Beck on suicide bomber graduation: "Maybe Jimmy Carter was booked and that's why he didn't speak"
On the June 21 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, while discussing an alleged Al Qaeda/Taliban training camp "graduation ceremony" shown on a tape obtained by ABCNews.com, Glenn Beck said: "I was surprised, because I really thought speaking at a suicide bomber graduation ceremony, I would just -- I -- maybe Jimmy Carter was booked and that's why he didn't speak at the commencement ceremony."
As Media Matters for America documented, Beck has also referred to former President Jimmy Carter as a "waste of skin" and contrasted him with North Korean leader Kim Jong Il, who, Beck said, was not a "bigger waste of skin" because "[a]t least evil is using that skin." During the same show, Beck also asked his executive producer Steve "Stu" Burguiere and producer Dan Andros to vote on who was the "bigger waste of skin" between singer Britney Spears and Carter. As Media Matters has also noted, ABC News hired Beck in January as a "regular commentator" for Good Morning America, and in June, The Washington Post reported that Washington Post Radio is reportedly "considering" picking up "a show hosted by" him. In addition, Beck also hosts a CNN Headline News television program.
From the June 21 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Glenn Beck Program:
BECK: We have been following the story of the Taliban graduation. This is the Muslim extremist graduation that happened in Afghanistan. Was it Afghanistan or Pakistan? I think it was Pakistan -- and they've just caught three people on the northern border of Iran that had attended this school.
They had communication devices. They had all kinds of things that looked like they were instrumental in running a -- some sort of a suicide operation. We just caught them. They have German passports, but they had graduated from this, you know, this ceremony last week.
We happened to have -- and I was surprised, because I really thought speaking at a suicide bomber graduation ceremony, I would just -- I -- maybe Jimmy Carter was booked and that's why he didn't speak at the commencement ceremony.
That's a good one Beck. It's so refreshing to hear someone who's dedicated his life to peace be mocked in such a juvenile and hateful way by a conservative scum bag. We really need to marginalize these a$$ holes before they rip our country apart.
then what would you have to whine about????
Never heard that one before. Oh, so very original.
Carter has been a national joke since we first learned his name. The Iranians released the hostages literally 30 minutes after Reagan took the oath. The national joke having left office, the Iranians knew they couldn't screw around anymore.
Since then Carter has buddied around with some of the most vulgar, despicable people on earth like Hugo Chavez.
He annoyed the hell out of Clinton over NKorea, and arguably committed treason by trying to stop the Gulf War when he sent a letter to the UN Security Council asking them to thwart the Bush admin's efforts to remove Iraqi troops from Kuwait.
Even his rep as a man of peace is fraudulent. As Prof. Bernard Lewis, the most distinguished of Middle East scholars, told Charlie Rose on PBS, Carter had nothing to do with the Sadat-Begin agreement other than acting as their open check book. They had reached an agreement long before they made their way to the signing ceremony.
He was an apologist for the thankfully-now-dead terrorist Arafat. He is a proved anti-semite (forced to apologize for what he wrote in his own damn book). He sees nothing wrong with China or Cuba. A mission statement from the Carter Center says:
"'Human rights' is a broad term, encompassing freedom from oppression and freedom of speech to the right to food and health."
Funny though, those people afforded human rights tend to have shelter and food and a decent way of life while those without, like people in Cuba, have very little of the above. He even wrote an op-ed in 1997 entitled "It's Wrong To Demonize China".
On Ceausescu :"Our goals are the same: to have a just system of economics and politics...We believe in enhancing human rights."
He openly rooted for the communists in Nicaragua and was distressed when they lost an election in 1990.
He praised Tito as "a man who believes in human rights". (!!)
He has praised the late Assad from Syria who killed 20,000 people in Hama.
He praised Mengistu, the tyrannical Ethiopian nutcase who killed a lot more than Assad ever did.
He told the dictator Cedras in Haiti that he was "ashamed of whay my country has done to your country".
