RE: Carter, his book, Palestine, the American problem

RE: Carter, his book, Palestine, the American problem (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Mercnbeth -> RE: Carter, his book, Palestine, the American problem (12/14/2006 7:16:04 AM)
I quote: 'm not a big fan of Carters, but the sweater thing is often brought up as a glaring example of his inneffectualness. The truth is, he was one of the first Presidents to basically say "we're hooked...we need to get off our fix". Wearing a sweater (a no to low cost alternative to turning up the heat) was a smart approach to the problem, but not one that went over well with Americans who believed (and still believe) that they have some kind of God given right to energy. LTR sub, The sweater wasn't just an example of an easy remedy for the cold, we were all wearing them anyway. It was the first time the US citizens saw their leader, their president 'surrender'. Taking everything else you say as fact, President Carter was this countries leader. Even if he was helpless he was expected to exhibit confidence. Do you think President Kennedy had any plan in mind when, in response to the USSR's lead in space exploration he declared we would go to the moon by the end of the decade? How would the USA be different if President Carter announced, in the face Arab superiority and control of our energy needs, he said; "We will be energy independent by the end of the 80's decade? The evolution and advancement of science to reach Kennedy's goal was driven by his mandate. That 'face slap' of energy reality could have and should have been an opportunity; maybe our best and last. Pity that Carter instead just but on a sweater, surrendered, and said that, as a county, there was nothing we could do. For that reason alone he will, in my opinion always be the worst President. quote: *Meatcleaver*: As for Carter approving a rescue that was doomed to failure, not being a military man he would have taken advice from the military. MC, President Carter graduated from the US Navel academy in 1946. He served seven years' as a naval officer, if I remember in the submarine corp.

philosophy -> RE: Carter, his book, Palestine, the American problem (12/14/2006 9:36:47 AM)
......i don't know much about Carter, but i was intrigued to read abou this sweater incident. Thing is, it strikes me that the sweater thing is only a 'surrender' if you don't want to think outside the box. Energy dependence is as much a dangerous addiction as any amount of class A drugs.....perhaps he could have gone for a grand plan to make the US energy independent, ala Kennedy's space race, but that wouldn't have made any individual warmer that week. The sweater was surely a reasonable stop gap measure. Every culture, it seems to me, has truths about it that it doesn't want to hear. Thatcher characterised negotiating with the IRA as surrender, yet negotiation has led to cease fires in Northern Ireland that have saved many lives. Shouldn't we admire the politicians that step outside the box to do things that are unpopular but ultimately lead to better lives for all?

FirmhandKY -> RE: Carter, his book, Palestine, the American problem (12/14/2006 10:00:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy ......i don't know much about Carter, but i was intrigued to read abou this sweater incident. Thing is, it strikes me that the sweater thing is only a 'surrender' if you don't want to think outside the box. Energy dependence is as much a dangerous addiction as any amount of class A drugs.....perhaps he could have gone for a grand plan to make the US energy independent, ala Kennedy's space race, but that wouldn't have made any individual warmer that week. The sweater was surely a reasonable stop gap measure. Every culture, it seems to me, has truths about it that it doesn't want to hear. Thatcher characterised negotiating with the IRA as surrender, yet negotiation has led to cease fires in Northern Ireland that have saved many lives. Shouldn't we admire the politicians that step outside the box to do things that are unpopular but ultimately lead to better lives for all? "Thinking outside the box". What an interesting concept. I think we have a strong cultural difference here, based on what most American's consider "thinking outside the box" and what most other cultures think it is. To an American "thinking outside the box" means finding ways to achieve your goals despite the difficultlies placed in your path. It means figuring out how to have your cake, and eat it too. As a result, the US has been for, a couple of hundred years, and for the forseeable future, the most dynamic and inventive society in the world. Withdrawal ... simply "accepting one's lot in life" isn't usually considered a trademark of American society. It simply goes against the American grain of thought. But that's exactly what Carter was suggesting, that was what Carter believed, and that's what many of his policies were based on. So, to me - and many American's - "surrender" is a pretty darn good word to describe what we felt he was all about. Still is. FirmKY

