NationStates Jolt Archive

Could someone (preferably American) fill me in on why so many people seem to hate Jimmy Carter so much?

I'm always reminded and slightly puzzled of this whenever I see this Simpsons episode where the line "Jimmy Carter? He's history's greatest monster!" is uttered. Yet for the life of me I can never seem to grasp what he did that vilified him so much. :confused:

Was it the fact he was more *the dreaded term* 'Liberal' than others? Was it his economic policies, domestic issues, foreign policies (the whole Iran thing I know) or what?

Help me please! :confused:

The Simpsons doesn't really mean that.

In another episode they show Carter in a good light (building homes with Clinton for the homeless), so don't use The Simpsons as a reference.

I don't really know, now that I think about it. On the economic front, he's pretty much responsible for conquering the inflation of the 1970's.

Carter's foreign policy was just as bad as Bush's handling of the national debt and deficit. Also, Carter was a peanut farmer and let Americans be held hostage in Iran for 444 (?) days, and they were released as soon as Reagan took office...then began the Iran-Contra affair.

Carter did more good after his Presidency than during.

Cant you feel the evil flowing from his bones (of evil)...

No they said it to be ironic, as it were. Jimmy Carter didn't really too much wrong, especially compared to some of his modern counterparts.

*waits for Corneliu to come in and start flaming Carter*

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0895260905/102-0084440-2560118?v=glance&n=283155

scroll down and read the inside flap.

Carter’s presidency saw double digit inflation and he was a damn pussy.
I mean, when those Iranians rushed our embassy and held our citizens hostage, he was all like “Oh noo0eerssss!!1eleven1! I leik peanuts!!2@11!”

I would have been all like, “Fine kill em. We’ve got leik 250,000,000 more, n00b, lol fag, lol!1!11!”

He was a damn emo.

Plus he gave Panama back to Panama. Americans died building that damn canal. The bastard.

Vegetarianistica']http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0895260905/102-0084440-2560118?v=glance&n=283155

scroll down and read the inside flap.
:rolleyes:

Bum rap really. He got saddled with the inflation and oil crisis of the 70's, and then the Iran hostage crisis. As president, he didn't do too much except try and keep the country together and deal with one thing after another.

I think the issue with him was that after Nixon, America wanted to get the GOP out of the White House and Carter fit the bill of an honest man, who would then restore trust in the goverment. However, in order to do so, he was more or less limited in his actions. Regan, who came in with a powerful vision, was far more appealing.

:rolleyes:

:rolleyes: yerself.

Plus he gave Panama back to Panama. Americans died building that damn canal. The bastard.
*sighs* It was, after all, in their country. How'd you feel if another nation held a part of America in perpetua?

Yeah, I kinda got The Simpson's thing was hyperbole, but still- the very fact in was mentioned in such a measure-stick of modern culture surely shows a lot of people have negative feelings towards the guy... and at the time of his presidency too.

I just never really understood how he was thought of as worse then say Nixon?! :confused:

Carter was a piece of shit who should be publicly executed in the most heinous fashion possible. He was a bastard who backstabbed our allies, capitulated to the Soviets whenever and wherever possible, gave away our strategically important canal, renewed ties with Red China, and gutted the hell out of our military and intelligence. He should be tried by a tribunal made of Nicaraguans, Iranians, and Rhodesians, then given scaphism. He's an arch-criminal deserving of death.

Why dislike Jimmy Carter? A few bits off the top of my head:
Carter Cons:

His gas price controls caused massive lines at the pump
The hostage thing where Americans were held for over a year
Looks like a twit
Was a president who wasn't Taft

Carter Pros:

Successfully defended the White House from a deranged rabbit

*sighs* It was, after all, in their country. How'd you feel if another nation held a part of America in perpetua?

It was our canal, made and paid for by us, owned by us. It wasn't their canal.

It was our canal, made and paid for by us, owned by us. It wasn't their canal.
On land stolen from them. Give it a rest.

*waits for Corneliu to come in and start flaming Carter*

Why are you waiting for this?

As for The Honorable Mr. President Carter, I do not know why he is hated.

On land stolen from them. Give it a rest.

Land bought and paid for.

Nicaraguans, Iranians, and Rhodesians

why Rhodesians?

Really, the place where Carter made a mistake was in price controls. That caused shortages, which led to price gouging.

Other than that, his appointment of Paul Volcker was an excellent move that paved the way for the Reagan boom and the revival of the stock market in 1982.

Vegetarianistica']why Rhodesians?

He backstabbed Rhodesia. He refused to recognize the legitimate government of Bishop Muzorewa, and (with the Brits) forced him to hold new elections, which Mugabe won (through mass intimidation).

Carter was a good man. He was trying to follow up Nixon, which is really difficult, as everyone thought the gov't was evil and he couldn't do his job because military action would appear evil and chaotic to his base. He did help combat inflation and economic problems, and he is one of the best men I've ever seen. Even as a Jew, I can see that the true ideals of Jesus (such as peace, love, helping the poor, and so on) were reflected in Jimmy Carter more than any other public figure, Christian and not, I have ever heard of.

EDIT: Also, the land we "bought and paid for" we paid the French for it, who bought it from Colombians, who stole it from Panama.

I just never really understood how he was thought of as worse then say Nixon?! :confused:
Nixon was the goddamn man, see?
He got out of Vietnam, into the Watergate Hotel, left a permanent imprint on the American lexicon (Object-of-Scandal-Goes-Here-gate), was the basis for several movies, and gave American history students yet another thing to giggle about (Deep Throat, because it's sex and that is funny, get it? You know you did in 7th grade), all in a handful of years.
How many other presidents have pulled all that off?

*sighs* It was, after all, in their country. How'd you feel if another nation held a part of America in perpetua?
I wasn’t being serious.
But, for the record, I don’t care what Panamanians think. I don’t care what Americans think either. As long as the Chinese who own it now operate it efficiently, I am happy.

It was our canal, made and paid for by us, owned by us. It wasn't their canal.
And cut THEIR country in half. It was their land. Besides, the damn thing was started by the French you know.

Reading some of the rabid replies against Carter, I'm starting to get the feeling that the whole reason why many people don't like him, is that he broke the record of having Republicans in the White House.

Edit: And we didn't pay for the land, Teddy sent military aid to Panama to defeat Columbia in exchange for the rights to build the canal.

He backstabbed Rhodesia. He refused to recognize the legitimate government of Bishop Muzorewa, and (with the Brits) forced him to hold new elections, which Mugabe won (through mass intimidation).

i'm pretty sure that was a tribal thing as well. anyway, so basically we can thank Carter in some way for Robert Mugabé's ruination of Zimbabwe. nice stuff. that country's basically ruined by it.. starvation..

Carter Pros:

Successfully defended the White House from a deranged rabbit


Actually, recently declassified documents show that to be all propoganda. In actuality, the rabbit would have ravaged the white house while Carter screamed "we surrender, we surrender" had the rabbit been alive. But it was pink and stuffed, yet Carter still called secret service to protect him.

Land bought and paid for.
After "encouraging" a revolution from Columbia and setting up a puppet regime in an "independent" Panama that "sold" the land to the US.

On land stolen from them. Give it a rest.

The land wasn't stolen from them. They gave us the rights to it, and we paid them AND helped their counry gain it's independence. They'd still be part of Colombia if it weren't for our help.

The reason why Carter is "hated" is simply that he was President during a pretty bad time in American history. It was after Watergate, people didn't trust the government. The Cold War was still dragging on, and the Middle East was starting to explode. The hostage crisis became huge news - it was the only thing the networks talked about for over a year. The oil crisis also hit people in the pocketbooks, and you had high inflation and high unemployment. And instead of hearing "things are going to get better" from the government, you had Carter out saying that things were probably going to get worse.

He just wasn't the kind of leader that people wanted or needed for that time period. He did do some excellent things, like the Camp David Accords, but he'll always be remembered as a waffling hand wringer who couldn't make up his mind.

It also doesn't help that Reagan followed him, and he happened to be the most charismatic Presidents we had since Kennedy.

After "encouraging" a revolution from Columbia and setting up a puppet regime in an "independent" Panama that "sold" the land to the US.

Who cares? It was still our canal. He never should have given it to that bastard Torrijos.

All though remember at this point that Reagan was a monster who was compicite in the deliberate destruction of the african continent. (That which had yet to be destroyed).

Carter's foreign policy was just as bad as Bush's handling of the national debt and deficit. Also, Carter was a peanut farmer and let Americans be held hostage in Iran for 444 (?) days, and they were released as soon as Reagan took office...then began the Iran-Contra affair.

Carter did more good after his Presidency than during.

carter aranged for them to be got out it was his last act as president reagan just stole the credit

Camp David was his crowning achievement, the first lasting peace agreement in the Middle-east.

Nixon was the goddamn man, see?
He got out of Vietnam, into the Watergate Hotel, left a permanent imprint on the American lexicon (Object-of-Scandal-Goes-Here-gate), was the basis for several movies, and gave American history students yet another thing to giggle about (Deep Throat, because it's sex and that is funny, get it? You know you did in 7th grade), all in a handful of years.
How many other presidents have pulled all that off?

Well, that and Nixon had a "good republican body... riddled with flabb-itis" :p

But the oil crisis (and therefore the price hikes at the pump) surely were out of Carters control? :confused:

Any President at the time, under the same conditions, would have acted the same wouldn't they? Is it just a scape goat for the problems of the era?

as everyone thought the gov't was evil and he.
The government is evil.

All though remember at this point that Reagan was a monster who was compicite in the deliberate destruction of the african continent. (That which had yet to be destroyed).

How did you come to that conclusion about the Honorable President Ronald Reagan?

He wore sweaters and turned down thermostats. Nobody likes that shit, it's not america. He also comes off like the guy you gave dead arms to in school.

Smart as the man was, he wasn't presidential material. And the white house is no place for on the job training.

not hate. carter was just completely incompetent.

if you are looking for a president villified for no good reason, that is bush 43.

The President of the United States does not hold the descriptor "Honorable". That is judges.

If you mean he was an honorable person, then you must have it in lower case.
If you mean he held the descriptor "Honorable", you are incorrect.

But the oil crisis (and therefore the price hikes at the pump) surely were out of Carters control? :confused:
There weren't price hikes because he instituted price controls. The problem is, that made gas ridiculously rare and so all sorts of bullshit started with rationing and such.
Any President at the time, under the same conditions, would have acted the same wouldn't they? Is it just a scape goat for the problems of the era?
Probably not. He was a tit, not smart, not leadership material, not very good at anything. He had "morals" and "compassion", but neither of those are of any use in a leader (The Crusades had moral leadership).

The President of the United States does not hold the descriptor "Honorable". That is judges.

If you mean he was an honorable person, then you must have it in lower case.
If you mean he held the descriptor "Honorable", you are incorrect.

This doesn't answer my question.

HE HANDED OVER THE CANAL!

'Nuff said.

According to the CSpan poll, President Carter is number 22 on the list, http://www.americanpresidents.org/survey/historians/38.asp , right after former President Bush and President Clinton.

I didn't make the accusation you were confronting, nor am a proponent of it. I was simply correcting your use of a descriptor. The incorrect use of a descriptor is...well, incorrect. Also rude in some cases.

The only correct descriptor for the President of the United States is..."Mr. President". Judges go by "Honorable". In the UK, the Prime Minister is "The Right Honourable Prime Minister of the United Kingdom". However, I digress.

EDIT: Also, the canal was handed over in...1999...how long did people have a chance to repeal the thing giving Panama it back? Both Reagan and Bush had together 12 years to do it, why didn't they?

I didn't make the accusation you were confronting, nor am a proponent of it. I was simply correcting your use of a descriptor. The incorrect use of a descriptor is...well, incorrect. Also rude in some cases.

The only correct descriptor for the President of the United States is..."Mr. President". Judges go by "Honorable". In the UK, the Prime Minister is "The Right Honourable Prime Minister of the United Kingdom". However, I digress.

Thanks.

I have no need for sarcasm...I'm well aware that professors are boring...

Okie ... few things:

During the Carter administration, the United States was still a nation that practised diplomacy and negotiation. It wasn't until Reagan that the US started using military might to make its point. So you can't call Carter a "pussy" as he was doing what he was supposed to do.