Carter said NKorea is not an outlaw nation, that Pyongyang is a "bustling city" in which shoppers "pack the department stores", reminding him of Walmart.
Anything you say, Mr. Peanut.How many of you knew any of this before you read it? Why aren't the "conservative media" all over this guy? Why is thought of as a guy who just caught a bad break or two but is now an honorable builder of homes for the poor and peace for the warring?
Wait til the next geopolitical disaster arises because some lunatic killed thousands of his own people. Carter will be there as he always is, blaming America and praising the psychotic freak who did the killing,
All you have to do to become a hero to the left is fail miserably and cozy up to lowlife thugs. Carter enjoys proving it routinely. Cindy Sheehan tried it for a while, and is now a pal of Hugo Chavez.
Beck went easy on Carter.
Your whole post is bunk I dont care WHAT Lewis said for his own political purposes I remember the Camp David accords he told both leaders he gave them a bunch of money and if they didnt get their butts to Camp David and work out some accord he was going to do something about that he took them by the collar and demanded they do something. Your whole rant is rightwing talking points not worth my time its an indication of the abject stupidity of your whole raving post that you seem to be to ignorant to realize that since the Palestinians are just as Semetic as Jews calling someone supporting Palestinians rights an anti-Semite is pure stupidity. You have lost all touch with reality
"The Iranians released the hostages literally 30 minutes after Reagan took the oath. The national joke having left office, the Iranians knew they couldn't screw around anymore." (Max)
Tarnation, Max, you don't get tired of embarrassing yourself, do you?
Do any of these things ring a bell with you?If not, they're some good starting points, if you really want to learn what you're not getting with your "fair and balanced" media.
Iran/Contra
Wm. Casey/ October Surprise
OliverNorth (He's that nice man in the uniform you watch on Fox, the one that tells you about being a good American)
more October Surprise, Including Ronald Reagan (He's that nice old man that died a while ago, the one Republicans mention a lot more than GW Bush because there's been more time to whitewash RR's BS.
Somebody else might want to address the stuff after your first paragraph, I can only do so much charity work.
You're welcome.
Huntington,
Would you mind commenting on the way Carter courts, hangs around and defends some of the bloodiest f-ing tyrants of our time please? That's all I want from you.
I couldn't care less what "the real Reagan record" says.
Nice source dude. Next you'll bust out the National Enquirer.
Would you mind commenting on the way Carter courts, hangs around and defends some of the bloodiest f-ing tyrants of our time please? That's all I want from you.
I couldn't care less what "the real Reagan record" says.
Pretty much says it all righ there, don't it? Facts about Carter? Couldn't care, he just wants your opinion so he can find a way to dismiss you for it.
Facts about Reagan? Couldn't care either.
Reich wing politics at it's finest...
Snoopy,
If you trust that source having looked at the web site, and how amateurish it is, then you'll probably believe me when I say my name is Ted Kennedy, and I'd like to buy you dinner tonight.
If I "accidentally" run off the road and drown you on the way home, sorry. You were warned. I am not an excellent driver.
The website uses a quote from Carter to prove that The October Surprise was real! Imagine that, the guy who lost the election thinks the October Surprise was the reason!
How would you react if I used quotes from Bush41 or Reagan to prove that Iran-Contra was no big deal?
You would laugh, as I did at Huntington's source.
You people need to think BEFORE you post.
And Snoop, when you find the courage to tell me why you think Carter continually cozies up to some of the most brutish thugs on earth (only liberal Ramsey Clark has befriended/legally defended more of them), do let me know. Thanks.
Reich wing politics at it's finest
I didn't notice that part, so I apologize for bothering you Snoopy.
I don't debate people who have so little to say, and such feeble argumentative skills that they have to resort to juxtaposing their fellow Americans with Nazis.
Have a nice life, and good luck flagging this comment simply because I pointed out that you argue as well as a fourth grader. We both know you want to.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
Max41 //
That complete distortion of a real Patriot, a real public servant, and a real American that took their oath of office to heart, instead of treating their office like a TOOL FOR THEIR OWN ENRICHMENT!
