The Anti-Christ is Gone!!!

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

And how does making the unsupported accusation help your country? It doesn't. When the Supreme Court ruled; the election was over. All a true statesman could do is lobby for improvements to the system at that point. Carter chose a lower road and a shameful one for an ex-president.

Carter failure to mention the disenfranchised military votes and the thousands of New Yorkers who voted in Florida as well as home is also telling. An ex-President should be concerned for every bodies votes not just his parties.

Well obviously we're going to disagree on the 2000 election and there's really no point in rehashing it here and now. The issue I took with HOZ's statement is that it completely overlooked the amount of charity work and work Carter has done for the UN. IMO, that far outweighs any comments he's made.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Azure

I agree partly with your first point....although I do think it is a bit early to judge him as the worst President of all time. The affect he REALLY had on the US, the ME, and the rest of the world will truly be felt 20 years from now.

He's without question top 5 worst, and it's all downhill from here.

Granted, He'll have to do a lot more (or, more likely, we'll have to find out a lot more of what he's already done) to take over the top (bottom) spot from such luminaries as Ronald Reagan, Andrew Johnson and Richard Nixon, who all can be argued to be the worst ever.

In my opinion, he's worse than Warren Harding, a president who is routinely situated at the bottom of any 'ranking' list.

Worst ever? That remains to be seen, but you'll never see him in the top 2/3rd's of any ranking.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Karl Rove has a perfect safety record.

If you say so. He's an influential advisor for a positively and now undeniably terrible President/administration. One so bad that even its former supporters will only go so far to say "well, I can think of one or two others who were worse" when trying to defend him.

I'd say his "record" speaks for itself. Him and that moron he works for have damaged that country terribly. Is that perfect?

Bush, Rove and all the guys who have been investigated, indicted, convicted or mercifully fired have undermined themselves with their ineptitude. It didn't take some Congressional investigations to show everyone how awful they've been.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Arafat

Iran-Contra

Oh yeah, that was Reagan, Oliver North, et al

[tussery]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

yep, as much as Bush sucks (and i mean SUCKS, as in one of the worst presidents of all time) the congress is pretty bad too. it's not about trying to improve your approval rating, it's just trying to get the public to hate the other guy more

Like Robert Wuhl say's. Bush is his mothers son, and Barbara Bush was born Barbara Pierce and of relation to Franklin Pierce who could give Bush a run for his money in the worst president department.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Lets not forget his work bolstering terrorist regimes and other enemies of America.

You mean like the way Reagan did when he sold weapons to Iran and funnelled that money to the Contras?

Or how about his continual assertion that Florida election results were rigged in 2000 after a bi-partisan congressional committee couldn't find any such evidence.

No evidence? Some would disagree.

http://election2000.stanford.edu/ele...eporthouse.pdf

Not only that, but it was Katherine Harris, the same woman who was Bush's Florida campaign chair, who certified the result in that same state, the same state Dubya's brother was govenor. No, no potential for conflict of interest or maniputlation there. I have no idea where anyone would figure the fix was in?

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Iran-Contra

Oh yeah, that was Reagan, Oliver North, et al

If your going to contribute; try to follow the discussion more closely. We were specifically discussing Carter's conduct since he left office. aka. worst ex-president. Reagan left the political stage with dignity. I'm not aware of him trying to influence foreign affairs or setting himself up as a critic of the US government.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

You mean like the way Reagan did when he sold weapons to Iran and funnelled that money to the Contras?

I don't see where Reagan's action in office apply to this discussion. Reagan's achievements in office far outweigh his failures. He is considered by most Americans as the greatest President of the 20th century. He help end the cold war. He set the American economy on the right track. He built up and modernized the military and gave America back its national pride.

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

No evidence? Some would disagree.

Of course some would disagree. Some also think the CIA took out both Kennedys as well. There will always be those willing to scratch people's itchy ears. That's how Carter has gained the popularity he never had as President. He says what the left wants to hear.

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Not only that, but it was Katherine Harris, the same woman who was Bush's Florida campaign chair, who certified the result in that same state, the same state Dubya's brother was govenor. No, no potential for conflict of interest or maniputlation there. I have no idea where anyone would figure the fix was in?

