Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

CRT v.s. LCD - Page 4

Last response: in Systems
Share
December 7, 2006 5:27:23 PM

Quote:
what do current analysts say about the burn in and longevity?

According to some previews and statements from Canon and Toshiba on the web, they should be as good as CRT's.

My main concern is about the electron emitter platter, though, as there's one for each screen dot. I don't know what measures have been adopted in the event one of those emitters fails.

So far, that I know of, there has been very little in-depth technical info on SED's. There are mainly presentations to show image quality and its basic internal operation.
December 7, 2006 5:40:00 PM

And I believe that if the investments were placed, I doubt very much it would not become viable considerably earlier.

Unless you know of some technological breakthrough that was absolutely necessary for that to happen that I don't know of.

If so, I'll gladly retract.
December 7, 2006 6:03:08 PM

I do not disagree with what you said, that is always the case. Nothing matures without research investments. The first LCD was actually made in 1968, with the first real screen being from 1972 I think. However, they weren't used as computer screens for at least 10 more years.

That being said, the absence of said investments was due directly to the fact that CRTs were WAY cheaper at the time, and had no drawbacks that warranted the amount of investment that would be required to make LCDs a viable product. That is, until laptops came around, and even more so, as was mentioned before, when screen size vs huge bulk started to become an issue for CRTs. That is when investment really started to pick up for LCDs.

So, in a way, the advent of laptops (the first of which that featured a very crude LCD screen debuted in '82 or '83, and they didn't have VGA capabilities till 1988 or so) would be the technological breakthrough that was necessary for that to happen.

Once laptops started to get smaller, the need for a bigger screen area without much increased space drove investment. Once the aforementioned CRT space issues arose as well, investment again increased and we ended up with the LCDs we have today..

There have obviously been numerous other necessary technological advancements, such as color screens, smaller pixel sizes, improved manufacturing processes allowing high yields, cheaper production, and most importantly, larger panels. But all of these were driven by investment, and so don't really qualify as driving forces behind viability.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
December 7, 2006 6:34:29 PM

Well, I would have used red or green, but someone else used them first. And the blue and indigo had also been used. I needed some other colour to differentiate the secondary replies from the original post and my first reply.

The light colours available tend to be hard to read.

Sorry if this upsets you.

Maybe you should join 1Tanker in that guerrella campaign against the THG text colour choices. It should be entertaining to watch.
December 7, 2006 6:45:40 PM

Or learn how to reply to quote tags.
Quote:
Like

this.
December 7, 2006 6:46:36 PM

Two monitors - Sounds like a plan.

I personally prefer CRTs for overall performance and versatility reasons. Generally speaking image quality is pretty good on the LCD side, but some aspects are still not quite there.

I find the attitude of many posters here interesting indeed. Too many fanboys, and may your Higher Power protect you if you challenge them. Especially if facts and logic are used. Sigh.

I find it amusing that so far no one has addressed the question of why a 19" LCD TV set is up to $300.00 more expensive than a 19" LCD computer monitor. And how much would the price of a monitor really have to increase if it incorporated the same performance as a TV screen? Anyone?
December 7, 2006 6:53:37 PM

I've had trouble with the quote tags. It could be a browser issue related to the specific version of Netscape I am using.

Besides, somehow, the specific post that I replied to ended up as all one big quote, with the first post nested. Very strange.

But at 3:00 AM, some things just aren't worth fighting with.
December 7, 2006 7:17:18 PM

Quote:
You should get out a bit more or surf some alot of TFT can do 75hrz mine is one of them.

Alot of info reguarding LCD in this thread is wrong or vary vary vary old.

WizardOZ have you even used a LCD? almost all of your cons of a LCD are way way off.


Well bucko, first off, you have a serious attitude problem and you aren't anywhere near as smart or experienced as you think you are.

To answer your question: I have used and observed, not to mention bought and sold, all sorts of flat-screen displays. Including, among others, the plasma display of a Zenith lap-top. I wonder if you even know what system I am talking about here. As for information being "obsolete", fanboys like you are incapable of grasping reality. I note that you failed to address the issue of the price difference between full-on LCD TVs and LCD computer monitors. The price difference is NOT due to the inclusion of a tuner and other TV-specific electronics.

