

There's nothing "awful" about the national debt being doubled. The national
debt is nowhere near its historical high (as a percentage of the GDP).
Besides, debt is, in the main, good. Even the Democrats are on board.

HeyBub wrote:
CJT wrote:

ANYBODY who lived through the Carter administration already knows
that Bush was far from the worst.

I lived through the Carter administration. It wasn't good, but Bush
has been much worse.

"It wasn't good?" During Carter's term: Inflation rose from 6% to 12%;
unemployment to 7.5%, interest rates to 20%. Then there was the Iranian
hostage crisis. And we can't forget Carter's response to the Soviet invasion
of Afghanistan: He cancelled the Olympics! When he stood for re-election,
Carter got 41% of the popular vote and 47 electoral votes (out of 537).

Assuming you're not afflicted with BDS, how is the Bush administration bad
for the average person?

Inflation is lower than it's been for a long time (2-3%), unemployment is
below historical averages, taxes have been reduced, the Assault Weapons Ban
expired, we've managed to kill 100,000 or more do-bads, wages are up, the
military is stronger, the Congress is moribund, and the Oval Office doesn't
need steam-cleaning every week.

Hell, things were so bad during the Carter fiasco that we measured
life with a misery index. Some people were either too young to really
remember how bad it was or they simply choose to forget because it
doesn't fit their desire to put down Bush. Bush is by no measure a
GREAT President but he is far from the worst. I can name at least
three during my lifetime who were worse. Carter was by far the worse,
Nixon ran a distant second and Johnson followed Nixon.

HeyBub wrote:
CJT wrote:
HeyBub wrote:

Jim Yanik wrote:

Yes,we ARE fighting a war. Gotta spend money during a war.


Plus 9-11 and the upheaval that caused. And Katrina.


Much of the Katrina resource was wasted -- acres of unused trailers,
etc.
9-11 was awful, but not "double the national debt" awful.

There's nothing "awful" about the national debt being doubled. The national
debt is nowhere near its historical high (as a percentage of the GDP).
Besides, debt is, in the main, good. Even the Democrats are on board.

While I don't think the national debt is as bad as some whould make it
out to be, I can't agree with you that it can be considered "good" by
any streach of the imagination. Bond debt for the purpose of capital
expenditures such as highways, public works projects, and national
defense that is scheduled to be paid for during the life time of the
project is like a home mortgage and can not be considered "bad". Debt
incurred for any other purpose such as entitlements, war, government
operations, interest and subsidies is not good and will have an
adverse effect on the future. Just like the individual that
continually charges more on their credit cards than they pay every
month, eventually the credit limit is reached and the cost of paying
for the credit exceeds their ability to ever reduce the debt. A
vicious cycle begins that will eventually lead to either curtailment
of the basics or bankruptcy. We can only speculate what that might
mean for the government but the concern for such programs as Social
Security are very valid.

HeyBub wrote:

CJT wrote:

ANYBODY who lived through the Carter administration already knows
that Bush was far from the worst.

I lived through the Carter administration. It wasn't good, but Bush
has been much worse.


"It wasn't good?" During Carter's term: Inflation rose from 6% to 12%;
unemployment to 7.5%, interest rates to 20%. Then there was the Iranian
hostage crisis. And we can't forget Carter's response to the Soviet invasion
of Afghanistan: He cancelled the Olympics! When he stood for re-election,
Carter got 41% of the popular vote and 47 electoral votes (out of 537).

Assuming you're not afflicted with BDS, how is the Bush administration bad
for the average person?

Inflation is lower than it's been for a long time (2-3%), unemployment is
below historical averages, taxes have been reduced, the Assault Weapons Ban
expired, we've managed to kill 100,000 or more do-bads, wages are up, the
military is stronger, the Congress is moribund, and the Oval Office doesn't
need steam-cleaning every week.