meatcleaver -> RE: Carter, his book, Palestine, the American problem (12/14/2006 10:08:11 AM)
Well in the couple of hundred years you talk about, Britain was the most dynamic and inventive society. Remember the industrial revolution and the empire? Every country eventually has to adjust to reality. America's energy addiction will sooner or later have to stop. So far new technology to replace carbon based fuels seem to be wishful thinking. It's a case of jumping off a ten story building and still saying you are OK as you pass the sixth floor window. America is frivolous and decadent in regard to energy and a world pariah. It not only needs to change, for its own sake it will have to change sooner or later. Global warming won't stop at the US's border.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Carter, his book, Palestine, the American problem (12/14/2006 10:18:01 AM)
quote: Energy dependence is as much a dangerous addiction as any amount of class A drugs.....perhaps he could have gone for a grand plan to make the US energy independent, ala Kennedy's space race, but that wouldn't have made any individual warmer that week. The sweater was surely a reasonable stop gap measure. Philo, Here is where I derive my opinion. I know the intelligence of the average US citizen can be debated in the world, but putting a sweater on when cold did not require a Presidential speech from the White House while announcing he's turned the thermostat down to 68. Motivation, self determination, rely on a state of mind as much as they rely on pragmatic ability. President Kennedy made that goal outside the recommendation of his advisers and against the projected ability of science at the time, yet he made it. People went from being fearful of looking up and seeing a USSR chuck of hardware streaking across to the night sky to looking at the moon and saying; "wow - in less than 10 years the USA will be there!" Ideas sprang from Kennedy's mandate. Ideas Kennedy didn't consider or think of when setting the goal. If instead of the forlorn look of impotence President Carter rolled up his sweater ed sleeves and gave the US inspiration it would have made them "warm" in a way more important than the fluctuating temperature. It would have set a goal, in my opinion, that could have been obtained. It would of course be rhetoric, as were Kennedy's words, but it would have set a direction. As in the case of the "moon race" after the initial push, inertia would have kept us moving forward. It wasn't a denial of any truth that the USSR was well ahead of the USA getting to the moon. It would not have been denial of the need for USA energy independence if President Carter had used it as a similar opportunity. I admire anyone who "steps outside the box". However, in the case of President Carter his actions were only within the box he believed he could not escape. He couldn't even motivate anyone else to escape. A leader needs to motivate his people. He failed because he did not provide any ideas or project any solution that his citizens couldn't think of themselves. He failed by not providing any horizon when they would be able to take off their sweaters. I remember we were sure ready for one. Just look how the country responded to the USA hockey team winning at Lake Placid. We were a country staved for a "win"; so tired of being led by a leader who said we weren't capable of one. The "experts" at the time thought that the USA team would be lucky to hold the USSR to under 10 goals since a month before in a exhibition game they scored 9 with most of their starting team on the bench at the end of the game. This was an opportunity for the USSR to show its superiority is all things and the USA's impotent. Back then, the Olympics were an "us versus them", "west versus east" event. That team didn't believe the experts, they won. President Carter resigned and locked himself in a box that believed winning the energy crisis wasn't possible. Unlike the hockey team he didn't work or believe anything to the contrary. That is Jimmy Carter's failure.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Carter, his book, Palestine, the American problem (12/14/2006 10:58:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Well in the couple of hundred years you talk about, Britain was the most dynamic and inventive society. Remember the industrial revolution and the empire? Every country eventually has to adjust to reality. America's energy addiction will sooner or later have to stop. So far new technology to replace carbon based fuels seem to be wishful thinking. It's a case of jumping off a ten story building and still saying you are OK as you pass the sixth floor window. America is frivolous and decadent in regard to energy and a world pariah. It not only needs to change, for its own sake it will have to change sooner or later. Global warming won't stop at the US's border. Perfect example of the differences between American and European thinking. First, energy is far from "scarce". Perhaps the form of energy in oil is finite, but in the larger scheme of the universe, energy is a basically an unlimited resource. Getting it in useable form then, is simply a technical problem. Americans like technical problems. I've no doubt we'll "solve" this one, over time. When it's economically feasible (that pesky free market thingee! [:D] ). "frivolous" and "decadent", are we? (pause, while I have a nice long belly laugh). You sound just like every jahadist and lefty does. Defeatism and surrender. Didn't I say that the basic American culture rejects these concepts? You attempt to put the worst possible face on anything American, meatcleaver. You have a problem accepting anything American that is positive. You wish to quibble about the time frame of the US as a "dynamic and inventive society" is a great example. Well, if you want me to change the time frame, I'll glady concede that issue, but will further expand it to say that overall, the level of "dynamic and inventive" applies currently to (in order): 1. the US, 2. the Anglo-world (US, UK, Ireland, Australia and India primarily), 3. some Asian cultures (S. Korea, Japan, Singapore primarily), 4, the rest of Europe, 5 everywhere else. ... and placing "Europe" as 4th is actually pretty nice on my part. "frivolous" and "decadent" we are you say? (no, wait, let me anticipate the counter-argument: historical accident!) [:D] What does that make your "Europe"? Your "reality" isn't one I accept. Your's mirror's Carter, which is why you like him, and think well of him. FirmKY