Also, he didn't *let* the hostages be held, there was a lot being negotiated to make it so that Reagan - whom the Iranians admired very much and knew he would support the Contras - could take office *before* the release, hence, it appeared the Dems were soft on terrorism. You will also notice that there were no arrests, convictions, or carpet-bombings of Iran in the aftermath ... there was only a massive scandal that went all the way to the White House.

Carter was the first US President in a long time who wasn't a beltway insider or one of the Washington elite. Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, and even Ford were all raised around Washington, had always been around politics, and were blue blood elites. Carter was an "everyday folk" and was not truly prepared for the harsh realities of the political world beyond local and state stuff in the "Old South".

Carter, in his time since being voted out of office, has proven that an ex-President can do amazing things with with Elder Statesmanship and has raised the bar for everyone who now leaves office. Also, it's important to note that the role of his wife - not only being the first First Lady to attend Cabinet meetings, but also chaired certain Presidential committees like the President's Committe on Mental Health - in White House affairs was extremely polarizing because she didn't play "National Hostess". There were no middle ground people when Carter was Pres ... either you loathed him, or you worshipped him. Very similar to the Roosevelt administration.

He was a President who flypapered. He knew his place and he never lied to the American people - as he always promised in his campaign - which sometimes got him into trouble. He was followed, of course, buy the teflon Presidency of Reagan, who clearly was never to blame for anything that went wrong or was unpleasant during his time in office. *coff*

Carter was a good man, a good President, and an outstanding Citizen of the United States. I have nothing but respect for him.

Let's also keep in mind that Carter ran once and won. Reagan ran in 1968, 1972, and 1976 before *finally* winning in 1980. Then someone shot him. ;)

According to the CSpan poll, President Carter is number 22 on the list, http://www.americanpresidents.org/survey/historians/38.asp , right after former President Bush and President Clinton.
Pfft, that website has Lincoln as first. Bull shit.

Keruvalia...I could not have said it better.

I didn't make the accusation you were confronting, nor am a proponent of it. I was simply correcting your use of a descriptor. The incorrect use of a descriptor is...well, incorrect. Also rude in some cases.

The only correct descriptor for the President of the United States is..."Mr. President". Judges go by "Honorable". In the UK, the Prime Minister is "The Right Honourable Prime Minister of the United Kingdom". However, I digress.

EDIT: Also, the canal was handed over in...1999...how long did people have a chance to repeal the thing giving Panama it back? Both Reagan and Bush had together 12 years to do it, why didn't they?

Because they couldn't. If they tried to repeal it, do you know how much fire they'd come under? Carter bowed to a dictator's demands, even though WE built the canal, and it's deffinetly not in as good shape now as it was then. Trust me; I live there.

According to the CSpan poll, President Carter is number 22 on the list, http://www.americanpresidents.org/survey/historians/38.asp , right after former President Bush and President Clinton.
Yeah, but they also gave the first slot to Lincoln, and then they put Taft down as less of a president then Andrew Jackson and Clinton. So I don't think I'm going to trust them to tell me anything useful.

Pfft, that website has Lincoln as first. Bull shit.
I'm sure I'm going to regret this, but why?

Reagan Adminstration tried to cancel funds for Public Television (and Sesame Street by association). That brought a lot more fire than a treaty cancellation with Panama ever would have.

Okie ... few things:

Cheers :)

He knew his place and he never lied to the American people - as he always promised in his campaign - which sometimes got him into trouble.

ROLFMAO!!!! :D

Yeah, but they also gave the first slot to Lincoln, and then they put Taft down as less of a president then Andrew Jackson and Clinton. So I don't think I'm going to trust them to tell me anything useful.
Considering it's the historian's poll, I think I'll trust it as being a wee bit more informed.

Reagan Adminstration tried to cancel funds for Public Television (and Sesame Street by association). That brought a lot more fire than a treaty cancellation with Panama ever would have.

When Panama got pissed off and decided to try and seize the canal by force it would have.

Not really...the Republican Party for the most part would have stood with him on that, not even the Party would back up the No Sesame Street Act (as one REPUBLICAN termed it)

No hatred for the poor fool! Jimmy "National Maliase" Carter was indeed a good man according to his own lights. :)

The trouble was that those lights were dim. :rolleyes:

But it's no surprise that Ecofreaks still love him since he bought into their little Doomsday Cult hook, line and sinker. He was also notable for encouraging his fellow Dummycrats to gut NASA at every opportunity and ending fusion research while whining out loud about national maliase. Don't get me wrong. As I said to begin with I don't hate him. To do so would be like hating poor, helpless Bambi. :(

Mind you, I would never want to see Bambi become President either! ;)

Not really...the Republican Party for the most part would have stood with him on that, not even the Party would back up the No Sesame Street Act (as one REPUBLICAN termed it)

We still shouldn't have handed over the canal. We built it, and we ran it right. Now the Chinese are taking over (they recently bought a large area and closed it off to everyone buy Chinese people), and it's not doing so swell.

I'm sure I'm going to regret this, but why?
He provoked the Civil War by reinforcing Fort Sumpter.
He hated the press and shut down entire newspapers for printing stories he didn’t like.
He suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus.
He was a dictator in the making. John Wilkes booth did this country a bigger favor than he knew by blowing the bastard’s fucking brains out before he could consolidate his power after the War.

Oh ... I forgot to mention:

1] He unconditionally pardoned all draft dodgers.

2] He was an outspoken and vehement supported of Women's Equality and the Feminist movement.

Those two things got him in a lot of heat, but a short 10 years later, and the US twice elected a draft dodger and his feminist wife.

Carter was ahead of his time. So there.

Vegetarianistica']http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0895260905/102-0084440-2560118?v=glance&n=283155

scroll down and read the inside flap.

Erm, do you believe that BS? Carter wasn't liked because he altered the US' policity of propping up military dictators wherever he felt it was needed. Perhaps its because he supports peace rather than war. Perhaps its because he is the antithesis of the neo-con who claim a 'liberal media, historians, teachers' and other such BS. Ill have you know that the media shows death rates in Iraq and other bad publicity because it is engageing in the GOP's favorite practice, Capitalism. They are fighting for rateings. Its the reason that the only thing on the news ever is death and destruction. Dont bitch, their following what you believe, unless that is, you want to violate the Bill of Rights. 'Liberal historians' is utter BS too. Most books Ive read by historians are biased against communism and liberalism and support rightists. 'Liberal teachers' is BS too. ALL of my teachers are Republican. Every single teacher Ive had since moveing to Gerogia has been a Republican and has in some way tried to make the students believe what they do. Best example would be my history teacher who, on a constant basis, brings his political views into what he teaches. The Liberals are always wrong and the Communists can NEVER do anything right. This also includes his current events which, when he describes them, are riddled with conservative bias. In Miami I NEVER knew what a teachers political stance was. They knew how to keep it out of the class room. That book is just Conservative propoganda to libel a vanguard of peace and international cooperation instead of the 'We are the USA and if you dont agree with us we'll userp your sovereignty.' complex.

Considering it's the historian's poll, I think I'll trust it as being a wee bit more informed.
The fact that they had such a major boner for Lincoln (I don't think he was quite as big an Asshole as some claim, but he definitely wasn't 90% perfect) makes me very suspect. Just because someone is a Historian doesn't mean that they aren't running on personal biases and BS for half of their work.

I'm sure I'm going to regret this, but why?

Oh now you will get them started.

The Southerners don't like him for obious reasons. To others he is basically the anti-christ because he violated the Constitution. He didn't free the slaves, etc. etc. etc.

No hatred for the poor fool! Jimmy "National Maliase" Carter was indeed a good man according to his own lights. :)

The trouble was that those lights were dim.

Started out ok. A little abbrasive, but that's ok.

:rolleyes:

Uh oh ... bad sign ...

Ecofreaks

their little Doomsday Cult

Dummycrats

whining out loud about national maliase.

poor, helpless Bambi. :(

And then you lost it with a string of punditry, talking point, rhetoric, and mindless ignorance. You debate like a Republican. No facts, just "flip-flop", "9/11", "strategery".

*sigh*

I will be soooo glad when ya'll are the minority again come November.

Oh ... I forgot to mention:

1] He unconditionally pardoned all draft dodgers.

He didn't pardon them. He gave them amnesty. Not quite the same.

Oh ... I forgot to mention:

1] He unconditionally pardoned all draft dodgers.

2] He was an outspoken and vehement supported of Women's Equality and the Feminist movement.

Those two things got him in a lot of heat, but a short 10 years later, and the US twice elected a draft dodger and his feminist wife.

Carter was ahead of his time. So there.

Good thing then that his time has since passed and we now have a real President in office instead. :p

Oh now you will get them started.

The Southerners don't like him for obious reasons. To others he is basically the anti-christ because he violated the Constitution. He didn't free the slaves, etc. etc. etc.
Pfft, the fact that I am from the southern region of the US has nothing to do with it.

He didn't pardon them. He gave them amnesty. Not quite the same.

Day one after taking office:

January 21, 1977 (http://www.historychannel.com/tdih/tdih.jsp?category=presidential&month=10272953&day=10272986)

He pardoned them.

Okie ... few things:

During the Carter administration, the United States was still a nation that practised diplomacy and negotiation. It wasn't until Reagan that the US started using military might to make its point. So you can't call Carter a "pussy" as he was doing what he was supposed to do.

I disagree with the characterization that the US was still a nation that practised diplomacy and negotiation at that time. The US did what it felt was in its own interests. Carter was President AFTER Korea, AFTER Bay of Pigs, AFTER Vietnam - those definitely weren't diplomacy's finest hour.

Sorry, but when the Soviets invade a sovereign nation and the most you're willing to do is boycott the Olympics, you're going to get labeled a weakling.

Also, he didn't *let* the hostages be held, there was a lot being negotiated to make it so that Reagan - whom the Iranians admired very much and knew he would support the Contras - could take office *before* the release, hence, it appeared the Dems were soft on terrorism. You will also notice that there were no arrests, convictions, or carpet-bombings of Iran in the aftermath ... there was only a massive scandal that went all the way to the White House.

I highly doubt that the Iranians were thinking "Ronald Reagan - we can live with this guy." when they made the determination to give back the hostages during his inaugural speech. It was obviously a slap in the face to Carter. Why would the Iranians want to help a President that was bound to take a harder line on them than the previous one?

Carter was the first US President in a long time who wasn't a beltway insider or one of the Washington elite. Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, and even Ford were all raised around Washington, had always been around politics, and were blue blood elites. Carter was an "everyday folk" and was not truly prepared for the harsh realities of the political world beyond local and state stuff in the "Old South".

And that is one of the reasons why he was a bad President. He truly wasn't prepared, but I don't think not being one of the Washington elite had anything to do with it. Reagan, Clinton and George W. weren't Washington elites either, and I think (despite the kneejerk hatred for these guys from different parts of the political spectrum) most people would agree that they were better Presidents than he was.

Carter, in his time since being voted out of office, has proven that an ex-President can do amazing things with with Elder Statesmanship and has raised the bar for everyone who now leaves office. Also, it's important to note that the role of his wife - not only being the first First Lady to attend Cabinet meetings, but also chaired certain Presidential committees like the President's Committe on Mental Health - in White House affairs was extremely polarizing because she didn't play "National Hostess". There were no middle ground people when Carter was Pres ... either you loathed him, or you worshipped him. Very similar to the Roosevelt administration.

And the Reagan administration, and the Clinton administration, and the current Bush administration.

The "love him or hate him" philsophy that people have for modern Presidents isn't healthy. I can't stand the fact that people aren't able to seperate the man from his policies. There were plenty of good things that Clinton did and there are plenty of good things that Bush 43 has done. But people get so wrapped up in "He's a philanderer!" or "He's a liar!" that you can't have a debate about their presidencies without that crap getting in the way.

He was a President who flypapered. He knew his place and he never lied to the American people - as he always promised in his campaign - which sometimes got him into trouble. He was followed, of course, buy the teflon Presidency of Reagan, who clearly was never to blame for anything that went wrong or was unpleasant during his time in office. *coff*

Carter was a good man, a good President, and an outstanding Citizen of the United States. I have nothing but respect for him.