I have a happy thought! An America restored to it's Constitutional form of Democracy, our civil liberties restored, our Presidency restored from the Unitary Executive from Texas, and a National recognition of Republican crimes against our nation that will see them in the minority long after my grandchildren have passed!
Oh, Oh, I got another Happy Thought!! George W. Bush & Dick Chaney with Karl Rove doing the Perp Walk for the real free press, and a elected government that believes in their oath of office. You know, that little part that every service member, federal employee, and elected official from President to Janitor must swear, to "protect, preserve, and defend the Bill of Rights, the Constitution of United States of America!
A Happy Thought Indeed would be a Republican that didn't need to re-invent history to justify a self serving, self centered, and illegal policy issues!
How about a American government that did'nt behave like a national crime family!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
That complete distortion of a real Patriot
Very funny Dan.
I used Carter's own words on numerous occasions, so if that's a "distortion" to you, please talk to someone who takes you seriously next time. I do not.
As for the word "patriot", look it up. Tell me where the word is defined as someone who sends a letter to the Useless Nations Security Council to beg them to thwart the actions of a sitting U.S. president on the eve of a war.
It's not just that Carter, completely gutless wimp that he is, tried to make an end run around democracy, it's that he did it so that we'd leave Saddam alone and let him keep Kuwait. I wonder who Jimmy rooted for during that war, as if we don't know. He took the side of the communists years back after all.
What he did is referred to as "treason" by a lot of people who know more about this stuff than you or I, and you have the gall to call this traitor a "patriot"?
That's typical though. A failed, far-left nobody does something treasonous, and liberals call him a patriot for doing so.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
It's not just that Carter, completely gutless wimp that he is, tried to make an end run around democracy, it's that he did it so that we'd leave Saddam alone and let him keep Kuwait. I wonder who Jimmy rooted for during that war, as if we don't know. He took the side of the communists years back after all. / MAX 41
Concidered one of the premier submarine commanders in the fleet, and groomed for the higher echeleon, and you would characterize him as "gutless wimp." I wonder if you could wramp your mind around the responsibility of commanding a crew of submariners for months on end under ice flows, aircraft carriers, fiords, or even enemy harbors while managing a nuclear reactor, and bringing his crew home safe.
Your comments about Jimmy Carter, and your view of patriotism, or even American Honor would be a good example of the Neo-Con mentallity that resulted in the worse governance in American History.
Draft Dodgers whom would support the very war they would dodge. should not be allowed to pound the drums of war, or even be allowed to be elected to any political office.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
when you find the courage to tell me why you think Carter continually cozies up to some of the most brutish thugs on earth (only liberal Ramsey Clark has befriended/legally defended more of them), do let me know. Thanks.
(none of the other posters have the nerve to even comment on this...care to try?)
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
Max41//
I worry I'm having an arguement with a grade school drop-out, or atleast you must have slept through civics, and social studies!
I tell you why he attended elections, peace talks, and corruption investigations for the UN among other organizations; to insure fair elections, and peacefull resolutions to blood conflicts! I'm hoping you can comprehend that we must negotiate, and discuss issues with countries we don't like to keep the peace, and that the military is the last resort, not the only resort as most Neo-Cons seem to think,
I would also remind you that our military no matter how much money we spend will never be able to bully the world into our way of seeing things. I firmly believe that most of the airheads that post on these things have little insight into military service, and there simplest limitatitions.
Jimmy Carter continues to be invited around the world to witness elections, and arbitrate disputes. I wonder if a pool hustler would trust Bush to arbitrate a bank shot!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Dan, you timid little man,
I can only keep asking, and wait for you to either reply, or tell me why you won't reply:
When you find the courage to tell me why you think Carter continually cozies up to some of the most brutish thugs on earth (only liberal Ramsey Clark has befriended/legally defended more of them), do let me know. His accomplishments do not erase his embarrassments.
I don't whine punk, I complain. Go find a hole to crawl into troll.