The inflation numbers are fudged as are the unemployment numbers
(ignoring discouraged workers), the national debt and decline of the
dollar constitute hidden/postponed taxes to be piled on our children,
the deranged are using assault weapons to commit mass murder, we've
killed hundreds of thousands of innocents, wages are NOT up, the
military is weaker, and the Oval Office could use a good cleaning
many who were formerly our friends now would prefer not to deal with
us, education is in free-fall, gasoline prices are through the roof,
and bin Laden is having an easier time with recruitments.

I assume it's your BSE that is blinding you to the facts.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

BobR wrote:

Hell, things were so bad during the Carter fiasco that we measured
life with a misery index. Some people were either too young to really
remember how bad it was or they simply choose to forget because it
doesn't fit their desire to put down Bush. Bush is by no measure a
GREAT President but he is far from the worst. I can name at least
three during my lifetime who were worse. Carter was by far the worse,
Nixon ran a distant second and Johnson followed Nixon.

I suggest that the country was so disgusted with the seemingly corrupt, but
competent, Nixon that they picked a righteous, though incompetent,
replacement.

BobR wrote:

While I don't think the national debt is as bad as some whould make it
out to be, I can't agree with you that it can be considered "good" by
any streach of the imagination. Bond debt for the purpose of capital
expenditures such as highways, public works projects, and national
defense that is scheduled to be paid for during the life time of the
project is like a home mortgage and can not be considered "bad". Debt
incurred for any other purpose such as entitlements, war, government
operations, interest and subsidies is not good and will have an
adverse effect on the future. Just like the individual that
continually charges more on their credit cards than they pay every
month, eventually the credit limit is reached and the cost of paying
for the credit exceeds their ability to ever reduce the debt. A
vicious cycle begins that will eventually lead to either curtailment
of the basics or bankruptcy. We can only speculate what that might
mean for the government but the concern for such programs as Social
Security are very valid.

That's why I said "in the main." Debt for frivolous things is bad (welfare,
farm subsidies, global-warming ameloriation, etc.). But debt incurred for
"investment" is good (bridges, infrastructure, education, etc.) as is debt
incurred to kill skanks, do-bads, squints, mopes, scrots, and toad-suckers.
The other part of debt-be-good is inflation. We pay off the debt in cheaper
dollars.

On Jan 17, 8:25*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
BobR wrote:

Hell, things were so bad during the Carter fiasco that we measured
life with a misery index. *Some people were either too young to really
remember how bad it was or they simply choose to forget because it
doesn't fit their desire to put down Bush. *Bush is by no measure a
GREAT President but he is far from the worst. *I can name at least
three during my lifetime who were worse. *Carter was by far the worse,
Nixon ran a distant second and Johnson followed Nixon.

I suggest that the country was so disgusted with the seemingly corrupt, but
competent, Nixon that they picked a righteous, though incompetent,
replacement.

Can't argue that. As a man, I have always thought highly of Carter.
He really cared and I think he tried his best but that is not enough
to be a good president. Ultimately, his incompetence led to his
downfall. He was the poster boy for the Peter Principle.

HeyBub wrote:

CJT wrote:

HeyBub wrote:


Jim Yanik wrote:


Yes,we ARE fighting a war. Gotta spend money during a war.


Plus 9-11 and the upheaval that caused. And Katrina.



Much of the Katrina resource was wasted -- acres of unused trailers,
etc.
9-11 was awful, but not "double the national debt" awful.


There's nothing "awful" about the national debt being doubled. The national
debt is nowhere near its historical high (as a percentage of the GDP).
Besides, debt is, in the main, good. Even the Democrats are on board.


I disagree. Debt is not good in the abstract. Some background level of
debt is necessary to keep the bonds trading, but less is better. The
Democrats are the fiscally responsible party, and have been for some
time. Republicans try to apply a false stereotype to them, but I think
the populace is waking up to the truth (finally).