Let's also keep in mind that Carter ran once and won. Reagan ran in 1968, 1972, and 1976 before *finally* winning in 1980. Then someone shot him. ;)

People expect more from a President than simply being told the truth - even if that truth isn't what they want to hear. Carter didn't deliver. If he had, he would be remembered in a better light, and he would've won reelection.

I think that him losing was the best thing for the country, because as you've said here, he's contributed more American and to the world as an ex-President than he ever did while he was in office.

He provoked the Civil War by reinforcing Fort Sumpter.

Ahhh how dare he protect Federal Property.

Hmm could it be the Southerners were too damn stupid and gave him the reason for the fight?

They didn't have to take the bait and Sumter wasn't a great position to sit in long term. Supplies would have been a problem.


He hated the press and shut down entire newspapers for printing stories he didn’t like.

Meh. War does strange things about press and freedom of speech now doesn't it.


He suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus.


Again War. Rules change especially in a Civil War.


He was a dictator in the making. John Wilkes booth did this country a bigger favor than he knew by blowing the bastard’s fucking brains out before he could consolidate his power after the War.

Actually Wilkes did a huge diservice to the South. My Cousin of time Cornelia Peake-McDonald wrote about how there was an air of reconcilliation at the end of the war. The Northern commanders were actually friendly.

When he died she thought the bastard deserved it and then realized that it was a huge mistake. She later confirmed it by the abuses of the Northern Army and the abuses of Jefferson Davis.

Think about it. The South got the Grant Administration.

Booth did the south a HUGE favor! :rolleyes:

And then you lost it with a string of punditry, talking point, rhetoric, and mindless ignorance.

Poor widdle Democrats! They can dish it out but they can't take it. :p

Do you deny that the Malthusianism Carter favored *is* a Doomsday Cult? o_O

Should I remind you of Richard Lamm, the Democratic governor of Colorado who tried to order all old people to "do the world a favor and die"? Even Peanut Carter couldn't stomach *that* one. :D

Again War. Rules change especially in a Civil War.

Imagine if, say, Bush had done that. I bet you wouldn't be defending it then, would you?

Imagine if, say, Bush had done that. I bet you wouldn't be defending it then, would you?
We aren't in a civil war.

We aren't in a civil war.

If we were, though.

Carter murdered countless millions, but he did it in secret. He buried their bodies on his peanut farm, ate their bones, and sold their babies into slavery.

As for Lincoln, he was an abortionist and ste hamsters on fire.

We aren't in a civil war.

Then why do they call it the Civil War then?

Then why do they call it the Civil War then?

He's talking about the present.

I'm going to start out by saying that I am a southerner, a Virginian and a state's righter before I respond to this.

He provoked the Civil War by reinforcing Fort Sumpter.

The reinforcement of Fort Sumter wasn't as big a deal as we (the South) made it out to be. They were only bringing food and supplies to the troops there, not more troops and not ammunition or weapons.

Beauregard fired the first shot - meaning we fired the first shot. We may have been duped into it, but it was our decision. And it was a poor decision because we were in no position to fight a war.

He hated the press and shut down entire newspapers for printing stories he didn’t like.

I don't know about this one so I won't address it.

He suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus.

Which was within his authority because the country was in a state of Rebellion. You had pro-southern partisans tearing up stretches of railroad track across Maryland and burning bridges left and right to keep Washington from being reinforced. What was he supposed to do?

I don't like the idea, but I can't see how he could have handled the problem differently.

He was a dictator in the making. John Wilkes booth did this country a bigger favor than he knew by blowing the bastard’s fucking brains out before he could consolidate his power after the War.

Actually, I think Booth screwed the South over harder than Lincoln ever did by killing him. Lincoln never hated the South. Reconstruction, and the way things were handled after the war were all because the radical Republicans had control of the government and their number one goal was punishing us. Lincoln wouldn't have done that. When he said "with malice towards none, with charity for all" he meant it.

Things would have been much better for us in the South had he lived. Instead of Lincoln, we got Thaddeus Stevens. I would have rather had Abe.

Day one after taking office:

January 21, 1977 (http://www.historychannel.com/tdih/tdih.jsp?category=presidential&month=10272953&day=10272986)

He pardoned them.

tasty as hell..

Carter deserves to have this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scaphism) done to him.

Imagine if, say, Bush had done that. I bet you wouldn't be defending it then, would you?

If Bush did that Id get as many friends together as I could, go rob a gun store and high tail it to DC so I could personally do the country a favor and kill the bastard.

Actually, I think Booth screwed the South over harder than Lincoln ever did by killing him. Lincoln never hated the South. Reconstruction, and the way things were handled after the war were all because the radical Republicans had control of the government and their number one goal was punishing us. Lincoln wouldn't have done that. When he said "with malice towards none, with charity for all" he meant it.

Things would have been much better for us in the South had he lived. Instead of Lincoln, we got Thaddeus Stevens. I would have rather had Abe.

It's true. Lincoln was a big ally of the south; he preached that as soon as the war was over, they be brought back in and fixed up. His successors, however, decided the South had to be punished.

I have nothing but respect for him.

*Adds to "Reasons to hate Carter" list*

Poor widdle Democrats! They can dish it out but they can't take it. :p

1] I have never brought anything but facts - with sources if asked - to open debates. So I have dished out nothing.

2] I am not a Democrat. (Though it is standard Republican "black and white" only world view that one must be one or the other, so I won't fault you too much on that assumption.)

So .... THERE! :p

*Adds to "Reasons to hate Carter" list*
...which is not quite a quarter the length of my "Reasons to hate Bush II" list

Ahhh how dare he protect Federal Property.
The federal government can go to hell.
Meh. War does strange things about press and freedom of speech now doesn't it.
Again War. Rules change especially in a Civil War.
There is never a good reason to restrict personal freedom, ever.
The Northern commanders were actually friendly.

Are you fucking kidding me? Sherman burned Alabama and South Carolina.
Booth did the south a HUGE favor! :rolleyes:
He did America a favor. He saved us from dictatorship. You really think Lincoln would have given back all that power? Why would he?
The reinforcement of Fort Sumter wasn't as big a deal as we (the South) made it out to be.
I hope to God you aren’t lumping me in with the rest of you Southern buffoons. I may have been born here, but I am not a Southerner.

1] I have never brought anything but facts - with sources if asked - to open debates. So I have dished out nothing.

2] I am not a Democrat. (Though it is standard Republican "black and white" only world view that one must be one or the other, so I won't fault you too much on that assumption.)

So .... THERE! :p

If you're not a Republican and you're not a Democrat then you're just throwing your vote away. :P

Carter deserves to have this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scaphism) done to him.

at least.

*Adds to "Reasons to hate Carter" list*

Ah yes ... from the person who writes of me on other forums that I am a racist because I'm anti-white. (Never minding that I am white).

That's ok, though. I forgive you too.

The price of ignorance far outweighs any outcry I could make.

I hope to God you aren’t lumping me in with the rest of you Southern buffoons. I may have been born here, but I am not a Southerner.

No, no. I meant "we" as in all "Southerners". Not you. You're in a class of buffoons all to yourself.

If Bush did that Id get as many friends together as I could, go rob a gun store and high tail it to DC so I could personally do the country a favor and kill the bastard.
And I would sing your praises, comrade! Vive la Revolution!

The federal government can go to hell.

Why?

There is never a good reason to restrict personal freedom, ever.

Why?

Are you fucking kidding me? Sherman burned Alabama and South Carolina.

You forgot Georgia.

He did America a favor. He saved us from dictatorship. You really think Lincoln would have given back all that power? Why would he?

Prove it. From what I see, no he did a disservice by doing President Lincoln in.

Ah yes ... from the person who writes of me on other forums that I am a racist because I'm anti-white. (Never minding that I am white).

That's ok, though. I forgive you too.

The price of ignorance far outweighs any outcry I could make.
haha, nice

Carter deserves to have this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scaphism) done to him.

Civilized, are we?

Why?
It exists only to restirct our freedoms.
Why?

They are all we have in this world.
You forgot Georgia.

I did.
Prove it. From what I see, no he did a disservice by doing President Lincoln in.
Killing a high level government official is, in almost all cases, a good thing, at least when it comes to this country.

Carter was a piece of shit who should be publicly executed in the most heinous fashion possible. He was a bastard who backstabbed our allies, capitulated to the Soviets whenever and wherever possible, gave away our strategically important canal, renewed ties with Red China, and gutted the hell out of our military and intelligence. He should be tried by a tribunal made of Nicaraguans, Iranians, and Rhodesians, then given scaphism. He's an arch-criminal deserving of death.

The Nicaraguans and Iranians would gladly trade up on Carter to get to hang Reagan by his testicles.

I disagree with the characterization that the US was still a nation that practised diplomacy and negotiation at that time. The US did what it felt was in its own interests. Carter was President AFTER Korea, AFTER Bay of Pigs, AFTER Vietnam - those definitely weren't diplomacy's finest hour.Carter was president right after vietnam. The political climate in this country was that the people were sick of war. Any military action would have been unpopular and potential political suicide.

I highly doubt that the Iranians were thinking "Ronald Reagan - we can live with this guy." when they made the determination to give back the hostages during his inaugural speech. It was obviously a slap in the face to Carter. Why would the Iranians want to help a President that was bound to take a harder line on them than the previous one?Dude, it was a done deal way before the inaguration or haven't you heard of the Iran-Contra scandal? Carter was backdoored by the Repubs in a dirty deal to keep the hostages until after Ronnie took office. The Iranians got much needed spare parts for all their aging US military equipment in the deal.



And that is one of the reasons why he was a bad President. He truly wasn't prepared, but I don't think not being one of the Washington elite had anything to do with it. Reagan, Clinton and George W. weren't Washington elites either, and I think (despite the kneejerk hatred for these guys from different parts of the political spectrum) most people would agree that they were better Presidents than he was. Carter's problem was that he was an honest man who cared amid a sea of assholes who didn't. He couldn't deal with the dirty politics that have become a staple of Washington. The same thing that made him a great human broke him on the political machine.


People expect more from a President than simply being told the truth - even if that truth isn't what they want to hear. Carter didn't deliver. If he had, he would be remembered in a better light, and he would've won reelection.

I think that him losing was the best thing for the country, because as you've said here, he's contributed more American and to the world as an ex-President than he ever did while he was in office.Carter's legacy is a sad one, but not for the reason's you state but rather because it is a shining example of how dirty politics can win over honesty and honorable intentions. Carter couldn't deliver because he was hamstrung by his fellow Americans, stabbed in the back by the military and the Republicans, who then used the failure they orchestrated to slide their new front man into the office still reeking from the stink of Nixon.

It exists only to restirct our freedoms.

They are all we have in this world.

I did.

Killing a high level government official is, in almost all cases, a good thing, at least when it comes to this country.

What brand of tin foil did you make your hat out of?

The Nicaraguans and Iranians would gladly trade up on Carter to get to hang Reagan by his testicles.
The Iranians liked Reagan.

It exists only to restirct our freedoms.

Or gives it more! 13th Amendment?

They are all we have in this world.

Point but what if you are invaded?

I did.

:)

Killing a high level government official is, in almost all cases, a good thing, at least when it comes to this country.

What are you? an anarchist?

Carter couldn't deliver because he was hamstrung by his fellow Americans, stabbed in the back by the military and the Republicans, who then used the failure they orchestrated to slide their new front man into the office still reeking from the stink of Nixon.

That is a gorgeous sentence. Very well played!

You a writer, perchance?

The Iranians liked Reagan.

Oh, yeah. He sold them guns, didn't he?

Oh, yeah. He sold them guns, didn't he?

With George HW Bush's pre-emptive pardon, the world will never know.

If this thread has shown anything, it's how extreme some members of this forum are. Scary.

With George HW Bush's pre-emptive pardon, the world will never know.

I think it kinda makes it obvious. Just means that he didn't do it as far as the law is concerned.

If this thread has shown anything, it's how extreme some members of this forum are. Scary.

I have to agree The Nazz.

That is a gorgeous sentence. Very well played!

You a writer, perchance?:) Why thank you. And no I'm not a writer, at least not professionally.


I do like to use these forums to brush up on my written communication skills though.

