GG Posted September 17, 2009 Posted September 17, 2009 This coming from the guy who started the Jimmy Carter thread (right, right he's in the news). I don't think I've mentioned W in months. He's certainly not worthy of a cause, but now that Bush is in the conversation, I think it's pretty funny that you all are referring to Carter as one of the worst presidents in American history in the direct wake of one of the worst and most damaging presidents in American history. I wont argue the point about Carter because I'm too young to really remember much about his presidency, but Bush II is certainly fair game when the term 'worst president' starts getting sprouted about. FWIW, my spell checker corrected 2 misspelled words in this post. As we're 30 yrs beyond the Carter presidency, it's enough time to judge him through a historical prism and declare his failure. With Bush, many of us start out with the premise that the main reason for his "failure" is the efforts to fix the troubles which were brought on by the Carter presidency. Let's wait 25 yrs to see the full impact of the incompetent Bush legacy.
Gene Frenkle Posted September 17, 2009 Posted September 17, 2009 As we're 30 yrs beyond the Carter presidency, it's enough time to judge him through a historical prism and declare his failure. With Bush, many of us start out with the premise that the main reason for his "failure" is the efforts to fix the troubles which were brought on by the Carter presidency. Let's wait 25 yrs to see the full impact of the incompetent Bush legacy. I guess my view is not long enough yet. I can't imagine how just about anything Bush did post invasion of Iraq could ever be seen in a positive light. Up until that point, I thought he did a pretty good job, especially through the 9/11 mess. In the end, if history views his presidency as a success, history might want to have its eyes checked.
Fingon Posted September 17, 2009 Posted September 17, 2009 I guess my view is not long enough yet. I can't imagine how just about anything Bush did post invasion of Iraq could ever be seen in a positive light. Up until that point, I thought he did a pretty good job, especially through the 9/11 mess. In the end, if history views his presidency as a success, history might want to have its eyes checked. If Iraq becomes a successful democracy, and our staunchest Muslim ally in the mid-east... then Bush's presidency will be a success.
Gene Frenkle Posted September 17, 2009 Posted September 17, 2009 If Iraq becomes a successful democracy, and our staunchest Muslim ally in the mid-east... then Bush's presidency will be a success. So you're basically giving him a pass, saying that the end justifies the means. If only Bush were so gracious with regard to stance against science, particularly stem cell research.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted September 17, 2009 Posted September 17, 2009 So you're basically giving him a pass, saying that the end justifies the means. If only Bush were so gracious with regard to stance against science, particularly stem cell research. In geopolitics, YES, the ends justify the means.
Gene Frenkle Posted September 17, 2009 Posted September 17, 2009 In geopolitics, YES, the ends justify the means. I'll just have to go ahead disagree with you on that one, chief. It's a slippery, slippery slope. Is genocide justified if it brings peace to a region because there is no longer anyone to fight with when it's all over? Were Josef Mengele's experiments on humans worthwhile because they likely furthered medical knowledge in some macabre way?
Cheeseburger_in_paradise Posted September 17, 2009 Posted September 17, 2009 So you're basically giving him a pass, saying that the end justifies the means. If only Bush were so gracious with regard to stance against science, particularly stem cell research. Federal funding for medical research involving the creation or destruction of human embryos had been forbidden by law since the passage in 1995 of the Dickey Amendment by Congress and the signature of President Bill Clinton. On August 9, 2001, Bush signed an executive order lifting the ban on federal funding for the 71 existing "lines" of stem cells. But because of his stance against embryonic stem cell research, you libs have managed to turn the facts completely around. Beautiful.
Jim in Anchorage Posted September 17, 2009 Author Posted September 17, 2009 In a nutshell, basically said anyone who disagrees with Obama is a racist.NBC was thrilled to put this on prime time news. Whats worse, the nutty peanut farmer or NBC for airing this garbage? This coming from the guy who started the Jimmy Carter thread (right, right he's in the news). I don't think I've mentioned W in months. He's certainly not worthy of a cause, but now that Bush is in the conversation, I think it's pretty funny that you all are referring to Carter as one of the worst presidents in American history in the direct wake of one of the worst and most damaging presidents in American history. I wont argue the point about Carter because I'm too young to really remember much about his presidency, but Bush II is certainly fair game when the term 'worst president' starts getting sprouted about. FWIW, my spell checker corrected 2 misspelled words in this post. I could care less about Carter. I, and 98% of the US population with any knowledge of his term, understood he was worse then worthless 30+ years ago. My beef as you can see from my OP, is with NBC giving this idiot 3 min of NEWS time to advance his views. Possibly that means NBC agrees?
Gene Frenkle Posted September 17, 2009 Posted September 17, 2009 Federal funding for medical research involving the creation or destruction of human embryos had been forbidden by law since the passage in 1995 of the Dickey Amendment by Congress and the signature of President Bill Clinton. On August 9, 2001, Bush signed an executive order lifting the ban on federal funding for the 71 existing "lines" of stem cells. But because of his stance against embryonic stem cell research, you libs have managed to turn the facts completely around. Beautiful. How many times did Bush veto a bill that would expand federal funding of stem cell research despite the overwhelming will of the people with regard to this issue? Are you attempting to hold Bush up as a symbol of scientific progress? He was on a mission from god, and nobody was going to tell him otherwise. And what exactly happened to those embryos that weren't used for research? Oh, that's right, they were destroyed.