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

HeyBub wrote:

BobR wrote:

Hell, things were so bad during the Carter fiasco that we measured
life with a misery index. Some people were either too young to really
remember how bad it was or they simply choose to forget because it
doesn't fit their desire to put down Bush. Bush is by no measure a
GREAT President but he is far from the worst. I can name at least
three during my lifetime who were worse. Carter was by far the worse,
Nixon ran a distant second and Johnson followed Nixon.


I suggest that the country was so disgusted with the seemingly corrupt, but

"Seemingly corrupt?!?!?!" How can there be any doubt?


competent, Nixon that they picked a righteous, though incompetent,
replacement.




--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

BobR wrote:

On Jan 17, 8:25 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:

BobR wrote:


Hell, things were so bad during the Carter fiasco that we measured
life with a misery index. Some people were either too young to really
remember how bad it was or they simply choose to forget because it
doesn't fit their desire to put down Bush. Bush is by no measure a
GREAT President but he is far from the worst. I can name at least
three during my lifetime who were worse. Carter was by far the worse,
Nixon ran a distant second and Johnson followed Nixon.

I suggest that the country was so disgusted with the seemingly corrupt, but
competent, Nixon that they picked a righteous, though incompetent,
replacement.


Can't argue that. As a man, I have always thought highly of Carter.
He really cared and I think he tried his best but that is not enough
to be a good president. Ultimately, his incompetence led to his
downfall. He was the poster boy for the Peter Principle.

It didn't help that Reagan was cutting secret deals with the Iranians
while Carter was trying to get our guys out.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

HeyBub wrote:
BobR wrote:

While I don't think the national debt is as bad as some whould make it
out to be, I can't agree with you that it can be considered "good" by
any streach of the imagination. Bond debt for the purpose of capital
expenditures such as highways, public works projects, and national
defense that is scheduled to be paid for during the life time of the
project is like a home mortgage and can not be considered "bad". Debt
incurred for any other purpose such as entitlements, war, government
operations, interest and subsidies is not good and will have an
adverse effect on the future. Just like the individual that
continually charges more on their credit cards than they pay every
month, eventually the credit limit is reached and the cost of paying
for the credit exceeds their ability to ever reduce the debt. A
vicious cycle begins that will eventually lead to either curtailment
of the basics or bankruptcy. We can only speculate what that might
mean for the government but the concern for such programs as Social
Security are very valid.


That's why I said "in the main." Debt for frivolous things is bad (welfare,
farm subsidies, global-warming ameloriation, etc.). But debt incurred for
"investment" is good (bridges, infrastructure, education, etc.) as is debt
incurred to kill skanks, do-bads, squints, mopes, scrots, and toad-suckers.
The other part of debt-be-good is inflation. We pay off the debt in cheaper
dollars.


So now inflation is a good thing, too? Republican economics revealed at
last...

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

In article , CJT
wrote:

The inflation numbers are fudged as are the unemployment numbers
(ignoring discouraged workers),
Yeah but this has been the same fudging pretty much since the dawn
of time, so it is still very useful as a comparison. The same people are
consistently being missed whether it was Clinton, Bush, Reagan, etc.



the national debt and decline of the
dollar constitute hidden/postponed taxes to be piled on our children,
The decline of the dollar is a cyclical thing that will be reversing
itself soon.. just like it always does.



the deranged are using assault weapons to commit mass murder,
Guffaw. Just because the media says they are assault weapons,
doesn't make it so.

we've
killed hundreds of thousands of innocents,

Murder rates are actually down. Although those too, tend to be
cyclical. Studies show that the only thing that correlates to rises and
falls in violent crime is the number of males 14-24 or so. Prime time
for violence no matter who is in charge.


military is weaker, and the Oval Office could use a good cleaning
But at least the carpet isn't sticky.

In article , CJT
wrote:


I disagree. Debt is not good in the abstract. Some background level of
debt is necessary to keep the bonds trading, but less is better. The
Democrats are the fiscally responsible party, and have been for some
time. Republicans try to apply a false stereotype to them, but I think
the populace is waking up to the truth (finally).