Secondly, a significant aspect of this discussion relates to performance in demanding applications like games, serious imaging and video editing. All of which require a sophisticated video card and a very good and responsive monitor. I wonder if "Hercules Graphics" has any meaning to you. I doubt it does.

Your posts demonstrate that you are an ignorant punk. You are too stupid to see that just because you have all kinds of disposable cash to throw around to get the upper-level but mid-range stuff commonly available, this does not justify or validate your fanboy attitude and opinions.

Many low-end (never mind higher) CRTs remain superior to 80% of current flat-screen dispalys. At equivalent screen sizes, it is necessary to spend several thousand dollars on a flat-screen to exceed the performance of a mid-priced, let alone truly professonal CRT. I again draw your attention to the price difference between a true LCD TV and a computer monitor of the same size. I also draw your attention to the fact that the world's largest and most successful graphics chip manufacturer is INTEL. Despite the fact that their graphics are the worst on the market. Why? Because these are the cheapest on-board GPUs available. Very popular in "business" machines. Like from DELL. An earlier post described the impact of corporate purchacing on the "success" of LCD screens. Here is the proof / support for the point. I haven't seen anything in your posts on this thread to show that you have anything more than a suprficial grasp of either the technology or the business. I earned a living in the business for a while.

What was it you were saying about "getting out more or surf more"? And about LCD "refresh rates"? But... But.... LCDs don't have refresh rates. CRTs do. You don't know what you are talking about; that being the case STFU you moron!

K well i lost this thread somehow when the forums messed up but im going to respond to this idiotic post really fast.

I love how you call me a fanboy because your upset about me calling you on your vary old indeed info on lcd's good going.

I'm talking about computer monitors here buddy get it right i could care less about tv's.

Hercules use to make the best video cards among other things your cheap and laughable "accusation" im a kid is equaly idiotic. In fact i do alot of high speed gaming and your info is still old. selling the junker monitors ina store like i use to btw doesnt make youa expert in how well LCD works in gaming. Most stores sell junk ass monitors to begin with.
Like i said before LCD in color production isnt up to par with crt yet please read next time. BTW i have owned all sorts of the top end CRT monitors but only have personaly owned this one LCD.

my post was demonstrated how little you seem to know about how far LCD has come since you supposidly researched it and ill use research lightly since almost all of your cons of LCD are either dated info or 100% inccorect.

once again does calling me a fanboy make you sleep better at night? i would love to see you even remotly backup that accusation.

many lower end crt's never mind mid rang crts have always and still blow in image quality which is why i never got them.

many thousands of dollars? seriously try google once again your info is vary dated.

and once again whos talking about tv's?

when you sell a onboard chip with every motherboard your bound to get those numbers its hardly surprising and doesnt prove anything.

My grasp on business and the tech between tv's and computer monitors arent even relavent here since we are talking about computer monitors. So your comparasin is duely ignored.

Actualy once again you are 100% wrong. Even though the LCD does not in fact refresh the card still has to send a refresh to the display and it HAS to accept it. It must comply with the old analog standard.

In fact after reading this stupid post i agree that someoen have no diea what they are talking about however i believe it is you and calling me a moron really man if thats how you have to get a point acrost you have no room to insinuate someone else is younger.

Now that i know you are a saleman of a store that sells LCD i can see why you have such a distorted view of LCD's in general people like you and the garbage most people sell in stores they want to call LCD is exactly why i dont goto a store to buy things anymore.

Quote:
I just don't like being attacked in the manner that some here have - ad hominum and as part of a fanboy rant that doesn't address the legitimate factual points I raised.


I didnt attack you i simply questioned your con table for lcd as being incorrect or old data. Seems however after now finaly reading the posts after that one you seem to do a good job irritating people and getting them to "attack" you. just like your responce was full of what could be considered "attacking" wording. I dont find ti at all surprising everyone questioned you logic when it came to the cons since they are flawed.

