• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

What exactly positive has Conservatism brought to the stage since the 80s?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Carter? That useless piece of skin and bones... Really? he did a lot for the US.

SO...what did Carter "do" to us? You know, something he actually DID, not events of the 70s that worked against us?

I can actually name quite a few positive long term changes Carter put into action. Reagan? Not so much. Yet, we hear about him all the time. (to be fair I feel this way about Clinton also)

Just another example of how lost and biased the debate is from reality and real world results that actually matter.
 
Revisionist history, same as the justification for the second one. Bush's daddy made the call to not go in once the ball was rolling.

The hell? Revisionist history? Oh scheisse, you're on of those people wearing tin foil hats.

There was a UN resolution giving Iraq time to leave. They didn't leave Kuwait, and so the coalition moved in. Forces were pushed back into Iraq. Coalition forces crossed the border driving Iraqi forces further in, when H W Bush called a cease fire. It's not revisionist history. I remember that stuff from when I was a kid. It's hard to scream foul play WHEN THERE ARE SO MANY PEOPLE ALIVE WHO WITNESSED IT. Moreover, I know someone who lived in Kuwait at the time.
 
Last edited:
Revisionist history, same as the justification for the second one. Bush's daddy made the call to not go in once the ball was rolling.

The option to go into Iraq was there but it was never the goal. The elder bush understood the nightmare that invasion would bring and besides our allies were against it and he respected that. That said one never rules out much in advance because that is foolish.
 
SO...what did Carter "do" to us? You know, something he actually DID, not events of the 70s that worked against us?

I can actually name quite a few positive long term changes Carter put into action. Reagan? Not so much. Yet, we hear about him all the time. (to be fair I feel this way about Clinton also)

Just another example of how lost and biased the debate is from reality and real world results that actually matter.

Thats as I thought . You have no idea what carter did that helped cause todays current problems . This guy was complete fail the only good thing that come from him was his brothers Billy beer and that sucked almost as bad .
 
The option to go into Iraq was there but it was never the goal. The elder bush understood the nightmare that invasion would bring and besides our allies were against it and he respected that. That said one never rules out much in advance because that is foolish.

I still do not agree but am not going to turn this into another debate of Bush Sr. flip flopping about Saddam being an ally or not.

So the question we are left with is what positive net gain did we get from the first Iraq war? We propped up a UK colony and took it for our own interests. OK sounds good I guess on the realpolitik front.
 
Last edited:
We didn't fail on the gulf war

Where did this get us? Oh, we starved probably 1 million Iraqis with a blockade on the people and drained far more form the coffers than any oil income gained in Kuwait. (that was probably given away to Bush's big industry oil buddies anyhow) Another boondoggle.

The only net positive I can think of is it gave a little cover to Clinton getting some head, the bad in that is it distracted Clinton from getting Osama Bin Laden before 9/11.

If you gotta take a dictator out, send in the special forces, leave the people be. That is unless there is something else on that land you are interested in occupying it for.

Bush did a half-assed job, but this is typical of him and his son.
 
Last edited:
What exactly positive has "progressivism" brought to the stage since FDR?

Oh, thats right, 14 trillion in debt at the federal level, perversion of the commerce clause so that the federal government can dictate every aspect of our lives, and country bankrupting programs that are simply a money grab at the federal level.

Sounds like "progressivism" has done wonders.
 
What exactly positive has "progressivism" brought to the stage since FDR?

Do you really have to ask this question? Wow, how about Civil rights? Poverty is literally halved across the board since, the country was the strongest ever, the space program, highest standard of living wage for workers, gay rights, womans rights, holding our ground against communist dictatorships, fighting said communism and punching them right back in the face, not becoming extremists to deal with extremists. I could carry on but you are not one that reads or comprehends well. All of these were fought tooth and nail by conservatism every step of the way. I guess Nixon would be the only Rep I can give some props to since Ike I can think of oddly enough. And even those few issues were a matter of some serious arm twisting and compromise, but at least Nixon knew how far he could push realistically, well not really, but better then Republican ilk nowadays. Only difference is the media would not go after Watergate nowadays since they are owned.
 
Last edited:
SO...what did Carter "do" to us? You know, something he actually DID, not events of the 70s that worked against us?

I can actually name quite a few positive long term changes Carter put into action. Reagan? Not so much. Yet, we hear about him all the time. (to be fair I feel this way about Clinton also)

Just another example of how lost and biased the debate is from reality and real world results that actually matter.

Carter was the worst in history IMO. Clinton I thought did an excellent job. Quite the opposite of todays Democrates.
 
Carter was the worst in history IMO. Clinton I thought did an excellent job. Quite the opposite of todays Democrates.

I would love to hear some examples of how Carter was so bad.

You know, real stuff, not just bad luck/good luck of history. Actually he seems to be the last non-politician honest (which is good and bad) president we have had. This is exactly why you people shit on him endlessly in here. Because anyone back then knows Reagan was a direct contrast as he was as fake/superficial as they come. At the same time he played the game the establishment wanted. So he was rewarded with a VERY overrated presidency full of scandal, back room traitorous dealings with our enemies, and other assorted Republican foreign policy asshattery.

Reagan said once: "The problem is they know a bunch that plain is not true." Well spoken Mr President. This sums up your legacy well, and the Conservative myth Rush Limbaugh crafted since for the media. 😉
 
Last edited:
Do you really have to ask this question? Wow, how about Civil rights? Poverty is literally halved across the board since, the country was the strongest ever, the space program, highest standard of living wage for workers, gay rights, womans rights, holding our ground against communist dictatorships, fighting said communism and punching them right back in the face, not becoming extremists to deal with extremists. I could carry on but you are not one that reads or comprehends well. All of these were fought tooth and nail by conservatism every step of the way. I guess Nixon would be the only Rep I can give some props to since Ike I can think of oddly enough. And even those few issues were a matter of some serious arm twisting and compromise, but at least Nixon knew how far he could push realistically, well not really, but better then Republican ilk nowadays. Only difference is the media would not go after Watergate nowadays since they are owned.

This was all done by progressives? Really? Sorry I disagree... esp the bolded.
 
I would love to hear some examples of how Carter was so bad.

You know, real stuff, not just bad luck/good luck of history. Actually he seems to be the last non-politician honest (which is good and bad) president we have had. This is exactly why you people shit on him endlessly in here. Because anyone back then knows Reagan was a direct contrast as he was as fake/superficial as they come. At the same time he played the game the establishment wanted. So he was rewarded with a VERY overrated presidency full of scandal, back room traitorous dealings with our enemies, and other assorted Republican foreign policy asshattery.

Problem is with Conservatism as Reagan said once: "The problem is they know a bunch that plain is not true." Well spoken Mr President. 😉


Pissing away billions (just like his buddy Obama) to subsidize "green" technology that isn't useful or practical.
 
This was all done by progressives? Really? Sorry I disagree... esp the bolded.

Progressives were the one holding the line from the Democrats freaking out and buying into the MCCarthy junk along with the Republicans, thus not doing to us what the USSR wanted, to divide us as a people united. The very thing Republicans have done since the 80s with talk radio. Same thing OBL wanted from us too, and GW fed right into it.

This is why left wing scholars have a historical name for the right wing elements in society: "reactionaries".

You guys never fail to be predictable. That is not a good thing on a world stage of realpolitiks, it opens us up to be manipulated by people with the minds of terrorists.
 
Last edited:
I would love to hear some examples of how Carter was so bad.

http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2000/0121politics_hess.aspx

also

In an October 2000 survey of 132 prominent professors of history, law, and political science, Carter's presidency was rated in the "Below Average" group; he ranked 30th, with a mean score of 2.47 out of 5.00.[1] This survey, sponsored by the Wall Street Journal and the conservative Federalist Society, ranked Carter ahead of Richard Nixon, and below George H.W. Bush.
 
http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2000/0121politics_hess.aspx

also

In an October 2000 survey of 132 prominent professors of history, law, and political science, Carter's presidency was rated in the "Below Average" group; he ranked 30th, with a mean score of 2.47 out of 5.00.[1] This survey, sponsored by the Wall Street Journal and the conservative Federalist Society, ranked Carter ahead of Richard Nixon, and below George H.W. Bush.

