Hah! Jimmy Carter trying to tell the brilliant George W. Bush how to handle a middle eastern country. Jimmy needs to realize GW gets his advice directly from God. You can tell by the wonderful results of his decisions.

Diplomacy, not military action, remains the best approach to dealing with Iran, former President Jimmy Carter said in a TV interview this morning.

And we all know how much an expert Jimmy Carter is at dealing with Iran.

LOL

When is one of those UFO's Jimmy saw going to pick him up and deliver him to Cuba where he can retire once and for all.

Carter should just go back to building homes for the poor, At least that gives him some credibility.

Every time he speaks he gives me flashbacks to the Cater years. High inflation high unemployment. And the US being held hostage by IRAN because of the impotent president at the time.

And we all know how much an expert Jimmy Carter is at dealing with Iran.

LOL

Compared to Reagan and Bush2, he's a friggin' genius in dealing with Iran, though Reagan did manange to make a few bucks out of his "dealing" treason. Had to have Ollie North show the Iranians how to blow up Marines, but that wasn't a deal breaker for Reagan when it came to arming his nun-rapers.
Bush2, simply gave Iraq to Iran, and agreed to pay for the renovations.

Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie!" till you can find a rock. - Wynn Catlin

Carter handled Iran the way any other president would have. he sent in Special Forces to handle the situation. It's hardly Carters fault the mission went the way it did.

Funny thing though, the hostages were released EXACTLY the same time that Reqagan was being sworn in.

I guess the RNC check finally cleared.

Shove a huge peanut butter sandwich in his mouth and clamp his nose shut. If he can breathe through his ears then we know he's the real deal.

Lou that's right... Talk of killing an Old man... Shows your manhood....

Sounds like Carter's been listening to the uniform part of the Pentagon.
If Bush were only so smart...

But, there were student protests in Iran against President amandapajamas, so I'm guessing the ayatollahs have pretty well run out of patience with him. With Iraq in their pocket, and Saddam no longer a threat, Iran will start moving to the center and start playing grown-up on the world stage.

Funny thing though, the hostages were released EXACTLY the same time that Reqagan was being sworn in.

I guess the RNC check finally cleared.

Posted by COMMONSENSE at 2007-10-09 12:39 PM | Reply

Well that was because Bush 41 brokered the deal with the Iranians that they would not deal with Carter nor release the hostages until reagan was in office. Then they would get their weapons in exchange for the hostages.

How nice for reagan to appease terrorists.

Is anyone seriously calling for invading Iran? I've seen people say we should bomb them, but I haven't read about actually invading and taking control of Iran.

Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock.

Will Rogers

Right, Carter was so good at diplomacy that he turned his back on the Shah of Iran while at the same time practically inviting the radical Ayatollah to take control. In my opinion, Carter was the worst and weakest President that the United States has ever elected. Why should anyone want to take advice from him?

Don't invade Iran.

Bomb the shit out of them.

Carter didn't turn his back on the Shah;

Reluctantly, on October 22, 1979, President Jimmy Carter allowed the Shah to make a brief stopover in the United States to undergo medical treatment. The compromise was extremely unpopular with the revolutionary movement, which were against the United States' years of support of the Shah's rule, and demanded his return to Iran to stand trial.

It's because Carter allowed him to get treatment here. That pissed off the Iranians.

The Iranians have a secret army of killer bunny rabbits just waiting to pounce.

I hope no one listens to this idiot!

So, now that LEEATWATER corrected REPUBLICAN4EVER with more correct information about Jimmy Carter I am sure REPUBLICAN4EVER will reconsider his harsh evaluation of Jimmy Carter.
Or not.
Just mentioning it because it seems that facts and information have little to do with rightie's opinions.

but I haven't read about actually invading and taking control of Iran.

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole at 2007-10-09 01:21 PM

"all options are on the table" - George W. Bush

"all options are on the table" - George W. Bush

Posted by 726


Um... that's not exactly the same thing...

couple other points for you 726: Fire is hot, don't drink anything with the green "Mr Yuck" symbol on it, and getting into a van with a guy you've never met is a bad idea.

And we all know how much an expert Jimmy Carter is at dealing with Iran.

Oh yeah let me see.... Bush/Reagan sells our soul to Iraq to save the lives of what?...66 hostages who knew the risks going in. Yet you can applaud the deaths of four thousand soldiers that knew the risk going in... not to mention countless Iraqi lives that died for no reason.

You stupid fucks just want Iran erased becuase it reminds you of what a failure your favorite Regan myth, how might made the US #1. Never mind that Russia still controls most of the worlds oil and uses that control more effectively than the US. Then there is that golden Koran... Russia is using to cozy up to Iran.

Watching Thompson take second place status in the reputzicon line up just proves how you guys like to play pretend.

If we bomb then wouldn't the Iranians begin attacking our troops in Iraq. Then wouldn't we invade to get the Iranians who do attack.....if we bomb....it will be a war. No real way to know how large it will become, which countries may be drawn in, where the refugees will go, much less how we are going to pay for it.
Lunacy.

Oh, and Ijust don't want to hear any excuses after the fact when it turns to shit like iraq. When it does just turn in your voters registration and STFU.

I just tuned in to see the rightie tightie comments.

Carter is laughingstock in their little circles whereas their hero Dumbya is laughingstock in the world.

Danni, FYI, Iran is already attacking our troops in Iraq.

If we bomb then wouldn't the Iranians begin attacking our troops in Iraq.

From what I've been reading the intention would has moved from bombing nuclear and government facicilities to just wrecking their military. Yes they would clearly retaliate against troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and ships in the Gulf (If they are still there, I doubt they would be though), but how long they would be able to retaliate for might be pretty limited. Remember this is the same Iran that was held back by the Iraq of 1991 and the Iraq of 2003.

Don't read this as me cheering for war with Iran, I don't think we should bomb them or attack them in any way, unless they provoke it of course, but then I think everyone would be for it.

When is this war with Iran going to start? Or did I miss the kickoff?

I know there are some claims of attacks but after we bomb Iran it won't be claims, it will be waves of attacks. If you believe all the claims then you also know that they are already being used as a possible excuse to bomb or invade. Iran claims they are not attacking our troops. Iran will be devastated by American bombing, I find it hard to believe that they are intentionally giving Bush an excuse to bomb right now.

When is this war with Iran going to start? Or did I miss the kickoff?

Posted by wisgod


Its gonna happen right before the 2006 Mid-term elections so that Bush can sway the outcome... where have you been?

Wish he were still President

Its gonna happen right before the 2006 Mid-term elections so that Bush can sway the outcome... where have you been?

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole

That sounds about right, considering the horse shit I've read here.

Iran will be devastated by American bombing, I find it hard to believe that they are intentionally giving Bush an excuse to bomb right now.

I thought the same thing... they'd have to be insane to do so. But then again, maybe their Revolutionary Guard is working on its own, maybe they think we don't have the grapes to come after them while in Iraq, maybe they think the Chinese or Russians will defend them...

""unless they provoke it of course, but then I think everyone would be for it.""

With the credibility of this administration how would we know if they really provoked us or it was an attemp by the neocons to make it seem that they did. Isn't it a little hard to believe that they would intentionally bring about the ruination of their own military???? Seems to me they have public opinion working in their favor right now with so many hoping we will leave Iraq, why would they now provoke us and give us an excuse to stay in Iraq and destroy the Iranian military???
The Iranians may be religious zealots but they aren't necessarily stupid. I think our government thinks we are though.

Wish he were still President

Posted by hamdan

yeah I wish I was unemployed and my father was a hostage to an arab nation sometimes too...

Just mentioning it because it seems that facts and information have little to do with rightie's opinions.

Posted by danni at 2007-10-09 01:35 PM


Danni, you are one to talk about facts and information, when you spew the crap that you do. I have asked you at least 20 times for proof or evidence of you accusations but you never seem to have any.

""maybe they think the Chinese or Russians will defend them...""

or maybe it is time to question what you are told by American news media.

Yeah, the days of 18% mortgage interest brings back memories....

It's hardly Carters fault the mission went the way it did.

I guess things are different now. Whenever the military does something wrong (or anything goes wrong in this country!) now all the libs on the DR blame Bush.

I hope no one listens to this idiot!

Posted by kc101



Carter may be a lot of things, but "idiot" is not one of them. If Carter is an "idiot", then Bush is simply off the scale.

And in this case, let's hope EVERYONE listens to him.

Yeah, the days of 18% mortgage interest brings back memories....

Posted by wisgod


Good memories for those who held 'em treasury notes like I begged my dad to:>/

""Yeah, the days of 18% mortgage interest brings back memories....""

You still have your WIN button???

You still have your WIN button???

Posted by danni

No, but my ass is still sore from paying my PMI during his term.

Every time he speaks he gives me flashbacks to the Cater years.

Posted by alwaysright at 2007-10-09 12:32 PM | Reply

Hey now! Those were golden times in America. Don't you remember "Inflation is your friend" ????

Soon, we'll all wear $1,000 suits and smoke $50 cigars!

Yeah, and inflation was his fault and he didn't inherit it from the Nixon/Ford era.

Riiight.

It's because Carter allowed him to get treatment here. That pissed off the Iranians.

Posted by LeeAtwater at 2007-10-09 01:30 PM | Reply

Selective history; The Iranians were pissed that the U.S. kep the Shah in power for many years, because he was a regional power in the Cold War. Allowing the guy to get medical treatment after being deposed was just one more annoyance.

Carter was (and is) an imbecile. He saw the ridiculous displays and proclaimed "The people of Iran love their Shah."

Kinda the same way this moron gets duped when he visits Cuba.

But Vernon, did he trade arms for hostages????

Don't you just hate it when criminal activity committed by the Reagan administration ruins your perfectly good attack on Jimmy Carter.

Carter is laughingstock in their little circles whereas their hero Dumbya is laughingstock in the world.

Posted by YoMeLIB at 2007-10-09 01:58 PM | Reply

This post illustrates the great divide between Democrats and Conservatives.

All obedient Dems must espouse the company line, with ABSOLUTELY no personal thoughts that may diverge. That includes total, blide defense of all Democrats, regardless if they are revolting (Kennedy) out of touch (Mondale) slimey (Clinton) or just simply foolish (Carter).

Meanwhile, I know of no person who carries such devotion to Bush, or Reagan, for that matter. Conservatives support or don't support leaders based on their positions on different matters.

It's possible to support Bush on the war and tax policy, and be very against his stances on spending and social programs (for example).

But its the Democrats who must be in perfect lockstep, lest the face banishment.

Based on the Hilldabeasts promises, including today's announcement of a Federal 401K plan, we may get to relive the glory day's again.

Reagan traded missles for the Presidency.

""Based on the Hilldabeasts promises, including today's announcement of a Federal 401K plan, we may get to relive the glory day's again.""

Oh and the policy of the FED for the past six years, the Iraq war, and the Republican Congress that spent money like a drunken sailor have not responsiblity...no it will be ....... drum roll please....Clinton's fault.

""It's possible to support Bush on the war and tax policy, and be very against his stances on spending and social programs (for example).""

Yes it's possible to be completely wrong about the war and the tax cut for the rich during war time and be right about some other things.

Talk about the Blind leading the Blind! And can't you just hear a 1941 ByJiminy Cartier: "Adolf, my friend, if you'll just turn those ovens off I'm sure we can work something out."

From Chapter 16 of Bush sr by Tarpley:>)


During 1978 and 1979, the Carter Administration deliberately toppled the Shah of Iran, and deliberately replaced him with Khomeini. The US had shipped arms to the Shah, and never stopped such shipments, despite the advent of Khomeini and the taking of US hostages. The continuity of the arms deliveries, sometimes mediated through Israel, would later lead into the Iran-contra affair. In the meantime Bush and his partners in the Israeli Mossad had sealed a pact and signalled it in public with a new ideological smoke-screen that, they hoped, would cover a new world-wide upsurge in covert operations during the 1980's.

```

Bush's biggest lift of the 1980 campaign came when he won a plurality in the January 21 Iowa caucuses, narrowly besting Reagan, who had not put any effort into the state. At this point the Brown Brothers, Harriman/Skull and Bones media operation went into high gear. That same night Walter Cronkite told viewers: "George Bush has apparently done what he hoped to do, coming out of the pack as the principal challenger to front-runner Ronald Reagan."

In the interval between January 21 and the New Hampshire primary of February 26, the Eastern Liberal Establishment labored mightily to put George Bush into power as president that same year. The press hype in favor of Bush was overwhelming. Newsweek's cover featured a happy and smiling Bush talking with his supporters: "BUSH BREAKS OUT OF THE PACK," went the headline. Smaller picutres showed a scowling Senator Baker and a decidedly un-telegenic Reagan grimacing before a microphone. The Newsweek reporters played up Bush's plan to redo the Carter script from 1976, and went on to assert that Bush's triumph in Iowa "raised the serious possibility that he could accomplish on the Republican side this year what Carter did in 1976--parlay a well-tuned personal appetite for on-the-ground campaigning into a Long March to his party's Presidential nomination." So wrote the magazine controlled by the family money of Bush's old business associate Eugene Meyer, and Bush was appreciative; doubly so for the reference to his old friend Mao.

Time, which had been founded by Henry Luce of Skull and Bones, showed a huge, grinning Bush and a smaller, very cross Reagan, headlined: "BUSH SOARS." The leading polls, always doctored by the intelligence agencies and other interests, showed a Bush boom: Lou Harris found that whereas Reagan had led Bush into Iowa by 32-6 nationwide, Bush had pulled even with Reagan at 27-27 within 24 hours after the Iowa result had become known.

Savvy Republican operatives were reported to be flocking to the Bush bandwagon.

Clausewitz once said that war was too serious to leave to the generals. Evidently, he never met the generation of chickenhawk militarists.

Oh and the policy of the FED for the past six years, the Iraq war, and the Republican Congress that spent money like a drunken sailor have not responsiblity...no it will be ....... drum roll please....Clinton's fault.

Posted by danni

If the beast gets elected, you can pile all her bullshit socialist programs on top of all the others. Do you really think she is somehow going to be *choke, choke* fiscally responsible?

Hell, if we're going to spend a ton of money, I'd rather it be for 401(k)'s, "baby bonds," "free health care," etc., than on bombing the desert and overly lucrative contracts for defense contractors. It seems like a more enjoyable way to go broke, frankly.

""Do you really think she is somehow going to be *choke, choke* fiscally responsible?""

Well we have a little past experience to depend on. Clinton = surplus, Clinton = surplus, Clinton = surplus.

BTW Wisgod, why did Bush get rid of "pay as you go?"
Isn't "Pay as you go" something fiscally responsible (haha) Republicans could believe in???
Oh no???
Oh, I forgot....tax cuts for the rich during war time is more important than a balanced budget.
....
and then just blame the consequences on a Clinton.

I see.

""Hell, if we're going to spend a ton of money, I'd rather it be for 401(k)'s, "baby bonds," "free health care," etc., than on bombing the desert and overly lucrative contracts for defense contractors.""

COMMUNIST!

Dont ya know he wishes he still had the power to order a mission abort directive just like the other one.


Blood is on your hands Mr Carter.

May this country pray for those soldiers lives lost in the dessert that day long ago.

""Blood is on your hands Mr Carter.""

If Carter had blood on his hands for the rescue attempt how much does Bush have on his now???

Then every president who orders military personnel to do anything dangerous is just as guilty.
Yours is a very disgusting, hateful comment about a man you aren't fit to shine the shoes of.

COMMUNIST!

Posted by danni at 2007-10-09 02:59 PM | Reply

Funny.

Once upon a time, I thought I was a right-winger .... then this bunch of maniacs came along.

It only makes sense to diable Iran at this point.

The two countries fate lie with each other, Armindinejad was right. Iraq security interests go hand in hand with the security interests of Iran. By weakening Iraq as we did, we left the Iranian state too strong. Which is why you have the Iranians creating chaos on the border and within Iraq.

By taking out the Planes, trains, and tanks of the terrorist organization Revolutionary Guard, we can level the playing field.

Right now Iran is on top, getting the better of Iraq. Lets stop the fight, slap Iran around, take away some of their offensive capabilities, and then let them continue to fight.......

A much fairer fight.


Nuetralizing Irans capabilities is the answer to ending this insurgency!!!

"Once upon a time, I thought I was a right-winger .... then this bunch of maniacs came along."

Posted by anton


If that isn't a Goldwater quote, it should be.

""By taking out the Planes, trains, and tanks of the terrorist organization Revolutionary Guard, we can level the playing field.""

Translation: Destroy the infrastructure of Iran and turn it into a shit hole like Iraq because AIPAC wants us to, because Bush wants another war so he can make another appearance on an aircraft carrier and make all the right wing lunatics in teh US have orgasms.
The United States is in no danger from Iran.
Deal with that.

Carter is a joke....was and still is. His opening comment in an interview last night was that we should have learned a lesson and be negotiating with Iran like he did after the Shah was overthrown. Yep....that is what he said. His comments almost beat the dannidrivel(tm) we are subjected to on the DR.

Carter has a whole team of boot lickin lackies to tongue polish his shoes, he doesn't need me to do that for him.


Persanally, yes, I could have run this country better than he did.


I sure dont miss 21% prime interest rates, and sky soaring inflation. and plummeting confidence in the economy and government in general

There is so much to miss about his administration.




Lets have another Billy Beer!!! and laugh about it.

hell, here is a towel to wipe the blood off his hands with.

Tax revenues collected reach record high under Bush.

That's ok Rideon...Dumbya can't even say the word negotiate. His brilliant idea is to bomb before we talk. And you seem to agree with him. Hmmmm.

""I sure dont miss 21% prime interest rates, and sky soaring inflation. and plummeting confidence in the economy and government in general""

And conveniently you don't blame Nixon/Ford for those things. Confidence in the government....Richard Nixon....pardon.....hmmmm.

Gerald Ford introducing WIN buttons....cuz he anticipated inflation during the Carter presidency????

""Tax revenues collected reach record high under Bush.""

And still the biggest deficit in history. Great.

Tax revenues collected reach record high under Bush.

Posted by ride_on

Rotten fucker...

I don't agree with his dumbass spending budgets...yet you seem to believe we aren't collecting enough taxes from Americans. Stay on your point if possible.

"all the presdent have blood on their hands for ordering military action"


No, just the ones who order the aborts. and then soldiers get killed in the dessert. in flaming helicopter crashes/ they run into each other, with nothing else anywhere near their airspace.


Jimmy knows about this

""I don't agree with his dumbass spending budgets...yet you seem to believe we aren't collecting enough taxes from Americans.""

Obviously we aren't collecting enough to pay the bills. When you conduct stupid wars and spend trillions it takes a lot of taxes.
We need to get rid of the tax cut for the rich and start paying down the deficit.
Even Bush's daddy raised taxes when it became necessary. He didn't like it, it probably cost him the election to Clinton, but he did it. I was not a big fan of Bush 1, but he was fifty times more responsible and intelligent than his son. I bet in private he acknowledges that fact unhappily.

Jimmy made Nixon look like not such a bad guy after all.

""No, just the ones who order the aborts. and then soldiers get killed in the dessert. in flaming helicopter crashes/ they run into each other, with nothing else anywhere near their airspace.""

1. I read that they went down in a sand storm.

2. If helicopters crash into each other because the president aborts the mission that can hardly be blamed on him. That's just plain stupid.
What's he supposed to do, say "abort the mission, but tell the pilots not to crash into each other?""
Ridiculous.
Laughable.

"When you conduct stupid wars and spend trillions it takes a lot of taxes."

Or countries willing to loan us the rope with which to hang ourselves.

Interesting how all these Tighties want to invade Iran.

Norman "I pray that we invade Iran" Podhoretz, Rudy's founding NeoCon advisor, would be proud of you all.

More bullshit, eh Corky?

""Jimmy made Nixon look like not such a bad guy after all.""

Only to those who were still thinking Nixon ever was a good guy. Some of us were smart enough to smeall a rat before he was ever president. The right wing wackos continue to this day to defend him. Hmmm...same folks who bash Carter.

You read that?

Cite your source!


I could understand my grandmother crashing a helicopter in a sandstorm, Unlike you, I have more faith in the ability of those pilots who died.

Makes sense though, highly trained and capable military pilots entering into a situation that in most likelyhood would lead to death.


Yeah, right!!!!

Trading arms for hostages and "liberating" troops from their bodies while unarmed in Lebanon is more the kind of President they prefer

Eagleztalon,

I hate to sound insensitive, but isn't it the responsibility of a helicopter pilot not to run into another helicopter? Was Carter supposed to fly the thing for him? I thought Republicans believed in personal responsibility.

This is a better reason to dislike Carter, in my opinion:

01/25/2006 12:55:33 AM EST AP WorldStream English (all)

WASHINGTON_U.S.-supplied aircraft played a crucial role in enabling the Indonesian military to crush East Timorese resistance to its invasion and occupation of the territory in the late 1970s, according to a report by an East Timor commission.

The Indonesian offensives "resulted in the severe suffering and hardship to tens of thousands of civilians sheltering in the interior at the time," the report said.

Indonesia, fearing a leftist takeover in East Timor following the end of Portuguese colonial rule in 1975, invaded the territory in late 1976 and subsequently annexed it.

According to the report, the United States felt compelled to support Indonesia's military government. The support included that of the Carter administration (1977-1981), which had made protection of human rights a centerpiece of its foreign policy, the report noted.

Efforts to reach Richard Holbrooke, a former U.N. ambassador who served as the Carter administration's top official for East Asia, were unsuccessful.

Successive U.S. administrations all consistently stressed "the overriding importance of the relationship with Indonesia and the supposed irreversibility of the Indonesian takeover," the report said.

In 1977, reports began to emerge from East Timor about Indonesia's use of U.S.-supplied OV-10 Bronco aircraft amid claims that they may have been used for spraying chemical defoliants.

The U.S. Embassy in Jakarta responded to questions from the U.S. Congress on the subject by saying it had received "no reports that Indonesians have used chemical sprays in areas" aligned with the resistance movement.

Indonesia's use of OV-10s in East Timor "has thus far been limited to machine guns, rockets, and perhaps bombs," said the recently declassified cable to the U.S. State Department.

The report was prepared by East Timor's Commission for Reception, Truth and Reconciliation (CAVR). Copies were distributed by the Washington-based National Security Archive, a research institute on international affairs.

In preparing the report, East Timorese officials received assistance from a number of foreign governments, including the United States, and international non-govenrmental organizations.

According to the study, U.S. officials generally declined to acknowledge the culpability of the Indonesian military for the large number of fatalities in East Timor.

"Instead," the report said, "they maintained that the deaths were due to drought, an argument that the commission finds to have been without merit."

East Timor was granted independence from Indonesia in May 2002. The report noted that U.S. President Bill Clinton in 1999 persuaded Indonesia to accept deployment of an international force on East Timor to help end "massive" rights violations in the territory committed by Indonesian forces and pro-Jakarta groups.

In so doing, Clinton demonstrated the "considerable leverage" that the United States could have exerted earlier had the will been there, the study said.

Sorry off topic but cannot resist,

Corky, President of the Stupid Liars Club. Has anyone got a Vice President for him? My vote is for ALLAMERICAN.

BOWA,

And we all know how much an expert Jimmy Carter is at dealing with Iran.

And we all know how much you tell the truth and accept factual information.

It is so funny now, I have caught you in the dishonest purposeful lying post and showed you the error and you still would not admit the problem but went on to say I didn't know what I was talking about.

It is the lips of the liar that conceal hostility; but he who spreads accusations is a fool.

Corky, President of the Stupid Liars Club. Has anyone got a Vice President for him? My vote is for ALLAMERICAN.

Posted by SilentMajority

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman....I nominate, from a galaxy far, far away, the one, the only, Buffalo_Bob!

"I could understand my grandmother crashing a helicopter in a sandstorm, Unlike you, I have more faith in the ability of those pilots who died.

"Makes sense though, highly trained and capable military pilots entering into a situation that in most likelyhood would lead to death.


"Yeah, right!!!!"




Posted by rush "phony soldiers" limbaugh

Who said they collided, that is what your press has led you to beleive.

An abort order from the President could lead to any number of catastophioc consequences involving rescue missions.

""An abort order from the President could lead to any number of catastophioc consequences involving rescue missions.""

Such as?????

Presidents issue orders all the time and usually the helicopters (or jets or ships, etc.) don't crash. Generally when they do it is pilot error.
You are just so intent upon blaming Carter that you make little sense.

Who said they collided, that is what your press has led you to beleive.

Posted by eagleztalon at 2007-10-09 04:01 PM | Reply

Well, no, that's what you said at 3:31 p.m.:

" .... in flaming helicopter crashes/ they run into each other .... "

Silly trolls!

When they cannot retort the facts, they make stupid attacks.

Reagan traded arms for hostages and sent 200 unarmed troops to their death. Tatoo it on your forehead.

Right next to the "666", lmao!

I could understand my grandmother crashing a helicopter in a sandstorm, Unlike you, I have more faith in the ability of those pilots who died.

Makes sense though, highly trained and capable military pilots entering into a situation that in most likelyhood would lead to death.

I find it funny that most the people blame Carter for the helicopters crashing. All of them, all at the same time in the same mission.

It strikes me funny that nothing and no one is actually looking at Reagan, he would have the most to gain but that's for those who really think Carter caused all the Helicopters to crash all at the same time.

Israel took them out with an agreement from Reagan to make President. Follow the money, it is so simple.

When they cannot retort the facts, they make stupid attacks.
Posted by Corky(tm)Stupid-liar

It strikes me funny that nothing and no one is actually looking at Reagan, he would have the most to gain but that's for those who really think Carter caused all the Helicopters to crash all at the same time.

Posted by moneywar at 2007-10-09 04:07 PM | Reply

So, Reagan crashed the helicopters?



Beam me up.

""So, Reagan crashed the helicopters?



Beam me up.""


"So the REagan administration traded arms for hostages?"

Beam me up.

Posted by danni at 2007-10-09 04:13 PM | Reply

Danni,

Are you telling me that you believe that Reagan caused those helicopters to crash? Weren't you just arguing that it was pilot error?

Iran-contra is one thing.

Conspiratorial horseshit is another.

Can we stop a second and think what those people might be feeling about the constant threat of bombing/attacking/invading their country??? Terrorism is not just about suicide bombings, we should go back and read the definitions of the word "TERRORISM".
Can we just think about those 60+MILLION PEOPLE!!!
I've always wondered how most people consciously lived and enjoyed their lives during the slaughter of million of Jews or during slavery. Reading people reactions here and in many different blogs, or in the media, it is SAD SAD SAD to see how people can consciously accept the vicious violence on other people.

""Conspiratorial horseshit is another.""

No Anton, I'm just pointing out that a criminal administration such as the REagan administration could have also committed other crimes we don't know about. I seriously doubt that they had anything to do with crashing those helicopters, it wasn't close enough to the election.

I agree with yu LENYE, it is as if Iraqis or Iranians don't feel pain like we do. I believe that George W. Bush will be considered a mass murderer by the majority of the world and here too in a decade or two.

Anton believes Carter crashed those helicopters and cannot possibly be reagan.

It is funny, but why is carter likely and reagan is not.

Just so you know, pilot error, yep, right, like hell freezes over.

Those helicopters were taken down the question is by which politician.

"Anton believes Carter crashed those helicopters and cannot possibly be reagan."

Posted by moneywar at 2007-10-09 04:25 PM | Reply

WTF?

Are you reading what I wrote?

I said I thought it was pilot error and that Carter had nothing to do with it.

I don't think Reagan, Ford, Coolidge, Van Buren or Washington did either.

Sheesh....

When they cannot retort the facts, they make stupid attacks.

Show me whwere thew fact in this statement is Corky the Stupid Liar:

"Perhaps when the Tighties show some outrage for occurrences like the appointment of 6 time convicted Iran-Contra felon Elliot Abrams"....POSTED BY CORKY THE STUPID LIAR

Retort, Oh please, retort The FACTS, PLEASE!

I'll give you a hint your either stupid or a liar until you admit to one you will always be both.

"I'll give you a hint your either stupid ..."

Tactically it is not a smart move to call someone stupid while at the same time getting the correct use of "you're" and "your" wrong.

Makes the author look, well, stupid.

Hans

The S&M troll, one of the lesser lights in the GOP universe, brings his whining from another thread.

I posted the link to that article. If you are too dumb to click it, I don't think I can help you.

But do us all a favor, take your whiny little pussy back to the original thread if you have a problem.

There is no reason to suspect Reagan and bush, none at all.......right!

The Reagan-Bush campaign was afraid Carter would rescue the hostages and win the election. Before the election, there were many rumors and security leaks about "October Surprise" hostage rescue attempt. Richard Werthlin, Reagan-Bush 1980 presidential campaign pollster, determined that an "October surprise" would end their chances of winning the election. [25]

On April 20, 1980, days before the actual mission, Mike Copeland ran a hypothetical hostage rescue story in the Washington Star that almost exactly predicted the real thing.

Members of the Reagan-Bush campaign formed the October Surprise Working Group, to keep Carter from bringing hostages successfully home. [25] Richard Allen, Reagan's foreign policy advisor, was the head of the group. The group included William Casey, Reagan's 1980 campaign manager, who was later appointed CIA director. Casey was at the heart of the Iran-Contra Scandal, and died before he could testify. The group also included Vice Presidential candidate George Bush, who was eventually elected President of the United States in 1988.

Corky has been proven a liar today. But the S&M is a nice deflection, fucking liar.

Piss off, WisShit

I provided a link for the info I posted. If you and your pussy girlfriend can't read, it's not my fault. Take it back to the orignial thread, troll.

I wasn't there neither were you. neither was the press, Just the Blessed pilots, soldiers and Carter's will and executive orders.

Carter didnt have the guts to try to rescue Americans from Tehran. He had no intention of letting those birds fly into the embassy grounds that day.

then boom! Nobody knows what happened, not you, not me, not the press.

We just know how inept our feable President was at the time.

rightoGoatman and his stupid inflation tripe.

It cracksme up on how lame they get using stupid trumped up data.

If we used the same method today as Carters time the inflation rate in Carters time would be around 3% but that doesn't fit in Rightogoatmans postulations.

Idiots!

According to the October Surprise theory, members of the Reagan-Bush campaign cut a secret deal with the Ayatollah Khomeini, to keep the hostages from being released before the November 4, 1980 presidential election.

Richard Allen met with Robert McFarlane, and an alleged Iranian emissary, in early October 1980, in Washington D.C. They allegedly made a deal to delay release of the hostages until after the election. [25] McFarlane and Allen acknowledge the meeting, but deny that a deal was cut.

Barbara Honegger, a researcher with the Reagan-Bush campaign in 1980, recalls being told then that "Dick cut a deal." i.e. Richard Allen. [2] [25] Mansur Rafisadeh, former Chief of SAVAK (the Shah's secret police), and CIA informer, said CIA elements loyal to Reagan arranged a deal to keep the hostages in Iran until Reagan was in the White House. [3] [25] Abol Hassan Bani-Sadr, president of Iran at the time of the alleged deal, said the meeting took place some time during the last two weeks in October 1980, and that Allen and McFarlane met with Hashimi Rafsanjani, speaker of the Iranian parliament, who was the main Iranian contact in subsequent secret arms trading revealed by the the Iran-Contra Scandal. [23] [25]

An investigative subcommittee chaired by Representative John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.) is looking into contacts between Iran and the 1980 Reagan-Bush campaign. [24]

VI. The Release of the Hostages

In October 1980, the Carter Administration finally negotiated an agreement between the US and Iran, to unfreeze Iranian assets for the return of the hostages. As a result, the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal is set up at the Hague. [19]

On October 22, the Iranians' persistent demand of U.S. weapons was suddenly dropped. [25] Bani-Sadr says the demands were dropped because there were two separate agreements: the official one with Carter in Algeria, and the secret one with the Reagan campaign, that the hostages should not be released during Carter's Administration. In return, Reagan would give them arms.

"Once upon a time, I thought I was a right-winger .... then this bunch of maniacs came along."

Posted by anton


If that isn't a Goldwater quote, it should be.

Posted by Zatoichi


FF

Lou that's right... Talk of killing an Old man... Shows your manhood....

Posted by Chill at 2007-10-09 12:47 PM |


Chill, I mean relax. Danni made me due it.

If we used the same method today as Carters time the inflation rate in Carters time would be around 3% but that doesn't fit in Rightogoatmans postulations.


I'm not comparing it to today's data. I'm comparing 1975-1976 data to 1977 to 1981data. Or didn't your read my post? Or are you saying the data is different for the four years Carter was president than the two before? Stop knee jerking, and defending the POS Carter.

If these aren't valid comparisons -- prove it or shut up moneywar.

Idiot.

rightoGoatman and his stupid inflation tripe.

righto. moneywar and his stupid, baseless kneejerk with no data to back it up his drivel

I provided a link for the info I posted. If you and your pussy girlfriend can't read, it's not my fault. Take it back to the orignial thread, troll.


Posted by Corky
Translation: I'm a fucking liar.

According to the October Surprise theory,

Yep, Carter did it, yeah sure youbetcha!

Posted by moneywar at 2007-10-09 05:21 PM

Do you know the meaning of the word "theory" moneywar?

Idiot

come on jimmeh ! It would only cost peanuts , you can pay for it yo ownself .

Well we have a little past experience to depend on. Clinton = surplus, Clinton = surplus, Clinton = surplus.

Posted by danni at 2007-10-09 02:58 PM | Reply

Danni, you always forget the rest of the sentence: Clinton = surplus thanks to Reagan tax cuts

Aw rightogoat,

are you upset, your pejorical nonesense is just idiotic.

You know it, we know it but yet you try and try to postulate bogus assumptions without ever looking at all the data.

Carter was politically outplayed by the Republican party in all respects through nafarious means.

The funny thing about this is you don't see that the Republican party was and did hurt all of America to gain political leverage to the white house.

The Republican party was not concerned for the citizens and the citizens well being. And you support such things. Glad to see such patriotism!

Danni, you always forget the rest of the sentence: Clinton = surplus thanks to Reagan tax cuts

Now I have to laugh at this to no end.

So you should not have a problem with having your taxes raised because the government will now lose money and you will get a surplus of money.

Your logic is way out there.

are you upset, your pejorical nonesense is just idiotic.


What nonesense? If that inflation data is erroneous, I challenge you to prove it. Put up or shut up, moneywar!

(two times)

Crasswar-

As much as you would like to believe that Goatman and I are the same person, he's much more mechanically inclined then I am...but he also has called bullshit on your financialsense.com nonsense, so I can see where you would get us confused.

"the rest of the sentence: Clinton = surplus thanks to Reagan tax cuts"

What a buffoonish statement. Where on earth do you get that nonsense?

Goat-

Crasswar can't prove his data is right, and refuses to even look at how the CPI-U actually tracks price fluctuations, notwithstanding his cut and pastes from some website that advocates a return to the gold standard...cutting edge stuff.

Rightogoatman,

I don't give a hoot about any challange you could present, it would serve no purpose because you're just the same as the likes of BOWA.

You have your own beliefs and when faced with altering ideals you are unwilling to accept those ideals but infact dismiss them out of hand.

You blind party partisanship makes you ignorant to the realities of what occurs.

The great thieving our our government began during this era, particularly from the oil wealth but oops, that happens to be your trade!

Inflation numbers would be 3% if we used our current method of figuring to Carters time. You don't like that because it means the current inflation numbers are way out of wack and therefore puts your whole statements in a delusional mode.

You sew what you reap!!!!!

What a buffoonish statement. Where on earth do you get that nonsense?

Posted by Danforth at 2007-10-09 06:27 PM

Although I wince everytime someone uses the old "Vernon's calculator" retort, I am with you on that one.

Oh, look now, Goatman has posted his alter ego Rightocenter, now that is rich!

Hey, shall I ask Crassus to post and have me post at the same time too!

What a putze!!!!

Inflation numbers would be 3% if we used our current method of figuring to Carters time. You don't like that because it means the current inflation numbers are way out of wack and therefore puts your whole statements in a delusional mode.

The CPI-U is always evaluated and changed to reflect current reality, but your basic premise that the CPI stopped counting housing purchases and oil in the early 80's has been shown to be farcical: Real estate purchases are listed under the heading Owners' equivalent rent of primary residence, which in 2007 is 23.83% of the entire index, and oil (which is not a consumer good, since we don't purchase light crude to refine ourselves) is listed under Household Energy (4.8%) and Motor Fuel (4.3%). Between the two, they account for one third of the CPI.

"Although I wince everytime someone uses the old "Vernon's calculator" retort, I am with you on that one."

It's just frustrating to try to debate economic theory and principles with someone who obviously would flunk the first Econ 101 midterm.

Tax revenues 8 years into your term are based on the fourth tax code before you took office, more than a decade before?!? In what Bizzarro World?

What a putze!!!!

Posted by moneywar at 2007-10-09 06:33 PM

Projection fits you nicely.

$$sus-

Funny that you link to the Ron Paul thread, since you failed to specifically respond to any of my comments about the CPI-U and the "basket of goods" that comprises it other then to refer back to financialsense.com.

Rightogoatman,

I failed nothing, Your site just shows inflation rate through history, it does nothing to show the changes in the way stats are taken but you know this but continue to postulate it is correct.

I notice you never addressed the real issue that the inflation taken now is incorrect due to the flawed way it is minipulating the data.

It clearly shows your ignorance here and the willingness to continue down a road of hurting all of America at the expense of your party partisanship.

Truth is not what you seek, party power is though.

It's like vern saying cutting taxes increases revenue, we all know that to be quite false but still he believes it regardless of the information showing his untrue postulation.

You all are like Bush in every respect, not interested in the real data and truth, just minipulate it to support your ideas.

I was raised in such an environment that this sort of thing is just plain lying. I can see your parents didn't hold to this ideal but you seem to think you're of the moral majority. Now that is the real laugh!

RoC

Rightocentergoatman,

Posted by moneywar at 2007-10-09 06:43 PM |

Is this true? Are you a lawyer with your office set up on an oil rig? *grin*

Just by common sense one could figure out the inflation numbers are bogus.

3% a year for last 20 years but look at wages.

Oops! That pesky little common sense of wages to prices can't be used in inflation data ......... right!!!

What was the average cost of housing in 1980 and the wage of 1980 to the cost of housing now and the wage now?

Nope, you wouldn't want to address this because the actual facts would make you look quite silly.

Crasswar-

The funny thing about your blind insistence that the CPI has been manipulated is your lack of a credible source. If you examine the historical data on the CPI website you will see that the only thing that changes is the % of relative importance that an item gets-if it gets more expensive (i.e. housing) it gets a higher %. There was a change in how housing is accounted for, but contrary to what your sources say, once the CPI shifted from the asset price method to the Owners Rent Equivalent method they use now the relative importance actually increased.

Here is a discussion of that change from the BLS website:

Rental Equivalence--Background
Until the early 1980s, the CPI used what is called the asset price method to measure the change in the costs of owner-occupied housing. The asset price method treats the purchase of an asset, such as a house, as it does the purchase of any consumer good. Because the asset price method can lead to inappropriate results for goods that are purchased largely for investment reasons, the CPI implemented the rental equivalence approach to measuring price change for owner-occupied housing. It was implemented for the CPI-U in January 1983 and for the CPI for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) in January 1985.

Rental equivalence. This approach measures the change in the price of the shelter services provided by owner-occupied housing. Rental equivalence measures the change in the implicit rent, which is the amount a homeowner would pay to rent, or would earn from renting, his or her home in a competitive market. Clearly, the rental value of owned homes is not an easily determined dollar amount, and Housing survey analysts must spend considerable time and effort in estimating this value.

When initially introduced, the rental equivalence index's monthly movement was calculated by reweighting the rent sample to represent owner-occupied units. Starting with the CPI for January 1987, the rental equivalence index movement was based on changes in the implicit rents of a sample of owner-occupied units. As part of the 1987 revision, BLS drew a new housing sample to replace the old rent sample. The new sample had both owner- and renter-occupied housing units. To estimate the change in the implicit rents of the owners, the CPI:

Estimated initial implicit rents by asking the CPI data collectors to work with the owners themselves to estimate the units' potential rent.

Measured the change in implicit rents over time by matching owner units to renter units with similar characteristics. The characteristics included location, structure type, and other general traits such as age, number of rooms, and type of air conditioning.

Derived the change in the implicit rent for each owner unit in the sample from the change in the actual rents of its matched set of renters.

Because owners pay for utilities separately, the CPI calculated the pure rent of the matched renters by removing the value of any landlord-provide utilities and furniture. The implicit rents of the owner units were moved by the changes in the pure rents of the matched renters.

I know it has a lot of big words, but if you sound them out, you can probably get through it.

This is your problem, not mine.

You just keep believing inflation is 2.7%, it does your party good!

Rightogoat,

Just look at your post and tell me you don't see anything invalid about it in computing the inflation index.

You prove my point exactly and you're to ignorant to understand.

Big words apparently is not a problem for you, it is understanding them!

What was the average cost of housing in 1980 and the wage of 1980 to the cost of housing now and the wage now?

Nope, you wouldn't want to address this because the actual facts would make you look quite silly.

Posted by moneywar at 2007-10-09 07:08 PM

Here are the CPI stats from 1978, using the "former" method and the "current" method.

Relative importance for asset purchase method of home ownership, 1978: 13.73% When the CPI went to the rent equivalent method in 1982, it shifted to 18.18%. The 2007 importance: 23.83%

Now you wonder about wages, and what impact that has. The CPI creates a CONSUMER PROFILE which tracks changes in demographic characteristics of urban households used in calculation of the Consumer Price Index. In 1978, the household income of the consumer profile was $12,332, in 1982 it was $23,183 and in 2006 it was $57,551. What is more germane, however is the Consumer Expenditure Report, which takes the actual expenditures by families across a wide range of incomes and analyzes that data, then applies it to the relative importances.

Rant all you want after reading your conspiracy websites, but the CPI-U has tracked all of your stated increases over the years, if you take the time to find the data.

You prove my point exactly and you're to ignorant to understand.

Big words apparently is not a problem for you, it is understanding them!

Posted by moneywar at 2007-10-09 07:19 PM

Okay, explain to me how an adjustment upwards in the cost of housing through a change in methodology proves your point that the government is adjusting the CPI down every chance it gets and doesn't include housing or oil.

Crasswar-

This is your problem, not mine.

That's like saying "I know your are, but what am I". C'mon dude, you can do much better then that.

your=you

Is this true? Are you a lawyer with your office set up on an oil rig? *grin*



Posted by CalifChris at 2007-10-09 07:06 PM

Yep, the Century Plaza Towers are actually a very clever set of triangular oil rigs set right on the edge of Beverly Hills so that Big Oil can tap what little oil remains of the Baldwin Hills and West LA fields.

That's like saying "I know your are, but what am I". C'mon dude, you can do much better then that.

Earlier:


Projection fits you nicely.

LOL!!!!!

RoC

Yep, the Century Plaza Towers are actually a very clever set of triangular oil rigs set right on the edge of Beverly Hills so that Big Oil can tap what little oil remains of the Baldwin Hills and West LA fields.

Good one, RoC! LOL

I don't give a hoot about any challange you could present,

Of course you don't, moneywar. The truth ruins your little fantasy world. I fully understand.
What a loser.

Not to change the subject $war, but how's Larry? Hope you're happy.

Inflation numbers would be 3% if we used our current method of figuring to Carters time.

Then the ones under nixon/ford would be proportionatly lower too. My statement that inflation went down steadily for two years before Carter (1975-1977) until carter, then it started to rise every month from 1977-1981) is still true. It has nothing to do how inflation is measured today as I"ve pointed out, idiot.

But obviously this concept is lost on your pea brain, so I'll stop knocking myself out trying to explain it to you. If you ever grow a brain, re-read the data and it'll make sense.

Sorry to have to rub your face in it, but I am right and you are wrong. Prove it otherwise if you can. HA!

I have already done this, just because you refuse to admit this is the current state of how we collect our inflation data is not my problem.


As I keep telling yourk stupidwar, I am talking about the 70s. WHy do you keep bringing up today? Why? Because it is the best deflection you can come up with. And it's a piss poor one.

Better luck next time, loserwar.

I notice you never addressed the real issue that the inflation taken now is incorrect due to the flawed way it is minipulating the data.

And I noticed you never addressed the issue that the two sets of numbers I am comparing both come from the 70s and have nothing to do with your stupid argument, moneyless -- I mean centsless.

Well Once Bush Bombs Iran The Entire Southern Portion Of Iraq Will Fight US Forces, No One Ever Thinks Of That.

Like The Shiah Will Just Sit Back And Not Do A Thing, Does Anyone Know How Many Iranian Are Already In Iraq ? No One Watches That Southern Border Even Less Than Ours. The Brits Only Have 5,000 Troops In The South And They Are Hemmed Up On An Airbase Now.

-Sarge

Moneywar, why is it so hard for you to admit you are wrong? The data I provided clearly shows that inflation went down for the two years before Carter and started rising almost as soon as he went into office and continued to do so for four years.

You can deflect to changing data in th 90s or whatever. But that has nothing to do with the 70s.

I've seen you wrong on other things before too, but even when the undisputable facts are given to you, you will not admit your error. Is it so painful for you do so? Is your head so big and you think so highly of yourself that you can't bring yourself to do it? What's the deal?

It's your inability to admit error that makes people like me disbelieve everything else you say.

Got your WIN button?

PS, moneypenny, as you know my original retort way up above was for Danni. She isn't able to admit her mistake either. But at least she's smart enough to let it die and not keep on and on with stupid irrelevant deflections. Take a lesson, dude.

Hey rightogoatman,

I see you got the wages, now get the housing "prices."

I see you try and convolute with some type of percentage bull shit. Get the house prices so we can all see you full of shit.

Here I will do it for you:

1978 $48,700 medium home price
1983 $70,300
2007 $246,200

Wages

1978 12,000
1982 23,000
2006 57,000

and I have to laugh at your wages you use because they are inflated too.

2006 average wage for family of 4 was 42,000 but I will let your numbers slide.

But this clearly shows how flawed your inflation value post is in reality.

Take a lesson, dude.

Posted by goatman

Corky was a lying little Lib today too. What's up with L.L.L. (Lying Little Libs)?

Rightogoatman,

I have not said your data is wrong unless you mean now in 2007.

I have said you are looking at this wrong and the data you use doesn't reflect the reality of what you are trying to say.

Using Carter to Bush cannot be done unless you use the same input values and statistical measures and you are clearly not doing this.

The data has to be computed the same, identically, in order to make such a comparison.

You can convolute the argument anyway you want but the simple facts of the matter is you are denying.

Not to change the subject $war, but how's Larry? Hope you're happy.

Posted by wisgod at 2007-10-09 07:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

I don't know, how is Larry?

Happy???? About what?

Why do you keep ignoring the my original point moneywar? Deflections wont' make it go away, you know.

I was right, you are wrong.

Inflation went down 1975-1977 (Nixon/Ford)
Inflation went up 1977-1981 (Carter)

quit deflecting to 1990 and admit it.

BTW, I didn't post the stuff you are crediting to me in your post above, asshole. But you'll not admit that error either, of course.

What a loser.

Then the ones under nixon/ford would be proportionatly lower too

You crack me up.

You clearly don't understand, it would not go up.

Through substitutions, alternate pricing and such the value of inflation will always stay around 3%.

You clearly show you lack the understanding in how the inflation numbers are now posted.

Happy???? About what?

Posted by moneywar

That's what I expected. 5 days ago, and your memory is akin to strawberry jello.

I have not said your data is wrong unless you mean now in 2007.

I guess I misintepreted these statements you made:

rightoGoatman and his stupid inflation tripe.


your pejorical nonesense is just idiotic.

You know it, we know it but yet you try and try to postulate bogus assumptions without ever looking at all the data.

I have already done this, just because you refuse to admit this is the current state of how we collect our inflation data is not my problem.

But obviously this concept is lost on your pea brain, so I'll stop knocking myself out trying to explain it to you. If you ever grow a brain, re-read the data and it'll make sense.

This is what is so funny, you are the one who doesn't understand the data.

Trying to compare two different time periods using different formulas and saying see, thats bad and this is good.

Idiotic, use one formula and make the comparison and then lets see who is wrong.

Stop being so obtuse in such a common sense comparison.

I point out your reasoning flaw and you just can't take that but then, as like a child, you state you win.

I didn't know this was win or lose, funny though, who is judging the win or lose?

Again the win or lose fits right in with "I know you are but what am I" mentality.

You clearly show you lack the understanding in how the inflation numbers are now posted.

Will you please tell me about how "numbers are now posted" have to do with numbers from 1970s ONLY? No "now" numbers. Get it?

Either you are so stupid you can't grasp this simple concept or you are severely trolling. Either one makes you a loser. So have your last word (you ARE clearly a last word freak) and be gone. I've no more use for idiots or trolls.

Later, loser.

The right wing wackos continue to this day to defend him. Hmmm...same folks who bash Carter.

Posted by danni at 2007-10-09 03:41 PM | Reply


Posted by danni at 2007-10-09 03:41 PM | Reply

Who's defending Nixon?

Some of his policies were sound, and those deserve to be commended. But I don't see anybody on the right giving Nixon blind apologetics; certainly not the way you are mindlessly blowing Carter.

Trying to compare two different time periods

1975-1977 -- one time period
1977-1981 -- another time period

How are they different?

(I'll bet he still doesn't get it. That's how dumb he is)

Money
If it's any consolation, I agree with you. I won't dispute Goat's statistics. The costs of the Vietnam war and Johnson's social programs put a big bulge in federal spending. The deficits put a strain on the dollar, forcing Nixon to take the dollar off the gold standard. Without the discipline of the gold standard, federal spending started going exponential. Carter inherited those rising expenses, but also made the mistake of appointing a Federal Reserve chairman, Miller, who ran the printing presses full blast. Greenspan and Bernanke both come from the school that thinks printing massive amounts of money can keep the economy stable. There's going to be hell to pay when the shit starts flying.

ROC buys the nonsense that homes are an asset that shouldn't be counted as a consumer cost. He's deluded. Cheap credit led to inflation in housing costs. At the same time, it increased rental vacancies and put downward pressure on rents, making the CPI look good. That should start to reverse as consumers have to give up their homes.

1975-1977 -- one time period
My father died. I was single. I returned to college after becoming disillusioned with humanity as a result of an obscenely lucrative career in broadcasting. People are stupid, Americans moreso.

1977-1981 -- another time period
I finished my BA. I got married. My son was born.


Got that WIN button?

Zat got a BA. I thought you had a PhD in physics? That would explain your ignorance of the scientific method.

Got that WIN button?

Yes

I'll cash it in for a bottle of Patron in two weeks, three days.

"Zat got a BA. I thought you had a PhD in physics? That would explain your ignorance of the scientific method.

Posted by Ray"


Dear "engineer".

I have NEVER claimed to have a doctorate.
You are a liar. What a surprise.


I took my M.A. in physics in 1983.
Then I left graduate school because Motorola offered $$$.
We made perfect yields, fact.
Deal with it.

I have already published my curriculum vita in detail on this website.


By the by, imjbecile, speaking of the scientific method, try starting with data, not conclusions.

Anthropogenic CO2 is 24% of the atmosphere.

No intent to lie. I said I thought. How do you go from a Bachelor of Arts to an MA in physics?

Anthropogenic CO2 24% of the atmosphere? Who the hell are you trying to bullshit? Without looking up the exact numbers, O2 is roughly 20%, N roughly 80%. There is about 5% other gases.

1975-1977 -- one time period
1977-1981 -- another time period

I have to laugh at this, you clearly don't understand and frankly are being very disengenuous as to the level of your antics.

As Ray has pointed out there was a huge amount of things at play, but you dismiss these as not relevant.

Are you saying that making comparisons of two complete different times using two complete different formulas is correct in said comparisons.

It certainly sounds like you are saying this.

Carter--UGH!

As for diplomacy--

It depends on how it is approached from the two sides.

If folks are entering diplomacy for strategy--like give me something in return for something--Diplomacy can work great--ie North Korea--took a couple of years--but they are behaving to an acceptable level and getting aid in return.

But if folks are trying diplomacy under ideology--the road to success through diplomacy is likely to fail. ie--Iran---their ideology is in the way of diplomacy working. They are not in the mood to trade something for something. They want nukes--they want to process nukes--they are entitled and Allah has ordained it to them.

How does a diplomat get around that elephant in the room? It's really hard to negotiate with a madman...

Murphy

I have to laugh at this, you clearly don't understand and frankly are being very disengenuous as to the level of your antics.

As I suspected, you can't explain the difference in data (of course you can't -- there is none) even though you maintain there is one. And you can't even be original with the deflections anymore. You have to fall back on the overused "disengnenous" ploy.

What a huge surprise, loser.

Dang--Ron Paul gets really excited about Iran--

Huckabee gave a good answer--about the hypothetical on Iran and imminent threat.

McCain is so tired--

Thompson--ho hum...


Murphy

Yes rightogotman, all the data is collected and used the same way and has since the dawn of time.

They continue to always use the same products as the values and so therefore we can assume the comparisons are valid.

Yes, I see you understand quite well, and by your use of data the world is flat.

What a huge surprise, loser.

Now we are back at I know you are but what am I routine!

Zat... where the HELL did you get this number???

Anthropogenic CO2 is 24% of the atmosphere.

And you are supposed to have been to college????

21% OXYGEN (O2)
78% NITROGEN (N2)
0.04% CARBON DIOXIDE (CO2)
~0.9% ARGON (Ar)

Does that look even CLOSE to 24%? Even if you were talking about anthropogenic CO2 is 24% of the CO2 in the atmosphere then you are still talking about it being only 0.0096% of the atmosphere.

Murphy-
The position the Bush administration has taken regarding North Korea is precisely the one they ridiculed and abandoned six years ago. The result: The Clinton approach, but with a North Korea a nice stash of nuclear weapons. What "took a few years" was the Bush admin. realizing how badly they'd fucked up.

The Clinton approach, . . .

. . . was feed 'em and give 'em a nuclear reactor.

The food was given to the army which was at the time ready to mutiny because they were so poorly taken care of. This made the army happy and freed up resources to help 'em build nuclear bombs.

Yea, Clinton.

"Murphy-
The position the Bush administration has taken regarding North Korea is precisely the one they ridiculed and abandoned six years ago. The result: The Clinton approach, but with a North Korea a nice stash of nuclear weapons. What "took a few years" was the Bush admin. realizing how badly they'd fucked up."

Posted by Cooper at 2007-10-09 10:16 PM


Bravo Well Stated !!

-Sarge

Zat says I took my M.A. in physics in 1983.

M.A. in physics? That doesn't make sense. B.A., M.A., those are liberal arts degrees. You have some explaining to do.

Goatman-
re: The Clinton approach, . . .

Is now the Bush approach, but with NK in a much stronger position.

Goatman-
re: This made the army happy and freed up resources to help 'em build nuclear bombs.

First, the Clinton-brokered arrangement shut down the facilities useful in the production of plutonium weapons and agreed to help finance a power production under supervision by the UN, and backed by US power. Bush abandoned this, NK broke the seals on the old facility, kicked out the monitors, and proceeded to build plutonium bombs.

Six years later, Bush returns to negotiation with a nuclear powerhouse. But at least we're in Iraq...

Rather--

Clinton's negotiation failed--they didn't include the neighbors--which is what Bush insisted on..

And the inspectors failed--they were either kicked out or didn't realize something was wrong when they were inspecting.

It was a huge embarrassment to Clinton when the news came out that the little man with elevated shoes had developed the very thing that they claimed was not being developed.

Murphy

Zat says I took my M.A. in physics in 1983.

M.A. in physics? That doesn't make sense. B.A., M.A., those are liberal arts degrees. You have some explaining to do.

Indeed. Should I hold my breath while waiting for an explanation that makes sense? Nahhhhh. After all, this is the same guy that claimed the atmosphere was 24% anthropogenic CO2.

Murphy-
re: And the inspectors failed--they were either kicked out or didn't realize something was wrong when they were inspecting.

You don't really know what happened, though that's not surprising. They were kicked out, but we were too busy going to war with Iraq so we could strengthen the worst elements in Iran and enhance the recruiting of jihadists globally while allowing al Qaeda to both survive and resurface strengthened and refreshed.

Quite the list of accomplishments Bush has racked up.

'night

Good night, Cooper. You're leaving early?

Nite Boyd--


Murphy

"First, the Clinton-brokered arrangement shut down the facilities useful in the production of plutonium weapons and agreed to help finance a power production under supervision by the UN, and backed by US power. Bush abandoned this, NK broke the seals on the old facility, kicked out the monitors, and proceeded to build plutonium bombs."

All The While Donald Rumsfeld Backed The Company That Built The The Reactors.

-Sarge

What year did the NK break the seals? And work secretly on their nuke tasks??

And I was talking about diplomacy and how if someone is a fanatic--it won't work.

It can work great when there is a position of strategy from the parties.

Murphy

What year did the NK break the seals? And work secretly on their nuke tasks??

December 2002, North Korea informed IAEA inspectors that the freeze on nuclear facility use would be lifted. North Korea also announced their intent to remove IAEA seals and disable surveillance cameras. Removal of those seals and the dismantling of IAEA monitoring equipment began in late December 2002 and on December 27, North Korea ordered IAEA inspectors to leave the country. On January 11, 2003, North Korea announced its withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Goodnight Boyd/Badweek/erCooper.....plus your many other since abondoned names.

That the misfit, Jimmy Carter, still has the temerity to volunteer advice after his disastrous efforts during his term as President, indicates that he is either unaware of his ineptitude, or that he has no shame.

Well, he's also the friend of leftist dictators. And you can count on Jimmy to monitor elections and find them fair regardless of the fact that exit polls showed the great majority of people stating they voted otherwise than the vote count indicated. Viva the Venezuelan dictator. He's closed down the opposition media, and ...

Oh Jimmy, your buddy Dictator El Presidente Chavez, has become abstemious after meeting with his good buddy, the Iranian President, another anti-American. Now El Presidente wants to ban liquor.

Jimmy, your only vindication is that the next Democrat President was arguably worse than you were, a sociopathic philanderer without the self-control necessary to limit expression of his impulses during his term of office, and he mercilessly bombed Serbian civilian targets, and he pretended that terrorist attacks on Americans were "a police matter," and he and his spouse were on the take with deal after deal, and he released critical scientific and technological information to China, and ...

But I'm in your corner, Jimmy. No one exceeded your incompetence as President.

Sit down and shut up, Jimmy. You're an embarrassment. Your handlers should take you out of the limelight and allow you to finish your benighted existence in obscurity. Rest easy, Jimmy. Death will come to you as it does to all men. But , of course, you will be blessed with life eternal. Or will you? The good men do dies with them and is interrd with their bones. The evil that they do lives after them. You are a most vile and disgusting excuse for a human being, Jimmy Carter. What a horrible legacy you leave.

Cowardly buffoons like Johnson have made it so that I am ashamed at the narrow minded hateful nation we have become. Not that it matters to any of you ggop buttkissers, but I consider you all to be scum who have done more to harm my country they any foreign terrorist group could hope to inflict in 100 years.

I have come to the conclusion, after thinking a lot about it, that Bush/Cheney's war in Iraq has, inadvertently, probably been the best thing that could have happened.

Because we are in a huge quagmire, and because most U.S. citizens now realize how we were lied to in order for the Neocons to get the go ahead for their pre-emptive war in Iraq, those 4 years of non-stop carnage have helped to squelch the Neocons' plans for a war with Iran because Americans see the Neocons' motives for what they really are.

If the Iraq war had not happened, America would have been lied to and easily duped into a war with Iran -- just as we were with Iraq. Now America again hears the war drums and is given one excuse after the other to justify nuking Iran. But no one in our country believes the Neocons anymore -- no one. The Iraq war and all our troops' blood shed for that war has actually helped stop what would have been an even bigger disaster by far -- nuclear war with Iran.

America to Bush/Cheney = "Fool us once, shame on you, fool us twice? Ain't gonna happen.

You sew what you reap!!!!!

Posted by moneywar at 2007-10-09 06:31 PM


Precious....

Not so if you're sowing Monsanto.

I almost forgot.

A nine in time saves a stitch.

Looks like all 16 of Bush's remaining diehard supporters post at Drudge.

Not to worry, the other 300,000,000 of us know the score.

"You are a most vile and disgusting excuse for a human being, Jimmy Carter. What a horrible legacy you leave."

Posted by Johnson at 2007-10-10 12:21 AM


Man, you really, really need to seek professional help. It's people like you that are dragging this country into the toilet.

This clown JOHNSON's attacks on Jimmy Carter aren't worthy of anger. Pure stupidity isn't a threat to President Carter's legacy. Pure stupidity is the author of George W. Bush's legacy.

"Pure stupidity isn't a threat to President Carter's legacy. Pure stupidity is the author of George W. Bush's legacy."

Remember, Danni, the same author said this:

"President George W. Bush will be ruled by history to be a great man, a visionary with an epic view of events."

Posted by Johnson at 2007-10-09 05:05 PM

Ya, sure

We'll all be sure to catch George W Bush accepting HIS Nobel Peace Prize

-No one exceeded your incompetence as President.

Somebody's Johnson is so far up GW's ass he can't tell GW from Jimmah.

We'll all be sure to catch George W Bush accepting HIS Nobel Peace Prize

Didn't you hear? Norman Podhoretz and Sean Hannity are buying the Nobel committee.

Right, Carter was so good at diplomacy that he turned his back on the Shah of Iran while at the same time practically inviting the radical Ayatollah to take control. In my opinion, Carter was the worst and weakest President that the United States has ever elected. Why should anyone want to take advice from him?

Posted by Republican4ever at 2007-10-09 01:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

LOL.

Too funny. You worship a man-boy who couldn't get the man who killed 3000 American civilians and then decides to go to Iraq and turns that place into a nightmare AND NOW he wants to go into Iran.

The ADD is in overdrive with the Faux-Cowboy In Chief.

Yup, Carter is weak because the Iranisns wouldn't negotiate with him and Bush doesn't consider the man who killed 3000 American civilians as a priority (his own words), so Bush is 'strong'. What a joke.

Bush. Worst president ever.

Yup, Carter is weak because the Iranisns wouldn't negotiate with him and Bush doesn't consider the man who killed 3000 American civilians as a priority (his own words), so Bush is 'strong'. What a joke.


Bush. Worst president ever.

Posted by COMMONSENSE at 2007-10-10 01:17 PM

COMMONSENSE, we are still pursuing OBL. Eventually, we will capture him. I can see it now. When we finally get him, you and yours on the left will claim that capturing him is not a big deal since he's been marginalized for quite some time now.

However, I disagree that Bush has been the worst President ever. Who can ever forget the "misery index" that Carter invented to bash President Ford. Four years later, it became Carter's ball and chain.

REPUBLICAN4EVER

You forgot to paste the best part of his quote. Sadly true,,,

"Too funny. You worship a man-boy who couldn't get the man who killed 3000 American civilians and then decides to go to Iraq and turns that place into a nightmare AND NOW he wants to go into Iran."

What about that disturbs you so much? That Bush hasn't gotten 'dead or alive' Bin Laden or that he turned Iraq into a nightmare?

And you gusy bitch about Carter not being able to get hostages spread across Iran when Bush can't get ONE guy who killed a lot of our citizens?

Why not bitch about arming Iran with missles and the like that Reagan did, or do you support those that kidnapped our Americans that much?

"we are still pursuing OBL. Eventually, we will capture him"

Ah, yes, but of course: Faith trumps reason.

We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.

I should think most of the Bushies own at least a chunk of the Brooklyn Bridge by now.

COMMONSENSE, we are still pursuing OBL. Eventually, we will capture him. I can see it now. When we finally get him, you and yours on the left will claim that capturing him is not a big deal since he's been marginalized for quite some time now.

However, I disagree that Bush has been the worst President ever. Who can ever forget the "misery index" that Carter invented to bash President Ford. Four years later, it became Carter's ball and chain.

Posted by Republican4ever at 2007-10-10 01:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

When Hillary catches Osama Bin Laden, I'm sure the republicans will say that they 'loosened the cap for her' and claim it was just a political stunt.

Carter was the last decent President -
Kennedy before that, at least they didnt have Carter killed for being true to America. JFK betrayed his daddies friends and foudn out the hard way you dont fuck with the invisible hand.

Repug - you must be very young and do not remember what Carter brought.

1) He is responsible for putting Kommani in power ( and the enslavement of the entire populace of IRAN - and the problems we face today.)

2) His economic policy's generated high unemployment (7%) and High inflation (13%)- Gas Lines? Remember them?

3) Our military was gutted - a decline of of 20% in funding which resulted in our helicopters crashing in the desert due to lack of maintenance when we tried to rescue the hostages....Carter wasn't able to rescue the hostages but Bush was able to kick Saddams Ass.

4) His great "Malayse" speach where he blamned the America People instead of his own lack of leadership.

Please read your history - Carter was the worst

Typical - instead of arguing the point you pick on the spelling because I am typing fast while doing something else.

Yet you do not counter any of the facts...

As to gas lines - yes there were gas lines in 74 but there were also lines in 79 - both due to price controls.

From PBS on Carter "On June 30, 1979, a weary Jimmy Carter was looking forward to a few days' vacation in Hawaii, as Air Force That week, the energy crisis that Carter had been trying to avoid since taking office had finally erupted. The OPEC oil producers' cartel had recently announced another in a series of oil price increases that sent gasoline prices skyrocketing and led to severe shortages. Long gas-pump lines and short tempers started in California and spread eastward, focusing Americans' outrage over a seemingly endless economic decline."

Typical PBS - they missed the underlying situation. The year prior - due to pressure by the environmentalist - we had to shut down 2 refineries and hundreds of oil wells.

Just as today - oil prices are going up but gas is going down - why? - refining capacity.

"instead of arguing the point"

Make a point and it will be argued.

"Yet you do not counter any of the facts..."

What "facts"?

"both due to price controls."

Oops:

"oil prices are going up but gas is going down"

Someone's borrowed vern's calculator.

Hans

Hans,

I think you need to read your history.

"The 1979 (or second) oil crisis in the United States occurred in the wake of the Iranian Revolution. Amid massive protests, the Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, fled his country in early 1979, allowing Ayatollah Khomeini to gain control. The protests shattered the Iranian oil sector. While the new regime resumed oil exports, it was inconsistent and at a lower volume, forcing prices to go up. Saudi Arabia and other OPEC nations, under the presidency of Dr. Mana Alotaiba increased production to offset the decline, and the overall loss in production was about 4%. However, a widespread panic resulted, driving the price far higher than would be expected under normal circumstances. In the United States, the Carter administration instituted price controls.[1]"

So price controls hit both times...without price controls in 1979 the prices would have fallen very quickly once the additional production was on line. In addition, the closing down of US domestic production and capacity under Carter was what extended the situation.

AS to the Points - 1) Price controls - Proven
2) Carter allowing the communist / facists to sieze control - Proven 3)Military gutted under Carter - happy to prove if you do not believe me. 4)Carter is a spineless anti-american idiot like you. Pure conjecture on my part.

"1) Price controls - Proven"

Price controls work? Interesting.

"2) Carter allowing the communist / facists to sieze control - Proven"

A meaningless comment (communist / facists).

"3)Military gutted under Carter..."

You mean the peace dividend from the end of the Vietnam war?

"4)...Pure conjecture on my part."

No argument there.

Hans

"Pure conjecture on my part."

We expect no less.

And on that upbeat note... good night!

Hans

Foshaffer-
Which, of course, is why the Reagan administration illegally sold arms to Iran. But Reagan(tm), by definition, wasn't "anti-american".

Badweek/Barney/Douche/Boyd/
Cooper... oh I forgot the question.

Sorry - I thought you could follow logic.

Price controls do not work - that is what was proven. Thought you could follow the context...should have known better.

The discussion was on Carter status as a president and you think that the fact that he allowed the current group to take control of Iran is a "meaningless comment". Where is your head?

The concept of a "Peace Dividend" did not show up until after the fall of the Berlin Wall (Thanks RR)- he (Carter) gutted the Military and we did not have the resources in place to protect our own...but he was a good president?

The Constitution states it is "to establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves" and he swore to uphold it. Well "Provide for the common defense" he missed that one, "insure domestic tranquility" 0-2, Promote the General Welfare ( well more people were ON Welfare - Inflation 13% - unemployment 7%) 0-3, and secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves "If we have a serious shortage, I will not hesitate to
impose mandatory gasoline rationing immediately." (From Carter's state of the Union speech.

If we judge a President by how enforce their pledge to uphold the Constitution then Carter is a .000 hitter

Wisgod-
re: Cooper... oh I forgot the question.

I'll remind you: Why was the illegal(by US law) sale of weapons to the "communist / facists" in Iran by the Reagan administration in the eighties not treason?

Foshaffer-
re: If we judge a President by how enforce their pledge to uphold the Constitution...

This from a Bush supporter? Irony is truly dead, with a stake through its snarky heart

"If we judge a President by how enforce their pledge to uphold the Constitution then Carter is a .000 hitter"

And if We judge a poster by the accuracy and intelligence of his posts, then foshaffer is a .000 hitter.

Only idiot liberal suppor the only president we have had that is classified as an IDIOT! Remember this idiot lost Iran.

When Hillary catches Osama Bin Laden, I'm sure the republicans will say that they 'loosened the cap for her' and claim it was just a political stunt.

Posted by COMMONSENSE at 2007-10-10 03:23 PM

COMMONSENSE, sorry, but this is exactly what the Democrats are famous for. I'll bet the Dems are waiting in the wings to claim it was a political stunt if we happen to capture him prior to the 2008 Presidential election. Capturing OBL prior to the election would probably be a Dem's worst nightmare.

WRONG !

The Desert One Mission Was A Disaster From The Word go Because Each Branch Of The Service Wanted A Piece Of The Action. The RH-53's Had Their Air Intake Filters Removed To Increase Performance Which Damaged The Engines on one of the Aircraft.


Still Carter's fault. Well at any rate, anything goes wrong with the US military now, it's Bush's fault. Different rules now than with Carter or what?

Why was the illegal(by US law) sale of weapons to the "communist / facists" in Iran by the Reagan administration in the eighties not treason?

Cooper -- why do you get so upset when someone brings up Clinton's impeachment being it is a thing of the past, but you have no problem bringing up Reagan's ( who is dead ) past?

Different rules again, like blame in the previous post.

Gotta love the liberal's double standards!

Remember this idiot lost Iran.
Posted by ozzieoswald

Remember, this idiot has the historical memory of a gerbil lodged up a Beverly Hills hairdresser's ass.

And we all know how much an expert Jimmy Carter is at dealing with Iran.

Let's see. All the hostages got out alive. Meanwhile Reagan was handing out green cards to Salvadorians fighting with the Contras....who later became the core basis of LA's Hispanic gang culture.

Hah! Jimmy Carter trying to tell the brilliant George W. Bush how to handle a middle eastern country. Jimmy needs to realize GW gets his advice directly from God.
DANNI

Nah....he gets it from neocon's like Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Cheney, etc.
God is merely mentioned so Christians will go along with it.

COMMONSENSE, sorry, but this is exactly what the Democrats are famous for. I'll bet the Dems are waiting in the wings to claim it was a political stunt if we happen to capture him prior to the 2008 Presidential election. Capturing OBL prior to the election would probably be a Dem's worst nightmare.

Posted by Republican4ever at 2007-10-11 07:30 AM | Reply | Flag:


Well, then catch him and see if it happens.

Oh wait, OBL isn't important to Bush. ..."he's not a priority".

Who is a priority then? If the man who masterminded an attack that killed 3000 American civilians is not a priority to Bush, you might want to check your own political priorities.

If the man who masterminded an attack that killed 3000 American civilians is not a priority to Bush,

But we got Saddam for his crimes on 9-11.(what year was that?)
Signed, 60% of the country.

*sigh*