I also noticed a superiority complex you seem to have and how you throw around fanboy in a mannor which only says to me you dont have the slightest clue what it even means. I'm not advocating everyone buy a LCD i was simply (and only saying) i dont see how CRT's are at all supirer to a LCD anymore aside color reproduction. I personaly will never buy another CRT again cuz im suck of the refresh killing my eyes and giving me a migrane no matter how high i set it. I'm sick of the fuzzy text especialy in the corners of even a $1000 supposidly professional grade CRT.

I also paid no more! for my LCD then i ever did for any of my CRT monitors in fact checking the prices of a crt i would buy compaired to the price of my LCD i actualy paid less in some cases ALOT less.

I defanily agree with a previous post you need to open your mind and stop being so narrow sighted.
December 7, 2006 8:45:27 PM

Quote:
Niether Colour Blindness, nor Old Age, and the monitor is fine.

Who am I to argue with THG colour designations? They called it "brown", so that's what I called it.

Since this seems to bother you, I urge you to immediately start a guerrella campaign to fix the problem. Don't be shy. You yourself may want to check your monitor and vision first, before doing anything rash.

Any other questions, comments or whatever you wish to raise?
Obviously your eyes are failing you, if you see that this is bothering me. I jokingly(denoted by smiley) said....."bad monitor". Don't make a mountain out of a molehill.
December 7, 2006 10:30:11 PM

Dual 30" Apple Cinima Displays at 2560 x 1600 and Im comparing the picture to a Sony Bravia XBR and thinking.....these are sweeeeeeeet. :lol: 

CRT's may be nice but can't compete with this kind of realestate.
December 7, 2006 11:41:24 PM

Quote:
that being said... Op lock that thread its of no use now


Why does everyone type "that being said"? Nothing is ever said, it is typed.NOW that being typed i agree lock the thread :wink:
December 8, 2006 12:03:49 AM

pfft i said it :p 
December 8, 2006 12:56:16 AM

Quote:
CRT monitors are big and boxy. LCDs are thin. both monitors measure size diagonally. also in both cases, the higher the contrast ratio will give you a better picture. CRTs can display lots of resolutions, while LCDs are known for displaying one resolution clearer than the rest it supports (known as it's "natural resolution"). LCDs are more expensive, but are said to last longer.

you mentioned something about "average CRT specs", please try being more specific.

hope this helps.


I wouldn't look at it that way

It really depends what size you can afford, what you will use it for, and how much
December 8, 2006 12:59:49 AM

For instance, at 19", a crt is better for gaming because of the resolutions it can handle, but for office work an lcd is will be better because of the less strain

Though at widescreen, such as 24", and lcd would be the best buy, because anything else that is bigger is just a waste and have lower resolutions. Accer has a really nice LCd for about 700 that has a resolution of 1920x1200. That resolution is wide screen, hi def (the monitor supports HDCP I believe) and has less strain than a crt. But crt at that same resolution and price is more like 500-600 while the Accer which quite nice, about the lowest of the crop at 700

You should look at it how you will use and how big to understand which is the best buy
December 8, 2006 1:04:57 AM

the native resolution is now natural resolution :o 

i believe the high def resolution (video standard) is actualy 1920x1080 not 1920x1200 the first is 16:9 the latter is 16:10. there are also larger lcd monitors with the same resolution however most aside a hand full of 30" displays (which have a higher resolution) use the 16:9 standard. I personaly preffer the 16:10 aspect ratio though. but not all LCD monitors that support 16:10 or 16:9 support those standards in 1080p which from what i understand is actualy requiered for high def standards such as blue ray and hd dvd.

not to mention a 16:10 aspect monitor will show thinner black bars on the top and bottom unless you change the res and distort the picture.

Though i dont agree with your 19" opinion.
December 8, 2006 1:07:29 AM

True, but you won't use blueray or hd dvd for gaming besides ps3 for a long time

But for computers, I believe anything at 1920 or above is considered hi def
December 8, 2006 1:09:35 AM

Agreed.