Or gives it more! 13th Amendment?
Without government enforcement, the slaves would have freed themselves long before the 13’th amendment.
Point but what if you are invaded?
Tough.
What are you? an anarchist?
I look out for myself.

Carter was president right after vietnam. The political climate in this country was that the people were sick of war. Any military action would have been unpopular and potential political suicide.


I agree - but that just further reinforces the point that the reason he resorted to diplomacy was because he didn't have the political willingness to use the military - at least not until it was too late and then he botched it. Remember Eagle One?

Dude, it was a done deal way before the inaguration or haven't you heard of the Iran-Contra scandal? Carter was backdoored by the Repubs in a dirty deal to keep the hostages until after Ronnie took office. The Iranians got much needed spare parts for all their aging US military equipment in the deal.

Iran-Contra had NOTHING to do with getting the hostages back in 1981. It didn't even come to light until '86, and everything that occurred or was said to have occurred happened on Reagan's watch. The hostages that were being discussed for Iran-Contra were in Lebanon, not in Iran.

Carter's problem was that he was an honest man who cared amid a sea of assholes who didn't. He couldn't deal with the dirty politics that have become a staple of Washington. The same thing that made him a great human broke him on the political machine.

Politics are politics.

Carter's legacy is a sad one, but not for the reason's you state but rather because it is a shining example of how dirty politics can win over honesty and honorable intentions. Carter couldn't deliver because he was hamstrung by his fellow Americans, stabbed in the back by the military and the Republicans, who then used the failure they orchestrated to slide their new front man into the office still reeking from the stink of Nixon.

How the Republicans had anything to do with Carter, when they controlled nothing - not the House, not the Senate, not the Courts, I don't get. He was in control of his own Presidency, and the leader of the party that controlled the entire government. His failure was his own, and there was no one else to blame it on - that's why it went squarely where it belonged...on his head.

If this thread has shown anything, it's how extreme some members of this forum are. Scary.
Got it in one.

Without government enforcement, the slaves would have freed themselves long before the 13’th amendment.

Not in the South. North, yes, south no.

Tough.

Gotta do what you have to do to defend your nation from invasion.

I look out for myself.

Its a wonder your still alive.

Imagine if, say, Bush had done that. I bet you wouldn't be defending it then, would you?

Hmmm theres the problem. How would a pseudo-Southerner handle being the President of Civil War 2?

I'm going to start out by saying that I am a southerner, a Virginian and a state's righter before I respond to this.

*snip*


I have to say well said. :)

I have to say well said. :)

Not every day you have a Virginian defending Lincoln, huh?

Thanks. :)

Could someone (preferably American) fill me in on why so many people seem to hate Jimmy Carter so much?

I'm always reminded and slightly puzzled of this whenever I see this Simpsons episode where the line "Jimmy Carter? He's history's greatest monster!" is uttered. Yet for the life of me I can never seem to grasp what he did that vilified him so much. :confused:

Was it the fact he was more *the dreaded term* 'Liberal' than others? Was it his economic policies, domestic issues, foreign policies (the whole Iran thing I know) or what?

Help me please! :confused:
No, see, its a joke.
Carter is two things the American public was completely unprepared for:
Not a bastard, but thoroughly incompetent.
While pretty much all other US Presidents since EisenHower had their seats reserved in the upper management of hell, Carter managed to fuck up by incompetence, nos corrption or outright evil.
Which really sucked.

The simpsons thing is a joke because Jimmy Carter is one of the greatest people alive today, but a god-awful president

There is never a good reason to restrict personal freedom, ever.


Ahh so in WW1 and WW2 the goverment was out of place to stop the freedom of the press in certain matters such as warships leaving, troop deployments, etc. Afterall freedom of the press.....


Are you fucking kidding me? Sherman burned Alabama and South Carolina.

Yes and your point. He was going to end their ability to fight and it pretty well did.

Again. My comments are from somebody who lived under the occupation. My cousin lived in Winchester which changed hands 73 times.


He did America a favor. He saved us from dictatorship. You really think Lincoln would have given back all that power? Why would he?


Ahh but what do you have that says he wouldn't have?

(Never minding that I am white).


There are white muslims? :eek: :p

I thought you were kind of pink. :)

The simpsons thing is a joke because Jimmy Carter is one of the greatest people alive today, but a god-awful president
No, you see, taking power that you aren't smart enough to manage, and then remaining there, even though you know you are in over your head, until the public removes you isn't a good deed.

It exists only to restirct our freedoms.

In a time of WAR, it is needed. Elimination of freedoms is a valid fight. A temporary restriction is sometimes needed.


Killing a high level government official is, in almost all cases, a good thing, at least when it comes to this country.

Hmm interesting. Are you for killing the current President?

Hmm interesting. Are you for killing the current President?

LOL - way to ask him a question that'll get him on a watch list. :)

LOL - way to ask him a question that'll get him on a watch list. :)
Doesn't take much to get put on a watch list and even possibly have your friendly, neighborhood FBI agent come down and visit your house while you're gone!

Doesn't take much to get put on a watch list and even possibly have your friendly, neighborhood FBI agent come down and visit your house while you're gone!

Not when you're throwing around death threats on the internet, it isn't. :)

But I don't think he needs to worry about the NSA...I doubt Al Qaeda's ringing his phone.

Not every day you have a Virginian defending Lincoln, huh?

Thanks. :)

Not to often. The ones that do tend to look at the history rather then simple propaganda.

However, on the Net, you are oddity! ;)

Not to often. The ones that do tend to look at the history rather then simple propaganda.

However, on the Net, you are oddity! ;)

Completely. I'm a conservative Republican who doesn't hate the Democrats, is pro-labor, anti-corporation who does politics for a living and tries to be fair to both sides, likes Bush's foreign policy but hates his domestic policy and can't stand John McCain. I'm just an all around oddity.

I agree - but that just further reinforces the point that the reason he resorted to diplomacy was because he didn't have the political willingness to use the military - at least not until it was too late and then he botched it. Remember Eagle One?So you blame the president for the military's fuckup? He went with their plan and they blew it. He gets props from me for being a real president and stepping up and taking the blame when all he did was go with what the 'experts' recommended.



Iran-Contra had NOTHING to do with getting the hostages back in 1981. It didn't even come to light until '86, and everything that occurred or was said to have occurred happened on Reagan's watch. The hostages that were being discussed for Iran-Contra were in Lebanon, not in Iran. Do you really believe that bullshit? Iran just happened to wait until not just after the election but until after the change of guard in Washington for no gain at all? I remember when it happened, it was all to convienient, all kind of red flags were waving and no one wanted to acknowledge them. It was all "just be happy it's over with and shut up". Then in Ronnie's second term the shit hit the fan...




How the Republicans had anything to do with Carter, when they controlled nothing - not the House, not the Senate, not the Courts, I don't get. He was in control of his own Presidency, and the leader of the party that controlled the entire government. His failure was his own, and there was no one else to blame it on - that's why it went squarely where it belonged...on his head.What, you think the Repubs rolled over and played dead during the Carter administration....?

Why do I bother... Your minds made up, you read the history and think you got it figured out. You dismiss dirty tricks as "politics" and will argue any point that leaves the party you obviously favor in a bad light.

But I lived that period in time. I voted and demonstrated during the time we're discussing. I'm not arguing history I learned but the times I remember.

And I remember a man who bore the burden of presidency like a cross. It wore him down physically he cared that much. Our country would be a better place if every president cared as much as he did. If every president was as honest and forthright with the American people as he was.

Again, why do I bother...

So you blame the president for the military's fuckup? He went with their plan and they blew it. He gets props from me for being a real president and stepping up and taking the blame when all he did was go with what the 'experts' recommended.

It was his decision to turn the hostage rescue into a "everybody gets their shot at the spotlight" by involving every branch of the service, when it should've been kept as simple as possible. In that regard, it was his mistake. And in the end, he's the President. He gets the credit and he gets the blame. He accepted the blame for the botched rescue himself.

Do you really believe that bullshit? Iran just happened to wait until not just after the election but until after the change of guard in Washington for no gain at all? I remember when it happened, it was all to convienient, all kind of red flags were waving and no one wanted to acknowledge them. It was all "just be happy it's over with and shut up". Then in Ronnie's second term the shit hit the fan...

They did it to stick it in Carter's eye. They hated him. Reagan had nothing to do with it. Iran-Contra was a completely different scandal and unrelated to this crisis at all. And considering the fact that Reagan backed Saddam Hussein and Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War, I don't think there's any reason to believe the Iranians were trying to make him look good.

What, you think the Repubs rolled over and played dead during the Carter administration....?

No, I think they did the same thing the Democrats are doing now - they barked loud and long about everything they could, and still didn't accomplish anything.

Why do I bother... Your minds made up, you read the history and think you got it figured out. You dismiss dirty tricks as "politics" and will argue any point that leaves the party you obviously favor in a bad light.

I view politics as politics. Dirty tricks are part of politics. Both sides use them, both sides know how to counter them. The Democrats had been in control of Congress since after Watergate - there were plenty of skilled politicians that Carter had access to. His failure to use them or listen to their advice was his problem.

But I lived that period in time. I voted and demonstrated during the time we're discussing. I'm not arguing history I learned but the times I remember.

That's fine. I was born during the Carter Administration. I heard the stories and I lived through Reagan. I remember being pissed at Ollie North because he took my cartoons off TV. That doesn't mean that my grasp of the facts is lessened because I read them in a history book or got them from my parents.

And I remember a man who bore the burden of presidency like a cross. It wore him down physically he cared that much. Our country would be a better place if every president cared as much as he did. If every president was as honest and forthright with the American people as he was.

Again, why do I bother...

I never said he wasn't a good man - I said he was a bad President. There have been dozens of honest men who've been horrible Presidents.

My grandmother loved Jimmy Carter - one of her most prized possessions was a signed photo she had from him. But that doesn't make me think he was an excellent President when he left America in worse shape when he left office than when he took it.

Seperate the man from his accomplishments.

Just finished Carter's book "Our Endangered Values". I think there is a big difference between someone who lives his values and someone who talks about values. I think the talkers feel insulted by the doers. Sort of like how the Pharasees hated Jesus. The modern equivilant of the Pharasees--The "Christian?" right feels the same hate.

<snip>Talk to me again kid in twenty years.


When you're no longer part of the demographic who most commonly remove themselves from the gene pool doing stupid things.



Then we'll talk....


and maybe you'll understand...

Talk to me again kid in twenty years.


When you're no longer part of the demographic who most commonly remove themselves from the gene pool doing stupid things.



Then we'll talk....


and maybe you'll understand...

Wow. Such ignorance if I ever saw it. That and arragence too.

Talk to me again kid in twenty years.


When you're no longer part of the demographic who most commonly remove themselves from the gene pool doing stupid things.

Then we'll talk....

and maybe you'll understand...
burn!

Completely. I'm a conservative Republican who doesn't hate the Democrats, is pro-labor, anti-corporation who does politics for a living and tries to be fair to both sides, likes Bush's foreign policy but hates his domestic policy and can't stand John McCain. I'm just an all around oddity.
Nothing odd about you. You’re a statist.
Ahh so in WW1 and WW2 the goverment was out of place to stop the freedom of the press in certain matters such as warships leaving, troop deployments, etc. Afterall freedom of the press.....
The US was out of place in WWI and WWII, period. We should never have gotten involved.

Nothing odd about you. You’re a statist.

The US was out of place in WWI and WWII, period. We should never have gotten involved.

Even after we got attacked at Pearl Harbor?

The wost thing about Carter was that he was completely ineffective as President. He is an intelligent, caring, decent human being who was in an office where these are not necessarily useful qualities.

Even after we got attacked at Pearl Harbor?

Maybe he/she means we shouldn't have put in place the oil embargo against Japan that led to Pearl Harbor getting attacked.

To be fair to poor, hapless Jimmy Carter it wasn't *entirely* his fault that he was an utter wimp while in office. :D His fellow Democrats in Congress hated his guts and took every opportunity they could to make him look bad. The reason for that goes back to when he was an obscure candidate who tried to get publicity by running against Congress. Congress, he said was a body of corrupt, incompetant morons whom he would keep under control if he were elected President. And he got publicity for that because he was right. The Congress of the day *was* a collection of corrupt, old, incompetant morons. But then he had to stop saying that when his candidacy became viable because they were a collection of corrupt, incompetant morons who happened to be controlled lock, stock and barrel by an overwhelming *Democratic* majority and if he realized belatedly that if he became President for real then he'd have to work with them. So he tried to stay as polite to them as much as possible for the rest of his career.