He could always whine about the pain in his head caused by reading your ignorant, juvenile post.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
1. Iran Hostages taken in Tehran by student mob, and controlled by Ayatollah Khomeini for what seem to be forever, Carter kept his head even after the failed rescue mission. 1-a. Carter was a rising star in the elite nuclear submarine command, a submarine commander being groomed for the Pentagon when his father died, and he came home to save his family's farm, later to serve as a state senator! A missionary who after losing an election for governor of GA. spent a year in South Philadelphia's most dangerous slums in the early 70's going door to door spreading the word!2. A Ronald Reagan marching on the Republican tough guy myth secretly made a deal with Tehran through Lebanese Terrorist to trade arms for hostages. If this wasn’t bad enough he did so by illegally sponsoring a war in El Salvador to convert coke for cash to buy then for arms! The same Republican tough guy dropped 2500 Marines in the middle of Beirut with orders not to clear a perimeter around our embassy, and with orders to hold return fire while the UN defines the mission they never authorized. 253 Marines died in their sleep from a truck bomb!2-a. A never do well contract player that turned his trust as a union president from Hollywood into an opportunity to accuse his fellow actors of the Jewish persuasion to be communists in front of Joe McCarthy! A man that never spoke for any other reason than an wage, or to further his carrier! Never served in the military, and had no experience in issues of foreign policy except to demonize his fellow Americans as subversive for publicity!When is real character going to matter to these people?? We elected draft-dodgers who advocated loudly for the very war they dodged! We let them invent intelligence to justify a war for the primary purpose of perpetuating their own power!! What sin is worse!! Yet, Glenn Beck would vilify a man that he cannot possibly understand, since Jimmy Carter has lived his life with a willingness to sacrifice for his fellow man, and our current President has lived a life that has been about his own reach for power and nothing else!Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
I'd bet my life you've never actually had a "happy thought", you're very depressing.
Cheers!
I'd bet my life you've never actually had a "happy thought", you're very depressing.
Cheers!
Posted just before last call at the after-hours troll bar. . . (Sunday morning coming down indeed.)
That's called "having a social life".
Yes, Max boy. I would be depressed if I were you too, since Dan smacked you upside the head. Your post is the stupidist I've seen in a long time with some of the worst talking points as well. You seem to know nothing about the hostage release and nothing about Jimmy Carter.
Sweetie, anytime you're ready to do what the others lack the guts to do, and explain why Mr. Peanut constantly defends and supports and hangs around tyrannical killers, you go right ahead. : )~
I don't think Beck's even pretending to cater to any sort of human audience anymore.He's found his niche with the "politics for people who don't care about politics" crowd.
I have a co-worker who is in this Republican email loop- usually the punch line is Hillary Clinton turning into a jackass or Democrats freeloading off of hard working conservatives- really it's a Republican by default mentality. If I ask why he hates HC, or similar questions about his propaganda, his answer is usually something along the lines of "I don't really know , it's just a joke".
There is a certain segment of our felow Americans(and voters) who don't really pay attention to nor understand much of what's happening,and I think they're the target audience of Beck and his type. Just point to Jimmy Carter or Hillary once in a while as some sort of vague evil,wave a little American flag around with your other hand, and sell some beer commercials.
..and I fear that that segment you refer to is very large.
He's found his niche with the "politics for people who don't care about politics" crowd.
That could explain why he is so popular at mmfa. They certainly have no shortage of Beck articles, they are intensly interested in what he has to say.
Wow autopsychotic. You have outdone yourself in the delusion dept. That in itself is a feat. So he is POPULAR here because his inanity is exposed here. I guess that makes cancer popular in hospitals. You are in dire need of some working brain cells dude.
Yeah, Auto-P seems to be degenerating to that "I know you are but what am I?"point lately, with the clever turning the tables against all logic non-rebuttals.
At least it didn't mention ratings.
Great point Huntington, as everyone knows that only liberals are able to grasp the reality of today's geopolitical dynamics.
I wish we could all be so sophisticated.
