Second Worst President in US History.

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

ravingdave
Posts: 650
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:41 am

Second Worst President in US History.

Postby ravingdave » Wed Jun 24, 2009 4:06 pm

Of course i'm referring to Jimmy Carter.

Here's an interesting article from Atlas Shrugs about Iran.


http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atla ... lies-.html



David

zbarlici
Posts: 234
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 2:23 am
Location: winnipeg, canada
Contact:

Postby zbarlici » Wed Jun 24, 2009 5:36 pm

theres good reason the US is not getting involved in the Iranian "revolution"(if you could call it that). The regime can only be changed from the inside, otherwise if other nations get too involved the country might eventually just revert to its original government system.

ravingdave
Posts: 650
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:41 am

Postby ravingdave » Wed Jun 24, 2009 6:15 pm

zbarlici wrote:theres good reason the US is not getting involved in the Iranian "revolution"(if you could call it that). The regime can only be changed from the inside, otherwise if other nations get too involved the country might eventually just revert to its original government system.




You say the regime can only be changed from the inside? Fine, give the opposition a little help in bringing it about. The forces in Iran have so badly brutalized the protesters lately, that I dare say a city full of sniper rifles would be a nightmare for the regime.

I would round up all the sniper rifles I could get my hands on in Iraq, and give them to the Iranian dissidents whom we are already in contact with. I would then likewise give them all the IEDs and EFPs (Explosively Formed Penetrator ) captured so far, and send them back to the country from whence they came. (via dissedents)


Turnabout is fair play.


Of course, all of this Death (and millions of other Deaths) would have been unnecessary if Jimmy Carter had never been President.


David

kcdodd
Posts: 722
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 3:36 am
Location: Austin, TX

Postby kcdodd » Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:32 am

You mean the very weapons we gave them 20 years ago? Arming revolutions always turns out well for the US.
Carter

djolds1
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:03 am

Re: Second Worst President in US History.

Postby djolds1 » Thu Jun 25, 2009 12:00 pm

ravingdave wrote:Of course i'm referring to Jimmy Carter.

Too many "worst/best in history" lists default to the putzes of the recent past. There are so many other viable candidates for worst POTUS besides Carter.
Vae Victis

kunkmiester
Posts: 843
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 3:51 pm
Contact:

Postby kunkmiester » Thu Jun 25, 2009 4:26 pm

That is a point, Carter didn't put people in jail,* or start a war.**

* http://www.answers.com/topic/espionage- ... n-act-1918
** see any article that goes beyond the slavery issue and addresses the economics, and Lincoln's desire for strong federal power
Evil is evil, no matter how small

ravingdave
Posts: 650
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:41 am

Postby ravingdave » Thu Jun 25, 2009 4:26 pm

kcdodd wrote:You mean the very weapons we gave them 20 years ago? Arming revolutions always turns out well for the US.



Hmm... let's see. Today is 2009, so 20 years ago would have been 1989?

What weapons were we giving them in 1989 ?


Perhaps you are referring to Pre-Iranian Revolution ? Everything was fine prior to Jimmy Carter getting into office and then working to Topple the Shaw.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfOY-gSMnm8

This video almost makes me cry.


You should watch this video. The Shah was dragging Iran into the 20th century. He was using Iran's Oil money to build Schools, Universities, Hospitals, businesses, etc. He was changing things for the better.


Jimmy Carter not only screwed up Iran, he screwed up the rest of the Middle east. Iran was not funding HEZBOLLAH and HAMAS while the shah ruled Iran. We didn't NEED Sadam Hussein as a counterweight while the shah was in power. It was only to combat the religious zealots in Iran that we helped build up Saddam Hussein.



David

ravingdave
Posts: 650
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:41 am

Postby ravingdave » Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:47 pm

djolds1 wrote:
ravingdave wrote:Of course i'm referring to Jimmy Carter.

Too many "worst/best in history" lists default to the putzes of the recent past. There are so many other viable candidates for worst POTUS besides Carter.



It depends on what you consider important. Woodrow Wilson bears some responsibility for creating the conditions that led to World War II, and if you count all the bodies from that Catastrophe towards him, I suppose he might be the first or second worst president in history, but at the moment it's still too early to tell. We aren't seeing that many dead bodies on Obama's watch yet, but it's still early.

Andrew Jackson killed a lot of Natives in the forced march which is referred to as the "Trail of Tears".

Abraham Lincoln started a war ( if my friend the History Major is correct) that killed 600,000 people, and left millions impoverished (resulting in more deaths over time) for generations, and the consequences of that war are still not completely resolved.