It didn't help! :rolleyes:

Now it should be noted that given that he was right about the liberals in Congress being corrupt it's likely that anyone who was elected President in those days would have been a weak one. But alienating his own party didn't help. ;)

That said, I should probably note 2 good things that came out of Mr. Carter's Presidency: He did appoint Paul Volcker to the Federal Reserve and Mr. Volcker deserves a part of the credit for resolving inflation by means of a sound fiscal policy. The other good thing that Mr. Carter and his fellow Democrats did by their antics was to put America into the mood for making Ronald Reagan the next President and putting the liberals on their long slide into oblivion. And I'd say the credit for that last one deserves to be split between them on at least a 50/50 basis. :)

There are white muslims? :eek: :p

I thought you were kind of pink. :)

:D Slightly reddish-brown if you want to put a fine point on it. But my eyes are blue blue blue!

Maybe he/she means we shouldn't have put in place the oil embargo against Japan that led to Pearl Harbor getting attacked.

I'm going to hate myself in the morning for saying this but I'm going to anyway.

A showdown was going to happen sooner or later. Both sides new it too. If it didn't happen in 1941, it would've happened later. Admiral Yamamoto himself knew that the Pacific Fleet was a threat to Japan's ambitions to expand. Even without the Embargo, they probably would've attacked anyway.

:D Slightly reddish-brown if you want to put a fine point on it. But my eyes are blue blue blue!

Daywalker !!!!!!! :eek:

I'm going to hate myself in the morning for saying this but I'm going to anyway.

A showdown was going to happen sooner or later. Both sides new it too. If it didn't happen in 1941, it would've happened later. Admiral Yamamoto himself knew that the Pacific Fleet was a threat to Japan's ambitions to expand. Even without the Embargo, they probably would've attacked anyway.
And Japan was a threat to our own Imperialistic adventures in the Pacific and South East Asia.

The other good thing that Mr. Carter and his fellow Democrats did by their antics was to put America into the mood for making Ronald Reagan the next President and putting the liberals on their long slide into oblivion. And I'd say the credit for that last one deserves to be split between them on at least a 50/50 basis. ;)

Yeesh, enough with the wanking. I'm getting wet over here.

The very least you could do is read up on the political standings of the so-called "Left" of America. You'll see why I think this post lost all credibility at the word "Liberal".

I'm going to hate myself in the morning for saying this but I'm going to anyway.

A showdown was going to happen sooner or later. Both sides new it too. If it didn't happen in 1941, it would've happened later. Admiral Yamamoto himself knew that the Pacific Fleet was a threat to Japan's ambitions to expand. Even without the Embargo, they probably would've attacked anyway.

To misquote Fearless Leader, here's to one-hundred and fifty years of peace and friendship between the United States and the people of Japan!

And Japan was a threat to our own Imperialistic adventures in the Pacific and South East Asia.

And what praytell was that if I may ask? Last time I checked, we weren't planning anything to congour the pacific.

And what praytell was that if I may ask? Last time I checked, we weren't planning anything to congour the pacific.
How about our adventures in Guam, the Phillippines etc. Why do you think we wanted Hawaii so badly? That was only the beginning.

How about our adventures in Guam, the Phillippines etc. Why do you think we wanted Hawaii so badly? That was only the beginning.

Guam we already had. The Philippines we already had. Hawaii we already had. All three we already had prior to World War II.

And what praytell was that if I may ask? Last time I checked, we weren't planning anything to congour the pacific.

While we weren't necessarily "conquering" any Pacific states, we were spreading our "culture" of consumerism and capitalism without giving any mind to their respective cultures whatsoever. Check out the Philippines to see just what I'm talking about.

Wow. Such ignorance if I ever saw it. That and arragence too.
Meh... like your opinion means anything to me junior.



and at least I can spell...

Meh... like your opinion means anything to me junior.



and at least I can spell...

LMAO!

Generally speaking, I think Carter was ineffective in the White House. And also generally, Reagan was a very effective President.

However, one of the best things Carter ever did was to begin financing alternative energy development and to tell the Middle East, 'Fuck You and your Oil too!" and one of the worst things Reagan did was yank funding for those alternative energy projects and say, "Screw it. We'll take cheap mid-east oil."

Imagine what those lost years of Alternative energy research cost us.

While we weren't necessarily "conquering" any Pacific states, we were spreading our "culture" of consumerism and capitalism without giving any mind to their respective cultures whatsoever. Check out the Philippines to see just what I'm talking about.

Here I will concede the point! You argue better than that Achtung character.

How about our adventures in Guam, the Phillippines etc. Why do you think we wanted Hawaii so badly? That was only the beginning.

You're forgetting about the Marines stationed in China, for the helluvit.

Meh... like your opinion means anything to me junior.



and at least I can spell...

well excuse me for my spelling errors. I don't have dictionary handy.

well excuse me for my spelling errors. I don't have dictionary handy.

I-N-T-E-R-N-E-T.

The other good thing that Mr. Carter and his fellow Democrats did by their antics was to put America into the mood for making Ronald Reagan the next President and putting the liberals on their long slide into oblivion.

Until 1992 anyway. *coff* ;)

well excuse me for my spelling errors. I don't have dictionary handy.Neither do I.

They just taught me how to spell in school...

Neither do I.

They just taught me how to spell in school...

I've had a stressful day today. Today was not that great :(

Yeesh, enough with the wanking. I'm getting wet over here.

The very least you could do is read up on the political standings of the so-called "Left" of America. You'll see why I think this post lost all credibility at the word "Liberal".

Watching liberals run from their own name is always fun. :)

But if you mean that the American Left has gone from being Marxist Lite to something a little worse I shan't dispute you. :p All I will do is note that there are still enough of the oldtime liberals left among the Democrats that you Leftists are going to hemmorage a little each time you cause your party to lurch further to the Left. Fine by me. I *like* seeing Leftists go down. But I think life's gonna suck for you guys when the Dummycrats go the way the Federalists did after the New Hartford Convention. If the Liberterian Party is ready for the bigtime then doubtless they will replace the Democrats within the 2 Party system. Otherwise either it will come when we Republicans split into factions or else we'll dominate for 70 years in the way we did after the Civil War. The Left is doomed. The only question is whether the Democratic Party will survive the Left's slide into oblivion.

Watching liberals run from their own name is always fun. :)

But if you mean that the American Left has gone from being Marxist Lite to something a little worse I shan't dispute you. :p All I will do is note that there are still enough of the oldtime liberals left among the Democrats that you Leftists are going to hemmorage a little each time you cause your party to lurch further to the Left. Fine by me. I *like* seeing Leftists go down. But I think life's gonna suck for you guys when the Dummycrats go the way the Federalists did after the New Hartford Convention. If the Liberterian Party is ready for the bigtime then doubtless they will replace the Democrats within the 2 Party system. Otherwise either it will come when we Republicans split into factions or else we'll dominate for 70 years in the way we did after the Civil War. The Left is doomed. The only question is whether the Democratic Party will survive the Left's slide into oblivion.

What a load of uneducated shit if I ever saw one.

The term "Liberal" applies to those who are Free Market and pro-civil liberties. I don't mean a light dose of civil liberties, either. If the Democrats in this country were true Liberals, we wouldn't have so many restrictions on business, nor would we have restrictions on gay marriage (this is assuming a previous Democratic cabinet did something about that).

There is no true Left in mainstream American politics. The only thing that's close to a mainstream Leftist party in this country is the Green Party, and they get next to nothing in terms of support.

You can say "the Left is doomed this" and "the Left will never come out of it alive" that. But, you know what? It'll only end up making you look uneducated. Stupid, some could say.

Otherwise either it will come when we Republicans split into factions or else we'll dominate for 70 years in the way we did after the Civil War. The Left is doomed. The only question is whether the Democratic Party will survive the Left's slide into oblivion.Uh... hate to burst your bubble in the midst of all your chest thumping, but the Republican party of the post civil war era was the Liberal party. The dems of the time were the conservatives.


Over the years they've reversed polarity if you will...

Uh... hate to burst your bubble in the midst of all your chest thumping, but the Republican party of the post civil war era was the Liberal party. The dems of the time were the conservatives.


Over the years they've reversed polarity if you will...

Exactly. In those days, it was the Democrats who were pro-slavery and anti-civil rights.

Of course, in those days, the Republicans (the Democrats of today) were actually true Liberals... Not that it's a good thing, but at least the term would fit the name.

Until 1992 anyway. *coff* ;)

Heh. *Very* true. :D Although even there I would say that the signs of decay within the Democratic Party were shown partly by the GOP takeover of the House of Representatives in 1994 and before that by the inability of the Clintons to get their health care package approved by Congress even when the Democrats held both Houses. It looks like the Congressional Democrats couldn't play nice with their own President even when it was Clinton instead of Carter.
:rolleyes: Truthfully, I would say that most of those Congresscritters held on past their time based on 2 things, the Campaign Finance "Reform" acts and their having brought gerrymandering from an art to a science. Between those 2 things they got Congress to a point where it had less turnover than the House of Lords. Now that they're the minority party that's gonna come back to haunt them. :(

The contrast between Carter and Clinton is an interesting one though. Carter was a terrific human being but sucked as a President - in part because of his circumstances but mainly because he played his political cards poorly. Clinton was competant as a politician but was undisputedly corrupt. Between the 2 of them I would say that Mr. Carter was the better President because it's easier for a good human being to become competant then it is for someone who's competant but has no moral center to become a good human being and that moral center is vital to anyone who hold office. A pity one couldn't have put a Vulcan Mind Meld on those two and combined them. ;)

Could someone (preferably American) fill me in on why so many people seem to hate Jimmy Carter so much?

I'm always reminded and slightly puzzled of this whenever I see this Simpsons episode where the line "Jimmy Carter? He's history's greatest monster!" is uttered. Yet for the life of me I can never seem to grasp what he did that vilified him so much. :confused:

Was it the fact he was more *the dreaded term* 'Liberal' than others? Was it his economic policies, domestic issues, foreign policies (the whole Iran thing I know) or what?

Help me please! :confused:

Jimmy Carter, while I have respect for him as an elder statesman, was a weak president. He was indecisive at times, and his economic policy did nothing to help the recession of the 1970s. He had some foreign policy triumphs before Iran (the Camp David Accords), and I believe he meant well and did what his conscience directed him to do, he would have made a beteer diplomat, or even Secretary of State than a president. That having been said, I haven't bothered to read the other posts on this thread, but how much do you want to bet that the conservative response has been something along the lines of "He caused the recession (not true -- it started when Nixon was in office), and Teheran was his fault (not entirely true -- Iran can be traced back to the 1950s. Carter just wwas too indecisive in his response). We now return you to the partisan ranting.

Bum rap really. He got saddled with the inflation and oil crisis of the 70's, and then the Iran hostage crisis. As president, he didn't do too much except try and keep the country together and deal with one thing after another.

I think the issue with him was that after Nixon, America wanted to get the GOP out of the White House and Carter fit the bill of an honest man, who would then restore trust in the goverment. However, in order to do so, he was more or less limited in his actions. Regan, who came in with a powerful vision, was far more appealing.

good points,

i actually voted for carter,then reagan for some of the reasons you elucidated.

i think carter was a good man with a good heart,had a vision of benovelence for the world(he realised americas true strengths and military/tech. power)

that said...he micro managed so badly it crippled his ability to "see" the big picture.

and the whole iran thing just buried him in the eyes of america.

honestly,and i am a peace loving guy...we should have took the loss of our hostages and blasted the shit out of iran back then.
instead he did the chuck norris delta force thing...stepped on his dick...then pussed out when it went south.

that was the final straw with america i think,ok,you tried the sneaky sneak shit...didnt work..just dont curl up in the fetal position and whine.

he cared more about the lives of the hostages(god bless him)then he did for the countries honor and safety.

that and the fact he micro managed every aspect of everything..he was completely overwhelmed.

i respect the man..he was/is a nucleur engineer,a pretty damn serious humanitarian..he just wasn't a president...presidents need to delegate responsibilities,and look at the big picture.

did i mention he micro managed?...lol...cant run a country when every little detail side tracks you.

all said..good man in my book..just not a leader.

