Post by: telewinz on July 06, 2005, 01:43:23 PM
Post by: Preacherman on July 06, 2005, 03:00:12 PM
Post by: TarpleyG on July 06, 2005, 03:15:50 PM
Greg
Post by: Guest on July 06, 2005, 04:00:01 PM
Post by: matis on July 06, 2005, 04:01:39 PM
I DO have some serious policy differences with him, but as Preacherman says above: would you prefer Kerry??
matis
Post by: K Frame on July 06, 2005, 04:20:54 PM
Americans! Turn in your guns so that we can all cower before our new masters, the international terrorists!
Post by: Guest on July 06, 2005, 04:24:06 PM
Post by: K Frame on July 06, 2005, 04:27:33 PM
Yeah, John Kerry's voting record in Congress gives every indication that he's a strict Constitutionalist.
Jesus...
Post by: grampster on July 06, 2005, 04:52:06 PM
Post by: garrettwc on July 06, 2005, 06:51:34 PM
As for Bush, he has accomplished much less than I had hoped for. However, it is a dis-service to put things entirely on him. We have a Republican majority suffering from a total lack of cojones. The seeds of compromise they have sewn are coming to roost now that Justice O'Connor has announced her retirement.
Post by: Sylvilagus Aquaticus on July 06, 2005, 07:37:00 PM
Nixon once said "I believe in building bridges, but we should only build our side of the bridge".
Use that bully pulpit or you'll lose it without a fight.
BTW, Carter was attacked by a special covert-ops SEAL-trained swamp rabbit years ago. Coincidence? I think not
Regards,
Rabbit.
Post by: RevDisk on July 07, 2005, 12:23:33 AM
Quote
Who in the leadership (or leadership wannabees) in either the R or D parties would anyone consider to be a strict constructionist? Name one please.
Your wish, my command, grampster.Ron Paul.
Post by: Guest on July 07, 2005, 12:36:59 AM
Post by: telewinz on July 07, 2005, 12:50:56 AM
Post by: TarpleyG on July 07, 2005, 02:34:38 AM
Greg
Post by: Bemidjiblade on July 07, 2005, 02:36:47 AM
So determination = stupidity?
Any skilled speaker is going to address his audience at the level they process information. If he's speaking at an 8th grade level, perhaps it's because 6th to 4th grade levels are the levels of information spoon fed to sheeple these days, so that's what they can process.
An over-achiever? Well... perhaps you expected more than the overthrow of a military dictatorship that plagued the world for 20 years, the liberation of women in Afghanistan, and (whether or not they're doing anything about it), the gaining of a majority in the house and the senate. But I'm pleasantly surprised.
It's the senators I'm ready to strangle.
Post by: K Frame on July 07, 2005, 03:40:42 AM
Absolutely incredible.
Please provide some sort of data, hell I'd even accept something from Dr. Nick Riviera, that indicates that having, and HOLDING, a clearly defined vision and purpose means that an individual is of low intelligence. If Bush backed off quickly on everything, people such as yourself would be pissing and moaning that he doesn't have testicular fortitute or staying power, and that he doesn't hold any strong beliefs.
As for the apparent absolute link between speech and intelligence, I'm not a good speaker by any stretch of the imagination. That's why I'm a writer. But, I guess I'm too stupid to know that on your scale I'm just a retard, right?
You may wish to actually THINK about what you're posting before you post it lest someone thing you suffer from a low intelligence level for apparently prescribing to such marginal theories.
Post by: Nathaniel Firethorn on July 07, 2005, 05:53:38 AM
- NF
Post by: DigMe on July 07, 2005, 08:01:52 AM
brad cook
Post by: Guest on July 07, 2005, 08:06:55 AM
He was always falling down and hitting folks with Golf Balls it seems...
" Thwack!"
"Fore!"
" Mr. President - you are supposed to yell "Fore!" a wee bit sooner - Sir"
Post by: K Frame on July 07, 2005, 09:20:38 AM
Or Ronald Reagan taking a header off a horse and requiring brain surgery.
It really doesn't surprise me that people would latch on to that to form a frontal assault. Appearance is everything, and if the President doesn't appear to be the strong, virile, John Wayne archeotype of the mythical American male, he becomes the object of ridicule. I really wonder, though, just how many people who are queueing up to play sneaky sniper are in as good of shape as Bush is?
Post by: Sean Smith on July 07, 2005, 09:32:02 AM
Post by: Typhoon on July 07, 2005, 09:33:55 AM
Do you remember? President Malaise , gas lines, stagflation , double digit interest rates&
Stop it&
Post by: K Frame on July 07, 2005, 10:59:07 AM
Funny, I saw him talking very concisely and effectively a few days ago.
Saw the same thing this afternoon when I caught a clip of him condemning the London bombings.
That is the one thing that I will always remember about Jimmy Carter... The Malaise Speech. He tried to make us all feel better by scolding us like a school teacher.
Reagan made us feel better by inspiring us.
Big difference.
Post by: charby on July 07, 2005, 11:35:15 AM
I like his folksy way of talking, when he talks it doesn't seem like he all high and mighty.
Charby
Post by: Ben on July 07, 2005, 11:35:55 AM
1) Jumped into a limo immediately after falling off while leaving his bike to be picked up by lackeys;
or
2) Blamed his falling off the bike on a Secret Service agent.
Post by: K Frame on July 07, 2005, 12:10:38 PM
And Charby wins the prize for cutting right to the heart of the matter.
Reagan took some heat early in his first term because he was also too folksy for some people.
Post by: crt360 on July 07, 2005, 12:30:41 PM
I think he's probably a nice guy, but I disagree with him on a number of issues.
I also get really tired of hearing him say basically the same thing each time he speaks, regardless of the event. "Mericans must have resolve." "So-and-so is a leader with great resolve." "This team showed resolve." "With great resolve we worked with our allies who showed resolve." What's up with using the word "resolve" in every other sentence? Am I the only one who feels like sending him a cheap little pocket dictionary and thesaurus?
Post by: stevelyn on July 07, 2005, 12:32:19 PM
Quote
Ashamed of how I voted.