meatcleaver -> RE: Carter, his book, Palestine, the American problem (12/14/2006 12:29:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Perfect example of the differences between American and European thinking. First, energy is far from "scarce". Perhaps the form of energy in oil is finite, but in the larger scheme of the universe, energy is a basically an unlimited resource. Getting it in useable form then, is simply a technical problem. Americans like technical problems. I've no doubt we'll "solve" this one, over time. When it's economically feasible (that pesky free market thingee! [:D] ). "frivolous" and "decadent", are we? (pause, while I have a nice long belly laugh). You sound just like every jahadist and lefty does. Defeatism and surrender. Didn't I say that the basic American culture rejects these concepts? You attempt to put the worst possible face on anything American, meatcleaver. You have a problem accepting anything American that is positive. You wish to quibble about the time frame of the US as a "dynamic and inventive society" is a great example. Well, if you want me to change the time frame, I'll glady concede that issue, but will further expand it to say that overall, the level of "dynamic and inventive" applies currently to (in order): 1. the US, 2. the Anglo-world (US, UK, Ireland, Australia and India primarily), 3. some Asian cultures (S. Korea, Japan, Singapore primarily), 4, the rest of Europe, 5 everywhere else. ... and placing "Europe" as 4th is actually pretty nice on my part. "frivolous" and "decadent" we are you say? (no, wait, let me anticipate the counter-argument: historical accident!) [:D] What does that make your "Europe"? Your "reality" isn't one I accept. Your's mirror's Carter, which is why you like him, and think well of him. FirmKY Frivolous and decadent in the field of energy. The US produces 25% of the world's greenhouse gases with 5% of the population and not much of a sign of inventiveness in trying to solve that problem. I don't need to say anymore on that score. 1. the US, 2. the Anglo-world (US, UK, Ireland, Australia and India primarily), 3. some Asian cultures (S. Korea, Japan, Singapore primarily), 4, the rest of Europe, 5 everywhere else. I'd love to know how you assembled this list as it seems one that you got off the top of your head. My guess is that you are probably claiming other nations inventions as America's. Many things were invented more than once in more than one country while popular culture has us believing in one specific time and place, such as the radar. I doubt Europe is fourth in any reasonable list that is assembled outside your head.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Carter, his book, Palestine, the American problem (12/14/2006 12:49:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Frivolous and decadent in the field of energy. The US produces 25% of the world's greenhouse gases with 5% of the population and not much of a sign of inventiveness in trying to solve that problem. I don't need to say anymore on that score. Come now, meatcleaver - how about a little "thinking outside the box" on this one? Assuming I accept that "greenhouse gases" is a bad thing, don't you find it a little stifling to just compare energy use to population and declare that it the US is "bad" (or Frivolous and decadent) because of what it uses? Don't you think that other measures of what is a "valid" use of energy could be added to your argument to change the focus to something more positive? Because, after all, what your argument boils down to is that you believe that the US is mismanaging it's use of energy aren't you? If it is, how do you then define "bad"? What are your criteria and measures? I'd really be interested in having that discussion. quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver 1. the US, 2. the Anglo-world (US, UK, Ireland, Australia and India primarily), 3. some Asian cultures (S. Korea, Japan, Singapore primarily), 4, the rest of Europe, 5 everywhere else. I'd love to know how you assembled this list as it seems one that you got off the top of your head. My guess is that you are probably claiming other nations inventions as America's. Many things were invented more than once in more than one country while popular culture has us believing in one specific time and place, such as the radar. I doubt Europe is fourth in any reasonable list that is assembled outside your head. Pick any four, five or six or so measures of a "inventive and dynamic" society you wish. I'll be more than happy to debate them. If you disagree with my list, that's fine. What's your list? Or do you not like lists like this? FirmKY PS. Carter is still a blockhead. [:D]