The contrast between Carter and Clinton is an interesting one though. Carter was a terrific human being but sucked as a President

... while Bill Clinton was an ok human being who got sucked as President.

*rim shot*

WOO! (Keru - 1, Clinton - 0)

Nothin' but net, baybeee.

Uh... hate to burst your bubble in the midst of all your chest thumping, but the Republican party of the post civil war era was the Liberal party. The dems of the time were the conservatives.


Over the years they've reversed polarity if you will...

Yeah, the "liberals" pretty much hijacked the name at the time of Woodrow Wilson when they had brought disgrace upon their old name of "Progressives".
:rolleyes:

But Liberalism stands for free markets and democracy if it stands for anything at all. We Republicans are the ones pushing Free Markets. You liberals *by name* have gone from being Marxist Lite to being Marxist Pure. We Republicans are the ones pushing Democracy. You liberals *by name* are the ones sputtering "B-b-but People with brown skin can't *possibly* do democracy" except on the occasions when you sneer at the concept of democracy at all. So you liberals *by name* are still the reactionary worshippers of the status quo even today.

See what happens when you guys hijack a name without earning it? :p

Looks like there wasn't any reversal in polarity after all. ;)

Yeah, the "liberals" pretty much hijacked the name at the time of Woodrow Wilson when they had brought disgrace upon their old name of "Progressives".
:rolleyes:

But Liberalism stands for free markets and democracy if it stands for anything at all. We Republicans are the ones pushing Free Markets. You liberals *by name* have gone from being Marxist Lite to being Marxist Pure. We Republicans are the ones pushing Democracy. You liberals *by name* are the ones sputtering "B-b-but People with brown skin can't *possibly* do democracy" except on the occasions when you sneer at the concept of democracy at all. So you liberals *by name* are still the reactionary worshippers of the status quo even today.

See what happens when you guys hijack a name without earning it? :p

Looks like there wasn't any reversal in polarity after all. ;)
what the hell?

liberals branched off: maxist liberals, classic liberals etc...

The Republican party at the time of the civil war was made up of mostly liberals. We all know that is not at all true today.

liberal means being open minded.
conservative means being close minded.
I think your above statement just proved my point.

Yeah, the "liberals" pretty much hijacked the name at the time of Woodrow Wilson when they had brought disgrace upon their old name of "Progressives".
:rolleyes:

But Liberalism stands for free markets and democracy if it stands for anything at all. We Republicans are the ones pushing Free Markets. You liberals *by name* have gone from being Marxist Lite to being Marxist Pure. We Republicans are the ones pushing Democracy. You liberals *by name* are the ones sputtering "B-b-but People with brown skin can't *possibly* do democracy" except on the occasions when you sneer at the concept of democracy at all. So you liberals *by name* are still the reactionary worshippers of the status quo even today.

See what happens when you guys hijack a name without earning it? :p

Looks like there wasn't any reversal in polarity after all. ;)"Ladies and Gentlemen, you see here a classic example of cognitive dissonance and transference. He accuses Liberals of racism and being opposed to democracy. He accuses Liberals of hating democracy when conservatives are the ones destroying the concept of civil liberties. A classic case indeed."

Talk to me again kid in twenty years.

When you're no longer part of the demographic who most commonly remove themselves from the gene pool doing stupid things.

Then we'll talk....

and maybe you'll understand...

I thought that demographic was teenagers, not folks two years from 30.

If my opinions aren't valid to you now, they won't be valid in twenty years. I'll still be that whippersnapper.

But hey - what the hell do I know about politics. It's only what I do for a living.

"Ladies and Gentlemen, you see here a classic example of cognitive dissonance and transference. "

Yeah, but *all* your posts are like that so what's special about this one? :p

I thought that demographic was teenagers, not folks two years from 30.

It takes some people a little longer to mature.

But hey - what the hell do I know about politics. It's only what I do for a living.
I'm sorry, im sure you can find other fields that you're more knowledgable in and suit you better! :D

"Originally Posted by THE LOST PLANET
So you blame the president for the military's fuckup? He went with their plan and they blew it. He gets props from me for being a real president and stepping up and taking the blame when all he did was go with what the 'experts' recommended."

Well actually calling is a f'up is a mislabel. It was just a fatal mistake that caused the failure. For what they had, it would have worked if not for the accident.



It was his decision to turn the hostage rescue into a "everybody gets their shot at the spotlight" by involving every branch of the service, when it should've been kept as simple as possible. In that regard, it was his mistake. And in the end, he's the President. He gets the credit and he gets the blame. He accepted the blame for the botched rescue himself.


They really had no choice. They equipment needed was spred out all over the place. The military was in bad shape equipment wise at the time.

An intrested read is:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/034544695X/sr=1-6/qid=1138598966/ref=sr_1_6/103-0537321-0255844?%5Fencoding=UTF8

It deals heavily on the logistics aspects and it tells a few other things.

No, I think they did the same thing the Democrats are doing now - they barked loud and long about everything they could, and still didn't accomplish anything.


I view politics as politics. Dirty tricks are part of politics. Both sides use them, both sides know how to counter them. The Democrats had been in control of Congress since after Watergate - there were plenty of skilled politicians that Carter had access to. His failure to use them or listen to their advice was his problem.

There was that rumor that the release was delayed to take away an electorial bonanza for Carter.


Seperate the man from his accomplishments.

Meh. People can argue about Carter the President.

Me? I think Carter the ex-president is far superior individual....

Uh... hate to burst your bubble in the midst of all your chest thumping, but the Republican party of the post civil war era was the Liberal party. The dems of the time were the conservatives.


Over the years they've reversed polarity if you will...

Yup. That was with the migration of the Dixicrats to the Republican party....

what the hell?

liberals branched off: maxist liberals, classic liberals etc...

Sorry, but no they didn't. What Europeans call Liberalism has been intrinsic to America from it's beginnings. Wilson used that name in part because he wanted to emphasize simularities between the England he wanted to ally to, but also to imply that anyone who wouldn't support his policy was somehow outside the American Tradition during the elections. It worked inasmuch as the name "Liberal" has been pretty much associated with the leftist traditions ever since. The power of a "liberal" media even then. :D


"The Republican party at the time of the civil war was made up of mostly liberals. We all know that is not at all true today."

See? 90+ years of Wilsonian programming has brainwashed you quite properly. :rolleyes:

"liberal means being open minded.
conservative means being close minded."

And you recite as your owners taught you quite nicely. But once again, Liberalism = Free Markets and Democracy. The Left flunks on both counts. :p

See? 90+ years of Wilsonian programming has brainwashed you quite properly. :rolleyes:

It seems as though you are suffering from McCarthyism programming that has completely brainwashed you to stubbornly hold contempt for liberals, which will prove my point...

And you recite as your owners taught you quite nicely. But once again, Liberalism = Free Markets and Democracy. The Left flunks on both counts. :p
lib·er·al (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.

1)Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
2)Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
3)Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
4)Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.

5)Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.

what does that have anything to do with "free market"?

con·ser·va·tive (kn-sûrv-tv)
adj.
1)Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
2)Traditional or restrained in style: a conservative dark suit.

that aforementioned change can apply to definitions of specific words...such as "liberal."

I thought that demographic was teenagers, not folks two years from 30.

If my opinions aren't valid to you now, they won't be valid in twenty years. I'll still be that whippersnapper.

But hey - what the hell do I know about politics. It's only what I do for a living.
28 years old is still young and dumb, I know that and in 10 or 15 years you'll admit it too.

So, you're an elected official? Or maybe a political science professor?

If not, then politics is not 'what you do for a living'....

My impression is that you're a cog in the machine, a part of the problem...





and a small disposable part at that...

28 years old is still young and dumb, I know that and in 10 or 15 years you'll admit it too.

So, you're an elected official? Or maybe a political science professor?

I'm the Government Affairs director for a labor union, with a master's degree in Political Management. I run a PAC with three quarters of a million dollars cash on hand - my job is to know politics. So yes, it's what I do for a living.

and a small disposable part at that...

You know, going the whole 'ad hominem' route isn't the best way to bolster your case here. For being "young and dumb", I've not had to resort to calling you names to prove my points.

But then again, I do get a kick out of arguing on the internet, so maybe I am a bit on the dumb side.

I'm the Government Affairs director for a labor union, with a master's degree in Political Management. I run a PAC ....



Yup....



Part of the problem....

Nailed it.

Yup....

Part of the problem....

Nailed it.

Ok for the NS General Village idiot; what did you nail and what is the problem?

Ok for the NS General Village idiot; what did you nail and what is the problem?PAC = political action commitee

Those are the guys who lobby politicians and try to sway them to vote one way or another, because it will benifit who they work for.

Whenever you hear about a scandal involving the inappropriate taking of funds or money going to a politician in some shady deal, chances are a PAC was involved.


Brians Room just admitted to me he's knee deep in political slime....

No wonder he thinks dirty tricks and backroom deals are a normal part of politics.

PAC = political action commitee

See, also: Parent Advisory Councils.

Carter's foreign policy was just as bad as Bush's handling of the national debt and deficit. Also, Carter was a peanut farmer and let Americans be held hostage in Iran for 444 (?) days, and they were released as soon as Reagan took office...then began the Iran-Contra affair.

Carter did more good after his Presidency than during.

Get a clue - it was CARTER who negotiated the release of the hostages, it was REAGAN who took the credit, because the release date was pushed back AFTER the inauguration.

Carter was a nice guy in the wrong place and the wrong time.

See, also: Parent Advisory Councils.Not the way Brian's Room used it... He's a lobbyist.

Aren't you Brian?

PAC = political action commitee

Those are the guys who lobby politicians and try to sway them to vote one way or another, because it will benifit who they work for.

Whenever you hear about a scandal involving the inappropriate taking of funds or money going to a politician in some shady deal, chances are a PAC was involved.

Brians Room just admitted to me he's knee deep in political slime....

No wonder he thinks dirty tricks and backroom deals are a normal part of politics.

Yup. I'm a lobbyist. I'm the evil, conniving son of a bitch who, knee deep in political slime, spends his whole day trying to make sure that the thirty thousand people he represents can keep putting food on their family's table.

I'm a rat bastard, yes I am.

I think that dirty tricks and backroom deals are a normal part of politics because they ARE a normal part of politics. Have been since the founding of the Union. Since Jefferson paid the muckrakers to publish anti-Adams material in the papers to boost his presidential ambitions, politics has always had its fair share of dirty tricks.

And, no - when you hear about a scandal involving money in politics, there's a pretty good chance a PAC wasn't involved at all - most people who plan on breaking the law don't waste their time reporting their violations to the FEC. My guys donate their money to our PAC legally, and we contribute it legally, just like 99% of PACs out there.

For someone who's supposed to be older and wiser, you don't seem to have a very firm grasp of fact.

It seems as though you are suffering from McCarthyism programming that has completely brainwashed you to stubbornly hold contempt for liberals, which will prove my point...


lib·er·al (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj...

*Snip*

...3)Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
4)Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.

5)Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.

what does that have anything to do with "free market"?
"

Well in honor of your ability to quote from a dictionary without naming it (Unless you were just making it all up out of your own bellybutton lint? :p ), why don't we start your education by sending you to this thread?


http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=466067

Did you notice that the Europeans and Aussies basically said that in their nations liberalism has been associated with Free Markets? Only in Canada and America is that different ever wonder why? Oh yeah, that's right! *You* believe that Joe McCarthy ordered the American Left to call themselves liberals and because they were eager to do his will in all things they duly called themselves liberal from that day forward, right? :rolleyes:

*snicker* ^~^

OK, so maybe you think that everyone on this forum are all agents of Joe McCarthy and we're conspiring against you together. :D In that case why don't I pull out some other sources that associate liberalism with the Free Market? o_O

"By the end of the Eighteenth Century political economy had become one of the most important sources of *liberal* ideology. According to classical liberal doctrine, the central planning and management of economies is counterproductive and governments should function only to provide a context in which economic freedoms are protected." (Emphasis by the Author). The Emergence of the Social Sciences, Richard Olsen, (New York: Twayne Publishers, 1993), P. 193.