Gene Frenkle Posted September 17, 2009 Posted September 17, 2009 I could care less about Carter. I, and 98% of the US population with any knowledge of his term, understood he was worse then worthless 30+ years ago.My beef as you can see from my OP, is with NBC giving this idiot 3 min of NEWS time to advance his views. Possibly that means NBC agrees? Right, ex-Presidents are never given the time of day when they have something to say. No matter what you think of any of them, an ex-President's opinion is more newsworthy than most of the crap that passes for news these days.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted September 17, 2009 Posted September 17, 2009 I'll just have to go ahead disagree with you on that one, chief. It's a slippery, slippery slope. Is genocide justified if it brings peace to a region because there is no longer anyone to fight with when it's all over? Were Josef Mengele's experiments on humans worthwhile because they likely furthered medical knowledge in some macabre way? Did the absolute devastation of Germany usher in the end of intra-European conflict? For the most part, yes. Look at Europe now. You can thank the B-17 for that.
Jim in Anchorage Posted September 17, 2009 Author Posted September 17, 2009 Did the absolute devastation of Germany usher in the end of intra-European conflict? For the most part, yes. Look at Europe now. You can thank the B-17 for that. That war put a quite a dent in Japans Imperialism also. A lot of people simply chose to ignore the past.
Cheeseburger_in_paradise Posted September 17, 2009 Posted September 17, 2009 How many times did Bush veto a bill that would expand federal funding of stem cell research despite the overwhelming will of the people with regard to this issue? Are you attempting to hold Bush up as a symbol of scientific progress? He was on a mission from god, and nobody was going to tell him otherwise. And what exactly happened to those embryos that weren't used for research? Oh, that's right, they were destroyed. Twice. Neither were overturned by a Democratic Congress. So much for overwhelming.
Jim in Anchorage Posted September 17, 2009 Author Posted September 17, 2009 Right, ex-Presidents are never given the time of day when they have something to say. No matter what you think of any of them, an ex-President's opinion is more newsworthy than most of the crap that passes for news these days. Lets turn this around. What if Bush wanted 3 min of prime time to mock Obama supporters? would he get it? Carter got 3 min to mock Obama's critics [in the most hateful, I have no evidence its true but this is what I think] way. And you wonder why FOX is so far ahead in the ratings?
Bishop Hedd Posted September 17, 2009 Posted September 17, 2009 While I am basically in agreement with Carter's comments-and it's nothing that anybody didn't already know-I don't think it lends itself to any sort of understanding of why the right is so angry. Oh...now I get it...SOCIALIST! TELEPROMPTER! BIRTH CERTIFICATE FROM AFRICA! ACORN! KILL GRANDMA!
IDBillzFan Posted September 18, 2009 Posted September 18, 2009 While I am basically in agreement with Carter's comments-and it's nothing that anybody didn't already know-I don't think it lends itself to any sort of understanding of why the right is so angry. The simple fact that you think the anger is only from "the right" shows how little you actually understand about what is going on. The independents are plenty pissed as well, which is a main reason why his approval numbers are plummeting.
Bishop Hedd Posted September 18, 2009 Posted September 18, 2009 The simple fact that you think the anger is only from "the right" shows how little you actually understand about what is going on. The independents are plenty pissed as well, which is a main reason why his approval numbers are plummeting. Valid point, I see the same polls as well. My issue is why these "independents" all of a sudden became pissed off? Where were they during the campaign? Did they all resign their fate after Ron Paul became a footnote? Is their palpable anger so real that it caused them to take to the streets of DC in millions...ok 25 k tops....and once again embarrass any cause to which they purport to embrace? Yes...I'll agree...the anti-Obama zealots are a varied group...between dumb and dumber. In the meantime I will listen to the voices of those on the opposition who put forth their arguments in a way that, yes, provokes disagreement, but also leaves room for compromise.
Jim in Anchorage Posted September 18, 2009 Author Posted September 18, 2009 Valid point, I see the same polls as well. My issue is why these "independents" all of a sudden became pissed off? Where were they during the campaign? Did they all resign their fate after Ron Paul became a footnote? Is their palpable anger so real that it caused them to take to the streets of DC in millions...ok 25 k tops....and once again embarrass any cause to which they purport to embrace? Yes...I'll agree...the anti-Obama zealots are a varied group...between dumb and dumber. In the meantime I will listen to the voices of those on the opposition who put forth their arguments in a way that, yes, provokes disagreement, but also leaves room for compromise. Maybe its that exact, self righteousness I know whats best for you so shut up attitude that is causing a split in the ranks?
Alaska Darin Posted September 18, 2009 Posted September 18, 2009 Valid point, I see the same polls as well. My issue is why these "independents" all of a sudden became pissed off? Where were they during the campaign? Did they all resign their fate after Ron Paul became a footnote? Is their palpable anger so real that it caused them to take to the streets of DC in millions...ok 25 k tops....and once again embarrass any cause to which they purport to embrace? Yes...I'll agree...the anti-Obama zealots are a varied group...between dumb and dumber. In the meantime I will listen to the voices of those on the opposition who put forth their arguments in a way that, yes, provokes disagreement, but also leaves room for compromise. The best part of all of this is how hard you have to work to not face your own hypocrisy. Keep typing, Chachi.
DC Tom Posted September 18, 2009 Posted September 18, 2009 No matter what you think of any of them, an ex-President's opinion is more newsworthy than most of the crap that passes for news these days. The #1 news search on CNN a few days ago was about Jessica Simpson's dog being attacked by a coyote. As much as I don't particularly care what Carter has to say...you are indisputable correct.
Recommended Posts