meatcleaver -> RE: Carter, his book, Palestine, the American problem (12/14/2006 1:07:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Assuming I accept that "greenhouse gases" is a bad thing, don't you find it a little stifling to just compare energy use to population and declare that it the US is "bad" (or Frivolous and decadent) because of what it uses? Don't you think that other measures of what is a "valid" use of energy could be added to your argument to change the focus to something more positive? Because, after all, what your argument boils down to is that you believe that the US is mismanaging it's use of energy aren't you? No, I am not complaining about the US mismanaging its energy. I'm complaining about the US being the main polluter on the planet. quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver 1. the US, 2. the Anglo-world (US, UK, Ireland, Australia and India primarily), 3. some Asian cultures (S. Korea, Japan, Singapore primarily), 4, the rest of Europe, 5 everywhere else. I'd love to know how you assembled this list as it seems one that you got off the top of your head. My guess is that you are probably claiming other nations inventions as America's. Many things were invented more than once in more than one country while popular culture has us believing in one specific time and place, such as the radar. I doubt Europe is fourth in any reasonable list that is assembled outside your head. Pick any four, five or six or so measures of a "inventive and dynamic" society you wish. I'll be more than happy to debate them. If you disagree with my list, that's fine. What's your list? Or do you not like lists like this? It would help if I knew on what criteria you assembled this list. What is the point of me listing a number of inventions by various countries, how would that prove anything?

philosophy -> RE: Carter, his book, Palestine, the American problem (12/14/2006 1:41:38 PM)
...i can see that i'm going to need to brush up on my hockey history.... [:D]

FirmhandKY -> RE: Carter, his book, Palestine, the American problem (12/14/2006 1:46:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver No, I am not complaining about the US mismanaging its energy. I'm complaining about the US being the main polluter on the planet. So, it isn't energy use per se that you have a problem with? So, how does your comment about energy use per population have an impact on your concerns about pollution, yet not impact on the management of that energy use? I'm confused. In other words, why complain about how much energy the US uses, rather than how much pollution that the US causes? quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: FirmKY Pick any four, five or six or so measures of a "inventive and dynamic" society you wish. I'll be more than happy to debate them. If you disagree with my list, that's fine. What's your list? Or do you not like lists like this? It would help if I knew on what criteria you assembled this list. What is the point of me listing a number of inventions by various countries, how would that prove anything? Hey, meatcleaver, I'm giving you the first choice of "weapons", and you hesitate? But, just for some clarification, I'm not thinking of "inventive' as simply technological new things, although that certainly is a part of it. Think macro. Think of "inventive" to mean in all aspects of society. Perhaps "creative" would be a better term? FirmKY