The county's where the disputed ballots were designed, issued, and counted were controlled by card carrying Democrats. There is no evidence of outside influence in their decision making. With the national spotlight on those two counties I'm sure neither Katherine or Jeb would have dared inter fer. But if someone tells you they did I'm sure you'll believe them. Right?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

If your going to contribute; try to follow the discussion more closely. We were specifically discussing Carter's conduct since he left office. aka. worst ex-president. Reagan left the political stage with dignity. I'm not aware of him trying to influence foreign affairs or setting himself up as a critic of the US government.

lol, if by left office with dignity, you mean bumbling away unaware of what was happening, escaping prosecution by his own degenerative mental state?

Edit: Or like getting his former VP to pardon egregious crimes committed by members of his administration, that he was party to, like Casper Wineberger?

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Where have I suggested limiting free speech or not being patriotic if you criticize President Bushes policies. Free speech doesn't undermine a President. Focusing your time and energy on finding mud to sling at your President instead of seeking common ground in order to improve America does. Unjustly subpoena the Presidents private E-mails in the faint hope of finding dirt undermines a persons ability to have candid conversations and explore options with his advisers. Public ally declaring defeat in earshot of your countries enemies undermines the war. Publicly asking the Pentagon for there plans to with drawl from Iraq undermines the President. The list is endless.

Um I am not sure if you are aware how the American political system works. Let me inform you. The American people gave the congress to the Democrats with a specific task... To Undermine the President... The President is not more important than Congress. If they had not done everything within their power to undermine the President than they would have done a terrible disservice to the MAJORITY of Americans who gave them that mandate, if anything that would have been the most undemocratic path they could have taken. Unbelievable that Bush still has such ardent backers. I don't hate the guy like most on here but it takes pretty irrational logic to conclude anything but a terrible presidency has occurred in the last 8 yrs. By the way I also believe that Congress has done a terrible job since elected.

[Flash Walken]

Irrational logic? In a Calgaryborn post?!

Surely you jest!?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I don't see where Reagan's action in office apply to this discussion. Reagan's achievements in office far outweigh his failures. He is considered by most Americans as the greatest President of the 20th century. He help end the cold war. He set the American economy on the right track. He built up and modernized the military and gave America back its national pride.

Wow...there are so many things wrong with this that I don't even know where to begin. Where do you get your misconceptions about mainstream America, Anne Coulter?

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Wow...there are so many things wrong with this that I don't even know where to begin. Where do you get your misconceptions about mainstream America, Anne Coulter?

Yeah, "where to begin". I find particularly amusing the chap who has to wait 20 years to figure out if he's being rogered or not. The only thing I can add is that in 20 years or so, if we don't change, most of us will forget how bad this group was and some even bigger crackpots will get elected.

[nmhen]

First, the job of the two non-Presidential arms of the highest levels of the US Government is to act as a counter-weight to the President. Period. Bear in mind that the Founding Fathers were rebelling from a system where "to undermine the (King) was to undermine the country". (I am aware of Canada's ties to His/Her Majesty.)

There is a lot of romance about the office of the President. But in many, many, ways the man himself is but a figurehead in our government. Particularly when you get one as vacuous and impressionable as Bush the Lesser.

I'm not naive enough to think that Presidents haven't had, or shouldn't have, advisors, and that those advisors didn't/don't shape the President's opinion. But W seems singularly unable/unwilling to posit his own opinions as an overlay to those whose intellects he uses to insulate his lack of same. THAT is scary. For all his other faults, no one can say Clinton isn't at least a very smart man. Whenever W is pressed for background on his positions he either hides behind "it's for the good of the people" or his apparent zealotry for God. That is even more scary to me.

As for the Democrats....*sigh*...one has to wonder just how hard it is to find a useful platform. So Clinton screwed them (and everyone else, apparently *wakka wakka wakka!*) on the morality/truth angle. The Republicans did a masterful job filling that void with W. But, come Presidential election time, their problem of late has been that they have not figured out how to win over any red states.

Their "strategy" seems to have been "win the states with the highest concentrations of populace and hope to bleed off enough from the others". While I can understand that as a starting point, it should have been painfully clear by 2004 that was simply not enough.

And moreover, that gentry class Vietnam vets with aristocrat wives may fill $1000/plate dinners in Boston, New York, Chicago, and LA, but don't do dick for Joe Middle America with a second mortgage on the farm.

Winning control of the house and senate may have been an opportunity to play up some kind of anti-Republican referendum announcement by the American public, but instead they turned it into another flogging of the same dead-as$ themes and attacks on the Republicans that DIDN'T win them either of the last two Presidential elections!