Yes, I'm ashamed of how you voted too.
Post by: Ron on July 07, 2005, 02:59:49 PM
Now that the republicans have majorities in the congress/senate and a president in office at the same time, I better see some good judicial appointments to the supreme court.
This is the only reason I voted straight republican since President Clintons second run.
Reigning in the courts is the most important issue of the day domestically.
After 9/11 voting libertarian to make myself feel superior wasn't an option.
Post by: grampster on July 07, 2005, 04:52:48 PM
I have a suggestion for the "leadership" of the West. Announce tomorrow that as far as the Islamo-fascist Wahabbi sect, we intend to scourge them with their own whip; Islamic Law applied in the fashion they apply it. That means no free speech, no freedom of worship, no freedom to come and go, no nothing except the freedom for us to kill them.
I'm sorry if I sound bloodthirsty, but war is a dirty business that is engaged in to destoy your opponent; unequivicaly. The Japanese fascists were fanatics as well. We firebombed Tokyo and nuked them twice and they surrendered and de-deified the Emporer to boot. I am not suggesting nukes, but we should pick a few key places throughout the Islamo-fascist neighborhood and level them and continue to level them till they quit! If Islamo-fascist terrorists have no borders, then we should give them their wish, no borders. Pakistan, Iran, Syria, Iraq, S. Arabia: Give em up or we'll wreck where they are. In the end its us or them and there will always be the unfortunates in the middle.
End of Rant
PS Just Googled Ron Paul. I stand corrected.
Post by: Standing Wolf on July 07, 2005, 05:08:04 PM
I voted for him once, by the way, but voted Libertarian in 2004: I have to face the man in the mirror.
Post by: Bemidjiblade on July 07, 2005, 05:27:52 PM
IguesswhenIactuallyspeaktopeopleinamannertheyunderstandmyIQdipsdownbelow170somethingeh?
*Smacks himself*
If oratory speed is the criterion you use to estimate another human's intelligence, then perhaps you'd prefer Hitler as world leader? Obviously smarter and more capable. Just watch a recording of his speeches.
Also, I believe we must begin screening our leaders for any failings of motor coordination subsequent to the completion of adolescence as that must be an indication of sustandard reasoning and judgement abilites.
Post by: TarpleyG on July 08, 2005, 02:39:35 AM
However, doing what you propose requires dedication and fervor much like we saw at the start of our involvement in WWII and I just don't think it's there. You can't get people off their fat ass long enough to vote let alone go wage a war. I seriously considered re-upping in the Corps shortly after 9/11 but my wife was so freaked out about the idea and there is no way we could have afforded for me to do that, I didn't do it. It's been a while since I was in and if I could re-join with a rank commensurate with my world experience and perform some job function that I can physically do, I'd probably do it. Problem is the Marine Corps doesn't want a late-thirty-something guy with a chronic back problem and high blood pressure, even doing a desk job that I already do.
Now that we are way off topic I'll try and bring it back some. Someone made a comment about how Bush handled the after-wreck incident. He was sincerely concerned about the cop he plowed into and did not blame him like some other creature did on a snow covered ski slope somewhere a while back. I think the man is genuine. Do I agree with him on everything? No, like I said before. The border situation really pisses me off. He pissed me off way back when with the "no child left behind" nonsense. Other stuff but you get the idea.
Greg
Post by: mfree on July 08, 2005, 04:27:42 AM
I didn't even vote for the current president and I find myself defending him just because most of the time the allegory attacks upon the man's intelligence are completely unfounded... the work of someone having an emotional reaction versus using their BRAIN.
Post by: Sean Smith on July 08, 2005, 04:44:17 AM
Quote
I speak with a southern drawl so I must have a low IQ too.
For one thing, nobody attacked Southern accents, now did they? Go back and read the topic again, y'all. Yet everyone leaps to the defense of the (uninsulted) Southern honor. Funny thing, that. The South has, of course, produced tremendous orators.Quote
Bush can talk, he just doesn't use five dollar words that a lot of other people to make themselves seem smarter than they really are.
Quote
If oratory speed is the criterion you use to estimate another human's intelligence, then perhaps you'd prefer Hitler as world leader?
And of course, nobody criticized Bush for not using bigger words or talking faster, now did they? And of course, somebody just HAS to introduce Hitler into the mix, now don't they? Doing so is the classic sign that somebody has no argument, and has chosen to stink up the place as a substitute. Is it going to far to say that ignorance of the English language, and/or an inability to use it, is not a virtue in a president?
Quote
Am I stupid, as well?
Another thing: nobody called anybody posting here a moron. So why FABRICATE a personal attack to get offended over where none existed? More silly "thinking," if you criticize Bush's poor communication skills, you automatically must want CARTER back in the White House. Which is funny, since I don't recall that he was much of a communicator himself. Oh noes, did I insult Southerners by saying THAT?
Bush isn't folksy, he is just a poor speaker. Alot of folksy folks are excellent speakers. And comparing him to Reagan is extremely silly; even Reagan's ENEMIES conceded that he was a good speaker.
Post by: Zundfolge on July 08, 2005, 08:20:24 AM
Just so happened that Bush's name was the only one in the box that had a chance of preventing either of those pariahs from living at 1600 Penn. Ave.
Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on July 08, 2005, 08:43:22 AM
Quote
George can't ride a bike now either.
Oh get off it. I've fallen off a bike, it doesn't make me a moron. Criticize him for his politics, not something childish like falling off a bike.
Post by: K Frame on July 08, 2005, 09:17:08 AM
You're still grasping to find a point, and not being very successful at it. You said you wanted a president who could TALK (your word).
As I pointed out, Bush talks.
More importantly, he COMMUNICATES fairly well.
Perhaps, though, you should be a bit more direct in what you're actually trying to say. What DO you want?
Are you referring to Bush's oratorical miscues?
Are you referring to him mispronouncing the word nuclear?
Maybe we'll be a bit further along if we can figure out what you want.