Some people might want to watch movies on thier computer however. since i dont really own a TV im one of them :D  course i dont have either high def video drive lol.
December 8, 2006 1:14:59 AM

Yeah, but anyone that can actually afford a blue ray drive or hd dvd drive for a computer probably owns a gtx or two to go with it and probably a really nice display already

Dang, I 'm not one of them either, but at least I have imagination :mrgreen:

December 8, 2006 1:22:54 AM

that is a creepy picture. Makes me wonder who is buying those things for $800 thats as much as my monitor cost :o  but i sure cant afford a blue ray or hd dvd player.
December 8, 2006 9:40:48 AM

Brightness seems a tad low on the spec sheet, but it should ge a fine monitor. Just remember your video cards need the DVI-D Dual link connectors to handle the top end resolution.
December 8, 2006 1:51:39 PM

here is the 244t brightness contrast

Brightness: 500 cd/m2
Contrast Ratio: 1000:1

here is the 30" brightness contrast.

Brightness: 400 cd/m²
Contrast Ratio: 1000:1

your right it is a bit lower. I hope that its not horribly drastic. I did turn the brightness down on my monitor a bit defanitly something to look into there. I wonder how i test my current monitors birhgtness to see how close it is to the 400cd/m2.
December 8, 2006 9:33:27 PM

yes, that picture is creepy, escpecially the full picture, its so creepy I shall not display, but I will give you think link

http://www.webwombat.com.au/entertainment/movies/images...

The picture also makes me mad, because it reminds that I shall never have enough money to ever spend 7k on a computer with 2gtxs, a 82" plasma screen, both hd dvd player types, fatest cpu, mobo, ram combination available at the time, and it makes me more mad that I know at least some one here has accomplished most of that (except for maybe the screen part, probably 24" or 30")
December 8, 2006 10:36:04 PM

Quote:
yes, that picture is creepy, escpecially the full picture, its so creepy I shall not display, but I will give you think link

http://www.webwombat.com.au/entertainment/movies/images...

The picture also makes me mad, because it reminds that I shall never have enough money to ever spend 7k on a computer with 2gtxs, a 82" plasma screen, both hd dvd player types, fatest cpu, mobo, ram combination available at the time, and it makes me more mad that I know at least some one here has accomplished most of that (except for maybe the screen part, probably 24" or 30")

Stick with us and you will.
By the way....




















Yes. I'm that evil.
December 8, 2006 10:43:18 PM

noooo

oh well, at least you didn't show the backside (google borat and you will find it, that is one of my sole reasons for vowing not to watch that movie)
December 8, 2006 10:51:17 PM

*Edit that (Noooo). It messes up the pages formating.*


I'm not that evil.
December 8, 2006 11:06:17 PM

*shivers* Hold down the fort Taq'. I gotta entertain some guests now.
Juan
December 8, 2006 11:18:34 PM

Gotcha sergeant

But for now I think I shall leave only the link because of how creapy it is


Ali
December 9, 2006 12:13:20 AM

ok now im afraid of this thread.
December 9, 2006 7:52:22 AM

Quote:
yes, that picture is creepy, escpecially the full picture, its so creepy I shall not display, but I will give you think link

http://www.webwombat.com.au/entertainment/movies/images...

The picture also makes me mad, because it reminds that I shall never have enough money to ever spend 7k on a computer with 2gtxs, a 82" plasma screen, both hd dvd player types, fatest cpu, mobo, ram combination available at the time, and it makes me more mad that I know at least some one here has accomplished most of that (except for maybe the screen part, probably 24" or 30")


Why not? I started adult life with $40 in my pocket and the clothes I was wearing.....In my case I joined the NAVY and worked my way to the point where I will be ordering a top of the line Mach V from Falcon North West in Sept or Oct 2007...depending on when Vista settles down and becomes stable...more or less.

It's not impossible to work your way into wealth, it takes time and patience and hard work....and a bit of luck some times.
December 9, 2006 8:04:21 AM

Quote:
yes, that picture is creepy, escpecially the full picture, its so creepy I shall not display, but I will give you think link

http://www.webwombat.com.au/entertainment/movies/images...