Mercnbeth -> RE: Carter, his book, Palestine, the American problem (12/14/2006 1:48:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy ...i can see that i'm going to need to brush up on my hockey history.... [:D] yeah - a point that illustrates best how old I am I guess more than the intended one. [8D] How's this... A leader isn't someone who leads you in doing something you know you can do. (Put on a sweater) A leader is a person who leads you to achieve what you thought was impossible. (Go to the moon.) That's the difference I see between Presidents Carter and Kennedy. Now no need to see the movie 'Miracle on Ice' or HBO's 'Do you believe in Miracles?"

LTRsubNW -> RE: Carter, his book, Palestine, the American problem (12/14/2006 2:46:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: Energy dependence is as much a dangerous addiction as any amount of class A drugs.....perhaps he could have gone for a grand plan to make the US energy independent, ala Kennedy's space race, but that wouldn't have made any individual warmer that week. The sweater was surely a reasonable stop gap measure. Philo, Here is where I derive my opinion. I know the intelligence of the average US citizen can be debated in the world, but putting a sweater on when cold did not require a Presidential speech from the White House while announcing he's turned the thermostat down to 68. Motivation, self determination, rely on a state of mind as much as they rely on pragmatic ability. President Kennedy made that goal outside the recommendation of his advisers and against the projected ability of science at the time, yet he made it. People went from being fearful of looking up and seeing a USSR chuck of hardware streaking across to the night sky to looking at the moon and saying; "wow - in less than 10 years the USA will be there!" Ideas sprang from Kennedy's mandate. Ideas Kennedy didn't consider or think of when setting the goal. If instead of the forlorn look of impotence President Carter rolled up his sweater ed sleeves and gave the US inspiration it would have made them "warm" in a way more important than the fluctuating temperature. It would have set a goal, in my opinion, that could have been obtained. It would of course be rhetoric, as were Kennedy's words, but it would have set a direction. As in the case of the "moon race" after the initial push, inertia would have kept us moving forward. It wasn't a denial of any truth that the USSR was well ahead of the USA getting to the moon. It would not have been denial of the need for USA energy independence if President Carter had used it as a similar opportunity. I admire anyone who "steps outside the box". However, in the case of President Carter his actions were only within the box he believed he could not escape. He couldn't even motivate anyone else to escape. A leader needs to motivate his people. He failed because he did not provide any ideas or project any solution that his citizens couldn't think of themselves. He failed by not providing any horizon when they would be able to take off their sweaters. I remember we were sure ready for one. Just look how the country responded to the USA hockey team winning at Lake Placid. We were a country staved for a "win"; so tired of being led by a leader who said we weren't capable of one. The "experts" at the time thought that the USA team would be lucky to hold the USSR to under 10 goals since a month before in a exhibition game they scored 9 with most of their starting team on the bench at the end of the game. This was an opportunity for the USSR to show its superiority is all things and the USA's impotent. Back then, the Olympics were an "us versus them", "west versus east" event. That team didn't believe the experts, they won. President Carter resigned and locked himself in a box that believed winning the energy crisis wasn't possible. Unlike the hockey team he didn't work or believe anything to the contrary. That is Jimmy Carter's failure. I think it could easily be said that Mercnbeth's assumptions could be misplaced due to his youth (he was approx. 13 - 15 at the time of Carter's reign), however, his points are well taken. The truth is, Kennedy came to power in a time when the US was bounding on the heels of WWII, success was all around us, the world thought our shit didn't stink and indeed, Kennedy made some bold assumptions. As it turned out they were not only correct (see next), but our world influence (and various international war pacts offered us unbelievable international profits that flowed back to our shores), allowed us to funnel back those same profits into incredible, bold, unabashed predictions for our own future and an unparralleled place in history. It's unfair to compare Kennedy and his maneuvers to those of Carter. It would be equally unfair to compare the statesmanship of Lincoln to those of Roosevelt. It was a different time. Carter was weak in many areas. Most believe he lost the election to Ronald Reagan. In fact, he lost the election to the Iranians. As someone else said well, Reagan didn't win his first election as much as the Iranians simply didn't want to see Carter in again, and they played their hand well. Consider: Carter was instituting cost controls as well as was about to institute energy constraints. Of course, Reagan said "we don't need no stinking energy controls...by God, we're Americans...we should be able to burn as much oil as we damn well want to". "Morning in America". Americans, foolishly, believed him. And who was it that tripled the national debt in fewer than 7 years? Who was it that added more to your childrens national mortgage in those placid 7 years than in all the 206 years preceding? (Hint: It wasn't Carter). Now, let's do the math here. In 7 years, one President borrowed more than every single President before him, by a factor of 3. Now I'm not all that good at math, but if your Dad, his dad, his Dad before him, his Dad before him and approx. 19 other Dad's before him had worked their asses off to build, pay for and protect what had started out as a small, meager little 3 acre farm, only to have it over 12 or 15 or even 25 generations turn into a 7 state conglomerate, multinational aggricultural concern, with offices in 27 different countries, only to have your Uncle Leroy say "but you know what....I want a big motherfucking Lexus, and I think everyone else I know should also have a big motherfucking Lexus" and then, when it's your turn, you get handed a bunch of rusty old used up wannabe Toyota's and Uncle Leroy says 'Oooops....sorry about that", someone please explain to me how it is that someone like Uncle Leroy is held up to the sun and acclaimed to be a genius, while all the folks before him that said "ya know....it's getting a little chilly out tonight...I think I'll put on a sweater" are chastised as the antichrist? Carter was saying what was then (as now) politically unpalatable. He said...we need to get off this fix. Guess what then, as now, was (and is) Irans biggest income source? Hmmmm....could that be oil? Iran didn't release the hostages because they feared Reagans wrath, rather...because they knew that if they held on just 'one more day"....until the election, they could ostracize Carter. Why? Hmmmm....could it be their income source? (Now there's a thought). And barely 2 years later, Reagan had a deal with the Iranians for arms that almost canceled Reagans administration. Now think about that for a minute; We, the US, a country that had only years before, been held captive, both figuratively and in fact, were now orchestrating with our most recent and most agregious enemy, Iran, an arms deal, to allow them to fester their own ministrations against a country (Iraq) which was at that time our friend (don't ask me why...I'm not a politician) by a President who claimed he was going to kick the ass of any country who fucked with us. Now maybe it's just me but, a country that had not only held our people captive for almost 16 months, but also held our news agencies captive for as long and everyone else's on the planets psyche's for as long as well...should fit that description. And yet, the guy who orchestrated a covert (and failed) plan to go get those guys, was considered weak and innefectual, but the guy who sold them arms to go against a country who at that time were our political allies....was considered a strong leader. Go figure. Carter was innefectual in many ways. He also told the truth. History is replete with winners and losers...often the losers are found years and decades later to have told us what we needed to hear...but refused to. Does make Carter a great President? Hardly. He's also not the boogeyman. History is a fabulous document. (But only if you actually read it).