So I guess as a good "Progessive" you are now obliged to believe that Joe McCarthy hopped a time machine from the 1950s and went back to the end of the 1700s in order to mind control people into thinking this way, right? :p

BTW, as for definition #5 permit me to refer you to the Will Rogers quip from the early 1920s (1922?), "Remember when a liberal was someone who was generous with his own money instead of with the taxpayer's?"

Doubtless Will Rogers was a part of the conspiracy against you Progressives as well, right? ^_~

Not the way Brian's Room used it... He's a lobbyist.

Aren't you Brian?

Keep in mind the fact that lobbyists are part of any capito-democratic system. They help keep the prices low on the goods you buy and protect your rights to own various things which they manufacture. They also protect their own monetary means, but no one's perfect.

PAC = political action commitee

Those are the guys who lobby politicians and try to sway them to vote one way or another, because it will benifit who they work for.

Whenever you hear about a scandal involving the inappropriate taking of funds or money going to a politician in some shady deal, chances are a PAC was involved.


Brians Room just admitted to me he's knee deep in political slime....

No wonder he thinks dirty tricks and backroom deals are a normal part of politics.

Well? They aren't exactly a new thing. Back room dealings have been going on since we had village elders.

Yup. I'm a lobbyist. I'm the evil, conniving son of a bitch who, knee deep in political slime, spends his whole day trying to make sure that the thirty thousand people he represents can keep putting food on their family's table.

I'm a rat bastard, yes I am.

I think that dirty tricks and backroom deals are a normal part of politics because they ARE a normal part of politics. Have been since the founding of the Union. Since Jefferson paid the muckrakers to publish anti-Adams material in the papers to boost his presidential ambitions, politics has always had its fair share of dirty tricks.

And, no - when you hear about a scandal involving money in politics, there's a pretty good chance a PAC wasn't involved at all - most people who plan on breaking the law don't waste their time reporting their violations to the FEC. My guys donate their money to our PAC legally, and we contribute it legally, just like 99% of PACs out there.

For someone who's supposed to be older and wiser, you don't seem to have a very firm grasp of fact.30,000?

Not the CCPOA is it?

30,000?

Not the CCPOA is it?

No, but we do have an affiliate that does California law enforcement.

No, but we do have an affiliate that does California law enforcement.Figures, Only group I could think of that calls themselves a union and would have someone with your obvious political leanings working for them...

Figures, Only group I could think of that calls themselves a union and would have someone with your obvious political leanings working for them...

So why the hatred of unions?

Figures, Only group I could think of that calls themselves a union and would have someone with your obvious political leanings working for them...

I'm the Republican, my assistant is the Democrat. There aren't that many pro-labor Republicans, but we exist. The main union has nothing to do with law enforcement, though. We have a bunch of weird affiliates from back in the day.

So why the hatred of unions?I don't hate Unions, I'm a member of one.

And despite what Brian's Room may believe, I know how PACs work, my grandfather founded one.

The problem is PACs work for their interest, not the intrest of the whole.

Brian's Room illustrated this by saying that he's working for his 30,000 members. Our country has slightly more people in it than that ;) .

Say some piece of legislature benifits his 30,000 people at the expense of the rest of the taxpayers, well it's his job to try and get that bill passed.


Over history there is a long line of people who have used less than aboveboard means to pass laws of this sort. Like he says himself, backroom deals and dirty tricks have become a normal part of what he considers politics.

Sorry Brian, I don't mean you any offense but you do have to admit your particular line of work comes with a lot of baggage to live down.

Carter was too honest. He just wasn't political material. He couldn't lie and cheat as well as the rest of them.

Jimmy was likeable enough, but the office was far, far too big for him. He was economically inept and outright incompetent in his foreign policy skills. Personally, I think we elected the wrong Carter. Don't believe me, though. Ask anyone from Georgia that was around there in the seventies what he did to their budget deficit during his governorship.

Yup. I'm a lobbyist. I'm the evil, conniving son of a bitch who, knee deep in political slime, spends his whole day trying to make sure that the thirty thousand people he represents can keep putting food on their family's table.

I'm a rat bastard, yes I am.

EVIL! I'll deal with you later, mister! Helping keep food on family tables ... indeed! :p

Wow, this thread really went into overdrive! :D

I'm beginning to understand now, it seems much more likely the issue is the startlingly obvious polarisation of American politics moreso then the actual man himself.

Thanks for enlightening me.

*Memo to self: NEVER ask such a question again*

Wow, this thread really went into overdrive! :D

I'm beginning to understand now, it seems much more likely the issue is the startlingly obvious polarisation of American politics moreso then the actual man himself.

Thanks for enlightening me.

*Memo to self: NEVER ask such a question again*
I have to admit, I'm surprised by the level of vitriol here as well. I mean, some people have been saying stuff about Carter I wouldn't say about Dubya, not even in private, and I dare say I'd have more cause for it.

Its because people remember his presidency for the energy crisis and Iran Hostage Crisis. He just got horrid luck. Although hopefully history will remember him just as much for what he did after the presidency.

Interesting fact: Carter was one of the smartest presidents in history, he had a degree in nuclear engineering as he served aboard a nuclear sub as a reactor technician.

*sighs* It was, after all, in their country. How'd you feel if another nation held a part of America in perpetua?

http://www.un.org/english/

I'll be honest, I don't much like it at all.

But on Carter:

Jimmy Carter is the textbook example of what hopeless idealists do in positions of power. His abandonment of the Shah of Iran, however distatesful people may have found him, has led almost directly to many of our problems today. But Jimmeh didn't stop there. His "handling" of the hostage situation was appalling, and humiliated America in front of the rest of the world (which I think explains why Europeans have such a thing for him).

http://www.un.org/english/

I'll be honest, I don't much like it at all.
Good lord, you're not really one of those people, are you?

... while Bill Clinton was an ok human being who got sucked as President.

*rim shot*

WOO! (Keru - 1, Clinton - 0)

Nothin' but net, baybeee.
Yep... but while Both left a 'mess' because of the situation, Clinton's one was easier to clean up, but he still didn't. ;)

But on Carter:

Jimmy Carter is the textbook example of what hopeless idealists do in positions of power. His abandonment of the Shah of Iran, however distatesful people may have found him, has led almost directly to many of our problems today. But Jimmeh didn't stop there. His "handling" of the hostage situation was appalling, and humiliated America in front of the rest of the world (which I think explains why Europeans have such a thing for him).

Bit cart before horse, as it was supporting the Shah that made America so hated there in the first place, and it was the Shahs attitude that led to the whole religous backlash. Had his plan to rescue the hostages worked, he would have been lauded as a hero, but it didn't, and ever since the right wing have pointed at him and derided the size of his penis. His action in giving over the Panama canal was an act of genorosity where Americas beneficial actions were seen to match American rhetoric - a phenomena usually noted by its absence.

Carter was simply given a bad rap.
What can any Democratic president, do with a hostile Rep controlled Congress and Senate?

Blaming the energy crisis on Carter, is like blaming the dot-com collapse on Bush, and every one of you bozos know it.

For those of you who brazenly accuse him of neglecting to act upon the hostage crisis, what would you people have him do?
Declare war against Iran, and risk inciting Russia during the Height of the Cold War?

If ever, there was a an American President, who actually possessed the integrity, and moral deceny that we assume all of our presidents have, and in truth, almost NONE have actually had, Jimmy Carter was that man.

No, he didnt accomplish everything he set out to do....who the hell does?

You know how good of a president he was?
How many ex-presidents, have won Nobel Peace prizes after leaving office?
How many ex-presidents, are regularly called to Washington, to begin emergency negotiations with countries at war, only to single handedly manage both parties into a cease fire?

How many Presidents, continue to be called upon for advice, by every single president to succeed him?


Just one.

Hes the last "Great" man alive in Washington, thats for sure.

Yes, carter was/is a "good" man. Unfortunately, his political, and particularly international, acumen is hobbled by it. The man has no understanding of realpolitik - hoping that by the grace of god and goodness people will get along. :rolleyes:

http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/06.01.26.Thugocracy-X.gif

He should stick to building houses and/or teaching Nuclear Physics.

Yes, carter was/is a "good" man. Unfortunately, his political, and particularly international, acumen is hobbled by it. The man has no understanding of realpolitik - hoping that by the grace of god and goodness people will get along. :rolleyes:

http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/06.01.26.Thugocracy-X.gif

He should stick to building houses and/or teaching Nuclear Physics.

Hmmm

And who would have that Egypt and Israel would talk one day.....

hatered of carter? this is the first i hear of it.

he was the only u.s. president in my life time to not make me ashaimed to be an american.

perhapse it is for this that he is resented by fanatical mentalities opposed to any sort of good sense

or is perhapse someone, attempting, by out of thin air rumor mongering, to invent a new hatred for purposes of their own?

=^^=
.../\...

Yes, carter was/is a "good" man. Unfortunately, his political, and particularly international, acumen is hobbled by it. The man has no understanding of realpolitik - hoping that by the grace of god and goodness people will get along. :rolleyes:

http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/06.01.26.Thugocracy-X.gif

He should stick to building houses and/or teaching Nuclear Physics.

Although I disagree with your points.... thats a damn funny cartoon. :D

Yes, carter was/is a "good" man. Unfortunately, his political, and particularly international, acumen is hobbled by it. The man has no understanding of realpolitik - hoping that by the grace of god and goodness people will get along. :rolleyes:

http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/06.01.26.Thugocracy-X.gif

He should stick to building houses and/or teaching Nuclear Physics.

So becuase ONE guy, isnt a warmongering nutbag, you immediately call him a pacifist fool, with no grasp of politics?

The man did manage to get elected to a few different offices, you know.

I think you may just have grown tolerant of those same war-mongering nutbags,

Carter is the last of a nearly extinct species. The honest, caring and principled Democrat. Which is why every Bushevik frothes at the mouths and declare him The Great Satan every chance they get. And we all know how Busheviks feel about the Endangered Species List.

Ah yes ... from the person who writes of me on other forums that I am a racist because I'm anti-white. (Never minding that I am white).

That's ok, though. I forgive you too.

The price of ignorance far outweighs any outcry I could make.

Overlooking the fact that I left that forum a LONG time ago (4, 5 months, give or take).

If this thread has shown anything, it's how extreme some members of this forum are. Scary.

Yup. Most people are either batshit leftists or batshit rightists. Non-batshit people really don't belong here, IMO.

Carter is the last of a nearly extinct species. The honest, caring and principled Democrat.
Finally! Someone admits it! Carter was certainly Honest, Caring and Principled (even if somewhat naieve). I know of no other D or R to have those qualities. Certainly not in the past 16 years.

How was Carter "honest?" His 'human rights' policy was a sham. It was merely an excuse he used to give hell to anticommunist governments. Notice, for example, the double-standard of his policy: he went apeshit over "human rights" in South Africa, Rhodesia, Nicaragua, Iran, El Salvador, South Korea, Philippines, Paraguay, and other anticommunist countries, yet was dead silent when it came to "human rights" in the U.S.S.R., Red China, North Korea, Cuba, Panama (at the time, it was run by a communist dictator), Ethiopia, etc. His "human rights" policy applied only to anticommunist, pro-Western nations, three of which he destroyed, and others which he almost destroyed, or began the process of destroying.

Carter was simply given a bad rap.
What can any Democratic president, do with a hostile Rep controlled Congress and Senate?

That's a good question. Since Clinton is the only Democratic President to have this in the last 50 years, you can look at his record.

The Democrats controlled both the House and Senate when Carter was President.

Blaming the energy crisis on Carter, is like blaming the dot-com collapse on Bush, and every one of you bozos know it.

The difference is that the dot.com collapse didn't affect every single family in America, and none of Carter's policies were effective in solving the problem.

For those of you who brazenly accuse him of neglecting to act upon the hostage crisis, what would you people have him do?

Declare war against Iran, and risk inciting Russia during the Height of the Cold war?

First, I would have expected him to back up the Shah of Iran more than he did. Lack of US support for the Shah was one of the reasons why he ended up being toppled.