Post by: charby on July 08, 2005, 09:25:23 AM
Post by: Monkeyleg on July 08, 2005, 01:59:45 PM
When people think of presidents and golf, most think of Eisenhower. However, the best golfer we've had as president was FDR. He was on the brink of going pro before he was stricken with polio.
As for Bush: oh, yeah. He's dumb. He campaigned in 2000 on a promise of a $1.6 trillion tax cut that everyone said would never happen, and the Democrats said "not in our lifetime." He got, what, $1.3 trillion? Pretty dumb.
During the 2004 campaign, he promised to overhaul Social Security. Everyone said it would never happen and, again, the Democrats said no. Now the discussion isn't whether or not we should overhaul the system, it's how. Even if Bush doesn't get the private accounts as he wants them, he still wins. Dumb?
After the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1994, Clinton basically did nothing.
After the 2001 attack, Bush said we're invading Afghanistan. "Impossible," said the press. "Another Viet Nam." "The Soviets failed, and so will we."
Hmmm. The Karzai government seems to be doing fairly well in a short period of time.
Before the Iraq invasion, the press--and some former military folks--were talking about 25% US casualty rates in Baghdad. We've lost 1700+ brave men and women over the last two years, and my thoughts and prayers go out to their families. But, considering that we invaded the most heavily-armed Middle Eastern country, one that had the best-trained troops and tanks galore, that's a low casualty rate. In one day of fighting in the Battle of the Bulge in 1944, the US lost 5,000 troops.
Detractors said it was all about oil. Really? Then why is oil at $58+ a barrel?
Detractors said it was a "gimme" to Halliburton, the most qualified company to do the job, and one that came in under budget and ahead of schedule.
Detractors said that the Iraqi people would never embrace democracy, as though they were some sort of alien race with green skin and six eyes.
When was the last time anyone here went to vote with terrorists threatening to kill you if you did? Iraq had a higher percentage of voter turnout than we've seen in the US in decades.
Detractors said the Middle East would be inflamed, and that every country would turn against us.
I guess that's why Ghadifi decided to surrender his WMD's, and the Saudi's are experimenting with free elections, and the Palestinians have elected a leader who will actually try to control the jihadists while he talks with the Israeli's.
Several years from now, we'll be able to judge the wisdom of Bush going into Iraq. My guess is that we'll find a much better environment in the Middle East.
Post by: telewinz on July 08, 2005, 03:48:49 PM
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
To be fair we will compare the Mighty George's "victories" against others.
BTW: starting a war is not considered a "Great" accomplishment but winning it is. WW2 took the US (FDR) about 45 months to obtain an UNCONDITIONAL surrender from first & 2nd world countries. Why do I feel some will say this is an "unfair" comparison? Maybe we should use "faith based warfare", just talk the problem away. George is a joke.
Post by: telewinz on July 08, 2005, 04:07:51 PM
has risen to the highest level of his presidency, according to the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released Monday.
Gallup: Bush Approval Rating Lowest Ever for 2nd-Term Prez at this Point
By E&P Staff
Published: April 05, 2005 11:45 AM ET updated 7:00 PM
Bush has the lowest approval rating of any president at this point in his second term,
according to Gallup polls going back to World War II.
there's broad skepticism on Bush's policies and progress in Iraq, which the president is to address in a speech tonight. Nearly two-thirds say the United States has gotten bogged down there. Nearly six in 10 say the administration lacks a clear plan. And just 38 percent see significant U.S. progress toward establishing a democratic government.
While Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is not nearly as popular as her predecessor,
Colin Powell, she is the only cabinet member currently enjoying positive ratings by 54 to 39 percent.
Vice President Dick Cheneys ratings are currently 37 percent positive, 60 percent negative,
down sharply from 45 percent positive, 52 percent negative in February.
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfelds ratings are 42 percent positive,
56 percent negative, identical to his February ratings.
Please explain to me again why Bush is ANYTHING besides a poor leader and President?
Post by: Guest on July 08, 2005, 04:12:23 PM
2.) Signed the Patriot Act.
3.) Forgot that tax cuts need to be equalled out with spending cuts.
4.) Supports holding US Citizens without trial or contacts.
5.) Attacked Iraq. I'm all for supporting our troops now that we're there, but I still haven't figured out what he was thinking..we're unsuccessfully playing Where's Waldo with Bin Laden and the Islamic Terrorist Boy Scout troop and Mr. President attacks a secular Middle Eastern Country with no (at the time) links to Al Queda..allegedly to spread democracy. How about spreading a little of that Democracy to North Korea, who is actually threatening us, preferably via a preemptive nuclear strike. If the UN is going to issue resolutions against us, let's make it for something worth while.
6.) Our Southern border. Enough said.
7.) Signed a law banning guns that don't exist.
8.) Opposed a law giving pilots the right to defend themselves.
As far as his speaking abilities, I don't care how he talks, but I'd be happy if I never heard him say Patriot or Evil-Doers agan for the rest of my life.
Post by: Ron on July 08, 2005, 04:37:32 PM
I am talking about in the real world, not the ideasphere.
Other than protest votes for UNVIABLE candidates what are our options?
I am not going to throw away my vote(s) in protest against the statists and let the greater of the two evils win.
Having a constitutional libertarian minded candidate who could win would be great but he/she isn't out there!
Either the libertarians have to get a grassroots program together and start winning elections or there needs to be a grass roots coup in the republican party to start fielding freedom minded candidates.
Until then I will not vote for someone so I can be smug and better than thou because I voted "my conscience".
Post by: stevelyn on July 08, 2005, 10:32:07 PM
Quote
I am not going to throw away my vote(s) in protest against the statists and let the greater of two evils win.
Having a constitutional libertarian minded candidate who could win would be great, but he/she isn't out there.
Well, they're certainly not going to win if everyone is afraid to vote for them because of an addiction to the two-peas-in-a-pod party that's worse than that of a crackhead.Having a constitutional libertarian minded candidate who could win would be great, but he/she isn't out there.
Try voting for the candidate that delivers the message you agree with rather than voting for party loyalty or the lesser evil.
