RE: Carter: Obamas a Wimp vs. Islamic Extremists

RE: Carter: Obamas a Wimp vs. Islamic Extremists (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

mnottertail -> RE: Carter: Obamas a Wimp vs. Islamic Extremists (10/10/2014 10:25:00 AM)
No, you have your own nutsucker fantasies, felched from some of the most august nutsuckers on this planet. You have never engaged in anything less than hallucination and fantasy. You don't have any connection to a real world.

Sanity -> RE: Carter: Obamas a Wimp vs. Islamic Extremists (10/10/2014 10:35:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy Sanity is just following the dittohead talking points... Actually, no - I posted a link to a news article that points out how even Jimmy Carter is ashamed of Obama's dismal performance in the arena of Middle East policy Its only in your strange little insane world that Jimmy Carter is Rush Limbaugh

mnottertail -> RE: Carter: Obamas a Wimp vs. Islamic Extremists (10/10/2014 10:41:18 AM)
No, it points out no such thing, you are simply felching dittoheads

thishereboi -> RE: Carter: Obamas a Wimp vs. Islamic Extremists (10/10/2014 7:53:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Obama came to power riding a wave of leftist propaganda that claimed that GWB and the USA were pure evil for fighting poor misunderstood Islamists Got a citation for that? I am not even going to try and claim I know where he got that from. However I do remember folks on this forum claiming that the only way we could get other countries to stop hating us was to get rid of the shrub and elect Obama. That doesn't make any sense -- the shrub was on the way out either way. Yes but the logic was if we elected another repub everyone would continue to hate us, if we elected a democrat they wouldn't. Now I am not saying it made any sense but that was the song at the time.

MrRodgers -> RE: Carter: Obamas a Wimp vs. Islamic Extremists (10/11/2014 3:35:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GoddessManko Actually Bush has the top tier running for the gold medal of "Worst President in US History, that is Bush II, not Bush I; According to same article, Obama is # 15. http://www.usnews.com/news/history/features/the-10-worst-presidents According to the History News Network, 61% of historians deemed Bush II as the worst. http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/48916 Back in 2004, before he was voted in AGAIN, (we just couldn't get enough), he was deemed a failure by 81% of historians. http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/5019 Also Carter felt the backlash of NIXON'S decision to withdraw from the Bretton Woods, our dollar was no longer backed by gold and our investors panicked, so congrats. You get that ace in the hole too. Well partisans quickly and conveniently forget, it was Carter who was at least half if not the greater cause and reason 'we' won the cold war...having gotten the Pershing II's (short range, intermediate nuke missiles) deal to install them in Europe. Over his whole life, Carter is/was twice the man Reagan was who also suffered an inflationary oil embargo for being a friend of a despot installed by the neocon's CIA. By comparison, Reagan was nothing but a grade B actor, Keynesian fiscal butcher, tax raising, non-conservative deficit spender and neo-conservative enabler whose greed led him to leave the dems for and turn to...the repubs and them into the 'capitalist' party bent on not whether the country was better off but...where YOU better off. We found out about country over the next 8 years didn't we.

subrosaDom -> RE: Carter: Obamas a Wimp vs. Islamic Extremists (10/11/2014 3:48:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail No, it points out no such thing, you are simply felching dittoheads Those gerbils must be really bothering you today. Forget to trim the claws?

subrosaDom -> RE: Carter: Obamas a Wimp vs. Islamic Extremists (10/11/2014 3:53:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: GoddessManko Actually Bush has the top tier running for the gold medal of "Worst President in US History, that is Bush II, not Bush I; According to same article, Obama is # 15. http://www.usnews.com/news/history/features/the-10-worst-presidents According to the History News Network, 61% of historians deemed Bush II as the worst. http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/48916 Back in 2004, before he was voted in AGAIN, (we just couldn't get enough), he was deemed a failure by 81% of historians. http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/5019 Also Carter felt the backlash of NIXON'S decision to withdraw from the Bretton Woods, our dollar was no longer backed by gold and our investors panicked, so congrats. You get that ace in the hole too. Well partisans quickly and conveniently forget, it was Carter who was at least half if not the greater cause and reason 'we' won the cold war...having gotten the Pershing II's (short range, intermediate nuke missiles) deal to install them in Europe. Over his whole life, Carter is/was twice the man Reagan was who also suffered an inflationary oil embargo for being a friend of a despot installed by the neocon's CIA. By comparison, Reagan was nothing but a grade B actor, Keynesian fiscal butcher, tax raising, non-conservative deficit spender and neo-conservative enabler whose greed led him to leave the dems for and turn to...the repubs and them into the 'capitalist' party bent on not whether the country was better off but...where YOU better off. We found out about country over the next 8 years didn't we. While you have a point about Bretton Woods, Reagan was not a Keynesian. In fact, almost nothing you say about Reagan is correct. Carter deserves credit for deregulation and for being honest enough at the time, before senility and delusions set it later in his life, to realize his appeasement wasn't working and to reverse course, recognizing the Soviets for what they were. Carter, at the time, wasn't anti-American either. Unlike Obama. As for those who deal with the polls of historians, historians who are about 90-95% left, well, I wouldn't put much truck in what they say. In 20 years or fewer, Obama will easily make the top 5 worst presidents among all historians, and likely be named the worst among the great majority. No one is even close to Obama. Carter was positively Churchillian compared to Obama.