Ulysses Grant's administration was noted for it's corruption.Harding


Woodrow Wilson of course got us into World War I, (though he promised not to do it repeatedly during his campaign.) "He Kept our boys out of War." was a campaign slogan. He let J.Edgar Hoover, and Co run amok attacking and imprisoning people (often on trumped up charges) for opposing America's intervention into the European war. He started the League of Nations ( which turned into the equally useless United Nations.) and he started Keynesian Economics in this country.

The Harding Administration had the "Teapot Dome Scandal."


Roosevelt instituted a great many socialist idea bombs which are still in the process of exploding in the future. Among other things, he stacked the Federal Judiciary with extreme nuts and kooks liberal Judges, the ramifications of which we are still feeling.

Harry Truman bungled the dealing with the Russians and the Chinese.

John Kennedy started American involvement in the Vietnam War, and nearly got Millions of people incinerated because of his incompetence in dealing with Cuba and the Russians.

Lyndon Johnson started the "Great Society" and the "War on Poverty" and screwed up the Vietnam war. All effects which are still being felt today.


and of course Jimmy Carter. What a horrible President he was.


Yeah, with all the lousy presidents in history to choose from, it IS difficult to say with any degree of certainty which were the worst and second worst, but again, it depends on what you regard as important.

Me, I measure body count and potential body count as one of my primary criteria in deciding worst.


David

m14
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 7:02 pm

Postby m14 » Fri Jun 26, 2009 7:48 am

ww1 was one of the most pivotal events in the history of our species. ww1 created a world in which monarchy is not longer a major form of government, a world without a Kaiser in Germany or a Tsar in Russia. The fall of monarchy was not limited to these two countries.

ww2 was just cleaning up after the changes that ww1 created. ww2 could have been avoid if not for the depression, war reparations, isolationism and most importantly British / French military incompetence.

The shah was going against the tide of history. The CIA should have terminated him in the 60s.

MSimon
Posts: 14310
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Fri Jun 26, 2009 11:37 am

The Shah was going with the tide of history. He was just 30 or 40 years premature.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
http://protonboron.com/
THE OPEN POLYWELL FUSION CONSORTIUM

TallDave
Posts: 3113
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Postby TallDave » Sat Jun 27, 2009 1:20 am

The shah was autocratic but at least fairly serious; he wore a suit and tried to modernize the country. Mossadegh also behaved like a dictator, with the additional benefit of ruining Iran by shutting down oil production.

The only thing worse than both was the mullahs. Thanks Jimmy!

BTW, at the time the Carter admin said history would remember Khomeini as a saint.

You know, millions of Iranians visit Iraq every year now that the country has been liberated and they see a nation that has problems but also free elections and free expression. You have to wonder how long the Iranian regime can allow this to go on. E Germany had to build a wall.

MSimon
Posts: 14310
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Sat Jun 27, 2009 2:09 am

TallDave wrote:The shah was autocratic but at least fairly serious; he wore a suit and tried to modernize the country. Mossadegh also behaved like a dictator, with the additional benefit of ruining Iran by shutting down oil production.

The only thing worse than both was the mullahs. Thanks Jimmy!

BTW, at the time the Carter admin said history would remember Khomeini as a saint.

You know, millions of Iranians visit Iraq every year now that the country has been liberated and they see a nation that has problems but also free elections and free expression. You have to wonder how long the Iranian regime can allow this to go on. E Germany had to build a wall.


Building a wall is a problem on a water way. (Shatt al Arab)

On top of that Shia Islam has ties to Iraq.

That Bush sure left the Iranians one heck of a problem.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
http://protonboron.com/
THE OPEN POLYWELL FUSION CONSORTIUM

TDPerk
Posts: 904
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:55 pm
Location: Northern Shen. Valley, VA
Contact:

The tragic party.

Postby TDPerk » Sat Jun 27, 2009 2:06 pm

Hands down the worst president is Buchanan. He failed to to re-iterate Jackson's threat to the secessionists, failed to reinforce the national army's position in the south, failed to re-locate any movable national assets to the north, and even inexplicably transferred military stores to the south into unsecurable, even unguarded positions.

Next worse would be Wilson, who should have kept us out of WWI, should not have put us into an explicitly fascist--nearly totalitarian--command economy, and thereby quite likely prevented WWII. Really, what business is it of ours if the Kaiser gains influence and German subs blow up British ships which are illegally carrying munitions? That's without considering the man's particularly virulent racism.

FDR is a mixed-bag, out of the four big calls he had to make--how to combat the depression and whether to fight Germany, Japan, and Russia--he abjectly blew the first call and clearly had no plans to make the right call on the last, no signs of a change of heart there. He was an adequate wartime leader, and finishes up mediocre--great deeds, little net good done.