Post by: telewinz on July 08, 2005, 10:45:11 PM
Post by: Guest on July 09, 2005, 01:35:42 AM
Post by: Ron on July 09, 2005, 03:13:19 AM
Quote
Try voting for the candidate that delivers the message you agree with rather than voting for party loyalty or the lesser evil.
If we all did that then we would be faced with the prospect of President Kerry appointing up to three SC justices. Quote
I'm sorry you think its smug..its really, really not. If anything its just a sense of frustration
I am with you, very frustrated. The outright fear of the Dems getting to oppoint SC judges and their incompetence when it comes to standing up for the US on the world stage overcame my frustration. Quote
Iraq and Afghanistan were not forced on Bush, he sought them out.
Our enemies in Afghanistan did not seek us out? Quote
America is in worst shape with George Bush as President
Worse shape than what? If Kerry was president?
Post by: Ron on July 09, 2005, 03:53:34 AM
Quote
Until then I will not vote for someone so I can be smug and better than thou because I voted "my conscience".
I say this as someone who has voted libertarian in the past. There may be some unconscious projection taking place in this statement, LoL.
Post by: telewinz on July 09, 2005, 04:12:05 AM
Post by: jefnvk on July 09, 2005, 06:41:48 AM
As for speaking, I can't talk worth a damn. If you ever talk to me, the first thing you'll probably notice is how I trip over words and come up with blanks when looking for some description word. That doesn't keep me from acceling in just about everything that I do, though.
I know plenty of folks who can talk all day long excellently, but couldn't come up with one good thought during that entire time.
Post by: telewinz on July 09, 2005, 07:27:02 AM
Post by: Waitone on July 09, 2005, 07:39:37 AM
BTW, George Clooney is a pretty good speaker. Does that means he has high intelligence?
Post by: Warbow on July 09, 2005, 10:08:39 AM
Quote from: telewinz
We will never KNOW what Kerry MAY have done anymore than we now know what the President of 2012 MAY do. I'm judging Bush by what he HAS done. Performance is what counts, additionally the 2nd amendment is not a suicide pact in which it's one issue supporters (lemmings?) jump off the cliff in a patriotic huff.
LOL.Yeah, I'm sure Kerry would have done a 180 from his entire past political career as soon as he was elected POTUS. He would have been awesome -- we should have voted for him. Give me a break.
It's not like I wouldn't rather have a constitutionalist as POTUS, but damn, telewinz, you sound like a whiney little baby with your ridiculous criticisms of GWB. "Waaah, he crashed his bike and his words don't flow, waaah."
It also looks like "lame duck" is the new chic phrase to bandy about when you want to look like you have something to say but you actually don't -- sort of like "exit strategy" some months ago.
Post by: telewinz on July 09, 2005, 10:55:29 AM
Very Convincing, have you been published yet?
The accomplishments of Jimmy Carter, a ONE term President with a 59% DISapproval rating. Maybe George has just set his sites TOO high.
The Camp David Accords in 1978 may possibly rank as one of the greatest mediation achievements in history. The accords would lead to a peace treaty in 1979, formally ending the 31-year war between Israel and Egypt. After Carter's defeat, it would take the United States another 10 years to pick up where the Carter Administration left off.
The U.S. formally recognized Peking as the legitimate government in China, and Deputy Premier Teng Hsiao-ping became the first Chinese Communist leader to visit the U.S.
Carter also took the lead in condemning the Soviet atrocities in Afghanistan. Carter built a global coalition in protesting the 1979 invasion. In 1980, the U.S. suspended all high-technology and grain sales to the Soviet Union.
Carter not only denounced the trials of Soviet dissidents, but also spoke out for the rights of Eastern Europeans. The Carter administration was also a progenitor of condemnation of the racism in South Africa, as well as a critic of the violent regimes of Fidel Castro in Cuba and Idi Amin in Uganda.
The Carter Administration signed the SALT II treaty with the Soviet Union in 1979, only to have the treaty later defeated by Senate conservatives.
only Carter could break the ice with the North Koreans. Much has been made of President Kim Il Sung's political savvy, especially in dealing with Joseph Stalin. Carter must have been up to the task. The North Koreans have agreed to freeze all of their nuclear exploits while negotiating with the U.S., something even Carter's Democratic brethren thought impossible.
Other presidents had a significant part of the White House devoted essentially to public relations, and Carter found that totally unacceptable. At the same time, after he lost there was a very conscious effort by the people around Ronald Reagan to denigrate Carter's accomplishments."
Mr. Carter is the author of sixteen books, many of which are now in revised editions. In the Navy he became a submariner, serving in both the Atlantic and Pacific fleets and rising to the rank of lieutenant. Chosen by Admiral Hyman Rickover for the nuclear submarine program, he was assigned to Schenectady, N.Y., where he took graduate work at Union College in reactor technology and nuclear physics, and served as senior officer of the pre-commissioning crew of the Seawolf.
The Panama Canal treaties and On the domestic side, the administration's achievements included a comprehensive energy program conducted by a new Department of Energy; deregulation in energy, transportation, communications, and finance; major educational programs under a new Department of Education; and major environmental protection legislation, including the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. And The Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment Act in 1978.
Post by: Ron on July 09, 2005, 01:22:28 PM
Post by: telewinz on July 09, 2005, 02:02:05 PM
Post by: Warbow on July 09, 2005, 04:00:03 PM
Nice copy and paste about Carter. Care to source it?
Post by: Typhoon on July 09, 2005, 05:34:20 PM
The Camp David Accords came about, not as a result of the wonderful mediation efforts of the Carter Administration, but as a response by Anwar Sadat to the Carter Administrations call for an all-party peace process in Geneva. This process would, by definition, include the Soviets. President Sadat had just spent considerable effort booting the Soviets out of Egypt. He clearly understood that the Soviets had no business in the Middle East and wasnt about to give them a foothold in this instance.