~~~HIC~~~
Me: With all due respect, Beck knuckledragging half-wit......
Beck apologist: Hey, hey, hey. that name calling was uncalled for.
Me: I said with all due respect.
To keep yourself from putting your fist through your monitor:
Lean back in your chair.
Take a deep breath.
Count to ten.
Remind yourself that during those ten seconds, Jimmy Carter did more for the world than Glenn Beck could in ten lifetimes.
The only good thing that Jimmy Carter did for the world was create Habitat for Humanity. The man had a failed presidency and will probably go down as the worst president of all time. He basically ruined the entire economy when he was president.
You mean like Ronnie "trickle-down" Raygun and George W. "All my tax cuts for the rich go to the bottom" Bush did?
You just can't stand that a Democrat has done more for the world in a couple decades than every Republican for the past 40 years has done in their lifetimes.
Bush's and Reagan's tax cuts were across the board tax cuts which benefited everybody. The rich ended up getting the most money back, because they pay more taxes to begin with. But the marginal tax rate was actually reduced a greater amount for the lower and middle classes than for the rich. Bush's tax cuts made the tax code more progressive, which means that the rich now pay a greater percentage of the overall taxes than they did before Bush's tax cuts. The top tax rate during the Carter days was 70%, which ended up being a huge drain on the economy. Seriously, who would actually want to work when you have to give 70% of your income to the government? High taxes reduce incentives to work and promotes laziness. If taxes are that high, you're better off simply living off of welfare and getting a free ride with the government taking care of you.
LMAO. The Bush tax cuts???
I got a few tanks of gas.
Millionaires got to go buy a new SUV.
They also pay a lot more in taxes to begin with than you do. Doesn't it make sense that the people who pay the MOST in taxes to begin with end up getting the MOST money back?
No, not really.
Heheh...
ZING!
The fact that you believe that Republic/Liartarian Party lie tells me everything I need to know about you.
Maybe you should switch to your right hand. Just a suggestion.
I disagree. The bottom 40% of workers paid MORE of their income in taxes in 1988 than they did in 1980. Meanwhile the top 1% say their effective federal tax rate DROP from 34.6% to 29.7% the facts show that Reagan left a much LESS progressive tax rate than he started with. Your assertion that high taxes take away incentive is belied by the fact the the 50's were an economic BOOMTIME yet the top rate was around 90%. Most of the rich dont WORK to make their millions they take a cut of the money made by the wealth created by workers. As usual you repeat the jargon that has been put into your head by the propaganda parrots but you dont really make a lot of sense
You must not have read my post carefully enough. This is what I wrote:
"Bush's tax cuts made the tax code more progressive, which means that the rich now pay a greater percentage of the overall taxes than they did before Bush's tax cuts"
I was talking about the BUSH tax cuts, not Reagan's. It's a documented fact that Bush's tax cuts made the tax code more progressive. That's what I was talking about.
Sorry, I meant that to be a reply to your post, Solon.
YOU must not know what you write in your posts since your first sentence was
Bush's and Reagan's tax cuts were across the board tax cuts which benefited everybody.
You CLEARLY claimed that the REAGAN tax policies benifited EVERYONE when in FACT they raised taxes for the lower 40% of the taxpayers. I dont even understand how you can be confused about this.
I claimed that BUSH'S tax cuts made that tax code more progressive, not Reagan's. You claimed that Reagan's tax cuts DIDN'T make the tax code more progressive, which may be true. I simply stated that BUSH'S tax cuts made the tax code more progressive, and you twisted what I said.
OK if I twisted your words then explain to me how tax policies that RAISED taxes for the bottom 40% BENIFITTED EVERYONE.
Your information is simply wrong:
http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm
From the article: The share of the income tax burden borne by the top 10 percent of taxpayers increased from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. Meanwhile, the share of income taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers dropped from 7.5 percent in 1981 to 5.7 percent in 1988
No my information is NOT wrong. YOU are not very BRIGHT. Did you think income taxes were the ONLY taxes that people pay? Reagan raised payroll taxes the most regressive of all taxes since they effect ONLY the first at the time 50.000$ of income therefore the TAX BURDEN of the bottom 40% actually rose. Do you EVER know what you are talking about?
