Second Worst President in US History.

[Skipjack]

I guess I'm near the top of that list.

Yeah, you are a nutbag one way AND the other
jk, buddy.

[williatw]

I guess I'm near the top of that list.

Wasn't inferrring I thought you were a nutbag, hasty editing on my part...the libertarians seem to be the only ones who wish this country to get back to anything the founders would recognize. The war on drugs has been a miserable failure (only an authoritarian nutbag would think otherwise) worse than prohibition(thanks to FDR for helping to end that) Forfeiture of assets is the most blatant example of legalized piracy by the gov against its own citizens, the war on drugs needs to end for that reason alone.
http://reason.com/blog/2012/06/14/but-w ... ld-steal-h

[TDPerk]

"thanks to FDR for helping to end that"

1 up and about 300 down. 80% or more of what bedevils us is the fault of that man's success.

[williatw]

"thanks to FDR for helping to end that"

1 up and about 300 down. 80% or more of what bedevils us is the fault of that man's success.

And he led us to victory in WWII....surely he gets some points for that.

As for the exploding entitlements that yes he helped start, I don't give a buy to generations of politicians who came after FDR who did/do nothing to curb said exploding entitlements.
Let me use an analogy. Suppose their was an employee called "Freddy & Fanny" who was hired by a supervisor called "Carter" in the late '70's. Carter leaves the company in 1980. Three supervisors later he (F&F) was promoted by another supervisor called "Clinton". Clinton leaves the company in 2000. His new supervisor bush is his sup for 6yrs, by now F&F is a serious incompetent POS. When bush is called on the carpet by his bosses, his answer is well its not my fault Carter & Clinton hired and promoted him, just because I was his sup and did next to nothing about him for 6yrs is beside the point. To Bush's shock and surprise his bosses hold him responsible for not dealing with F&F and end up sacking him.

[Diogenes]

Likely Voters: Carter Was a Better President than Obama

According to a Newsweek/Daily Beast poll of likely voters, Barack Obama now rates behind Jimmy Carter in the pantheon of great presidents. The poll asked likely voters to list the two best and the two worst presidents the history of the United States. Here are the tallies, based on net results:

Voters’ list of the 10 best presidents:

1. Abraham Lincoln, +27 points (28 percent place in top-2, 1 percent place in bottom-2)
2. Ronald Reagan, +25 points (31 percent place in top-2, 6 percent place in bottom-2)

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/lik ... 48085.html


I agree, And Jimmy Carter was an IDIOT!

[Diogenes]

Well no wonder you support substance prohibitions.

How do you feel about Rohypnol?

I assume you believe it should be legally available to anyone.

I haven't had any experience with Rohypnol but rumor has it that alcohol works about as well and it is legal.

BTW people drugging others without their knowledge should be strung up. It is a violation of Liberty.

You are dodging the point. Should people be allowed to buy and carry around with them Rohypnol?

[Ivy Matt]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/lik ... 48085.html

George Washington in fifth place, and tied with Bill Clinton?

*shakes head sadly*

[Diogenes]

Actually, the formula is easy.

It's you can swing your fist as long as it doesn't head for someone's nose. As long as you aren't breaking anyone's knees or picking their pockets.

Diogenes deal is conservatism, is Progressivism 1.0, goo-goo nonsense. First time-around, we got the Nation, Carrie'd whoopee!

Not that this isn't true:

"There is an optimal position in the relationship between government and men, and that is the conservative position."

It's that the conservative position in America, courtesy of the Revolution, Constitution, and civil war amendments, is libertarian. Not what Diogenes thinks is conservative.

Burkean conservatism in not American, either in origin nor in practice.

I'm following along with what you have written, and it is pretty disjointed and hard to interpret. (Were you high when you wrote this?) I'm getting that the general gist is a disagreement with me about History and Philosophy, but other than some allegations, I see nothing backing it up.

My criticism of libertarians is that they are never able to see the delayed damage caused as a result of their indulgences, and therefore they assume that because the damage isn't instantly visible, it doesn't count.

They believe that Individuals ought to exist as some sort of Sovereign and Independent Nation State rather than as a member of a social community with responsibilities to the other members. It is a rather childish perspective in my opinion.

[Diogenes]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/lik ... 48085.html

George Washington in fifth place, and tied with Bill Clinton?

*shakes head sadly*

There is, Sadly, a lot of ignorance among the American Population.

[Diogenes]

An argument I have been making for decades is this.

You take any group of people among which some own property and some do not. You kill some significant quantity of them, the remainder divies up the remaining property. All survivors are better off financially. Other people have thought of this as well.

So how many do you want to kill for fun and profit, 10 million, 20 million?
And who is on your death list? Have you decided for an etnic group, or maybe a certain religious group?

Skipjack, I really have no interest in your opinion, but now that you've pissed in the waters regarding what i've said, I have to now attempt to undo the damage done by your @ssholishness.