Hillary? Obama? With the possible exception of Arkansas (and that's a big stretch), are either of those two going to pick off any red states? With what, exactly, as the platform? I just don't see it.

Meanwhile, I would vote for a Republican ticket of some combination of McCain, Powell and Bloomberg in a heartbeat

And, coming from someone who has voted Democratic in every Presidential election since I came of age, THAT should scare the Democrats.

[Cowperson]

Even if you don't agree with the premise of this column in the right wing New York Post this morning, you have to admit it's fairly hilarious.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/08142007..._podhoretz.htm

Cowperson

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Even if you don't agree with the premise of this column in the right wing New York Post this morning, you have to admit it's fairly hilarious.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/08142007..._podhoretz.htm

Cowperson

Hilarious? I find it pathetic and weak, but completely in line with the job the right wing media has done over the past 10-15 years. Where's the facts? Where's the analysis? They have taken his well earned reputation and lampooned the issues surrounding that earned him this distinction. It is hard to argue with this column, because it's opinion, and opinion can never be proven to be incorrect. This is typical of the RW media as they cast their strories in jello. When you examine the jest of what they are saying, you'll find that it never stops moving, is solid only in certain conditions, and it is impossible to nail it to the wall because it has no substance. The only thing hilarious about this article is that it actually has an impact on public opinion.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Hilarious? I find it pathetic and weak, but completely in line with the job the right wing media has done over the past 10-15 years. Where's the facts? Where's the analysis? They have taken his well earned reputation and lampooned the issues surrounding that earned him this distinction. It is hard to argue with this column, because it's opinion, and opinion can never be proven to be incorrect. This is typical of the RW media as they cast their strories in jello. When you examine the jest of what they are saying, you'll find that it never stops moving, is solid only in certain conditions, and it is impossible to nail it to the wall because it has no substance. The only thing hilarious about this article is that it actually has an impact on public opinion.

A beautiful reply as usual.

Here, try something else. A commentary in the LA Times this a.m. Bush's Napolean - better to have taken a cannonball to the head in 2004 than stuck around to 2006.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...ome-commentary

And some interesting commentary in the self-admitted "liberal" New York Times:

“He gets more credit and more blame than he deserves,” said John Weaver, a former senior adviser to Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, who has had a long history of fighting with and working with Mr. Rove. “At the end of the day, he was the head coach of the political team that won the equivalent of the Super Bowl two times in a row. But other things he did are more subjective: the kind of campaigns that were run and their impact on governing.”

Certainly, Mr. Rove has to a considerable extent changed the way presidential politics are played. Modeled on his example, campaigns have become more disciplined in driving simple, often negative messages. They begin in trying to identify the vulnerabilities of potential opponents, and they do extensive negative research as they prepare to exploit those vulnerabilities early and often.

They seek to work out long-term, month-by-month game plans and stick with them, even in difficult times. And they methodically use marketing and other data to identify potential supporters and get them to the polls with an efficiency that had never been seen before, something Mr. Rove pushed along with his close ally, Ken Mehlman, the former Republican National Committee chairman.

“The Rove model was so impressive that the front-runner for the nomination is following the blueprint,” said Mark McKinnon, who worked with Mr. Rove in 2004 and is now advising Mr. McCain’s presidential campaign. “It is almost the Powell doctrine of politics: you just hit them with everything you got, everywhere and at the same time.” The front-runner he was referring to, Mr. McKinnon said, is a Democrat, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/14/wa...hp&oref=slogin

Followed by, in the Washington Post, "Clinton, The Rove Candidate of 2008?"

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-t...e_of.html#more

And, very definitely a left-wing columnist, Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post:

Buh-bye, Karl Rove. On your way out of the White House, don't let the screen door hit you where the dog should have bit you.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...d=opinionsbox1

Cowperson

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Even if you don't agree with the premise of this column in the right wing New York Post this morning, you have to admit it's fairly hilarious.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/08142007..._podhoretz.htm

Cowperson

Very Funny (cackling with with evil laughter!)

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I don't see where Reagan's action in office apply to this discussion.

YOU brought it into the discussion, kicking and screaming. You said, "Lets not forget his work bolstering terrorist regimes and other enemies of America." Care to back that statement up? When Carter was in office he did no such thing. Since leaving office he has worked the diplomatic side of all issues, attempting to bring all sides of an issue to the table to discuss things peacefully, regardless of who recognizes who. That is diplomacy in action and is not supportive of either side or shows an intent to create discord or unrest.