This is your quote:
"I disagree. The bottom 40% of workers paid MORE of their income in taxes in 1988 than they did in 1980"
When you said INCOME you made it sound like Reagan raised INCOME taxes for the poor. I pointed out that he cut income taxes for the poor, and after Reagan's tax cuts the poor actually paid a smaller overall percentage of the overall tax cuts. Reagan's income tax cut did make the tax code MORE progressive. And by the way you once again had to insult me for no reason at all. But I simply won't stoop to your level.
Sorry. I meant "a smaller overall percentage of the taxes"
Hey rino dung, next time put your finger in between your lips and go "ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba" and then type what you hear and your post will be less nonsensical than what you wrote!
Please. Spare me the bullcrap. The distinction of worst president in US hisotry will be held by George W. Bush.
Carter didn't ruin the economy, the inflation from the oil embargo under NIXON caused the economic problems of the late 1970s.
Please. Spare me the bullcrap. The distinction of worst president in US hisotry will be held by George W. Bush.
He has beat out Nixon and Ronnie for the lowest approval ratings EVER. Carter was never as unpoular in public approval polls as any of those three republicans.
It's a myth that Ronnie was so popular. The myth was constructed at great expense after his departure. Many people thought and feared he would push the nuclear button.
That's blatantly false. Reagan's approval ratings were high throughout most of his presidency. He was re-elected by winning 48 STATES. He was one of the most popular presidents of all time, and he's a legend for all time.
Poor poor delusional RINO. Reagan wasn't my cup of tea although he seemed like a nice enough fellow and he didn't start an unnecessary war or anything. He did well by the people with means and did little for average Joe except make him feel good with his sunny if borderline delusional optimism, he was like a motivational speaker; but at least he didn’t start an unnecessary war. By your logic if Reagan had the highest popularity rating of all time (by the way where did you get that stat from?) and Bush's ratings are lower than Carters then doesn't that make Bush the worst president of all time and won’t he be infamous through the ages for exploding the Middle East. Our ancestors will be wondering what happen to the American voters at the end of the 20th century and they’ll try to figure out just why America elected a moron to lead them. They’ll have history classes dedicated to examining this aberration that occurred.
"By your logic if Reagan had the highest popularity rating of all time"
I never said that. I said that he was ONE of the most popular presidents of all time. The fact that he won 48 states proves that. Can you think of any other president who won 48 states? We're even talking about liberal states like California and New York that Reagan won. I was simply pointing out the FALSE CLAIM that Reagan was one of the most unpopular presidents of all time.
Sorry, that's actually wrong. Reagan won 49 STATES in the 1984 election.
To be fair, Reagan won the 1984 election against Fritz Fracking Mondale. I think Andre the Giant could have carried 49 states against his sorry ass.
Then why did the Democrats nominate him?
Because they are morons??
While I am willing to concede you should be an expert on morons due to the vast experience given you by living your life AS a moron. I am afraid the judges have ruled by its very nature this experience precludes you from judging the moronity of others. Sorry.
Solon. You should read the terms of use of this forum again. I'll help you out so you can remember:
DO respect others' opinions. We expect posters from all parts of the political spectrum here. Please express your opinion without insulting other posters.
DON'T write an otherwise thoughtful post and then close it with insults or profanity. Your post will be removed. Repeat violators will be banned
DON'T post here if your sole purpose is to start a flame war. Arguments and debates are fine; obscenity, name-calling, and trolling are not. Violators will be banned
I notice you are chiding me for calling Auto a moron but havent seen fit to EVER challenge someone like Auto for HIS namecalling OR for calling all Democrats morons. I am sorry but your double standard undercuts your pious scolding WHEN you chastise EVERYONE who calls names you may get some credibility until then BITE ME.
I didn't call ALL democrats morons. I only called the ones who voted for Mondale morons. Does the shoe fit? Otherwise, I think the difference is that you offer "personal" insults that insult the person. I offer generalized insults that insult an ideal. An ideal I don't agree with and have no problem saying so. Much like you and most other posters, here, that are willing and most able to insult every right-winger poster just the same as you insult every right-wing pundit that makes it onto mmfa simply because they believe in an ideal.
Left wing posters call every right winger names ranging "bush-bot" to "jackbooted, filth-bags" (and more) and you do not consider that a generalized insult? Are you really whinning because I call liberalism a mental disorder, but not when someone calls conservatives "jackbooted, filth-bags"?
When you whine about all the generalized name calling, I will admit you have a point. Until you do, then you have NO point and are owed nothing in return except liberalism being called the names that it has well earned.
Excuse me but Fritz Mondale was a helluva better candidate than Bob Dole and Bubba couldn't carry 49 states. Plus Mondale's daughter is beautiful so that scores him even more points in my book.
Our descendants of course is what I meant to say, although if our ancestors are watching they're wondering why the hell we elected Bush too.
When did we ever elect Dubya', Lynn?
I seem to recall him being SELECTED by a Supreme Court overloaded with grateful conservatives.
No he wasnt you are delusional as usual. FDR spent most of his time in the 70's and NEVER fell below 65. Eishenhower spent most of his time in the 60's and 70's rarely falling below 58 Kennedy spent most of his time in the 70's Raygun NEVER saw 70 and spent most of his time in the 40's and 50's Do you EVER know what you are talking about? Do you do ANYTHING other than spew baseless rightwing propaganda?
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/popularity.php
Did FDR, Eisenhower, or Kennedy ever win 49 STATES in an election?
And that is relevant to their popularity as president HOW? He won those electoral votes with 58% of the vote Johnson won less electoral votes but he won with 61% of the popular vote. Bottom line I showed their approval ratings that IS popularity and Reagan wasnt as popular as FDR, JFK Eisenhower OR Clinton. Your assertion that he was one of the most popular presidents of all time CANNOT be supported. Especially by ONE election return. THAT only measures how much more popular he was than MONDALE at that time. This is simple logic.
I think I understand Rino's logic- if a President was very popular, he was also very successful. If he was unpopular, he was unsuccessful. If he won 49 states, he was the most successful ever. If he didnt, he was quite a bit less successful.
Rino's Most Successful Presidents: Nixon and Reagan.
Rino's Least Successful Presidents: Lincoln (39% of the vote in his first election), Wilson (41% first time, 49% second time,) etc.
What a stupid way to judge success, Rino. You are truly a moron. (And by the way, as to the MM rules concerning respect for posters- when you offer an actual Opinion, and not a third-grader's conception of politics, I'll be glad to respect it.)
What a stupid way to judge success, Rino. You are truly a moron
And you're simply a character assassin with very little else to offer. You have to attack me personally just like many others, because you can't debate me on the issues. And I know more about politics than you could ever even dream of knowing. Your posts are devoid of substance and simply personally attack the person who you disagree with.
NO you know more about rightwing talking points than she ever will. Your KNOWLEGE OF as opposed to DELUSIONS ABOUT politics is suspect at best. Dont you get yet how absolutly EASY you are to refute? We mop the floor with you day after day. Besides being amusing your most endearing characteristic is your tenacity. Stubborness you have now if you could just dredge up an actual cogent point instead of and endless series of propaganda parrot talking points that are usually flat out wrong it might be nice.
Dont you get yet how absolutly EASY you are to refut
"Dont you get yet how absolutly EASY you are to refute"
If I really was easy to refute, you wouldn't have to use personal attacks against me on a regular basis. The fact that you have to resort to name calling proves that you can't debate me on the issues. Very few posters here even try to respond to the substance of what I say. Most simply personally attack me, because they have nothing else to offer. They know that I'd wipe the floor with them if they actually tried to debate me on the issues.