epiphiny43 -> RE: Carter: Obamas a Wimp vs. Islamic Extremists (10/11/2014 4:21:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Obama came to power riding a wave of leftist propaganda that claimed that GWB and the USA were pure evil for fighting poor misunderstood Islamists Got a citation for that? I am not even going to try and claim I know where he got that from. However I do remember folks on this forum claiming that the only way we could get other countries to stop hating us was to get rid of the shrub and elect Obama. That doesn't make any sense -- the shrub was on the way out either way. Yes but the logic was if we elected another repub everyone would continue to hate us, if we elected a democrat they wouldn't. Now I am not saying it made any sense but that was the song at the time. Not quite. The logic was that if the US returned to it's century long campaign to establish an international Rule of Law (started as a reaction to the mess of Imperial conflict and colonization at the turn of the century, and WWI) and stop the shrub's unilateral actions disrespecting almost everyone else sovereignty and return to being an international partner instead of attempted Dominant, we'd regain our old allies and stop creating new enemies out of old friends. If Reagan wasn't a Keynesian, how to explain his forcing the USSR into poverty and collapse by putting a huge and unmatchable Defense increase on the taxpayer's tab? It Worked, but we still have his deficit. Clinton figured how to pay it all down in a generation, Congress disassembled that for short term electoral advantage.

subrosaDom -> RE: Carter: Obamas a Wimp vs. Islamic Extremists (10/11/2014 5:36:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: epiphiny43 quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Obama came to power riding a wave of leftist propaganda that claimed that GWB and the USA were pure evil for fighting poor misunderstood Islamists Got a citation for that? I am not even going to try and claim I know where he got that from. However I do remember folks on this forum claiming that the only way we could get other countries to stop hating us was to get rid of the shrub and elect Obama. That doesn't make any sense -- the shrub was on the way out either way. Yes but the logic was if we elected another repub everyone would continue to hate us, if we elected a democrat they wouldn't. Now I am not saying it made any sense but that was the song at the time. Not quite. The logic was that if the US returned to it's century long campaign to establish an international Rule of Law (started as a reaction to the mess of Imperial conflict and colonization at the turn of the century, and WWI) and stop the shrub's unilateral actions disrespecting almost everyone else sovereignty and return to being an international partner instead of attempted Dominant, we'd regain our old allies and stop creating new enemies out of old friends. If Reagan wasn't a Keynesian, how to explain his forcing the USSR into poverty and collapse by putting a huge and unmatchable Defense increase on the taxpayer's tab? It Worked, but we still have his deficit. Clinton figured how to pay it all down in a generation, Congress disassembled that for short term electoral advantage. Clinton figured out little. He had Newt Gingrich and the Contact for America to thank for that. Clinton was simply smart and pragmatic enough to recognize a good idea and to run with it so he'd get more of the credit. Forcing another country into poverty isn't Keynesian. You are I assume referring to increased military spending on our side. The point of the spending was to win the Cold War not to stimulate the economy. That's not Keynesian logic. Reagan followed Say's Law, which is the basis of supply-side economics. Reagan made on mistake. He made a deal with the Democrats and expected them to follow through on cuts. They didn't. That accounts for most of the deficit. On the other hand, Reagan may have know that. Tip O'Neill was a formidable adversary and it takes two to tango. Reagan also grew the economy by leaps and bounds. Easy to forget that.