I should mention in passing, J.F.K. screwing up the Bay of Pigs.

Johnson should have stuck with the armed village/counter-insurgent model in Vietnam, it would both have been cheaper and would have eventually worked, if only by having the south outlast the outside patronage which supported the North. Cambodia would just be a nice place to visit, not a killing field.

Carter is certainly among the worst, and for reasons well covered already.

What I hope is noticed is that these Presidents all have something in common--all are Democrats.

Among a certain species of fool, Abraham Lincoln is given a place as being a "bad" president. They cite many specious reasons to justify this, the lead being that he started or caused the Civil War. The only thing he did to bring about the war was to be elected and act as if he had been elected, something that brings no onus for the war onto him. The worst thing that can be said about Lincoln is that he took maybe longer than required to find the generals who would destroy the South's rebellion. It would have been better done sooner, if possible.

The shame of it is all the Confederacy's.

Some poster above claims we need to look at the economic causes of the Civil War war, and the chief "economic" cause of the war in fact depends on it's political significance for all it's punch--the North was exceeding the South in every economic measure of advantage, and it would soon have the influence in Congress to overrule the interests of the South as the South had once been able to extort compliance from the North, in trade for it's signing on to the Constitution and good behavior.


What the Civil War was about was that the interests--the individuals--who ran the South politically were determined to remain the biggest fish in their pond, if need be by unconstitutionally, illegally, violently, and unjustly making their pond smaller.


There is no truth or utility in complicating any explanations for it beyond that point.

To amplify that observation made about the really bad President's being all Democrats, there's a reason for that. The Democratic party has not had a good idea since the 1830's and it has not had a not had a new idea since the 1930's.

From the passing of the Founding generation, the leadership of the Democratic party has always been populated by persons who will never fail to re-amalgamate the party into a half-winning coalition of whoever they can throw together into a bare majority of contradictory constituencies--they are a party of no fixed principles, but solely a patronage party trading favors.

In the 1830's they abandoned the Founder's goal of the diminishment of slavery, and in the 1850's called even its derogation unacceptably inflammatory. After the war they were the re-enslaver's party, the Copperhead's party. In the 1930's they adopted the popularist implications of Keynesianism, and bought ten extra years of Depression for us.

Later we must thank the Democrats for taking the Republican originated civil rights bills and taking them to the unconstitutional unjust extremes of defacto race quota systems, and invented "rights" which depend on confiscated funds for their fulfillment--not the absence of government interference.

What Obama is doing now.

Absent decent performance as CiC in an existential war--the foment of which he may darn well abet by his incompetence--Obama will take his proper place as one of the worst Presidents we will have the misfortune to endure.

The Democrats rank again!

Regards, Tom Perkins
molon labe, montani semper liberi &
para fides paternae patri
molon labe
montani semper liberi
para fides paternae patria

TDPerk
Posts: 904
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:55 pm
Location: Northern Shen. Valley, VA
Contact:

Half of us are of below average intelligence,...

Postby TDPerk » Sat Jun 27, 2009 3:11 pm

..now we know which half.

And ad nauseum!

Or at this point is it absurdum?

And we know a few Republicans who need to see primaries where they are opposed by the national party.

Like I scrawled on their begging slip back at the RNC, "Support Toomey or you won't see a red cent from me."

Regards, Tom Perkins, ml, msl, & pfpp
molon labe

montani semper liberi

para fides paternae patria

djolds1
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:03 am

Postby djolds1 » Sat Jun 27, 2009 10:27 pm

m14 wrote:ww1 was one of the most pivotal events in the history of our species.
Species? No. One of the most pivotal events in the history of Western Civilization? Yes.

m14 wrote:ww1 created a world in which monarchy is not longer a major form of government, a world without a Kaiser in Germany or a Tsar in Russia. The fall of monarchy was not limited to these two countries.
A temporary oddity. Bloodline succession is the default standard of the human species. Hereditary Oligarchy is already reforming.

m14 wrote:ww2 was just cleaning up after the changes that ww1 created. ww2 could have been avoid if not for the depression, war reparations, isolationism and most importantly British / French military incompetence.
WW2 completed the two generation suicide pact of Western Civilization. In 1900 the West ruled the world and 5 Western men could dictate the political shape of the globe. In 1950, the disintegration was nearly complete.

m14 wrote:The shah was going against the tide of history. The CIA should have terminated him in the 60s.
Very Marxist of you. And foolish. Each civilization has its own standards. The Shah should've cracked down regardless and told Carter to go s*rew himself. Instead, the Shah cracked down and then lightened up, again and again. That gave the Iranian radicals hope, and that was the game.
Vae Victis


Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests