Leon, you can lock or delete this-- I was writing it when you locked the other one--

[Archive]

Posted By: Tim Newcomb

Does it strike any of my liberal friends that a VERY large proportion of the ~22% who still approve of Bush seem to be right here on this very board (still delusionally claiming theirs is the majority opinion)? How did we get so lucky?

What's worse is that (unlike Ted, whom I still love despite disagreeing with everything he says about politics) many of them are board lurkers who ONLY come out for the political threads because they have nothing to say about the hobby. That gets my goat (hint to Leon)--

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

I've thought about that too Tim, the disproportionate number and all. Not sure I fully understand why.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe D.

"I've thought about that too Tim, the disproportionate number and all. Not sure I fully understand why."


I've got a possible answer barry.....
maybe the 22% poll is pure BS made to make certain people happy.

And the 'disproportionate' number you ACTUALLY see is more accurate.

Just a guess....
but then again, why use your own eyes when you can have someone else tell you what the percentage is?





edit: spelling
edit: to remove those annoying spaces caused by the last edit and to add a few more words.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimCrandell

More people in this country call themselves conservative vs. liberal.

Most people who defend Bush admit he wasc not perfect but that he was great in what mattered most.

Personally I don't know many liberals--most in the bus world that I hang out in are presumed republican/conservative. My town went heavily McCain--I was amazed Obama got any votes?? Just like if you got a bunch of mainstream media or college professors together--you assume they are 95% liberal.

I recognize all these conservatives who post on the board--who are left wingers who come out only on political posts?

[Archive]

Posted By: JDRUM

They may very well be part of the "vast right wing" conspiracy and as such chose to lurk most of the time. This board is an accurate sample of nothing more than people who collect primarily pre-war baseball cards and artifacts.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

I'm not sure I agree Joe, but apparently I know nothing so who am I to argue? Maybe you're right.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe D.

"I'm not sure I agree Joe, but apparently I know nothing so who am I to argue? Maybe you're right."


Barry... who knows who is right? and for sure you do not know 'nothing'.

But.... one of my favorite expressions is......
"I see better than I hear."

I tend to go with my own perceptions / especially when it seems those perceptions diverge from what others say 'reality is'.

We are all little dots in a giant universe. Why trust another dot's opinion and perceptions over your own?

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

I agree, but my eyes tell me Bush has not been a popular president.

And I think Leon will not appreciate this new thread so this will be my last post on it.

[Archive]

Posted By: Richard Simon

"One more bit from our post-election Zogby poll: We asked voters if they considered themselves fiscally conservative and socially liberal. A whopping 59% said they did."
=

I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.
Unknown author
--
We made a promise. We swore we'd always remember.
No retreat baby, no surrender.
The Boss

[Archive]

Posted By: Jason

Barry-



I take nothing on this forum personal. What I do know of you (which isn't much) is that you are a nice person who contributes alot to the hobby. Thank you. Bottom line is we all share a common interest.....pre war baseball cards, but that does not hide the fact we ALL are red blooded American citizens who do care about our country.....otherwise we would not live here. My last comment would be: I sincerely think Obama's best interest are in fact for our nation AS WELL as Bush's. He will make mistakes just as past presidents, but we will have to come together to make the change. Mudslinging will have to stop and people will have to set differences aside to make change. As long as that does not conflict with my beliefs I am all for it. We CANNOT point the finger at one person or one party. I know you are surely intellegent enough to know this. Our country's falling out came LONG before Bush and even Clinton. We have to reduce costs, stop illegals, get off our lazy asses, and teach our children work ethics that have seem to be all but lost in recent generations. If those things do not happen, change can never happen. I am not for socialation or government control of enterprise, but I do not know what else Obama can do to make a "quick fix" at this time. I think costs have to come down as well as dependancy on other countries. We need to instill work ethics again here in this country.





God Bless,

Jason

[Archive]

Posted By: David Atkatz

Is it so surprising that amongst people who are well-off enough to spend thousands (and in some cases tens of thousands) of dollars on bits of cardboard, you'll find many conservatives (and a few ultra-conservatives)?

[Archive]

Posted By: Glenn

Hi Tim,



How are you these days?



The answer to your question (rhetorical though it may have been) is that the board is comprised primarily of people who can afford the luxury of spending hundreds or thousands of dollars per month on baseball cards and is thus not a representative sampling of the general populace. It is analogous to the Literary Digest telephone poll of 1936 that predicted Alf Landon in a landslide over FDR.

edited to add: I see I've been beaten to the punch.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jim VB

"...people will have to set differences aside to make change. As long as that does not conflict with my beliefs I am all for it."