Yawn..yes I know you righties hate him, duh. I asked YOU why you think he is failed, not a copy and paste. And yes, I know the heritage foundation and corporations hated him. Duh, they fought him every step in the 70s also. A lot like Obama nowadays actually. Oh wait...you guys rode Clintons ass the whole way also. Hmm, pattern here? This is another reason why you guys are plain untrustworthy. Your history is through a well honed corporate narrative cooked up in think tanks.

This kind of "open your mouth and repeat whatever BS I hear on TV/Radio is why people want to bang their head into walls when trying to have a adult conversation. We call you guys "bullshitters" around these parts.
 
Last edited:
I still do not agree but am not going to turn this into another debate of Bush Sr. flip flopping about Saddam being an ally or not.

So the question we are left with is what positive net gain did we get from the first Iraq war? We propped up a UK colony and took it for our own interests. OK sounds good I guess on the realpolitik front.

I'm not sure you understand war. What "net . gain" did freeing the Jews from death camps give us? None, yet few would say it was pointless to do so. I also do not believe that you understand what an ally is. In this context it means fighting along side or supporting a power for a specific purpose and it never ever is equivalent to friendship. Nations do not have friends, they have common interests which change. Consider the USSR. We were allies during WWII but that changed immediately after with the division of Germany and the subsequent Cold War. Likewise Saddam was considered an ally albeit a questionable one because he was an enemy of Iran who was seen to be a great threat at the time. That changed when he upset things by instigating war in the most vital area in the world. That's why Bush had such international support. The term "flip flop" doesn't make sense. The facts are that Saddam threatened the stability of the industrialized world and that is why not only Bush but many nations far from american conservatism participated. You'd have much better luck going after his son.
 
You'd have much better luck going after his son.

Too easy, where's the fun in that? Besides, 8 years and I still hate typing the four letter word I am so sick of it. I get your point though on the realpolitik ally tip, I really do not want to go down that road, I have a I guess less mainstream view of the first Iraq war. For now I guess daddy Bush is un-pc to dog out for whatever reasons (it makes his son look bad (wait..worse) how he handled Iraq2 I guess?) I never can keep up with liberal talking points/revisionist history and take more of a big picture view of geopolitics. Getting into nationalist/partisan geared issues muddles the waters of having a unbiased view of history imo even though I do trend left, although not really for Democrats.
 
I would love to hear some examples of how Carter was so bad.

Possibly if you were old enough to be around in his term, you would have a better understanding of what people lived through.

He was similar to Obama.

Came in loaded with promises that were unable to be kept. Generator of false hope and unable to deliver.

Regretfully, I did vote for him based on the fact that he was Annapolis and a nuke.
 
126802.jpg
 
Yawn..yes I know you righties hate him, duh. I asked YOU why you think he is failed, not a copy and paste. And yes, I know the heritage foundation and corporations hated him. Duh, they fought him every step in the 70s also. A lot like Obama nowadays actually. Oh wait...you guys rode Clintons ass the whole way also. Hmm, pattern here? This is another reason why you guys are plain untrustworthy. Your history is through a well honed corporate narrative cooked up in think tanks.

This kind of "open your mouth and repeat whatever BS I hear on TV/Radio is why people want to bang their head into walls when trying to have a adult conversation. We call you guys "bullshitters" around these parts.

Why Carter sucks:

1. He gave away the panama canal stupid move. Too strategic for us to loose control of.

2. The Iranian Hostage fiasco. He was responsible due to his indecisiveness and incompetence that was a large part for the uprising in Iran that lead to the deaths of many Iranians and the taking of hostages.

3. The flop of a rescue of the Iran held hostages.

4. When the Soviets saw what a pussy he was they invaded Afganistan. What was Carters response: The U.S. boycott of the 1980 Olympic games held in Moscow. Wow that showed them.

5. The abandonment of the Shah by the Carter administration lead to the Iran Iraq war... The world is still suffering from Jimmy Carter.

There are many more examples, I suggest you do a little reading.

Edit: As brought up by Patranus ( in case you didn't understand his picture: Gas Rationing Shortage. As was stated earlier: You obviously weren't old enough or born at the time and have no clue.

We lived through it and it sucked.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top