Neither side is the responsible party. Dems began earmarking,
although I have to agree that the GOP perfected it. However, with the
Dems back in charge, their no earmarks policy lasted only a day or two.
Just look at the pork they loaded on to the last Iraq bill.
$2 million for the Ugandan peace process (Senate)
- $5 million for breeding, rearing and transporting of live fish (House)
- $13 million for Ewe lamb replacement and pretension (Senate)
- $20 million for Mormon cricket eradication in Nevada (Senate)
- $24 million for Sugar beat production in Minnesota (Senate)
- $25 million for Spinach growers in California (House)
- $74 million for Peanut storage here in Georgia (House)
- $100 million for the Democratic and Republican National Conventions
(Senate)
- $214 million for Kosovo assistance (Senate)
- $283 million Milk Income Loss Contract program (House)

I wonder what most of this had to do with fighting the war in
Iraq. Anybody that thinks either side is fiscally responsible is
delusional.

In article , CJT
wrote:


It didn't help that Reagan was cutting secret deals with the Iranians
while Carter was trying to get our guys out.

Guffaw. Yep, he made sure the Iranians took the embassy over a year
before the election, he made sure that two chopper ran into each other
and crashed at Desert 1 to foil the rescue, etc. etc. etc.

CJT wrote:
HeyBub wrote:

CJT wrote:

HeyBub wrote:


Jim Yanik wrote:


Yes,we ARE fighting a war. Gotta spend money during a war.


Plus 9-11 and the upheaval that caused. And Katrina.



Much of the Katrina resource was wasted -- acres of unused trailers,
etc.
9-11 was awful, but not "double the national debt" awful.


There's nothing "awful" about the national debt being doubled. The national
debt is nowhere near its historical high (as a percentage of the GDP).
Besides, debt is, in the main, good. Even the Democrats are on board.


I disagree. Debt is not good in the abstract. Some background level of
debt is necessary to keep the bonds trading, but less is better. The
Democrats are the fiscally responsible party, and have been for some
time. Republicans try to apply a false stereotype to them, but I think
the populace is waking up to the truth (finally).

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

"Democrats are the fiscally responsible party, and have been for some
time"

You have got to be kidding or you have your head in the sand and
refuse to look at the record of the democrats over the years. They
are not now nor have they ever been the fiscally responsible party.
This is by no means an endorsement of the Republican party on the same
issue, they have proven to be just as irresponsible in many ways as
the Democrats. Neither can claim any high ground on this point. Only
in the last few years have they (democrats) ever taken fiscal
responsibility for anything and even now, their record is horrible.

CJT wrote:
BobR wrote:

On Jan 17, 8:25 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:

BobR wrote:


Hell, things were so bad during the Carter fiasco that we measured
life with a misery index. Some people were either too young to really
remember how bad it was or they simply choose to forget because it
doesn't fit their desire to put down Bush. Bush is by no measure a
GREAT President but he is far from the worst. I can name at least
three during my lifetime who were worse. Carter was by far the worse,
Nixon ran a distant second and Johnson followed Nixon.

I suggest that the country was so disgusted with the seemingly corrupt, but
competent, Nixon that they picked a righteous, though incompetent,
replacement.


Can't argue that. As a man, I have always thought highly of Carter.
He really cared and I think he tried his best but that is not enough
to be a good president. Ultimately, his incompetence led to his
downfall. He was the poster boy for the Peter Principle.

It didn't help that Reagan was cutting secret deals with the Iranians
while Carter was trying to get our guys out.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

I have long suspected that there was a secret deal but I have also
long suspected that the deal was rather simple too...You turn our
people loose or we turn Iran into a glass factory.

In article
,
BobR wrote:

I have long suspected that there was a secret deal but I have also
long suspected that the deal was rather simple too...You turn our
people loose or we turn Iran into a glass factory.