On his own initiative, Sadat approached Menachem Begin with a request to visit Jerusalem and commence negotiations directly with Israel. This was at considerable risk, as it was not that long after the Arab League instated the Three Nos of Khartoum agreement after the 1967 war (which Nasser, not he, had started with Israel). Khartoum said with respect to Israel, No peace, no recognition, and no negotiation. President Sadat went to Jerusalem anyway (the Jerusalem choice was particularly important, because it tacitly recognized Israels interest in that city) and directly addressed the Knesset. History does not seem to reward the considerable courage of President Sadat. President Carter was more of a bystander (even if he did perversely instigate it). History IS reflecting President Carters antagonism toward Israel and his sickening deference to the professional terrorist, Yassir Arafat.
Next, SALT II. When the Carter Administration inherited the original SALT II provisions from the Ford Administration and Henry Kissinger, the treaty, as it stood, was acceptable to the United States. Unfortunately, the Carter Administration, desperate for an arms control treaty with the Soviets, weakened it with concession after concession. By the time of signing, it was so asymmetrically biased in favor of the Soviets that the Senate could not in good conscience ratify it. I wonder why you might bring SALT II up, because the Cold War was won by the United States quite nicely without it. President Carter was not part of that process, and in fact, did what he could to derail the process.
Side note: As an ex-president, Jimmy Carter has done more to undermine his successor administrations than any other in history. He publicly criticizes United States positions, often to the detriment of the country he swore to defend.
Next, China. It was President Nixon who took the first bold step and visited the Peoples Republic. Recognition was more of a fait accompli at that point. One simply cannot ignore one quarter of the worlds population (as it was at that time, and still might be havent checked recently). Beijing went nuclear shortly before the Nixon Administration as well. It was only a matter of time.
Next, Afghanistan. Carter also took the lead in condemning the Soviet atrocities in Afghanistan. Carter built a global coalition in protesting the 1979 invasion. In 1980, the U.S. suspended all high-technology and grain sales to the Soviet Union. So what? It is very easy to condemn; it is quite something else to do something about it. Indeed, a strong argument can be made that it was because of the Carter Administrations weak position with respect to Iran, and its virtual abandonment of the Shah, the Soviets were bold enough to invade Afghanistan. What was the United States going to do? Condemn strongly? Iran had, until quite recently, been a vital partner with the United States. That support ended with Jimmy Carter. Indeed, Carter, with his skewed attitude toward totalitarian governments, actually believed that Khomeini might do well by the Iranian citizens. He believed that Khomeini was a progressive cleric. Well, we saw how well that worked out.
I would take the argument even further to say that Islamic fundamentalism was encouraged to take strong root in the Middle East because of the Carter Administrations failed foreign policy.
Next, Human Rights. Again, it is all well and good to speak out about human rights abuses. It is quite another thing to do something about them. The Berlin Wall did not fall because of Jimmy Carter. It fell because of the relentless pressure placed on Communism by the United States, Pope John Paul II, the forces behind the creation of the European Union, and others. Sometimes, evil must be met with military might, or the threat of it. This is something Carter appears loathe to embrace, and in fact boasted that he never sent soldiers into combat. Finish the thought for yourself.
Re: dissidents. Actually, there is evidence that President Reagans condemnation of the Soviet Union as an evil empire did more to bolster the spirits of the persecuted than anything President Carter did.
I will give Jimmy Carter credit for his campaigns against human suffering, and his good works for the disadvantaged. But these activities are best done by private citizens. The business of statecraft is another matter.
Next, North Korea. Even President Clinton was pissed off by what Jimmy Carter did in North Korea. Again, appeasing an overtly aggressive country is a mistake.
The rest? The Panama Canal treaties and On the domestic side, the administration's achievements included a comprehensive energy program conducted by a new Department of Energy; deregulation in energy, transportation, communications, and finance; major educational programs under a new Department of Education; and major environmental protection legislation, including the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. And The Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment Act in 1978.
Feel-good legislation that did essentially nothing to better the state of U.S. citizens, and often at great cost.
Ive had enough&
Post by: telewinz on July 10, 2005, 12:28:45 AM
Who gets the REAL credit for Carter's Nobel Prize Peace Award? The camels? I'm not a fan of Carter but Bush doesn't even compete well with him (or any other President) concerning accomplishments (and public speaking and bicycle riding). In our society the mentally challenged often cannot compete well except in restricted events such as the Special Olympics. I'm still waiting for a list of Bush's accomplishments.
Source of Carter's accomplishments...just do a web search of "President Carter's Accomplishments". Try a web search for Bush... if you need the help in listing his accomplishments(?).
The Nobel Peace Prize 2002
"for his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development"
Post by: RevDisk on July 10, 2005, 03:31:30 AM
Quote
I am not going to throw away my vote(s) in protest against the statists and let the greater of two evils win.
Having a constitutional libertarian minded candidate who could win would be great, but he/she isn't out there.
Someone once meantioned to me an interesting phrase. "Complaining about politicians is like complaining after playing a game of poker against someone with a marked deck, and they knew it was marked before they played." Having a constitutional libertarian minded candidate who could win would be great, but he/she isn't out there.
Democrat/Republican elections are a rigged game. Either way you vote, the same thing will happen. Taxes will go up. (With a few very minor tax cuts to show the flag.) Liberties will disappear. (In the name of peace or security.) The status quo will be maintained at all costs. I'm not a Libertarian, nor do I think too much of the current LP. I'm just calling the system for what it is.
Quote
I would take the argument even further to say that Islamic fundamentalism was encouraged to take strong root in the Middle East because of the Carter Administrations failed foreign policy.
Typhoon, Carter tried to launch a military operation against Iran. The military (and bad luck) let him down. Hence the creation of SOCOM and the vast improvement of the Special Operations community. How many military operations did Reagan launch against Iran? Oh yea, he invaded Grenada instead. Because obviously Grenada was more of a threat than Iran. Instead, Reagan ARMED Iran. Iran-Contra ring a bell?Pardon me for being misguided, but I think a military raid sends a better message than giving weapons to the bad guys.
Yea, Carter's raid failed. He took the blame. He didn't pass the buck. The military failed him, but he took as much of the blame as he could. While I disliked Carter's politics, he was a good man. Read any book about Desert One, particularly any book written by a vet of Desert One, and see what the guys on the ground said about Carter.