meatcleaver -> RE: Carter, his book, Palestine, the American problem (12/14/2006 2:55:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY So, it isn't energy use per se that you have a problem with? So, how does your comment about energy use per population have an impact on your concerns about pollution, yet not impact on the management of that energy use? I'm confused. In other words, why complain about how much energy the US uses, rather than how much pollution that the US causes? Frivolous and decadent in the field of energy. The US produces 25% of the world's greenhouse gases with 5% of the population and not much of a sign of inventiveness in trying to solve that problem. I don't need to say anymore on that score. My original post refered to greenhouse gases, not energy consumption but even on energy consumption now you mention it, frivolous and decadent applies here too. quote: ORIGINAL: FirmKY Hey, meatcleaver, I'm giving you the first choice of "weapons", and you hesitate? But, just for some clarification, I'm not thinking of "inventive' as simply technological new things, although that certainly is a part of it. Think macro. Think of "inventive" to mean in all aspects of society. Perhaps "creative" would be a better term? You mean like the wheel from the Caucuses? Or do we start from the Declaration of Independence? The first cars were built in Europe but you then have the problem of who built the first car because the car evolved over time with so many contributors. But then who built the first car, Etienne Lenoir, Siegfried Marcus, Gottllieb Daimler or Karl Benz? The Wright brothers are credited with the first controled flight because their flight was officially recognized by the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale. However there are many conflicting credits http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_flying_machine The first programmable computer was German, invented by Konrad Zuse but are we to forget all further development? To come closer to home, let's take blue jeans as an example. Levi Straus was a German Jew, blue denim was invented(created?) in Nimes in France. America popularised the combination so who takes the credit?

