Obama = Carter II

[marincounty]

He sets the standard by which every other failed president is measured, does it really matter if the bar gets pushed down a bit?

I remember only being able to buy gas on odd numbered days.
I remember only being allowed to buy twenty gallons of gas at a time.
I remember out of control inflation.
I remember price and wage freezes.
I remember 18% mortgage interest rates.
I remember Iran telling us to fuck off, and Carter apologizing to them.
I remember Khadafy telling us to fuck off, and again, Carter ended up kissing his ass.
I remember people talking about the declining years of the US, that it was time we accepted our "new role" in world politics.

As I said before, Carter was a good man, and a very bad president.

You are the failure. The gas rationing was brought to you by Republican Richard Nixon and company. It didn't happen on Jimmy Carter's watch.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis
In 1973, U.S. President Richard Nixon named William E. Simon as the first Administrator of the Federal Energy Office, or the "Energy Czar."[28] Simon allocated states the same amount of domestic oil for 1974 that each consumed in 1972, which worked well for states whose populations were not increasing.[29] In states with increased populations, lines at gasoline stations were common.[29] The American Automobile Association reported that in the last week of February 1974, 20% of American gasoline stations had no fuel at all.[29]
In the U.S., odd-even rationing was implemented; drivers of vehicles with license plates having an odd number as the last digit (or a vanity license plate) were allowed to purchase gasoline for their cars only on odd-numbered days of the month, while drivers of vehicles with even-numbered license plates were allowed to purchase fuel only on even-numbered days.[30] The rule did not apply on the 31st day of those months containing 31 days, or on February 29 in leap years— the latter never came into play, since the restrictions had been abolished by 1976.

 

[LegendKiller]

You are the failure. The gas rationing was brought to you by Republican Richard Nixon and company. It didn't happen on Jimmy Carter's watch.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis
In 1973, U.S. President Richard Nixon named William E. Simon as the first Administrator of the Federal Energy Office, or the "Energy Czar."[28] Simon allocated states the same amount of domestic oil for 1974 that each consumed in 1972, which worked well for states whose populations were not increasing.[29] In states with increased populations, lines at gasoline stations were common.[29] The American Automobile Association reported that in the last week of February 1974, 20% of American gasoline stations had no fuel at all.[29]
In the U.S., odd-even rationing was implemented; drivers of vehicles with license plates having an odd number as the last digit (or a vanity license plate) were allowed to purchase gasoline for their cars only on odd-numbered days of the month, while drivers of vehicles with even-numbered license plates were allowed to purchase fuel only on even-numbered days.[30] The rule did not apply on the 31st day of those months containing 31 days, or on February 29 in leap years— the latter never came into play, since the restrictions had been abolished by 1976.

Ain't it amusing how Democrats, again and again, have to clean up the messes of Republicans, then get vilified for it through revisionist history bullshit spewed by disciples of stupidity?

FDR, Carter, Clinton, Obama.

 

[woodie1]

Ain't it amusing how Democrats, again and again, have to clean up the messes of Republicans, then get vilified for it through revisionist history bullshit spewed by disciples of stupidity?

FDR, Carter, Clinton, Obama.

Yes, Carter was so great he was re-elected. And for 12 years after we got rid of him the American voters kept a Republican in the White House. Let's not forget the Panama canal fiasco too. Didn't he terminate the Russian wheat deal or should some else get the blame for that.

 

[LegendKiller]

Yes, Carter was so great he was re-elected. And for 12 years after we got rid of him the American voters kept a Republican in the White House. Let's not forget the Panama canal fiasco too. Didn't he terminate the Russian wheat deal or should some else get the blame for that.

Nice waffle on every argument you had, you're so fucking bad at debate you make me weep for the future of this country. Americans were hoodwinked by fucktards like you who couldn't reason out of a wet paper bag, which is why you can't even counter your FUD up top. Shitstains like you re-elected Repuglican after Repuglican.

Yeah, and what'd we get for it? Us chasing our tail year after year with spend/debt, racking up 95% of the current federal debt.

Great fucking job, maybe we should nominate the Repuglicans for dipshits of the last 3 decades.

 

[Vic]

Partisans have an interesting way of revising history. If Nixon implemented gas rationing and price/wage controls, blame Carter. If mortgage rates hit 18% under Reagan, blame Carter. And so forth.