Quote
I think the time for talk is over as far as the Islamo-fascists are concerned. They use the freedom we have, that they would destroy, to mock us and promote their terror in order to bring us down. All I heard today was politicians and "news" media be polite and be politically correct, wringing their hands and talking. Windbags and girly men (Sorry Barbara) Hell, I never even heard the word Islamo-fascist, or Wahabbist. NBC was still saying the "didn't know who did this" after the murderous slime announced hours before not only that they did it, but that they actually told the world they were going to a couple weeks ago, and Italy and Denmark (iirc) were next, for God's sake. (Remember May 23 in London when the cowardly bastards chanted Kill Bush, Kill Blair, Death to America, Death to Britain, Nuke the Pentagon and the Brit Bobbies stood around and watched)
I have a suggestion for the "leadership" of the West. Announce tomorrow that as far as the Islamo-fascist Wahabbi sect, we intend to scourge them with their own whip; Islamic Law applied in the fashion they apply it. That means no free speech, no freedom of worship, no freedom to come and go, no nothing except the freedom for us to kill them.
I'm sorry if I sound bloodthirsty, but war is a dirty business that is engaged in to destoy your opponent; unequivicaly. The Japanese fascists were fanatics as well. We firebombed Tokyo and nuked them twice and they surrendered and de-deified the Emporer to boot. I am not suggesting nukes, but we should pick a few key places throughout the Islamo-fascist neighborhood and level them and continue to level them till they quit! If Islamo-fascist terrorists have no borders, then we should give them their wish, no borders. Pakistan, Iran, Syria, Iraq, S. Arabia: Give em up or we'll wreck where they are. In the end its us or them and there will always be the unfortunates in the middle.
While I disagree on your suggested strategy for dealing with the Wahabbis, I'm glad someone else here knows what they are. Sometimes I feel like virtually no one else in the world knows who our enemy actually is. It is not Islam, nor Arabs, but instead a relatively small sect called Wahabbism. They're a bunch of ultraconservative wackos that need to be wiped off the face of the earth.I have a suggestion for the "leadership" of the West. Announce tomorrow that as far as the Islamo-fascist Wahabbi sect, we intend to scourge them with their own whip; Islamic Law applied in the fashion they apply it. That means no free speech, no freedom of worship, no freedom to come and go, no nothing except the freedom for us to kill them.
I'm sorry if I sound bloodthirsty, but war is a dirty business that is engaged in to destoy your opponent; unequivicaly. The Japanese fascists were fanatics as well. We firebombed Tokyo and nuked them twice and they surrendered and de-deified the Emporer to boot. I am not suggesting nukes, but we should pick a few key places throughout the Islamo-fascist neighborhood and level them and continue to level them till they quit! If Islamo-fascist terrorists have no borders, then we should give them their wish, no borders. Pakistan, Iran, Syria, Iraq, S. Arabia: Give em up or we'll wreck where they are. In the end its us or them and there will always be the unfortunates in the middle.
I do not think intentially murdering innocent civilians would be helpful in wiping the Wahabbis off the face of the earth. Besides being wrong, I honestly don't think it'd be an effective tactic. Also, not all those countries you meantioned sponsor Wahabbism or even like the Wahabbis. Saddam, for all his faults, killed more than a few Wahabbis and was very much known for disliking religious wackos. (Yes, he is a bad man. But I don't fault him for disliking and distrusting the Wahabbis, who wanted to kill him.)
War is not "one size fits all". Our strategy against Japan during WWII worked because the leaders higher up the food chain were sane, and actually cared about their people. They had a homeland, and a strong sense of nationalism. They were very much hierarchical society, and thus followed orders (for the most part) when the surrender orders came down. The Wahabbis have no such hierarchy, nor any specific nation, nor do they care much about the people in the countries they work in. They believe in an ideology, one not tied to borders or any specific homeland. Trying to use nationalist war doctrine against an enemy that cares very little for nationalism wouldn't work rather efficiently.
Then again, I think most people will ignore me because they have a set of opinions they do not wish to change to better fit reality. I think a lack of adaptivity is one of the problems of our "War on Terrorism". It's not currently a war to defeat the Wahabbis. I'm not exactly sure what it truly is, but I think it's moreso aimed against the American citizenry than our foreign enemies.
Post by: Ron on July 10, 2005, 04:38:39 AM
Quote
This was not a terrorist attack against the mighty and the powerful; it is not aimed at presidents or prime ministers; it was aimed at ordinary working class Londoners, black and white, Muslim and Christians, Hindu and Jew, young and old, indiscriminate attempt at slaughter irrespective of any considerations, of age, of class, of religion, whatever, that isnt an ideology, it isnt even a perverted faith, its just indiscriminate attempt at mass murder, and we know what the objective is, they seek to divide
The "terrorists" will kill anyone in their attempt to divide and weaken the west.
Post by: grampster on July 10, 2005, 07:06:53 AM
In my anger with these radical islamo fascists, perhaps I could have been more specific. Since our military has been changed to fit a different profile of warfare, then why are we not seeking out these Wahabbists wherever they may be, including the US of A, because they are here too, you know. Let's us meet terror with terror, irrigardless of border. Let us announce what we are going to do and then do it. It will not take long for even terrorist states such as Iran and Syria to get the message. Rather than stand around while Wahabbist's preach their hatred openly, we should not allow them the lattitude of free speech. Why? Because what they advocate is the destruction of that free speech. Why should we extend to these creatures the benefit of what they would destroy? Free speech is about the ability to have the soapbox to change hearts and minds within a system of lawful freedom. Those that advocate hatred, murder, and the destruction of freedom do not deserve the benefit of it. So why should we be concerned with extending it to those creatures? They will not suddenly come to their senses and say, "Sorry, we were wrong. Why can't we just all get along." (Where is Rodney when we need him.)
As for borders, most States that are Muslim are as much in fear of these Wahabbists and only keep their silence because of that fear. I believe there would not be much uproar (except from the Left in America) if we began to exterminate these horrible people methodically wherever we find them. I believe we are doing that to some extent, right now. I just think we need to be more aggressive than we have been.