The picture also makes me mad, because it reminds that I shall never have enough money to ever spend 7k on a computer with 2gtxs, a 82" plasma screen, both hd dvd player types, fatest cpu, mobo, ram combination available at the time, and it makes me more mad that I know at least some one here has accomplished most of that (except for maybe the screen part, probably 24" or 30")


Why not? I started adult life with $40 in my pocket and the clothes I was wearing.....In my case I joined the NAVY and worked my way to the point where I will be ordering a top of the line Mach V from Falcon North West in Sept or Oct 2007...depending on when Vista settles down and becomes stable...more or less.

It's not impossible to work your way into wealth, it takes time and patience and hard work....and a bit of luck some times.Or as they say..."it's not who ya know, it's who ya blow." :wink:
December 9, 2006 8:18:07 AM

Wealth is rarely earned, but is usually bestowed upon physically charming people.

A member of my wife's family is 25 and extremely successful, making lots of money as a plant manager. Here's how he got there:

1.) He worked at McDonalds, but skipped work at least once a week. Usually twice.
2.) He went to a Junior College and took three years to graduate as an HTML programmer on the 18-month program.
3.) While in college, he walked into Blockbuster and filled out a job application. When called in for an interview, he was hired as a MANAGER, even though he had no management experience and had skipped work frequently at his only prior job (McDonalds).
4.) After college, he applied for a job as an HTML programmer at a large production plant. Of course they didn't need an HTML programmer, so they gave him a job as plant manager.
5.) His intelligence is average at best, and he has no motivation or work ethic.

So what’s the secret of his success? He’s 6 feet 4 inches tall and has boyish good looks. When he asks people to do things, they do it because they like him. Nobody knows why they like him, he never does things for people, but they claim it’s because he’s such a nice guy.

He should run for political office.
December 9, 2006 8:33:16 AM

Dude your view of the world is so totally screwed and warped by one single fluke story :?

Wealth is MOSTLY earned. The vast majority of American Millionaires are self made people who like myself started with nothing more than a loving but lower lower middle class family and a public school education. I associate with thousands and thaousands of people who earned their way up out of low or middle income positions to be successful in this country. Many of them are immigrants who came here with next to nothing but a real desire to succeed.


Oh yeah you have the priveleged aristocracy but those people are the MINORITY, there aren't that many of them (you just see them on the news a lot) get out in the world and work your tail off and if you have any brains you can succeed in the USA.

And if you cannot succeed in the USA....you probably can't succeed anywhere in the world...this is the place to make it happen.
December 9, 2006 8:53:48 AM

Nah, veneration of the "beautiful" is a continuous issue for humanity. Look at a few examples:

1.) John F Kennedy is one of American's "most beloved" presidents. His family is often called "America's royal family". They got their wealth mostly through bootlegging. While in office, JFK committed the first wave of U.S. fighters to the Vietnam war, and issued false reports on their deaths to cover his actions. He almost got us blown off the face of the earth during the Cuban Missile Crises, and was generally a failure by anyone's normal standards up until his untimely death. Unfortunately, nobody held him up to their normal standards as president because they found him charming.
2.) Linden B Johnson had the Vietnam War dumped in his lap. Committed to following JFK's vision, he maintained JFK's war plan to the best of his ability. A kindly old man, he became the face of why "old people can't be trusted" as the truth of JFK's war became known, and took the blame for JFK because people DIDN'T find him charming. LBJ put forth his best effort, yet was the second most villainized president of the last 50 years (the first most villainized president, Richard Nixon, actually earned his infamy).

3.) Bill Clinton's presidency was unexceptional, yet his approval ratings were always high, even as he was being tried for impeding an investigation and perjury, and even as the U.S. economy tanked.

Let's go outside the U.S.