I mentioned the theory in way of explanation for one reason (among others) why World War II was economically good for the United States. I was not suggesting that any such idea be done purposely, but I was hinting that this is what I expect in the future to occur as a result of Liberal's failed and collapsing policies on Finance and Debt, especially as regards social security. (A flawed idea from the very beginning.)

I have long wondered if Liberals were aware their policies would ultimately result in a debt re-adjustment by the death of many who are owed money, and I suspect they do. Socialist movements always kill off a lot of people, and divie up the remaining assets. It's one of the means that keeps them economically viable for awhile.

[Diogenes]

I'm for killing off those who covet other people's property. Especially those who plan on using government to facilitate the theft. Just deserts.

Let me go on record as saying I believe it is our Duty to prop up murderous Psychopaths when it is in the best interests of the United States.

Or maybe just killing off nutbags in general would be good for the human race.

Careful, you resemble that remark. Nutbag is in the eye of the beholder.

[Skipjack]

mentioned the theory in way of explanation for one reason (among others) why World War II was economically good for the United States.

The US was the ONLY winner of WW2... All others were pretty much loosers one way or the other...

[Diogenes]

I guess I'm near the top of that list.

Wasn't inferrring I thought you were a nutbag, hasty editing on my part...the libertarians seem to be the only ones who wish this country to get back to anything the founders would recognize. The war on drugs has been a miserable failure (only an authoritarian nutbag would think otherwise) worse than prohibition(thanks to FDR for helping to end that) Forfeiture of assets is the most blatant example of legalized piracy by the gov against its own citizens, the war on drugs needs to end for that reason alone.
http://reason.com/blog/2012/06/14/but-w ... ld-steal-h

I have yet to see a single one of you "libertarians" address the point that the war on drugs is NOT a miserable failure because since the early 20th century it has prevented us from doing this:



Chests of Opium imported into China.



For some reason, all you people who supposedly have an understanding of physics can't seem to grasp that it takes energy to oppose a force, and if there is no energy spent in opposing a force, the natural result is a pattern like this:






Do you physics majors not understand acceleration? (exponential growth.) Of COURSE it takes a force to prevent acceleration! (from another force) Our Drug war has held the addiction rate down to ~2%. Without it, after a hundred years we should likely have a 50% addiction rate, as did China after a hundred years!

Are such simple concepts REALLY beyond your understanding?

[Diogenes]

"thanks to FDR for helping to end that"

1 up and about 300 down. 80% or more of what bedevils us is the fault of that man's success.

As for the exploding entitlements that yes he helped start, I don't give a buy to generations of politicians who came after FDR who did/do nothing to curb said exploding entitlements.
Let me use an analogy. Suppose their was an employee called "Freddy & Fanny" who was hired by a supervisor called "Carter" in the late '70's. Carter leaves the company in 1980. Three supervisors later he (F&F) was promoted by another supervisor called "Clinton". Clinton leaves the company in 2000. His new supervisor bush is his sup for 6yrs, by now F&F is a serious incompetent POS. When bush is called on the carpet by his bosses, his answer is well its not my fault Carter & Clinton hired and promoted him, just because I was his sup and did next to nothing about him for 6yrs is beside the point. To Bush's shock and surprise his bosses hold him responsible for not dealing with F&F and end up sacking him.

You have a simplistic understanding of politics. You GIVE people something, you're a hero. You TAKE IT AWAY, and you are a horrible person, and will be removed from office quickly. The problem is, those who want to give, either can't do math, or don't care about the train wreck they created down the road. All they care about is staying in power.


As the CEO's of General Motors (et al) made completely nonviable deals with Unions year after year, they didn't care that eventually these deals would result in a collapse of the company. They expected to be long gone before that happened. They would have their golden parachutes, and the company would crash and burn.

They knew the numbers wouldn't add up, they just knew the ugliness wouldn't start till after they were long gone.

Subsequent politicians rolling back FDR's (The much beloved dear leader of our nation at the time) gifts to the American people? Are you out of your mind?

The best course of action was to not give such a gift in the first place! Once given, it would be political suicide to attempt to take it back.

[Skipjack]

As the CEO's of General Motors (et al) made completely nonviable deals with Unions year after year, they didn't care that eventually these deals would result in a collapse of the company. They expected to be long gone before that happened. They would have their golden parachutes, and the company would crash and burn.

Of course the question that inevitably raises its ugly head is:
If this is really what ruined the car companies in the US, how come that German car companies with higher minimum wages, much stronger unions and generally higher taxes in the country are still competitive?
IMO- and this was pretty clear to me with Chevrolet- the outsourcing to China lowered the quality of the cars so much that nobody wanted to buy them... American cars were already not particularily highly regarded for their quality in Europe. The fact that they need much more gas than European cars did not help either.