Regarding innocents: I am not being cavalier when I say that innocents will be harmed. Reality is just that, reality. Survival in war involves everyone. There are innocents dying now, and not just by our hand.
Post by: Typhoon on July 10, 2005, 07:33:37 AM
When announcing Carters prize to the media, Gunnar Berge, the chairman of the Nobel Prize committee, said that, It should be interpreted as a criticism of the line that the current (meaning G. W. Bush) administration has taken&. on the war on terrorism. It is a kick in the leg to all that follow the same line as the United States.
Nice.
Re: The mission to free the hostages in Iran.
A bold move. I am sorry it didnt work. I have not examined the after-effects of the mission and what lessons were learned. I will certainly do so, and thanks for the resource.
Discussion:
United States policy with respect to the Middle East is fraught with blunders and miscalculations. Iran has been particularly troublesome. I question the original wisdom of returning the Shah to power in the first place, back in 1953. But, once done, it was not a good idea to abandon him, as we did. Additionally, as a result of the disempowerment of the CIA, we didnt have the intelligence to be able to take Khomeini as a credible threat. Interesting that French and Israeli Intelligence had a better read on the situation than we did.
Backing Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war was also a disastrous blunder. At the time, Hussein appeared to be the more stabilizing force in the Middle East. We saw how well that worked out, and it was not the Carter Administration, but the Reagan Administration that mishandled that one.
Iran-Contra? Playing both sides against the middle. Also a bad move.
I am not trying to bash Carter here, but I do want to take a hard critical look at the various policies that brought us to this precarious situation.
The Middle East is a hotbed of discontent. One of the reasons (and a big one) is all the meddling the powers and superpowers have done over there. Oil? Yep. Israel and the Palestinians? Yep. (I do believe that the United States should support the ONLY legitimate democracy in the Middle East). Islamic radical fundamentalism? Yep. And on and on and on&
The war on terrorism&sigh&Despite the civilian casualties and the heavy-handedness of the Iraq war, I believe that it is better to take the fight outside the United States than have to fight terrorists here. It was an escalation that said, in no uncertain terms, that the United States means business.
Or, do you disagree?
Re: Bushs achievements.
Ill pontificate once he finishes his Administration.
Post by: telewinz on July 10, 2005, 09:09:47 AM
Ill pontificate once he finishes his Administration.
1. He kept the fight away from home so effectively that he created the Department of Homeland Security and signed the Patriot Act.
2. He lead the fight to change Social Security, Bush's "plan" failed to be voted upon even in a Congress controlled by his own party.
3. He forced the Iraqi's to hide their WMD so well that NOBODY could find them!
4. He cut the budget for the VA during wartime in order to cut the deficit.
5. He cut taxes in order to increase the deficit.
6. He supported additional domestic oil exploration.
7. He spoke to his oil domestic and foreign"friends" to increase production and lower oil prices.
8. Oil prices were at an historic high under Bush's "leadership".
9. Gasoline prices were at an historic high under Bush's "leadership"
10. Bush's approval rating was at an all time low for second term Presidents since records were kept.
11. Bush announces while donning a flight suit "mission accomplished" in Iraq. Over 1000 servicemen have been killed since that "timely" announcement.
12. YOU fill in the "accomplishment", its only the first day of the week. Use extra space if needed.
Post by: Typhoon on July 10, 2005, 09:56:26 AM
Oil exploration? Good. Lets do it and lots more. This is coming from a California native whose gas prices are considerably more than yours, and, while I dont exactly care for oil drilling platforms off the coast, Id rather have the opportunity to be able to DRIVE to the beach to see them. And then not like them&
Alaska? Been there. I still have not heard a cogent argument against careful petroleum exploration. Enlighten me, please, but do not exhort me to do a Google search or consult Wikipedia. In fact, I would not be offended if you completely dismissed anything I said, as I am just pontificating.
Whats wrong with rethinking Social Security? I just got my annual statement, and it is clear that I cannot rely on it to sustain me without a serious retirement plan&
Look to 2008 if you want to change the course. In the meantime, do what you can to influence your currently elected representatives. Or, campaign to remove them.
Ill let President Bush finish his term before I pontificate&
Post by: telewinz on July 10, 2005, 11:58:00 AM
Post by: RevDisk on July 10, 2005, 01:24:31 PM
Quote from: grampster
Rev,
In my anger with these radical islamo fascists, perhaps I could have been more specific. Since our military has been changed to fit a different profile of warfare, then why are we not seeking out these Wahabbists wherever they may be, including the US of A, because they are here too, you know. Let's us meet terror with terror, irrigardless of border. Let us announce what we are going to do and then do it. It will not take long for even terrorist states such as Iran and Syria to get the message. Rather than stand around while Wahabbist's preach their hatred openly, we should not allow them the lattitude of free speech. Why? Because what they advocate is the destruction of that free speech. Why should we extend to these creatures the benefit of what they would destroy? Free speech is about the ability to have the soapbox to change hearts and minds within a system of lawful freedom. Those that advocate hatred, murder, and the destruction of freedom do not deserve the benefit of it. So why should we be concerned with extending it to those creatures? They will not suddenly come to their senses and say, "Sorry, we were wrong. Why can't we just all get along." (Where is Rodney when we need him.)
Syria is not as much of a terrorism sponsor as the Bush administration has tried to make them seem. They're hardly innocents, but rather, we have bigger fish to fry. Iran, yea. They're pretty much the the generic terrorist training country. They've held numerous 'conferences' for terrorist leaders to pool resources, sanctioned training camps, etc. In my humble opinion, however, invasion or bombing is currently the LAST thing we wanna do. (Note, I said currently, things change.) We want to foster an internal revolution amoung the Iranians themselves. In my anger with these radical islamo fascists, perhaps I could have been more specific. Since our military has been changed to fit a different profile of warfare, then why are we not seeking out these Wahabbists wherever they may be, including the US of A, because they are here too, you know. Let's us meet terror with terror, irrigardless of border. Let us announce what we are going to do and then do it. It will not take long for even terrorist states such as Iran and Syria to get the message. Rather than stand around while Wahabbist's preach their hatred openly, we should not allow them the lattitude of free speech. Why? Because what they advocate is the destruction of that free speech. Why should we extend to these creatures the benefit of what they would destroy? Free speech is about the ability to have the soapbox to change hearts and minds within a system of lawful freedom. Those that advocate hatred, murder, and the destruction of freedom do not deserve the benefit of it. So why should we be concerned with extending it to those creatures? They will not suddenly come to their senses and say, "Sorry, we were wrong. Why can't we just all get along." (Where is Rodney when we need him.)