The so-called "party of personal responsibility" absolutely never takes responsibility for themselves, and always excuses its leaders for their every single betrayal. Which is why no self-respecting small govt libertarian would ever consider being a Republican.
Meh... "conservatism" itself is the ultimate in authoritarian ideologies. It says that however we did it in the past is the way we must do it today and into the future, and then conveniently decides to rewrite history.

 

[LegendKiller]

Partisans have an interesting way of revising history. If Nixon implemented gas rationing and price/wage controls, blame Carter. If mortgage rates hit 18% under Reagan, blame Carter. And so forth.

The so-called "party of personal responsibility" absolutely never takes responsibility for themselves, and always excuses its leaders for their every single betrayal. Which is why no self-respecting small govt libertarian would ever consider being a Republican.
Meh... "conservatism" itself is the ultimate in authoritarian ideologies. It says that however we did it in the past is the way we must do it today and into the future, and then conveniently decides to rewrite history.

They won't ever take personal responsibility. Just like they pass the buck for the last 8 years to Obama. It's fucking pathetic.

 

[Craig234]

Yes, Carter was so great he was re-elected. And for 12 years after we got rid of him the American voters kept a Republican in the White House. Let's not forget the Panama canal fiasco too. Didn't he terminate the Russian wheat deal or should some else get the blame for that.

Ah, so your rebuttal to the long but tip of the iceberg list I put up of actal issues is:

- The Republicans won the election, therefore Carter was terrible and Republicans perfect

- The "Panama fiasco" that wasn't a fiasco, where even William Buckley debated against Reagan on Carter's side

- Russian wheat deal, which you fail, in your well informed and unbiiased manner, to explainwhy is a bad policy by Carter surpassing, say, the putting of American on the road to financial ruin or secret deat squads.

 

[Craig234]

Here is the best article I've seen explaining the economy under Carter, dispelling the Reagan myth.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-carterreagan.htm

 

[Zebo]

I'm not going to pass judgement 1/4 of the way into his administration. I'm not pleased as punch, but there's still 3 years to go.

I know you Cons are chomping at the bit already... welcome to 2006. STFU and work at it.

That's a good idea - so far it's not been good if you read objective liberals. But I hope shoring up the power and monetary base (bankers, insurance, oil, pharma, MIC) will lead to some fair taxation when it's all over. Until main street feels comfortable Obama will be in trouble as they can't see back 45 years of progressively lifting burden off capital and unto labor.

 

[earthman]

Ironically, it appears Johnson's main motive for starting war with Vietnam was the domestic politics to help his Great Society legislatin get passed. Many wanted that war.

Johnson didn't "start the war" with Vietnam. We were never at war with Vietnam, no war was declared. Vietnam was partitioned after the defeat of the French colonial forces in 1954, and we were gradually sucked into the war there by people who used the Red Scare to get naive Americans to buy into it. The fact that Vietnam is rich in resources helped too. We intervened on the side of the corrupt government in South to "save" the country from the Communists, or to save it for American corporations, depending on your point of view. It was actually Kennedy, not Johnson, who really started the involvement there. Johnson believed his advisers, and his generals, to his misfortune.

 

[Craig234]

Johnson didn't "start the war" with Vietnam. We were never at war with Vietnam, no war was declared. Vietnam was partitioned after the defeat of the French colonial forces in 1954, and we were gradually sucked into the war there by people who used the Red Scare to get naive Americans to buy into it. The fact that Vietnam is rich in resources helped too. We intervened on the side of the corrupt government in South to "save" the country from the Communists, or to save it for American corporations, depending on your point of view. It was actually Kennedy, not Johnson, who really started the involvement there. Johnson believed his advisers, and his generals, to his misfortune.

You're just wrong in most of that. You're right, as I said, about the partitioning, and the red scare, and our intervening with a corrupt government to 'save' it from communists and US corporations.

You leave out the history that South Vietnam was views as 'America's child' with a lot of prestige to lose if it fell being a motive for years.

And you especially get it wrong on Kennedy. It was Eisenhower who created the US commitment to South Vietnam - backing the French and then creating South Vietnam. Not Kennedy.

Kennedy merely played a holding game to help the South not fall, adding non-combat troops, saying no always to the constant military and Republican pressure to go win that easy war against a few commies.

Kennedy tried and was unable to fix the Diem regime that was corrupt and finally permitted its removal.

You are playing pedantic semantics with the word war. There was a Korean war, a Vietnam war, an Iraq war, and none were declared wars. The word war includes military conflicts not delcared as wars.

If you can't get past your word games, we don't have much to discuss.

Johnson didn't 'believe his adviros and generals to his misfortune'. He said privately all along he did not see how the US could win the war - but he didn't see how we could get out and 'save face' either.

Ultimately the military pressure on his to go to war was a factor, and more importantly the Republican pressure that threatened his domestic program seems to have been the deciding factor, as I said.

He wasn't a president just told we'd win, believed it, and went in and was surprised. He was faced with bad pressures, including a public who cared more about 'stopping commumisn' than unjust war.

The public had never really lost a war they could remember, the US was the force for freedom in the world and losing South Vietnam had long been said to be a domino to lose Southeast Asia. They wanted war.

 

[Medellon]

Fellow conservatives just let this thread die. People arguing that the Carter presidency was in fact really not that bad should be pitied not debated.

 

[earthman]

South should never have been viewed as "America's Child", it should never have been viewed as a separate nation at all, that was the fundamental error. The 1954 accords said that Vietnam was not to be considered a divided nation, so there never should have been a bias of "north vs. south". I'm also well aware that Eisenhower started the involvement there, but it was escalated under Kennedy. Democrats have been just as involved in this nations "wars" as the Republicans, if not more.

 

[Craig234]

Fellow conservatives just let this thread die. People arguing that the Carter presidency was in fact really not that bad should be pitied not debated.

Ignorance is bliss.

 

[LegendKiller]

Fellow conservatives just let this thread die. People arguing that the Carter presidency was in fact really not that bad should be pitied not debated.

So you can't stomach debating facts. That's pretty sad, but is par for the conservative course.

 

[Craig234]

South should never have been viewed as "America's Child", it should never have been viewed as a separate nation at all, that was the fundamental error. The 1954 accords said that Vietnam was not to be considered a divided nation, so there never should have been a bias of "north vs. south". I'm also well aware that Eisenhower started the involvement there, but it was escalated under Kennedy. Democrats have been just as involved in this nations "wars" as the Republicans, if not more.

Well, I'm with you, we should have supported Vietnam never being re-colonized by France after WWII, supporting Ho Chin Minh's 'decaration of independance' based on our own.

Later, remember, the coutry was frantic about losing any ground in the cold war after 'who lost China', and did not wnat to 'lose Southeast Asia'.

They though it was a question of helping Southeast Vietnam become a strong, free country, or let global communism own Southeast asia.

As for war, in that period, I agree. Starting with Reagan, though, it's been different. The Democrats have been a lot less willing to get involved in immoral wars than Republicans.

Republicans have been quick to pull the trigger (literally) with all kinds of covert wars around the Americas, as well as more open conflicts like Grenada and Panama.

 

[Medellon]

So you can't stomach debating facts. That's pretty sad, but is par for the conservative course.

I'll use a tag line you socially progressives tout on global warming, the debate is over. The Carter presidency sucked.

 

[Craig234]

I'll use a tag line you socially progressives tout on global warming, the debate is over. The Carter presidency sucked.

Typical righty illogic. Hey, if one issue has overwhelming scientific conclusions that close it, then you can say yours does do without any of that. Of course you know it's pointless sarcasm, but who cares?

 

[Medellon]

Typical righty illogic. Hey, if one issue has overwhelming scientific conclusions that close it, then you can say yours does do without any of that. Of course you know it's pointless sarcasm, but who cares?

Overwhelming scientific conclusion that Carter sucked, I'm glad you finally came to your senses.

 

[LegendKiller]

I'll use a tag line you socially progressives tout on global warming, the debate is over. The Carter presidency sucked.

sorry, but if you look at my posts about AGW, I think its a hoax.

Now, let's not let facts get in the way of the truth, right. You're wrong on Carter, as has been proven. Every basis of the Carter presidency "sucking" has been proven wrong, if you care to submit new points, please do so.

 

[Craig234]

Overwhelming scientific conclusion that Carter sucked, I'm glad you finally came to your senses.

And another righty standard, the childish lie. Any you left out?

 

[retrospooty]

I don't think it's fair to compare Carter to Obama, Carter wasn't that bad.


I remember a year ago when I would say that Obama was a Socialist leftist would go crazy defending him now a lot of them profess the wonderful aspects of Socialism.

Which planet did this scenario play out on? It surely wasnt this one. Is this another one of your bizarro world fantasies? You gotta stop mixing the 2 worlds up... It confuses people.