MrRodgers -> RE: Carter: Obamas a Wimp vs. Islamic Extremists (10/12/2014 12:22:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subrosaDom quote: ORIGINAL: epiphiny43 quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Obama came to power riding a wave of leftist propaganda that claimed that GWB and the USA were pure evil for fighting poor misunderstood Islamists Got a citation for that? I am not even going to try and claim I know where he got that from. However I do remember folks on this forum claiming that the only way we could get other countries to stop hating us was to get rid of the shrub and elect Obama. That doesn't make any sense -- the shrub was on the way out either way. Yes but the logic was if we elected another repub everyone would continue to hate us, if we elected a democrat they wouldn't. Now I am not saying it made any sense but that was the song at the time. Not quite. The logic was that if the US returned to it's century long campaign to establish an international Rule of Law (started as a reaction to the mess of Imperial conflict and colonization at the turn of the century, and WWI) and stop the shrub's unilateral actions disrespecting almost everyone else sovereignty and return to being an international partner instead of attempted Dominant, we'd regain our old allies and stop creating new enemies out of old friends. If Reagan wasn't a Keynesian, how to explain his forcing the USSR into poverty and collapse by putting a huge and unmatchable Defense increase on the taxpayer's tab? It Worked, but we still have his deficit. Clinton figured how to pay it all down in a generation, Congress disassembled that for short term electoral advantage. Clinton figured out little. He had Newt Gingrich and the Contact for America to thank for that. Clinton was simply smart and pragmatic enough to recognize a good idea and to run with it so he'd get more of the credit. Forcing another country into poverty isn't Keynesian. You are I assume referring to increased military spending on our side. The point of the spending was to win the Cold War not to stimulate the economy. That's not Keynesian logic. Reagan followed Say's Law, which is the basis of supply-side economics. Reagan made on mistake. He made a deal with the Democrats and expected them to follow through on cuts. They didn't. That accounts for most of the deficit. On the other hand, Reagan may have know that. Tip O'Neill was a formidable adversary and it takes two to tango. Reagan also grew the economy by leaps and bounds. Easy to forget that. Typically when a repub cuts taxes and expects an increase in revenue and it doesn't happen, it's the dems continued spending that caused the deficit. Plus I don't recall Reagan vetoes of all of that spending but I do remember a crazy quilt of real estate depreciation options that had 1000's of very highly paid people...paying no taxes at all and got a lot of empty buildings built and provided temp. construction jobs. Don't forget, Carter's def. bill had to pay for those missiles going to Europe and having served under Rickover...realized [his] dream as Carter brought hi-tech to all of the branches of the military. All of which was paid for, not borrowed for. Sorry, not even a nice try. The deficits were directly as a result of the tax cuts that so-called supply side did not pay for. Like taking a pay cut on the job will increase my household income. Stimulating the economy in any way through Reagan's deficit spending is pure Keynesian and almost every conservative I ran into in Va. a very red state at the time...agrees with me and voted for Reagan, he was no fiscal conservative. The Russians and the cold war was for 40 years...merely a profit center as was SDI, something else that has never proved itself. Tip O'Neil said in fact that after Reagan's landslide and about 80,000 telegrams one weekend later, the dems had no chance of getting what they wanted.

BitYakin -> RE: Carter: Obamas a Wimp vs. Islamic Extremists (10/12/2014 3:58:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GoddessManko Actually Bush has the top tier running for the gold medal of "Worst President in US History, that is Bush II, not Bush I; According to same article, Obama is # 15. http://www.usnews.com/news/history/features/the-10-worst-presidents According to the History News Network, 61% of historians deemed Bush II as the worst. http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/48916 Back in 2004, before he was voted in AGAIN, (we just couldn't get enough), he was deemed a failure by 81% of historians. http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/5019 Also Carter felt the backlash of NIXON'S decision to withdraw from the Bretton Woods, our dollar was no longer backed by gold and our investors panicked, so congrats. You get that ace in the hole too. hmmm I looked at the first link and followed the links that "give the info" and except in the title of the page found no mention of bush you next two links seem to be at odd with each other, not a good thing when in comes to the credibility of a site about "history" the first says (a 2008 poll) 61% rate him failure the second says (a 2004 poll) 81% rate him failure, so according to the numbers he improved by aprox 20% from 2004 to 2008 yet in the 2008 article it says "In a similar survey of historians I conducted for HNN four years ago, Mr. Bush had fared somewhat better, with 19 percent rating his presidency a success and 81 percent classifying it as a failure. More striking is the dramatic increase in the percentage of historians who rate the Bush presidency the worst ever. In 2004, only 11.6 percent of the respondents rated Bush’s presidency last. That conclusion is now reached by nearly six times as large a fraction of historians." HUH??? the first sentence says he did better this time around the 2nd says he did worse? doesn't bode well for the credibility of your site PS, think we could get a poll on "history" that wasn't taken BEFORE is was history? maybe we could get a CURRENT POLL? yanno now that it actually is history???

Sanity -> RE: Carter: Obamas a Wimp vs. Islamic Extremists (10/12/2014 11:41:32 AM)
FR "It's a war without witnesses." quote: War reporters lament news 'black holes' in IS-held zones Bayeux (France) (AFP) - Kidnappings, beheadings, a hatred of journalists: the areas controlled by the Islamic State group in Iraq and Syria have become "black holes" of news where even war-hardened reporters dare not venture. Speaking on the sidelines of the annual Bayeux-Calvados awards for war correspondents in northwestern France, where three of seven prizes went to coverage of the conflict in Syria, journalists used to danger zones said reporting on areas overrun by jihadists had become near-impossible. "We don't know what is going on in Fallujah, in Ramadi, in Mosul. These are big (Iraqi) cities," said Jean-Pierre Perrin, a reporter for Liberation daily. "It's a war without witnesses." ...

mnottertail -> RE: Carter: Obamas a Wimp vs. Islamic Extremists (10/13/2014 6:44:09 AM)
And this is where W brought peace. This is where W lifted the yoke of the oppressor.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875