I think the suggestion was to turn Iran into a parking lot and send
the Marines it to paint the stripes.

CJT wrote:
I suggest that the country was so disgusted with the seemingly
corrupt, but competent, Nixon that they picked a righteous, though
incompetent, replacement.


Can't argue that. As a man, I have always thought highly of Carter.
He really cared and I think he tried his best but that is not enough
to be a good president. Ultimately, his incompetence led to his
downfall. He was the poster boy for the Peter Principle.

It didn't help that Reagan was cutting secret deals with the Iranians
while Carter was trying to get our guys out.

Whatever. Reagan's plan worked; Carter's didn't.

wrote:

The main problem Carter had was he didn't have a clue how the
government really works and did not understand the DC culture. He was
basically shut out of most of the internal processes and was not
embraced socially so his people did not know what was really going on.
US Civil service is truly the 4th branch of government and he didn't
understand that. In his zeal to "streamline" the government he closed
departments and started new ones with new "outside the beltway"
people. Unfortunately all those employees in the closed agencies still
had their jobs (USCS people are "fireproof"). Some agency names
changed and a whole lot of people were sitting around with nothing to
do. For the most part it really was nothing but a change of the sign
on the building. That happened so often the joke was they installed
the signs with thumb screws so they would be easier to change next
week. Most people in DC just thought the Georgia Mafia was a joke that
would be gone in 4 years ... it was.

"I don't run Russia. Ten thousand clerks run Russia" Czar Nicholas II

CJT wrote:
HeyBub wrote:

BobR wrote:

Hell, things were so bad during the Carter fiasco that we measured
life with a misery index. Some people were either too young to
really remember how bad it was or they simply choose to forget
because it doesn't fit their desire to put down Bush. Bush is by
no measure a GREAT President but he is far from the worst. I can
name at least three during my lifetime who were worse. Carter was
by far the worse, Nixon ran a distant second and Johnson followed
Nixon.


I suggest that the country was so disgusted with the seemingly
corrupt, but

"Seemingly corrupt?!?!?!" How can there be any doubt?


competent, Nixon that they picked a righteous, though incompetent,
replacement.

Inasmuch as I was working for the government, in Washington, at the time (AA
for a U.S. Senator, fresh from a tour in Viet Nam as a FSO), there was great
doubt. The Democrats, as is and was their want, blow things out of
proportion: a small-time break-in, global warming, etc. While the
Republicans only get exercised over grave threats to the republic, high
crimes and misdemeanors, such as Clinton's folly.

CJT wrote:


That's why I said "in the main." Debt for frivolous things is bad
(welfare, farm subsidies, global-warming ameloriation, etc.). But
debt incurred for "investment" is good (bridges, infrastructure,
education, etc.) as is debt incurred to kill skanks, do-bads,
squints, mopes, scrots, and toad-suckers. The other part of
debt-be-good is inflation. We pay off the debt in cheaper dollars.


So now inflation is a good thing, too? Republican economics revealed
at last...

I wish you'd quit that.

I didn't say inflation was good, I was just recognizing that inflation
exists.

Almost always has and it's not unreasonable to expect it to continue.

Kurt Ullman wrote in news:kurtullman-
:

In article
,
BobR wrote:

I have long suspected that there was a secret deal but I have also
long suspected that the deal was rather simple too...You turn our
people loose or we turn Iran into a glass factory.

I think the suggestion was to turn Iran into a parking lot and send
the Marines it to paint the stripes.


ANY 'deal' of any sort would have had to happen AFTER Reagan was
elected.(Nov 7 1980)
By then,the embassy people had been left incarcerated for a year.
(Nov 7,1979)
Reagan could not have made ANY deal before he was elected President.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

In article , Jim Yanik wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote in news:kurtullman-
:

In article
,
BobR wrote:

I have long suspected that there was a secret deal but I have also
long suspected that the deal was rather simple too...You turn our
people loose or we turn Iran into a glass factory.

I think the suggestion was to turn Iran into a parking lot and send
the Marines it to paint the stripes.


ANY 'deal' of any sort would have had to happen AFTER Reagan was
elected.(Nov 7 1980)
By then,the embassy people had been left incarcerated for a year.
(Nov 7,1979)
Reagan could not have made ANY deal before he was elected President.

During his campaign, Reagan made no secret of his plans to respond with force
the moment he took office -- and no declaration of war or consent of Congress
in any form would have been needed. A nation's embassy is sovereign territory
of that nation, and by invading it, Iran committed an overt act of war against
the United States. As Commander-in-Chief, the President is empowered to
respond to overt acts of war on his own authority.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article , CJT
wrote:



It didn't help that Reagan was cutting secret deals with the Iranians
while Carter was trying to get our guys out.


Guffaw. Yep, he made sure the Iranians took the embassy over a year
before the election, he made sure that two chopper ran into each other
and crashed at Desert 1 to foil the rescue, etc. etc. etc.

Carter wasn't the operational guy out in the desert in charge of keeping
choppers apart. But Reagan DID have his hand in the scheme to hang
onto our guys until after the election.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

BobR wrote:


CJT wrote:

HeyBub wrote:


CJT wrote:


HeyBub wrote:



Jim Yanik wrote:



Yes,we ARE fighting a war. Gotta spend money during a war.


Plus 9-11 and the upheaval that caused. And Katrina.



Much of the Katrina resource was wasted -- acres of unused trailers,
etc.
9-11 was awful, but not "double the national debt" awful.


There's nothing "awful" about the national debt being doubled. The national
debt is nowhere near its historical high (as a percentage of the GDP).
Besides, debt is, in the main, good. Even the Democrats are on board.



I disagree. Debt is not good in the abstract. Some background level of
debt is necessary to keep the bonds trading, but less is better. The
Democrats are the fiscally responsible party, and have been for some
time. Republicans try to apply a false stereotype to them, but I think
the populace is waking up to the truth (finally).

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .


"Democrats are the fiscally responsible party, and have been for some
time"

You have got to be kidding or you have your head in the sand and
refuse to look at the record of the democrats over the years. They
are not now nor have they ever been the fiscally responsible party.
This is by no means an endorsement of the Republican party on the same
issue, they have proven to be just as irresponsible in many ways as
the Democrats. Neither can claim any high ground on this point. Only
in the last few years have they (democrats) ever taken fiscal
responsibility for anything and even now, their record is horrible.

We had a surplus under Clinton.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

BobR wrote:


CJT wrote:

BobR wrote:


On Jan 17, 8:25 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:


BobR wrote:



Hell, things were so bad during the Carter fiasco that we measured
life with a misery index. Some people were either too young to really
remember how bad it was or they simply choose to forget because it
doesn't fit their desire to put down Bush. Bush is by no measure a
GREAT President but he is far from the worst. I can name at least
three during my lifetime who were worse. Carter was by far the worse,
Nixon ran a distant second and Johnson followed Nixon.

I suggest that the country was so disgusted with the seemingly corrupt, but
competent, Nixon that they picked a righteous, though incompetent,
replacement.


Can't argue that. As a man, I have always thought highly of Carter.
He really cared and I think he tried his best but that is not enough
to be a good president. Ultimately, his incompetence led to his
downfall. He was the poster boy for the Peter Principle.

It didn't help that Reagan was cutting secret deals with the Iranians
while Carter was trying to get our guys out.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .


I have long suspected that there was a secret deal but I have also
long suspected that the deal was rather simple too...You turn our
people loose or we turn Iran into a glass factory.

The deal was along the lines of "hang onto our guys until after the
election and I'll make it worth your while."


--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

HeyBub wrote:

CJT wrote:

I suggest that the country was so disgusted with the seemingly
corrupt, but competent, Nixon that they picked a righteous, though
incompetent, replacement.


Can't argue that. As a man, I have always thought highly of Carter.
He really cared and I think he tried his best but that is not enough
to be a good president. Ultimately, his incompetence led to his
downfall. He was the poster boy for the Peter Principle.

It didn't help that Reagan was cutting secret deals with the Iranians
while Carter was trying to get our guys out.


Whatever. Reagan's plan worked; Carter's didn't.


And, as we learned with Iran Contra, once a crook, always a crook.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

CJT wrote:

But Reagan DID have his hand in the scheme
to hang onto our guys until after the election.

Prove it.

HeyBub wrote:

CJT wrote:

HeyBub wrote:


BobR wrote:


Hell, things were so bad during the Carter fiasco that we measured
life with a misery index. Some people were either too young to
really remember how bad it was or they simply choose to forget
because it doesn't fit their desire to put down Bush. Bush is by
no measure a GREAT President but he is far from the worst. I can
name at least three during my lifetime who were worse. Carter was
by far the worse, Nixon ran a distant second and Johnson followed
Nixon.


I suggest that the country was so disgusted with the seemingly
corrupt, but

"Seemingly corrupt?!?!?!" How can there be any doubt?



competent, Nixon that they picked a righteous, though incompetent,
replacement.


Inasmuch as I was working for the government, in Washington, at the time (AA
for a U.S. Senator, fresh from a tour in Viet Nam as a FSO), there was great
doubt. The Democrats, as is and was their want, blow things out of
proportion: a small-time break-in, global warming, etc. While the
Republicans only get exercised over grave threats to the republic, high
crimes and misdemeanors, such as Clinton's folly.


Surely you jest. "Small time break-in??"

And how does consensual sex with an adult constitute a "high crime?"

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

CJT wrote:

We had a surplus under Clinton.

Two different items. A budget surplus is not the same as the national debt.
There was a national debt under Clinton.

Jim Yanik wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote in news:kurtullman-
:


In article
,
BobR wrote:


I have long suspected that there was a secret deal but I have also
long suspected that the deal was rather simple too...You turn our
people loose or we turn Iran into a glass factory.

I think the suggestion was to turn Iran into a parking lot and send
the Marines it to paint the stripes.



ANY 'deal' of any sort would have had to happen AFTER Reagan was
elected.(Nov 7 1980)
By then,the embassy people had been left incarcerated for a year.
(Nov 7,1979)
Reagan could not have made ANY deal before he was elected President.

Why not? "If you keep the hostages and I'm elected partly as a result ..."

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

Dave Bugg wrote:

CJT wrote:


We had a surplus under Clinton.


Two different items. A budget surplus is not the same as the national debt.
There was a national debt under Clinton.


Of course there was. But it didn't double on _his_ watch.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

CJT wrote:

The deal was along the lines of "hang onto our guys until after the
election and I'll make it worth your while."

Prove it.

CJT wrote:

Why not? "If you keep the hostages and I'm elected partly as a
result ..."

Prove it.

On Jan 18, 8:02*pm, CJT wrote:
BobR wrote:

CJT wrote:

BobR wrote:

On Jan 17, 8:25 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:

BobR wrote:

Hell, things were so bad during the Carter fiasco that we measured
life with a misery index. *Some people were either too young to really
remember how bad it was or they simply choose to forget because it
doesn't fit their desire to put down Bush. *Bush is by no measure a
GREAT President but he is far from the worst. *I can name at least
three during my lifetime who were worse. *Carter was by far the worse,
Nixon ran a distant second and Johnson followed Nixon.

I suggest that the country was so disgusted with the seemingly corrupt, but
competent, Nixon that they picked a righteous, though incompetent,
replacement.

Can't argue that. *As a man, I have always thought highly of Carter.
He really cared and I think he tried his best but that is not enough
to be a good president. *Ultimately, his incompetence led to his
downfall. *He was the poster boy for the Peter Principle.