FirmhandKY -> RE: Carter, his book, Palestine, the American problem (12/14/2006 3:05:54 PM)
sigh You are trying really, really hard to avoid an issue you know your gonna lose, aren't you? FirmKY

meatcleaver -> RE: Carter, his book, Palestine, the American problem (12/14/2006 3:20:49 PM)
No. How can one debate if there are no criteria in which to debate? Philosophy. Compare European philosophers to American Composers. Compare. Artists. Compare. Writers. Compare. Scientists. Compare and this is one where the US can produce a sustained challenge. Theologians. Compare (Though I have little interest in this being an atheist)

Mercnbeth -> RE: Carter, his book, Palestine, the American problem (12/14/2006 3:21:31 PM)
quote: I think it could easily be said that Mercnbeth's assumptions could be misplaced due to his youth (he was approx. 13 - 15 at the time of Carter's reign), however, his points are well taken. LTR sub, This is a function of the CM problem that only one age and weight can be posted for a couple. If you read near the bottom it says: quote: Oh, and one last item just so no one is confused. It's not possible to post individual particulars profiling as a couple, we decided to share the blanks. It's beth age, but my weight. The picture is recent, taken July 2006 in our back yard. I (Merc) was getting out of college, looking for a job during President Carter's term. It could have been misplaced because of extra-curriculum college activities, but not because of youth - unfortunately. quote: It's unfair to compare Kennedy and his maneuvers to those of Carter. It would be equally unfair to compare the statesmanship of Lincoln to those of Roosevelt. The only 'fair' in the world has a ferris wheel. Of course it's fair. Now in 1960 I was only 5, but I've studied and read that the paranoia about living under the shine of a "Soviet Moon" was no less a real crises than the energy situation. I also think its a fair comparison because it, like the moon goal, was science solved. It used what, as someone else pointed out, the USA's best assets; an "inventive and dynamic" population. I do consider the prior disgraced Nixon administration and the terrible mess of Vietnam and President Johnson's administration, but to me these would be identified as reasons FOR a push into the unknown science of solving the US dependence on oil. It was an opportunity to put those days behind us. President Carter was the only President in my lifetime who had to accomplish very little to be considered an improvement over prior administrations. Yet, his legacy, by any measurement or analysis I've seen places him behind Nixon. How sad is that? I'll side with you, that the release of the hostages was more a parting shot at President Carter than fear of what President Reagan would do, but I'd say the fear of Reagan was also in the mix. Both can be true. I'm not indicating anywhere that President Carter didn't tell the truth. Anyone who declares "lust in my heart" for a Playboy magazine article is pretty truthful. It is the wasted opportunity that puts him in the worst light. He was at the helm. He was the leader. Telling the truth is not easy, but it also isn't the end of leadership responsibilities. His failure as a leader gets worse as his Presidency, and the consequences of his Presidency in today's world, are put under review. However his honesty, and even his intentions aren't questioned. "Ineffectual", is a kind way of describing his era.

