A Case For Carter

Yurt said:
that is really a great way to intro your defense of carter

:D

you're pissy about bush because the economy ended on a sour note, when it was all good you had something else to bitch about...the left HATED bush, period...he never did a single thing right for the left...admit it
Click to expand...
I got news for you pal. You haven't been paying attention. I had plenty to say about what a god awful politician Bush was and I aint exactly from the left. I may be a social liberal, and only people I know who are social conservatives are bigots, but I've been a fiscally responsible mainstreet conservative for a log freaken time and by any measure W was a fucking disaster and the worst failure as a President since Nixon.

Oh sure, Carter was a dissapointment as a President but he did what he said he was going to do. He said he would reach across the political divide and he wouldn't get us into any proxy foreign wars and HE KEPT THOSE PROMISES and paid dearly for them politically. W on the other had bitterly increased the partisan divide, implemented unfair and irresponsible tax cuts, spent money like a drunken sailor, turned a surplus into historic deficits and levels of debt, got us involved in an immoral foreign war in Iraq, stood by with his hand in his dick while a city drowned and then preceded to fall asleep at the wheel again while some Wall Street gamblers wrecked our economy.

Carter may have been a dissapointment but he made some unpopular tough decisions that were the right decisions and in no way shape or form was his a failed Presidency like Bush was.
 
Damn Yankee said:
Holy shit you retard. Carter sucked! Inflation at 14%, mortgage rates at 18%. The misery index. Only a fool would think that Carter was anything other than a complete failure. :palm:
Click to expand...

As usual you are the one that hasn't a clue. It was Paul Volcker and the Fed that should blamed not Carter along with the oil crises and the Vietnam war. If you read this you might, just might, actually learn something. Here is the summary.

Summary

Carter cannot be blamed for the double-digit inflation that peaked on his watch, because inflation started growing in 1965 and snowballed for the next 15 years. To battle inflation, Carter appointed Paul Volcker as Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, who defeated it by putting the nation through an intentional recession. Once the threat of inflation abated in late 1982, Volcker cut interest rates and flooded the economy with money, fueling an expansion that lasted seven years. Neither Carter nor Reagan had much to do with the economic events that occurred during their terms.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-carterreagan.htm
 
tom prendergast said:
As usual you are the one that hasn't a clue. It was Paul Volcker and the Fed that should blamed not Carter along with the oil crises and the Vietnam war. If you read this you might, just might, actually learn something. Here is the summary.

Summary

Carter cannot be blamed for the double-digit inflation that peaked on his watch, because inflation started growing in 1965 and snowballed for the next 15 years. To battle inflation, Carter appointed Paul Volcker as Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, who defeated it by putting the nation through an intentional recession. Once the threat of inflation abated in late 1982, Volcker cut interest rates and flooded the economy with money, fueling an expansion that lasted seven years. Neither Carter nor Reagan had much to do with the economic events that occurred during their terms.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-carterreagan.htm
Click to expand...
He could care what the facts are. He's a partisan Republican and will believe what he wants to.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
He could care what the facts are. He's a partisan Republican and will believe what he wants to.
Click to expand...

I know that well, there are enough of them on here. I would like to see him refute what I posted though. Maybe he will tell me that the answer is in a box under a bridge?
 
Last edited:
This next election is going to be nothing like the Carter/Reagan election. It's going to be a hard fought battle.
 
tom prendergast said:
As usual you are the one that hasn't a clue. It was Paul Volcker and the Fed that should blamed not Carter along with the oil crises and the Vietnam war. If you read this you might, just might, actually learn something. Here is the summary.

Summary

Carter cannot be blamed for the double-digit inflation that peaked on his watch, because inflation started growing in 1965 and snowballed for the next 15 years. To battle inflation, Carter appointed Paul Volcker as Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, who defeated it by putting the nation through an intentional recession. Once the threat of inflation abated in late 1982, Volcker cut interest rates and flooded the economy with money, fueling an expansion that lasted seven years. Neither Carter nor Reagan had much to do with the economic events that occurred during their terms.

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

Nice re-write of history. The reality is that Carter created so much instability and the Arabs hated him. That's why OPEC bent us all over a barrel.
 
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sea"]North Sea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:NASA_NorthSea1_2.jpg" class="image" title="North Sea -"><img alt="North Sea -" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ae/NASA_NorthSea1_2.jpg/240px-NASA_NorthSea1_2.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/a/ae/NASA_NorthSea1_2.jpg/240px-NASA_NorthSea1_2.jpg[/ame] that culminated with a 46 percent price drop in 1986. This was due to reduced demand and over-production, which caused OPEC to lose its unity. Oil exporters such as Mexico, Nigeria, and Venezuela expanded production. Ending of price controls allowed the US and Europe to get more oil from Prudhoe Bay and the North Sea.[/FONT][/COLOR][/URL]

I say he did a good thing for Alaska!


and further:
Richard Nixon had imposed price controls on domestic oil, which had helped cause shortages that led to gasoline lines during the 1973 Oil Crisis. Gasoline controls were repealed, but controls on domestic US oil remained. The Jimmy Carteradministration began a phased deregulation of oil prices on April 5, 1979, when the average price of crude oil was US$15.85 per barrel (42 US gallons). Over the next 12 months the price of crude oil rose to $39.50 per barrel (its all time highest real priceuntil March 7, 2008.)[6] Deregulating domestic oil price controls allowed domestic U.S. oil output to rise sharply from the large Prudhoe Bay fields, while oil imports fell sharply. Hence, long lines appeared at gas stations, as they had six years earlier during the 1973 oil crisis.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Considering that 25% of the population wouldn't vote for a black man if he was the second coming of Jesus.....that's an understatement.
Click to expand...
What a retarded statement in response to Damo's. The sole reason why it will be close at all is that 90-95% of blacks will vote for The Obama no matter what, and he can always count on his socialist base along with white guilt-ridden liberals, with you as the perfect example. :good4u:
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Considering that 25% of the population wouldn't vote for a black man if he was the second coming of Jesus.....that's an understatement.
Click to expand...

yet, many believe Carter WAS the second coming of Jesus, he was white and he still couldn't get elected.....what does that do to your argument?......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
yet, many believe Carter WAS the second coming of Jesus, he was white and he still couldn't get elected.....what does that do to your argument?......
Click to expand...

I noticed that haven't even attempted to refute that the fact that Paul Volcker was the architect of fiscal policy and that he deliberately instigated a recession.
 
Tom, knowing Carter's attitude about foreign policy as I'm sure you do, ask yourself this: Would Jimmy Carter have stood along-side the UK over the Falklands War?

Still like the guy? :cof1:
 
Threedee said:
Tom, knowing Carter's attitude about foreign policy as I'm sure you do, ask yourself this: Would Jimmy Carter have stood along-side the UK over the Falklands War?

Still like the guy? :cof1:
Click to expand...

I am not sure how relevant that is to this discussion, but I'd say he would have prevaricated at first but Zbigniew Brzezinski would have prevailed.

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Brzezinski"]Zbigniew Brzezinski - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Brzezinski_1977.jpg" class="image" title="Zbigniew Brzezinski"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/eb/Brzezinski_1977.jpg/225px-Brzezinski_1977.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/e/eb/Brzezinski_1977.jpg/225px-Brzezinski_1977.jpg[/ame]
 
Something that strikes me as I've read this thread and some internet stuff about Carter.

He's a Christian; started out in the military; took over and grew the family business; became involved in local politics; became a state senator; became a governor; and then ran for president.

Now taking out the military and state senator parts, who does this remind you of, minus the intellect?

Sarah Palin.

The right was always touting her "management" experience from being mayor of Wasilla and governor of Alaska. This was supposed to make her a superior presidential candidate and head and shoulders above Obama, a constitutional lawyer, state senator and U.S. senator. Yet she has less "management" experience than the president conservatives revile.

So all that "management" experience doesn't really matter unless you're a repub candidate. I'll be sure to draw the Palin-Carter parallels constantly if she decides to run, so everyone prepare yourselves. :D
 
christiefan915 said:
Something that strikes me as I've read this thread and some internet stuff about Carter.

He's a Christian; started out in the military; took over and grew the family business; became involved in local politics; became a state senator; became a governor; and then ran for president.

Now taking out the military and state senator parts, who does this remind you of, minus the intellect?

Sarah Palin.

The right was always touting her "management" experience from being mayor of Wasilla and governor of Alaska. This was supposed to make her a superior presidential candidate and head and shoulders above Obama, a constitutional lawyer, state senator and U.S. senator. Yet she has less "management" experience than the president conservatives revile.

So all that "management" experience doesn't really matter unless you're a repub candidate. I'll be sure to draw the Palin-Carter parallels constantly if she decides to run, so everyone prepare yourselves. :D
Click to expand...

Intellect and management experience are an obvious prerequisite to qualifying candidates on any side of the aisle. Because she is stupid, she should not be considered by any R's, but her claim to experience holds merit, because she did have it. Stepping down from governor should kill that one in the future, though...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top