Conversely, Reagan DID suspport several countries and agents that were terrorists or developing hot beds of terrorism. Reagan set up the Iranians with weapons, who was America's number one enemy at the time. Reagan allowed support for the Contras, who terrorized their own people and had death squads that intentionally attack civilian populations to force support of their politics. Lets also not forget that it was Reagan who sent weapons and allowed for the training of the mujahideen, who would later become al Qaeda. That is some pretty substantial direct support of terror organizations. Now, what did Carter do that was even close to that?

Reagan's achievements in office far outweigh his failures. He is considered by most Americans as the greatest President of the 20th century. He help end the cold war. He set the American economy on the right track. He built up and modernized the military and gave America back its national pride.

Considered the "greatest" president of the 20th century? Maybe by the extreme RW dittoheeads, but not by the majority of Americans. Reagan rarely gets mentioned without starting a fight. The guy was a polarizing agent in America and drove the country into the ground.

Reagan did not do positive things for the American economy. Reaganomics was all about expansion of the gap between the haves and have-nots, and an eradication of the middle class. During that time of economic change, the rich became richer, and the poor became poorer. Those that were considered middle class saw themselves shift to one side of the ledger or the other, and there was an imbalance in those that shifted to the have-not column. Bush has attempted to use Reaganomic theory all over again, and is havign the exact same result. The deficit is rising and the debt is spinning out of control. The only thing that saved America during Reagan's time in office from the same fate the country is facing today was the fact that America had a strong corporate structure and an industrial engine built on manufacturing and people. That same practices that Reagan used in the 80's are killing the country today because the primary engine of American non-military power has been out-sourced and off-shored.

Frankly, Reagan instilled a false sens of pride in Americans. He set up the laws that would allow for the dismantling of America, and the propaganda organs to allow that dirty little secret to be covered up. If America can only be proud of its military, and that is the last thing that the country is still really good at, then it is a sad day for every citizen of this land.

The county's where the disputed ballots were designed, issued, and counted were controlled by card carrying Democrats. There is no evidence of outside influence in their decision making. With the national spotlight on those two counties I'm sure neither Katherine or Jeb would have dared inter fer. But if someone tells you they did I'm sure you'll believe them. Right?

Are you kidding me??? That's kind of the point, and why the doubts first surfaced. These were counties that were strongly Democratic. The exit polls were strongly Democratic. Yet they went to Republicans. Upon further examination there was an incredible number of ballots that were thrown out because of ballot irregularities, and the vast majority of them were votes for Democratic candidates. The recount was slow, because of the manual examination and verification of each ballot to register the correct vote. The gap had been closed and the result was still very much in question, but the Supreme Court, in a partisan vote, stopped the democratic process in action and halted the recount, demanding that Florida declare a winner and certify the vote. Harris, a staunch Republican with a very shady past, and an even more shady future, quickly certified the vote and declared Bush the victor, even though thousands of votes had yet to be verified and counted because of the much publicized irregularities. If you see no outside influence in those events, you were either likely not paying attention to things at the time, or were off planet. Sadly, the same thing happened in two states in 2004, allowing for a second questionable election victory and more questions about the democratic process and whether it still functions.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

A beautiful reply as usual.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...ome-commentary

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/14/wa...hp&oref=slogin


http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-t...e_of.html#more

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...d=opinionsbox1


Cowperson

Do you have a point with all of that garbage? Is your point that the press in the this country sucks? Well that's not a news flash. The press has been broken since '86 when Reagan killed the Fairness Doctrine. It's turned into hackery instead of news. It's one-upsmanship in a game of polarization. Or are you missing the point that Rove, and his dirty tricks and Machavellian belief structure have pushed American politics in a direction that it may never recover from? Rove made the spreading of lies, disinformation, and character assassination a common practice in politics in America, and it has spread to every level. This is a man with no shame and willing to go to any length to get his candidate elected, and then maintain power, legal or not. The fact that some can dismiss that, or even comend him for it, is what is pathetic. This is a man whose grave every decent law abiding citizen should take turns dancing upon. He did more direct or indirect harm to this country than any one individual in the past century. He damaged the democractic process in a way that it may never work properly again.