meatcleaver -> RE: Carter, his book, Palestine, the American problem (12/14/2006 3:40:56 PM)
Surely a politician's reputation is decided on a large amount of luck. As is said about Reagan's brain 'so much was a achieved with so little'. He was lucky the USSR collapsed in his Presidency which had been decaying for decades, the old men of the Kremlin were dying off and new men were taking their place who saw that if Russia had a future it needed a new direction. I don't think any serious historian really believes Reagan had anything to do with the collapse of the USSR but it happened on his watch and he claims the credit. I don't think the Iranians were in the least bit scared of the US. Don't forget, bearly three years earlier the US was cutting and running in Vietnam. That wasn't down to Carter but he took the backlash from what I can see.

LTRsubNW -> RE: Carter, his book, Palestine, the American problem (12/14/2006 3:51:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: I think it could easily be said that Mercnbeth's assumptions could be misplaced due to his youth (he was approx. 13 - 15 at the time of Carter's reign), however, his points are well taken. LTR sub, This is a function of the CM problem that only one age and weight can be posted for a couple. If you read near the bottom it says: quote: Oh, and one last item just so no one is confused. It's not possible to post individual particulars profiling as a couple, we decided to share the blanks. It's beth age, but my weight. The picture is recent, taken July 2006 in our back yard. I (Merc) was getting out of college, looking for a job during President Carter's term. It could have been misplaced because of extra-curriculum college activities, but not because of youth - unfortunately. quote: It's unfair to compare Kennedy and his maneuvers to those of Carter. It would be equally unfair to compare the statesmanship of Lincoln to those of Roosevelt. The only 'fair' in the world has a ferris wheel. Of course it's fair. Now in 1960 I was only 5, but I've studied and read that the paranoia about living under the shine of a "Soviet Moon" was no less a real crises than the energy situation. I also think its a fair comparison because it, like the moon goal, was science solved. It used what, as someone else pointed out, the USA's best assets; an "inventive and dynamic" population. I do consider the prior disgraced Nixon administration and the terrible mess of Vietnam and President Johnson's administration, but to me these would be identified as reasons FOR a push into the unknown science of solving the US dependence on oil. It was an opportunity to put those days behind us. President Carter was the only President in my lifetime who had to accomplish very little to be considered an improvement over prior administrations. Yet, his legacy, by any measurement or analysis I've seen places him behind Nixon. How sad is that? I'll side with you, that the release of the hostages was more a parting shot at President Carter than fear of what President Reagan would do, but I'd say the fear of Reagan was also in the mix. Both can be true. I'm not indicating anywhere that President Carter didn't tell the truth. Anyone who declares "lust in my heart" for a Playboy magazine article is pretty truthful. It is the wasted opportunity that puts him in the worst light. He was at the helm. He was the leader. Telling the truth is not easy, but it also isn't the end of leadership responsibilities. His failure as a leader gets worse as his Presidency, and the consequences of his Presidency in today's world, are put under review. However his honesty, and even his intentions aren't questioned. "Ineffectual", is a kind way of describing his era. Well, regardless of whether you and I agree, I have to acknowledge that you think well, and your logic is exceptionally sequential.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Carter, his book, Palestine, the American problem (12/14/2006 3:58:33 PM)
quote: Surely a politician's reputation is decided on a large amount of luck. I'd say it is how they handled opportunity. President Reagan used it to his advantage. President Reagan was more rhetoric than substance, but in that era it was all that was necessary. He also surrounded himself with very ambitious, smart men with egos. Anyone remember the "I am in charge!" cry of Alex Haig? His administration was more of a success than he was personally. His lack of attention to detail and, in his second term, his mental deficiencies left us with a figurehead leader more than a leader. His second term was where most of the business / government corruption was born. If more capable or he wasn't shot would it have made a difference? Perhaps. I think his 'bravado' and camera skills did influence the Iranians, but there is no way to know for sure. As I said, I'd lean to a hatred of Carter as the most influential reason for the release on inauguration day. Reagan's influence, even at 1%, was contributory.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

7.617188E-02