It didn't help that Reagan was cutting secret deals with the Iranians
while Carter was trying to get our guys out.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. *Our true address is of the form .

I have long suspected that there was a secret deal but I have also
long suspected that the deal was rather simple too...You turn our
people loose or we turn Iran into a glass factory.

The deal was along the lines of "hang onto our guys until after the
election and I'll make it worth your while."

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. *Our true address is of the form .- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Now that is the most idiotic thing I have seen yet. Just how did he
make it worth their while? They knew that once Reagan was in office
the full power of our military would come down on them without
hesitation. They knew that Carter would never take any military
action but just the opposite was true from Reagan.

"Dave Bugg" wrote in news:tkdkj.33$uB6.29@trndny05:

CJT wrote:

The deal was along the lines of "hang onto our guys until after the
election and I'll make it worth your while."

Prove it.


how would Reagan have had any assurance that he would WIN the election?
why would anyone "make a deal" with him before the election?
any such 'deal' would be worthless if Reagan lost the election.

CJT is irrational.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Jim Yanik wrote:
"Dave Bugg" wrote in
news:tkdkj.33$uB6.29@trndny05:

CJT wrote:

The deal was along the lines of "hang onto our guys until after the
election and I'll make it worth your while."

Prove it.


how would Reagan have had any assurance that he would WIN the
election? why would anyone "make a deal" with him before the election?
any such 'deal' would be worthless if Reagan lost the election.

CJT is irrational.

Of course he is. He's afflcited by Conservative Derangement Syndrome.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

BobR wrote:

On Jan 18, 8:02 pm, CJT wrote:

BobR wrote:


CJT wrote:

BobR wrote:

On Jan 17, 8:25 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:

BobR wrote:

Hell, things were so bad during the Carter fiasco that we measured
life with a misery index. Some people were either too young to really
remember how bad it was or they simply choose to forget because it
doesn't fit their desire to put down Bush. Bush is by no measure a
GREAT President but he is far from the worst. I can name at least
three during my lifetime who were worse. Carter was by far the worse,
Nixon ran a distant second and Johnson followed Nixon.

I suggest that the country was so disgusted with the seemingly corrupt, but
competent, Nixon that they picked a righteous, though incompetent,
replacement.

Can't argue that. As a man, I have always thought highly of Carter.
He really cared and I think he tried his best but that is not enough
to be a good president. Ultimately, his incompetence led to his
downfall. He was the poster boy for the Peter Principle.

It didn't help that Reagan was cutting secret deals with the Iranians
while Carter was trying to get our guys out.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

I have long suspected that there was a secret deal but I have also
long suspected that the deal was rather simple too...You turn our
people loose or we turn Iran into a glass factory.

The deal was along the lines of "hang onto our guys until after the
election and I'll make it worth your while."

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Now that is the most idiotic thing I have seen yet. Just how did he
make it worth their while? They knew that once Reagan was in office
the full power of our military would come down on them without
hesitation. They knew that Carter would never take any military
action but just the opposite was true from Reagan.

There was no military action by Reagan.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

Jim Yanik wrote:

"Dave Bugg" wrote in news:tkdkj.33$uB6.29@trndny05:


CJT wrote:


The deal was along the lines of "hang onto our guys until after the
election and I'll make it worth your while."

Prove it.



how would Reagan have had any assurance that he would WIN the election?
why would anyone "make a deal" with him before the election?
any such 'deal' would be worthless if Reagan lost the election.

CJT is irrational.


October Surprise

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October...ise_conspiracy

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

Dave Bugg wrote:

CJT wrote:

But Reagan DID have his hand in the scheme
to hang onto our guys until after the election.

Prove it.

"Proof" is a politically . . . "tricky" kinda thing but the history is
pretty persuasive.

Check out a summary entitled "The Original October Surprise" at:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0610/S00412.htm