The foot soldiers of the Wahabbis tend to be poor and have no education. Obviously, they are easily swayed. Why not sway their potentials (people not yet radicalized) in directions more favorable to our interests? Instead of bombing innocent civilians, try to turn them against the Iranian government, and encourage them to start a revolution. Cheap (relatively speaking), efficient, and clean.
Banning free speech would accomplish little more than simply making their speech more widely read or heard. Look up alcohol usage before Prohibition and then during. Or heck, our War on Drugs. Banning something usually just has the unintended consequences of making it more popular. I might be wrong, but from what I've seen from previous banning attempts...
Quote
As for borders, most States that are Muslim are as much in fear of these Wahabbists and only keep their silence because of that fear. I believe there would not be much uproar (except from the Left in America) if we began to exterminate these horrible people methodically wherever we find them. I believe we are doing that to some extent, right now. I just think we need to be more aggressive than we have been.
Regarding innocents: I am not being cavalier when I say that innocents will be harmed. Reality is just that, reality. Survival in war involves everyone. There are innocents dying now, and not just by our hand.
Look up how many Muslims the Wahabbis have killed. Heck, look up how many Muslim leaders the Muslim Brotherhood has killed in Egypt alone. I'd say a good amount of that fear is justified. Yea, we need to deal with the Wahabbis. Why isn't the Right screaming their heads off that Bush is wasting resources in Iraq when he should have been concentrating on the Wahabbis? I want the heads of the people that caused 9/11, but I want the right heads. I see Iraq has a wasteful distraction of that goal. The Wahabbis attacked us, killed many civilians, and they need to pay the price. So why aren't we making them pay the price?Regarding innocents: I am not being cavalier when I say that innocents will be harmed. Reality is just that, reality. Survival in war involves everyone. There are innocents dying now, and not just by our hand.
There is a difference between collaterial damage and intentially killing innocent by-standers. A big difference, grampster.
Quote
United States policy with respect to the Middle East is fraught with blunders and miscalculations. Iran has been particularly troublesome. I question the original wisdom of returning the Shah to power in the first place, back in 1953. But, once done, it was not a good idea to abandon him, as we did. Additionally, as a result of the disempowerment of the CIA, we didnt have the intelligence to be able to take Khomeini as a credible threat. Interesting that French and Israeli Intelligence had a better read on the situation than we did.
Backing Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war was also a disastrous blunder. At the time, Hussein appeared to be the more stabilizing force in the Middle East. We saw how well that worked out, and it was not the Carter Administration, but the Reagan Administration that mishandled that one.
Yep. The US has screwed up in respect to the Middle East many many times. As for the disempowerment of the CIA... that might have been caused by the fact that the CIA seems to be more interested in overthrowing countries and installing vicious dictators, rather than, oh say... gathering intelligence.Backing Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war was also a disastrous blunder. At the time, Hussein appeared to be the more stabilizing force in the Middle East. We saw how well that worked out, and it was not the Carter Administration, but the Reagan Administration that mishandled that one.
Installing the Shah of Iran was a very bad idea. Once we put him in power, we also didn't fully support him. There's a fitting irony there. Backing Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war wasn't as much a disastrous blunder as you'd think. The goal of supporting Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war was to make both countries kill large numbers of people, destroy their infrastructure and put both countries in heavy debt. It obviously worked.
If our diplomats had been more clear, Gulf War wouldn't have happened. Previous to the Gulf War, Saddam thought he was on relatively decent terms with the US. He specifically asked the US about Kuwait. The State department flack said "We have no opinion in your border dispute." (paraphrased) Kuwait had been a providence of Iraq until the Brits broke them off and made them a seperate country. Also, Kuwait was slant drilling, producing oil above OPEC levels, etc. Iraq was up to their eyeball in debt, and Kuwait wasn't helping matters by stealing Iraqi oil and driving down prices. Did this warrent their invasion? Of course not. But Kuwait didn't help the situation any by their behavior.
Quote
The Middle East is a hotbed of discontent. One of the reasons (and a big one) is all the meddling the powers and superpowers have done over there. Oil? Yep. Israel and the Palestinians? Yep. (I do believe that the United States should support the ONLY legitimate democracy in the Middle East). Islamic radical fundamentalism? Yep. And on and on and on&
The war on terrorism&sigh&Despite the civilian casualties and the heavy-handedness of the Iraq war, I believe that it is better to take the fight outside the United States than have to fight terrorists here. It was an escalation that said, in no uncertain terms, that the United States means business.
Or, do you disagree?
Israel is not completely a democracy. Nor are they entirely friendly towards the US. I recommend looking beneath their thin cover of "legitimate democracy" and take a closer look at their behavior.The war on terrorism&sigh&Despite the civilian casualties and the heavy-handedness of the Iraq war, I believe that it is better to take the fight outside the United States than have to fight terrorists here. It was an escalation that said, in no uncertain terms, that the United States means business.
Or, do you disagree?
Yes, I disagree. Iraq had nothing to do with the Wahabbi lunatics. We would have been better served by invading a country that had ANYTHING to do with the religious wackos that attacked us. (Does Afghanistan ring a bell? Look up how many troops we have stationed there.) What you advocate (and what happened) is stirring up a hornet's nest in a country that did not support Wahabbism while smugly saying our sole intention is 'liberating' said country. You cannot have it both ways. Either we are liberating Iraq or we are occupying Iraq. The US needs to make up its bloody mind.
We'd have been better off liberating/occupying a country that had something to do with attacking us, instead of using the excuse of the 'war on terrorism' to settle old scores and now pretty much ignoring the Wahabbis.