tvashtarkatena Posted April 21, 2008 Share Posted April 21, 2008 Jimmy Carter has no representative force for the United States in 2008. He had his term in 1977 - 1981 and was not re-elected, primarily because he was viewed by the majority as a failure. Jimmy...love ya babe, but you got no real clout no mo' and you haven't for over 25 years. I'm constantly reminded that if you simply refuse to leave school, someone will eventually hand you a Phd. Ex presidents have a tremendous amount of influence, given their high level relationships, both domestic and international, as well as a great deal of legitimacy, given their experience. Carter, from his peace negotiations alone, is the most influential ex-president alive today, and arguably the most influential ex-president of the past century. Ex-presidents are also no longer constrained by politics. No, they can no longer order the troops to shoot up some poor dusty backwater whenever they feel like it, but they enjoy more influence in areas that are politically off limits to sitting presidents, most particularly the area of conflict negotiation. Your analysis on why Carter never served a second term is also a applying the rules of tiddlywinks to a chess game. You seem to have forgotten the economic destruction of paying for the Vietnam war, coupled with oil shocks from a certain cartel, plus over a decade of shitty monetary policy, factors which largely preceded Carter's presidency and were therefore entirely out of his control. The complexities of our dynamic world seems to continually flummox you, Dawg. I can see the static appeal of a world long dead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted April 21, 2008 Share Posted April 21, 2008 Jimmy Carter has no representative force for the United States in 2008. He had his term in 1977 - 1981 and was not re-elected, primarily because he was viewed by the majority as a failure. Jimmy...love ya babe, but you got no real clout no mo' and you haven't for over 25 years. I'm constantly reminded that if you simply refuse to leave school, someone will eventually hand you a Phd. Ex presidents have a tremendous amount of influence, given their high level relationships, both domestic and international, as well as a great deal of legitimacy, given their experience. Carter, from his peace negotiations alone, is the most influential ex-president alive today, and arguably the most influential ex-president of the past century. Ex-presidents are also no longer constrained by politics. No, they can no longer order the troops to shoot up some poor dusty backwater whenever they feel like it, but they enjoy more influence in areas that are politically off limits to sitting presidents, most particularly the area of conflict negotiation. Your analysis on why Carter never served a second term is also a applying the rules of tiddlywinks to a chess game. You seem to have forgotten the economic destruction of paying for the Vietnam war, coupled with oil shocks from a certain cartel, plus over a decade of shitty monetary policy, factors which largely preceded Carter's presidency and were therefore entirely out of his control. The complexities of our dynamic world seems to continually flummox you, Dawg. I can see the static appeal of a world long dead. ...And your inability to understand this "world long dead" apparently includes the period 1977 through 1981. Jimmy Carter's own disastrous and hyper-inflationary monetary policy (basically, to just print more money) bears the brunt of the blame for his sour legacy. I like the way lefties and Democrat Party drones selectively rewrite history to fit neatly into the boxes they have built around themselves. Dumbass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STP Posted April 21, 2008 Share Posted April 21, 2008 I could be wrong here, FW, but the President does not set monetary policy by limiting or expanding money supply. He can support a strong dollar policy but essentially the Federal Reserve system (which BTW is as federal as Federal Express) that actually controls money supply. If I understand correctly, the inflation was largely due to the deficit spending by the gov't brought on by the Vietnam War. Maybe someone with a less muddled economic view as me can clarify this issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted April 21, 2008 Share Posted April 21, 2008 Pretty much every American president between Truman and Reagan--with the possible exception of JFK, and in some ways, Nixon--was worthless. But along with Warren Harding, Jimmy Carter remains the worst president of the twentieth century, and any attempt to rewrite this fact is nothing more than historical revisionism taken on by the most virulent partisans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted April 21, 2008 Share Posted April 21, 2008 FW don't ignore Carter's power! Thanks to him a significant portion of the Jewish vote will turn away from the Democrats and vote Republican! Much like when he was defeated by Ronnie all those years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bug Posted April 21, 2008 Share Posted April 21, 2008 I can't beleive you have the nerve to bring up Reagan as a shining example of greatness in a thread about the exploits of an ex-pres. The Iranians openly acknowledged that a condition of them getting their payoff for releasing the hostages was that they be released AFTER Reagan was sworn in. So Reagan's team was in there BEFORE he even served as pres and KEPT the HOSTAGES IN CAPTIVITY longer ON PURPOSE for political gain. I will agree with you that Carter sucked bigtime. Yes he was left with a mess but his altruism was sappy and we were taken to the cleaners by the USSR and OPEC because of it. But he was naive. Reagan was a criminal. He approved a long list of illegal activities before, during, and after his presidency and his entire staff was indicted in spite of George Bush being in the presidency. Do you have any idea what kind of evidentiary foundation that takes? You and I would be in jail. Reagan escaped jail be having alzhaimers. History will not be kind to Reagan. Talk about spinning history to fit your own needs..... FW, you are the all-time pro at that. It is extremely rare that you present anything that cannot be found in a hard core right wing rag in Eastern wa. Sorry if that seems harsh. It seems to be so obvious how far out of a balanced perspective you are. And yet you use that attack on others so often. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted April 21, 2008 Share Posted April 21, 2008 Pretty much every American president between Truman and Reagan--with the possible exception of JFK, and in some ways, Nixon--was worthless. But along with Warren Harding, Jimmy Carter remains the worst president of the twentieth century, and any attempt to rewrite this fact is nothing more than historical revisionism taken on by the most virulent partisans. Yeah well, you know, that's just like, your opinion, man... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted April 21, 2008 Share Posted April 21, 2008 link shouldn't someone have already chimed in to tell us why this is another of Carter's screaming failures? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted April 21, 2008 Share Posted April 21, 2008 just wait till W is out of office and can go tooling around as an 'Ex-Prez', then shits gonna get DONE! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Conway Posted April 21, 2008 Share Posted April 21, 2008 just wait till W is out of office and can go tooling around as an 'Ex-Prez', then shits gonna get DONE! brush is trembling across Texas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mal_Con Posted April 21, 2008 Share Posted April 21, 2008 Maybe we could send him up to Luna Creek, then he could at least do something useful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted April 22, 2008 Share Posted April 22, 2008 It is a sad commentary on American politics when the righties, including the President, want to dismiss what may be or may lead to a breakthrough in Israel-Palestine peace negotiations. Even if they think Carter's meeting was not "substantive," rather than nudge it and see if it might lead to something forward they feel the need to negate and dismiss. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dechristo Posted April 22, 2008 Share Posted April 22, 2008 Carter holds no sway; surely, the good ol' boys of Hamas know this. Their hatred of an American icon being slightly less than that of Israel, they played nice and humored him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted April 22, 2008 Share Posted April 22, 2008 Like I said: sad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dechristo Posted April 22, 2008 Share Posted April 22, 2008 So, Matt, anyone to the right of you is a "rightey"? I don't denigrate Carter's effort. It's admirable. I only comment on what I perceive to be its potential benefit to peace in that region at this time: nil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Conway Posted April 22, 2008 Share Posted April 22, 2008 So, Matt, anyone to the right of you is a "rightey"? I don't denigrate Carter's effort. It's admirable. I only comment on what I perceive to be its potential benefit to peace in that region at this time: nil. look - it's another I refuse to believe I'm actually on the right! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dechristo Posted April 22, 2008 Share Posted April 22, 2008 The narrow-minded must have labels and boxes for most things. As if this were a defining issue... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dechristo Posted April 22, 2008 Share Posted April 22, 2008 If this subject is the "rightey" litmus test, I guess Barack and I will just have to live with it. Though, Obama's criticism is more virulent. You guys are joking, right? You can't really be that shallow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Conway Posted April 22, 2008 Share Posted April 22, 2008 The narrow-minded must have labels and boxes for most things. As if this were a defining issue... awww - he gets indignant when called on it last I checked non-affiliated is a label too Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dechristo Posted April 22, 2008 Share Posted April 22, 2008 Looks more like you're em-bare-assed for the exposition of your weak-sauciness. How dare you call me "NON-AFFILIATED"!!! MODERATORZZZZZ!!!!1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted April 22, 2008 Share Posted April 22, 2008 I can't beleive you have the nerve to bring up Reagan as a shining example of greatness in a thread about the exploits of an ex-pres. The Iranians openly acknowledged that a condition of them getting their payoff for releasing the hostages was that they be released AFTER Reagan was sworn in. So Reagan's team was in there BEFORE he even served as pres and KEPT the HOSTAGES IN CAPTIVITY longer ON PURPOSE for political gain. Please DO share! What is the "payoff" you speak of? "Reagan's team" pre election? When you post something like it's fact, at least have...some facts. I anxiously await your mainstream linked/posted sources. Good luck with this one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted April 22, 2008 Share Posted April 22, 2008 It is a sad commentary on American politics when the righties, including the President, want to dismiss what may be or may lead to a breakthrough in Israel-Palestine peace negotiations. Even if they think Carter's meeting was not "substantive," rather than nudge it and see if it might lead to something forward they feel the need to negate and dismiss. Looks like Carter's peace proposal held only slightly longer than your last woody. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7359661.stm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted April 22, 2008 Share Posted April 22, 2008 The narrow-minded must have labels and boxes for most things. As if this were a defining issue... awww - he gets indignant when called on it last I checked non-affiliated is a label too yeah, DC is a "righty". dumbass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Conway Posted April 22, 2008 Share Posted April 22, 2008 Looks more like you're em-bare-assed for the exposition of your weak-sauciness. I was pointing out your choice is another narrow minded category. But you are too smart to realize that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dechristo Posted April 22, 2008 Share Posted April 22, 2008 So, my choice of the category that is the most loose in definition, allows for the greatest variety of options/choices (allows participation in any party primary), and still allows me to vote is simply another "narrow-minded category"? If you're only pointing out an existential notion of "refusing definition equates definition", I accept it. But, in light of the original topic - my perceived political Righteyness - your assertion doesn't square. I enjoy the freedom to choose to participate-in/support modern notions of causes "liberal" or "conservative" as my current sensibilities desire, without the requirement of forsaking contrary views to a more "narrow-minded" toeing of a Party line. Your labeling is allegorical to the blind man describing an elephant (or donkey, choose any Party's logo animal,) by only touching one aspect of the animal. It seems your lack of sight leads you to familiarity with the area beneath animals' tails only. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.