Well... as long as your being flexible about it!

[Archive]

Posted By: keyway

Sorry Jim CranDall but Bush was not good at a damn thing. Name it? He was a total Jackass and the worst President of my time.

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve

I guess you did not get the hint.


Steve

[Archive]

Posted By: Andrew Saboley

There can't be any doubt that GWB will rank at the bottom along with Herbert Hoover. Even Jimmy Carter will rank above GWB. Domestic eavesdropping and curtailing liberties as an excuse to fight terrorism is an act of treason against what is left of our democracy.
Regarding FOX News and CNN.....they are both partisan propaganda channels. FOX is right wing controlled and CNN is left wing controlled. Neither provide an accurate view of the world.

[Archive]

Posted By: David Atkatz

Even Millard Fillmore will rank above GWB.

(And, remember, he gave us the Fillmore East and West. Don't believe it? Ask Dubya.)

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

Can you pilot an F102 Fighter Jet ? ?

George Bush could, and he attained an expert flying record piloting the most complicated
jet fighter plane ever made in its time (during the 1960's). There were very few pilots who
were qualified to fly this "state-of-the-art" jet during the late 1960's.

The reason he did not see action in Vietnam was due to the phasing out of the F102 jet in
the late '60s. If this Jet fighter was to see action in Vietnam in 1970, you can bet your ass
that George Bush would have been deployed there.

I know all this for a fact, since I was in the US AIR FORCE during the 1960's, stationed at a
large SAC (Strategic Air Command) base....that had a Squadron of F102's and B52 bombers.

Boy, it is amazing how many "liberals" here are totally uninformed.

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

Perhaps, I can "side-track" this thread into a more meaningful discussion. 1st, by thanking you,
Tim, for an excellent, and well-written article in the current OLD CARDBOARD on the M116 set.

I have a question for you regarding the printing of the M116 cards. You said they were printed
in series of 12 cards. This fact is consistent with my theory on the printing of the T206 cards.
Furthermore, the E91 cards were printed 12 across (a 12-card E91 strip exists).

Were the M116 - 12 card series in strip form ? Or, say a 4 x 3 array ?

Thanks again,

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: JimCrandell

Ted,

Misinformed and not very bright(Barry excluded).

[Archive]

Posted By: David Atkatz

The reason(s) he did not see action, Ted, are that (a) he was AWOL most of the time, and (b) he refused to take a flight physical, thus leading to his grounding (as was his intention).

(Fighter pilots, as a rule, do everything in their power to avoid a medical grounding. Your Dubya did just the opposite.)

And, for what it's worth, I am a qualified and licensed single-engine pilot. No turbine time, though.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe D.

David -

Is all of what you just said (in prior post to Ted) - coming from first hand knowledge? Or stuff you read?

The reason I ask is - Ted shared some first hand knowledge and opinion based on first-hand military / air force experience. Just wondering if you were as well?

Were you in the air force as well?

especially with a comment like "(Fighter pilots, as a rule, do everything in their power to avoid a medical grounding. Your Dubya did just the opposite.)"

[Archive]

Posted By: David Atkatz

Ted did not share first-hand knowledge about Dubya. His first-hand knowledge concerns F102s, not the particular National Guard pilot in question.

No, I was not in the Air Force. But I was taught to fly, and qualify in aerobatics, by a former Vietnam F4 Phantom pilot

[Archive]

Posted By: PC

I have the opposite impression that Tim has .. these political discussions seem to bring out "who is that?" left wingers. Autograph collectors and professors -- not pre-war card collectors.

"Not that there is anything wrong with that."

[Archive]

Posted By: David Atkatz

I'm proud to be a vintage autograph (and vintage memorabilia) collector, and I'm proud to be a professor.

(And there's nothing wrong with that, either.)

Funny, though, how we never seem to knock the cardboard junkies when they dare post over on the memorabilia side.

[Archive]

Posted By: Richard Simon

"George W. Bush's military service began in 1968 when he enlisted in the Texas Air National Guard after graduating with a bachelor's degree in history from Yale University. The aircraft he was ultimately trained to fly was the F-102 Delta Dagger, popularly known as "the Deuce." The F-102 may have been old but was far from useless, and it continued to serve in large numbers with both Air Force and Air National Guard units well into the 1970s. Furthermore, the F-102 was deployed to Vietnam throughout most of the conflict, and the aircraft proved its value early by deterring North Vietnamese pilots from crossing the border to attack the South. Perhaps more importantly, the F-102 and its Air National Guard pilots performed a vital role in defending the continental United States from nuclear attack."
"The lack of a North Vietnamese air threat prompted the Air Force to gradually withdraw the F-102 from southeast Asia beginning in December 1969 and concluding in May 1971."






quoting from aerospace.org

Did Ted possibly get some "facts" wrong?











I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.



Unknown author



--



We made a promise. We swore we'd always remember.



No retreat baby, no surrender.



The Boss

[Archive]

Posted By: David Atkatz

So much for Ted's "first-hand knowledge" of the F102.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe D.

"Ted did not share first-hand knowledge about Dubya. His first-hand knowledge concerns F102s, not the particular National Guard pilot in question.

No, I was not in the Air Force. But I was taught to fly, and qualify in aerobatics, by a former Vietnam F4 Phantom pilot"


Thats great David... but I didn't say Ted shared first-hand knowledge about Dubya.
I said Ted shared some first hand knowledge and opinion based on first-hand military / air force experience.


You were not in the Air Force.... so your opinion and knowledge can be classified as 'academic' I guess.


No disrespect intended at all.... but I tend to give more weight to opinions expressed by a people with actual experience (as opposed to opinions expressed by someone who has merely read about experiences).

So when Ted expresses admiration for a person who can pilot an F102 Fighter Jet -
and when Ted mentions that Dubya did not see action in Vietnam due to the phasing out of the F102 jet in the late '60s

I'm gonna give those opinions a bit more consideration.

[Archive]

Posted By: David Atkatz

Go right ahead, Joe.

But, as you can plainly see, Ted was dead wrong about the F102s service.

And, while I don't know what Ted's job was on that air base, I'm quite sure I've spent much more quality time (i.e., in the air, flying airplanes, or talking about flying airplanes) with fighter pilots than Ted has.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe D.

"quoting from aerospace.org
Did Ted possibly get some "facts" wrong? "


Richard - did the report mention whether or not the F102 was being phased out?
I am pretty sure that is what Ted said.

Being 'phased out' implies usage. Your snippet mentions usage.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe D.

"And, while I don't know what Ted's job was on that air base, I'm quite sure I've spent much more quality time (i.e., in the air, flying airplanes, or talking about flying airplanes) with fighter pilots than Ted has."

David,

My brain has a simple problem figuring out how a person in one sentence can admit that he does not know what Ted's job was on the air base - -
but can also be QUITE SURE he's spent much more quality time with fighter pilots than Ted.


I think that is indicative of a fundamental issue I have with many comments (not necessarily yours / not trying to personally go after your comments).

But how the heck can you be quite sure you have spent more quality time and at the same time say you don't know of the other person's experience?


That to me seems a bit closed-minded. You have your conclusions before your facts.


edit: grammar.

[Archive]

Posted By: dan mckee

Does anyone know what it means when an Army DI tells a young Army private to lose those Air Force gloves?

[Archive]

Posted By: PC

David -- that's probably because the card guys don't go over there with flame throwers, and burn the place down with offensive OT tirades.

At least not as often.

[Archive]

Posted By: Richard Simon

Joe - I have added a further "snippet" to my original post about that story regarding the F102 and when it was phased out. The plane was used in Vietnam for all of 1970 and part of 1971 and the phaseout did not occur in the late 60's but in the last month of the 60's.
The story was quite lengthy and at first it appeared that only the first paragraph was applicable to our discussion. I went back and near the end of a very lengthy story the additional "snippet" was found. To be fair to all, I thought I should add it to my post. I believe the additional snippet shows that W had ample opportunity to be in Vietnam with that plane. But look at it this way, he made sure the Vietcong never attacked the continental US.



=



I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.



Unknown author



--



We made a promise. We swore we'd always remember.



No retreat baby, no surrender.



The Boss

[Archive]

Posted By: David Atkatz

Noticed that I said "quality time,"--in the air, flying airplanes. (Not flying in airplanes. There's quite a difference.)

I stand by my comment.

And here's a question. When the F102 was finally retired, did the Air Force muster out all their F102 pilots, or did most transition to other aircraft? (Remember, we were at war.) Even if no F104 ever flew in Vietnmam--as they did--that would not be the reason Dubya never saw action.

[Archive]

Posted By: David Atkatz

Let's settle it.

What was your job, Ted?

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe D.

""The lack of a North Vietnamese air threat prompted the Air Force to gradually withdraw the F-102 from southeast Asia beginning in December 1969 and concluding in May 1971."


That new snipped originally left out seems to be very much in line with Ted's post.

The power of editing!

Without that sentence, it is easier to feel that the article is conflicting with Ted's post.
Yet with the sentence -- it sure is a lot more difficult to feel that way.


'Editing'. Yet another reason I go with actual experience over academic research.

[Archive]

Posted By: dan mckee

Ted's job in the Air Force was to research every possible T206 back combination and printing method there was.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe D.

"Noticed that I said "quality time,"--in the air, flying airplanes. (Not flying in airplanes. There's quite a difference.)"


you may very well have - - that is not the point.
I have an issue with being quite sure he has while at the same time admits he does not know the other person's experience.

You have come to your conclusion before receiving the facts.


"But, as you can plainly see, Ted was dead wrong about the F102s service. "

As you can see by the addition of the omitted part of the article.... Ted was not dead wrong.



Dan....
I believe that!


edit: because my original statement was not what I intended.

[Archive]

Posted By: David Atkatz

Sometimes academics--in particular the ability to parse a sentence and follow the logic of an argument--can be pretty useful.

Ted's argument--and you seem to take it as "first hand experience"--was not that the F102 was phased out, but rather that the reason Dubya never saw action was that phase out. How many former F102 pilots did see action in 'nam in a different aircraft? If there was even one, then Ted's argument is fallacious.

Care to bet?

And Ted was wrong--the F102 did see action in Vietnam.

And, yes, I reached a conclusion without knowing all the facts.

Doesn't mean I'm wrong, though.

I will unequivocally state, even before Ted answers the question, that I have spent more time flying airplanes with fighter pilots than he has. In fact I'm sure--even before all the facts are in--that Ted hasn't spent any time flying airplanes with a fighter pilot.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe D.

"Care to bet?"

David....

I don't know if you had more experience / I don't know if Ted had more experience talking with Fighter Pilots.


What I find strange is being 'quite sure' you had more experience and at the same time admitting that you do not know the other person's experience.


I have yet to hear a good reason why anyone would be 'quite sure' of something while admitting they do not know the facts.
Please help me out with that one as opposed to the ability to parse a sentence.


also - I must say -
while I don't particularly agree with everything you say - I don't see a reason to have any negative personal feelings toward anyone whose opinion does not match my own. I tried very hard not to make any of my posts sound like personal judgments (because none of them are). With that in mind - I probably should make this my last post.... as I seem to feel like I am picking on your posts - - which is not my intention at all.


edit:
"And, yes, I reached a conclusion without knowing all the facts.
Doesn't mean I'm wrong, though. "
It means your procedure is wrong IMO. Have a good one.

[Archive]

Posted By: keyway

Jim< I can see from all the answers you gave about what Bush has done for the good that you are not the Brightest bulb on the planet. O.

[Archive]

Posted By: keyway

Funny when you ask a smart guy a question he can't answer he goes to name calling.

[Archive]

Posted By: David Atkatz

You know, Joe, the reason I mention at all that I was taught by an F4 jet jockey is not to brag, but to debate "first hand experience." I based my statement that most fighter pilots try to avoid being grounded, on personal interaction--at pretty close quarters-with a fighter pilot. Not so farfetched.

But you seem to think that Ted's statement that Dubya never saw action because the F102 was phased out is also based on first-hand knowledge. That is far-fetched. He has no first-hand knowledge whatsoever of GWB's Guard record, his airmanship, or whether or not he could have transitioned to another aircraft. His statement is based on nothing.

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter Thomas

Well I am not a very frequent poster and don't think I have ever posted about politics. Just so everyone knows, I am politically and socially disposed pretty far to the left, but really never discuss these things with anyone but my wife, who is currently left of me. The reason that I don't post on politics is that I regard politics and, for that matter religion, as underlyingly dogmatic and personal and as such I don't feel comfortable discussing or trying to influence others in these subjects. In the summer of 1988 I took my wife with me on a business trip to Denver so we could spend some time in Denver and then the Rockies. Denver has a wonderful western art museum and on Friday afternoon we walked to the museum from our hotel and as we arrived Michael Dukakis also arrived with escorts and he said to me "Peter what are you doing here?" and I replied that we had come to see the museum and do some non technical climbing. I then asked him "Mike what are you doing here?" and he said laughing - well "I'm running for President". Linda asked me how I knew him and he replied, "we used to ride the Green Line to Park Station on pretty much the same schedule." I had not seen him in 8 years and was surprised he remembered me by name although we did talk frequently for about 10 minutes on that ride. This was sometime before his tank ride. In the interest of full political disclosure, Barney Frank used to live across the street from me in Boston, when he was the Mayor's assistant and was very helpful in some housing rehabilitation that I was working on in the South End. Barney and about six neighbors would frequently have a beer on Dan and Mary Finn's front steps on Friday summer evenings.

[Archive]

Posted By: David Atkatz

""And, yes, I reached a conclusion without knowing all the facts.
Doesn't mean I'm wrong, though. "
It means your procedure is wrong IMO."

Not necessarily. In the real world, we almost always draw conclusions before all facts are in. (Indeed, we can never have all the facts.) You reach a conclusion, and you will find it--later--to have been either right or wrong.

What I'm doing in this case is simply gambling. I'm calling Ted's (actually your--Ted never said he flew) bluff. Do it all the time when I play poker--in fact the only procedure available there is to make a decision without knowing all the facts.

Based on what I've seen of Ted's non T206 postings, I'm willing to bet as I have done.

I call.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

JOE

Let's reprise and RE-READ....Richard's quote.....

" "George W. Bush's military service began in 1968 when he enlisted in the Texas
Air National Guard after graduating with a bachelor's degree in history from
Yale University. The aircraft he was ultimately trained to fly was the F-102
Delta Dagger, popularly known as "the Deuce." The F-102 may have been old but
was far from useless, and it continued to serve in large numbers with both Air
Force and Air National Guard units well into the 1970s. Furthermore, the F-102
was deployed to Vietnam throughout most of the conflict, and the aircraft
proved its value early by deterring North Vietnamese pilots from crossing the
border to attack the South. Perhaps more importantly, the F-102 and its Air
National Guard pilots performed a vital role in defending the continental United
States from nuclear attack."
"The lack of a North Vietnamese air threat prompted the Air Force to gradually
withdraw the F-102 from southeast Asia beginning in December 1969 and con-
cluding in May 1971."

Does this not compare exactly with what I said in my post to KEYWAY ? ?

The only difference that I recall, is that earlier F102 Squadron's were already in Nam; and,
by the time the Texas National Guard Squadron was to be deployed, the Air Force started
phasing-out the older F102's. The F102A Jets, by 1970, had been in service since the 1950's.
Also, the older F102's were becoming very erratic.

But, JOE it's very interesting to study the minds of these "ultra-liberals"....they can look at
a clear blue sky and tell you it is cloudy. It's like they have a mindset that exists somewhere
in "La-La Land". They are constantly whining, and they only see "gloom-n-doom" in the world.

I was a RADAR & ELECTRONICS Specialist in my 4 years in the Air Force operating and trouble-
shooting all kinds of RADAR's (on ground and in bomber planes). One of my all time favorite
movies was on TV last nite....Dr Strangelove.
Every time I watch it, it brings back some great memories when I was in a B52 bomber.

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Joe D, maybe you can answer this question for me. Who do you hate most:

a) rich people
b) Islamic terrorists
c) people who disagree with you
d) people who have two PSA 8 Old Tom Morris rookie cards
e) yourself
f) all of the above

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe D.

"You know, Joe, the reason I mention at all that I was taught by an F4 jet jockey is not to brag, but to debate "first hand experience." I based my statement that most fighter pilots try to avoid being grounded, on personal interaction--at pretty close quarters-with a fighter pilot. Not so farfetched. "

David - that would seem to be the definition of second-hand / not first-hand.
Of course, if the fighter pilots who you talked to would come here and post (jeez I can't imagine why they would)... they would be sharing first hand experience.


Ted was in the military at that time. He was in the air force at that time. So the first hand experience I am referring to is 1) his admiration of a person with the ability to fly that plane and 2) about the plane itself being phased out.

The admiration - I can understand. When you are on the 'inside' of certain professions you have a good and true 'knowing' of what is something to be admired.
The phase out - I am sure you have first-hand knowledge of things being phased out at your school / or your town / or your profession. Again, being on the inside / you have a more intimate knowledge of stuff like that. It is a true 'knowing'.


For what it is worth.... I am glad that you are basing opinion on talks with people who were actually there. That is a world different than reading it through google or a book IMO.

[Archive]

Posted By: David Atkatz

You're right, Joe. Talking with a pilot isn't first-hand experience. It is second-hand.

My bad.

Perhaps I should have said that I was arguing the reasonableness of our (Ted's and my) respective claims.