I would have had him plan an effective rescue and get the guys out. The Soviets were in no position to start a war over Iran, especially considering they were fully involved in Afghanistan.

If ever, there was a an American President, who actually possessed the integrity, and moral deceny that we assume all of our presidents have, and in truth, almost NONE have actually had, Jimmy Carter was that man.

No, he didnt accomplish everything he set out to do....who the hell does?

Most Presidents can claim that they left the country better off when they were out of office - Carter can't.

You know how good of a president he was?
How many ex-presidents, have won Nobel Peace prizes after leaving office?
How many ex-presidents, are regularly called to Washington, to begin emergency negotiations with countries at war, only to single handedly manage both parties into a cease fire?

This has nothing to do with how well he performed in office. Obviously, his talents were better suited to the elder statesman role.

How many Presidents, continue to be called upon for advice, by every single president to succeed him?

Just one.

Hes the last "Great" man alive in Washington, thats for sure.

There are plenty of great men still alive in Washington, but in terms of Presidents - now that Reagan is gone - I would probably agree with this.

*snip*

I have nothing against you, as a person. I find some of your political views shocking and abhorrent (as I'm sure you do mine), but as a person, you're not bad at all.

First, I would have expected him to back up the Shah of Iran more than he did. Lack of US support for the Shah was one of the reasons why he ended up being toppled.

Exactly. Carter put enormous pressure on the Shah to release subversives, saboteurs, and known terrorists from prison. These people subsequently led the movement that toppled the Shah. Moreover, Carter wouldn't even sell arms to the Shah's government, and he saw to it that, during the revolution, the Shah's generals took no action. Thanks to that bastard Carter, Iran is no longer a moderate, Westernized, peaceful nation, but a hellhole run by rabid fanatics.

Exactly. Carter put enormous pressure on the Shah to release subversives, saboteurs, and known terrorists from prison. These people subsequently led the movement that toppled the Shah. Moreover, Carter wouldn't even sell arms to the Shah's government, and he saw to it that, during the revolution, the Shah's generals took no action. Thanks to that bastard Carter, Iran is no longer a moderate, Westernized, peaceful nation, but a hellhole run by rabid fanatics.

But... the Shah was in essence a dictator- he did not enjoy popular support and was only in charge because he was a de facto puppet.

But... the Shah was in essence a dictator- he did not enjoy popular support and was only in charge because he was a de facto puppet.

This was at the height of the Cold War - we were propping up dictators left and right. This one was a close friend of the US, and our biggest ally in the Middle East next to Israel. We should have done almost anything to keep him in power.

This was at the height of the Cold War - we were propping up dictators left and right. This one was a close friend of the US, and our biggest ally in the Middle East next to Israel. We should have done almost anything to keep him in power.

Oh.. that makes it ok then. Fuck what the people who live there actually wanted.

*Snip*

More left-wing bullshit. If the Shah was such a "dictator," why did he personally pardon the lives of many people who tried to assassinate him? Why he did implement land reform policies to help the poor, extend the franchise to women, and permit Iranians of all faiths to worship who they chose to? Why, in 1978, did pro-Shah demonstrations draw over 300,000 people? Moreover, calling the Shah a puppet is both completely stupid and has no basis in reality. He was very independent. He was pro-Western, but he also had cordial relations with the U.S.S.R., Romania, Yugoslavia, Red China, and other communist and socialist countries.

Oh.. that makes it ok then. Fuck what the people who live there actually wanted.

The Cold War made for strange politics.

Oh.. that makes it ok then. Fuck what the people who live there actually wanted.

Who cares what they want? Would you rather give them what they want, or what's good for them? If they're stupid enough to want a batshit mullah, should we really let them have it?

Who cares what they want? Would you rather give them what they want, or what's good for them? If they're stupid enough to want a batshit mullah, should we really let them have it?

Way to defend the American principles of freedom and democracy by pissing all over them.

The Cold War made for strange politics.
Fair enough *sigh* Can't argue with that.


Got to here...
More left-wing bullshit...
and decided not to read the rest of your post. You should really try not to do that- it undermines the rest of your point. :)

Who cares what they want? Would you rather give them what they want, or what's good for them? If they're stupid enough to want a batshit mullah, should we really let them have it?


Em... wow is all I can say.
*shakes head in disbelief*

Way to defend the American principles of freedom and democracy by pissing all over them.

If people are too stupid to know what's good for them, should they really be given what they want?

If most Americans wanted a Nazi dictatorship, would you sit back and say, "Well, it's what the people want?"

Oh, and FYI, America is not and never was a democracy.

If people are too stupid to know what's good for them, should they really be given what they want?

If most Americans wanted a Nazi dictatorship, would you sit back and say, "Well, it's what the people want?"

Oh, and FYI, America is not and never was a democracy.

A fundamental principle of America is that, within the limits of the Constitution, the people should get what they want.

America is and always was a constitutional republic. That means things are decided democratically within certain limits.

Get beyond your grade school hyperbole, it interferes with your thinking.

Get beyond your grade school hyperbole, it interferes with your thinking.

Get beyond your flaming.

America is and always was a constitutional republic. That means things are decided democratically within certain limits.

A republic and a democracy are not the same thing.

Could someone (preferably American) fill me in on why so many people seem to hate Jimmy Carter so much?

I'm always reminded and slightly puzzled of this whenever I see this Simpsons episode where the line "Jimmy Carter? He's history's greatest monster!" is uttered. Yet for the life of me I can never seem to grasp what he did that vilified him so much. :confused:

Was it the fact he was more *the dreaded term* 'Liberal' than others? Was it his economic policies, domestic issues, foreign policies (the whole Iran thing I know) or what?

Help me please! :confused:


You forget the ignominious taking of US hostages and the taking of the US Embassy. You forget his response, the debacle as he attempted a limited rescue of American hostages, and his weak rhetoric and international reputation as a spineless cretin who would never order a real attack in retaliation for any act against the US.

Then remember Reagan, whose reputation as a cowboy was quite enough to scare the Iranians into releasing the hostages as soon as he was sworn into office.

If you're going to be President, the world has to be convinced that you have a set of balls, and that if pushed, you'll bend someone over and let them have it. If you don't have at least that much, the whole premise of American strength and reputation goes right out the window, and you might as well be President of Chad.

That's what upset a lot of us. That and his idiotic economic policies that only exacerbated things. He was smarter than President Ford in that regard, but that's not saying very much.

snip

Welcome back ;)

A republic and a democracy are not the same thing.

So you don't support either in the hands of those who don't vote the way you think they should?

That makes the distinction without difference.

You are anti-American.

You forget the ignominious taking of US hostages and the taking of the US Embassy. You forget his response, the debacle as he attempted a limited rescue of American hostages, and his weak rhetoric and international reputation as a spineless cretin who would never order a real attack in retaliation for any act against the US.

Then remember Reagan, whose reputation as a cowboy was quite enough to scare the Iranians into releasing the hostages as soon as he was sworn into office.

If you're going to be President, the world has to be convinced that you have a set of balls, and that if pushed, you'll bend someone over and let them have it. If you don't have at least that much, the whole premise of American strength and reputation goes right out the window, and you might as well be President of Chad.

That's what upset a lot of us. That and his idiotic economic policies that only exacerbated things. He was smarter than President Ford in that regard, but that's not saying very much.

That is not exactly the story of what happened with the hostages, although it is the popular revisionism.

Another version of revisionism: When I took US history in high school, my teacher claimed Reagan had the balls to try to rescue the hostages. Unlike that "whimp" Carter.

So you don't support either in the hands of those who don't vote the way you think they should?

That makes the distinction without difference.

You are anti-American.

I have nothing against choosing, so long as choosing an extremist (a religious fanatic, or someone too far left or too far right) is not an option.

I personally prefer a benevolent dictatorship. All the social and economic freedoms you could want, most of the political freedoms (i.e., forming parties, debating, etc.), etc., but no elections. I believe 99.999999% of people (self included) are either too extreme or too stupid to know what's good for them.

I have nothing against choosing, so long as choosing an extremist (a religious fanatic, or someone too far left or too far right) is not an option.

I personally prefer a benevolent dictatorship. All the social and economic freedoms you could want, most of the political freedoms (i.e., forming parties, debating, etc.), etc., but no elections. I believe 99.999999% of people (self included) are either too extreme or too stupid to know what's good for them.

How cute. You are against the most important freedom of all -- the freedom to vote.

Again, you piss all over American values.

How cute. You are against the most important freedom of all -- the freedom to vote.

Again, you piss all over American values.

I support freedom of speech, freeom of religion, freedom to marry who one chooses, freedom to do whatever one wants to one's own body, freedom of property, freedom to spend money however one wants, freedom to love whoever one wants, etc. I just don't support voting. Why? Elections give us people like Bush. Also, some of the bloodiest dictators in history, like Hitler, came to power via the ballot.

That is not exactly the story of what happened with the hostages, although it is the popular revisionism.

Another version of revisionism: When I took US history in high school, my teacher claimed Reagan had the balls to try to rescue the hostages. Unlike that "whimp" Carter.

It is a fact that the hostages were released an hour after Reagan was sworn in.

Now, you tell me why they did it, after going so long without doing it for Carter.

I support freedom of speech, freeom of religion, freedom to marry who one chooses, freedom to do whatever one wants to one's own body, freedom of property, freedom to spend money however one wants, freedom to love whoever one wants, etc. I just don't support voting. Why? Elections give us people like Bush. Also, some of the bloodiest dictators in history, like Hitler, came to power via the ballot.

Then you are still against the fundamental rights of man.

Try reading the Declaration of Independence. Were they wrong?

Then you are still against the fundamental rights of man.

Try reading the Declaration of Independence. Were they wrong?

Again, voting isn't a bad idea in theory, but if the majority of people are extremists, or idiots (not saying they are, just for example), I don't think the fate of the nation should be left to them.

Again, voting isn't a bad idea in theory, but if the majority of people are extremists, or idiots (not saying they are, just for example), I don't think the fate of the nation should be left to them.

If people are not allowed to vote freely, then what happens to the social contract.

Regardless, my main point stands. American claims to be exporting democracy, but only when the outcome suits us.

American claims to be exporting democracy, but only when the outcome suits us.

That's true. :(

If people are not allowed to vote freely, then what happens to the social contract.

Regardless, my main point stands. American claims to be exporting democracy, but only when the outcome suits us.
Isn't that Realpolitik? Or are you asserting that nations should not act in their own self-interest?

Isn't that Realpolitik? Or are you asserting that nations should not act in their own self-interest?

But then surely the people of said nations should have a say in their own interests. i.e whether or not to be ruled by the Shah or not?

But then surely the people of said nations should have a say in their own interests. i.e whether or not to be ruled by the Shah or not?

Sure. As long as they don't occupy the US Embassy and take hostages.

Do that, and you're crossing an arbitrary, but customary line.

Your nation, if it crosses such a line, should expect to be thrashed at will by the US.

Just like we did when Libya was doing its disco bombing and Gulf of Sidra antics. Kill Americans and shoot at carrier aircraft, and the bombs will be falling on your head when you least expect it.

Sure. As long as they don't occupy the US Embassy and take hostages.

Do that, and you're crossing an arbitrary, but customary line.

Your nation, if it crosses such a line, should expect to be thrashed at will by the US.



Well yeah, obviously be 'reprimanded' by any state. But at the time that wasn't feasible- middle of Cold War, country low after Vietnam etc etc.

My point was just that Realpolitik applies on the internal as well as external level (e.g people inside the state decide whats best for them, not having someone who is imposed do it for them, or others abroad do it for them either)

Anywho, will never bring up Jimmy Carter on this forum again. He's worse than Bush for people taking extremes! :eek:

Again, voting isn't a bad idea in theory, but if the majority of people are extremists, or idiots (not saying they are, just for example), I don't think the fate of the nation should be left to them.

And who should it be left to? You? Weren't just suggesting dictatorships are wrong? You either believe in freedom or you don't. When a particular freedom is limited to the people you approve of, it's not freedom at all.

Isn't that Realpolitik? Or are you asserting that nations should not act in their own self-interest?

You make Realpolitik sound like a virtue.

Democracy and freedom should be in the US's own self-interest. Only some minds get confused about that.