4.) Osama Bin Laden was considered a great man by the majority of local people wherever he traveled because he was blessed by Allah with tall stature and good looks.
December 9, 2006 9:02:09 AM

You speak of a few exceptions and I speak of the vast majority who go about building wealth in the background unnoticed and uncommented on because they seek neither fame or power...they only seek to build a life for themselves and their families.
December 9, 2006 3:52:23 PM

well, see if I was older, getting a nice paying job wouldn't be a problem, but since most places won't hire me right now (yay, Kroger does :mrgreen: ), you really can't say that I am lazy and not trying (right now I am taking math and science classes designed for higher grades just cuz me dad thinks me is smart)
December 9, 2006 5:04:29 PM

No offense, but everything you said there is highly subjective and therefore invalid as evidence in an argument.

That being said, it is part of the human condition that beautiful people have an easier time of things. Especially in getting things handed to them that others would not receive.
December 9, 2006 5:31:15 PM

Quote:
A highend cathode-ray tube is way better than any LCD,better than everything, except maybe an DLP.


DLP sucks compared to LCD. With DLP projectors you ca see this awful shimmer on everything that moves.
December 9, 2006 9:59:10 PM

Quote:
DLP sucks compared to LCD. With DLP projectors you ca see this awful shimmer on everything that moves


i havent seen anything like that on my moms dlp projector.
it looks pretty damn good to me.
December 9, 2006 10:02:01 PM

I dont know much about DLP but i do have a nice bit of exp with projection TV's. Serioulsy the picture in those always seems to be horrible. So i dont doubt a projection would have wierd graphical issues.
December 9, 2006 10:17:34 PM

on my moms dlp projector the pic is ok on regular dtv but the hd channels
are almost (but not quite) as good as my hd tube tv.

its the same on my tv non hd channels suck compared to hd channnels.

when i first got my hdtv i would watch knitting or just about anything in hd
as it is just an awsome picture.

it has the upconversion stuff but that cant compare with a true hd signal.

oblivion looks good on my tv at 1920x1080, it looks pretty good
on my moms projector to. my tv plays games at 720p and or 1080i.
my moms dlp projector plays them in 480p.
December 10, 2006 2:29:54 AM

Quote:
No offense, but everything you said there is highly subjective and therefore invalid as evidence in an argument.

That being said, it is part of the human condition that beautiful people have an easier time of things. Especially in getting things handed to them that others would not receive.


You should attend one of our small business association meetings...its hardly subjective when I can point to person after person who managed without being "Beautiful" to obtain a more than comfortable net worth. *shrug* If you have the attitude "I can't do it because I wasnt born to it or Im not beautiful" Then you will never succeed. You only make great gains with some risk and self sacrifice. Ahh well Thats my cheery thought for the week.....
December 10, 2006 4:31:03 AM

Quote:
No offense, but everything you said there is highly subjective and therefore invalid as evidence in an argument.

That being said, it is part of the human condition that beautiful people have an easier time of things. Especially in getting things handed to them that others would not receive.


You should attend one of our small business association meetings...its hardly subjective when I can point to person after person who managed without being "Beautiful" to obtain a more than comfortable net worth. *shrug* If you have the attitude "I can't do it because I wasnt born to it or Im not beautiful" Then you will never succeed. You only make great gains with some risk and self sacrifice. Ahh well Thats my cheery thought for the week.....

You misunderstand me. I am not saying that everyone else can't succeed, or such nonsense as that. I am just saying that in general (and there have been more than a few sociological studies that prove this), "beautiful" people have an easier time getting what they want. I am neither complaining nor bitter about this, thats just how things are. It stems from the primitive mating instincts that still dwell inside us. I would rather work for my achievements anyway.

That being said, I have been to more that a few Small Business and networking meetings filled with successful people of all types, and even helped build a successful business or two, along with being reasonably success in my young professional life without being what one would consider "beautiful". So there is no need to lecture my on the merits of hard work and sacrifice, been there, done that, happy with I've got out of it so far.

FYI, I was stating that Crash's opinions on the people he mentioned in his examples were subjective, not whether or not people's success is based on their looks.
December 10, 2006 5:12:53 AM

My examples were specifically of people who were simply handed over power based on their looks. Except for the LBJ case, which proved the public's resentment for ugly people in that nearly everyone blames LBJ for JFK's "sins".

Ugly people can be successful too, they just have to try much harder or be extremely brilliant, perceptive, and manipulative.
December 10, 2006 5:40:32 AM

And yet, I can provide counter arguments to each example you said to prove almost the exact opposite:

1) JFK did NOT commit the first forces in Vietnam, Both Truman and Eisenhower had sent troops prior to that, and Large Scale troop involvement didn't begin until after he was killed. In fact, there were only about 16,000 troops there when he was killed. He also did a lot of good in the civil rights arena, including establishing the peace corps.
2)Johnson did have Vietnam dumped in his lap, same as Kennedy. However, instead of using the Green Berets and other such groups as advisors, he ramped up the total Number of US troops to over 550,000, and his mis/micro management is a large part of the debacle that was US military involvement at the time.
3)Clinton is extremely intelligent, and while mired in scandal (he was a bit on the crooked side), his approval ratings remained high primarily because people were making more money compared to their taxes/outlays than ever before and he succeeded in balancing the budget to the point of having a surplus.
4) A lot of Bin Ladens success can be attributed to the training, contacts, and funding given to him by the CIA when he was fighting the Russians in Afghanistan.

As I said, I can provide equally subjective counter arguments.

You are right in your analyses of the aforementioned people charm, however, people don't just follow charm blindly. As an example:

George W. Bush is considered a fairly charming and disarming man. However, his and his party's popularity have suffered (as evidenced by the recent elections) because he turned the budget surplus he inherited into a large deficit, got us mired in an unpopular war in Iraq, and has failed to live up to his promises on the economy and health care.

As I said, subjective examples, not objective.

On the other hand, as per my post above, I do not disagree that "beautiful" people have it easier than "ugly" ones.
December 10, 2006 6:02:06 AM

Quote:
See Hitler.
I think ugliness is a prerequisite for tyrants. Hitler,Manuel Noriaga,Fidel Castro, Idi Amin, Saddam Hussien, etc.etc. All Fugly...i'd say. :wink:
December 10, 2006 6:27:14 AM

1.) Prior to Kennedy, the advisors sent to Vietnam were military trainers. Kennedy sent fighters under the label of "advisors" and labeled the battle losses as "training accidents".
2.) Johnson tried to follow Kennedy's intent, but escillating losses among so-called "trainers" caused him to seek a quick and decisive end to battle: Overwhelm the enemy. It didn't work, but that's no reason to villainize the man.
3.) Clinton was STILL IN OFFICE when our CURRENT economical woes came into play. He did absolutely nothing to help the economy, and the budget balance only came into play because of the good economy of the early 90's. People gave Clinton credit for YOUR hard work, because it was the PC boom that drove the economy from 1992-1996, followed by the Internet boom from 1996 to late 1999. The bubble actually burst in 1999, followed by a brief rally that artificially propped up stock prices until spring of 2000 when it crashed again. The economy never completely recovered, but people kept praising Clinton and faking a good economy through false reports until Bush took office.

Clinton's "reputation" was protected because people liked him.

4.) Bin Laden's paramilitary success was based on training, funding, and respect of his troops. Local populations simply found him to be charming in a similar manner to how we propped up Clinton.

The problem here is that I'm reporting unpopular facts that go against commonly held beliefs.

Feel free to rip on Bush, but not in support of Clinton. Just as Clinton was not responsible for the rize and fall of the PC/Internet industry that created and destroyed the mid 1990's boom, Bush never found a solution to the poor economy Clinton handed him.
December 10, 2006 6:30:06 AM

Quote:
See Hitler.
I think ugliness is a prerequisite for tyrants. Hitler,Manuel Noriaga,Fidel Castro, Idi Amin, Saddam Hussien, etc.etc. All Fugly...i'd say. :wink:

I was thinking about writing on the ugly people who managed to manipulate large populations. It turns out that people don't look up to short people, nor admire the ugly, but short ugly people can still prey upon the general population's other prejudices and national pride.
!