Few posters address the substance of your posts because for the most part they DONT HAVE ANY. Making baseless assertions about how evil liberals are, false characterizations about what liberals think and want to do arent substance they are emotional masterbation. The pity is you dont even KNOW what a substantive argument is. Your posts rarely contain any facts, logic or insight. Just attacks that YOU define as not personal. So you tell us that liberals are anti democratic and anti family what is the substance there? IT DOESNT EXIST. So I tell you that you are a moron. The point is that just calling someone something is easy and has no real meaning yet that is 90% of what you do. You dont get substantive refutations becuase there is no substance in your posts to refute. When there is it is usually wrong and I along with other posters here shred you mercilessly. You THINK your delusional opinions constitute substantial arguments but this is NOT planet Wingnut, HERE they dont.
I dont resort to namecalling because its all I CAN do, everyone here not brainwashed into a stupor knows this isnt true but because usually your posts dont DESERVE anything more since THEY are nothing but namecalling. As for you wiping the floor with ANYONE older than THREE in an actual debate that is sadly the most delusional thing you have ever said you dont even seem to know what an issue IS. The few times you have ventured into the arena of actually talking the issues you have been destroyed and are to oblivious and brainwashed to know it. You are an embarassment to yourself AND the conservative cause
Wrong. I don't personally attack anybody, and I simply make true claims about an incredibly flawed ideology. The fact that you get so terribly mad about it shows that I'm completely right. I could beat you in a debate with half my brain tied behind my back. I simply destroyed you in this thread and made you look silly. You had to change your entire argument when I pointed out that Reagan cut taxes for the poor instead of raising them. You simply lied and then had to change your entire argument to save yourself.
As much fun as it is to read you guys laying into each other, why don't each of you just cite your sources and your facts? Then we can check them out and see what's true and what's opinion.
Namecalling from either side seems a bit peurile, let's stick to the issues. But both sides have to be willing to admit when they're wrong. That's part of the bullheaded America that Media Matters is trying to alleviate, in my opinion.
Very few posters here even try to respond to the substance of what I say. Most simply personally attack me, because they have nothing else to offer. They know that I'd wipe the floor with them if they actually tried to debate me on the issues.- RINO Hunter
Funniest
post
ever!!
Well, I see YOU didn't have anything to say during the tax conversation rino and solon were having. Solon floundered badly until he finally saw where he messed up then started calling rino names.
I guess rino is right, none of you have anything substantative to say beyond the name-calling and personal attacks. Is that what makes mmfa so popular? It gives the left somewhere to go and call rightwingers filthy names without having any personal accountability?
No. Winning 49 states is a measure of popularity because you won a state - even liberal ones. Imagine a conservative sweeping the northeast part of the country -- that is stunning popularity. Winning the most popular votes is a canard because we don't elect presidents that way and states like California with massive numbers of voters knew their guy was going to win so they didn't need to flood the polls to insure it. Amazing that some candidates like Al Gore couldn't even carry their own state.
Another measure of popularity is how a president is thought of after he is out of office. Reagan is generally rated in the top 5 in most polls.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_United_States_Presidents
No it is NOT a measure of popularity it is a measure of who is the more popular among a choice of two. He won 49 states with 58 percent Johnson won like 45 states but he won them with 61%. The polls DURING their terms he flat out WASNT as popular as FDR, Eisenhower, JFK OR Clinton the stats show that strait out of the last nine presidents he was less popular than four of them. This doesnt take into account George Washington. Theodore Roosevelt, Thomas Jefferson. The claim he is one of the most popular presidents of all time simply cannot be supported. He is an icon among conservatives who virtually worship him. That is all that can be shown. Most liberals I know think he was a sad joke.
I agree. I think any unbiased historical account of the GWB administration will not be kind. The entire WMD debacle along with the rest of the drive for war in Iraq is one of the biggest mistakes in US history hands down.
Yeah the guy who wanted us to have 20% of our energy drawn from solar power almost 30 years ago was such a fool.
The worst president in our history is currently in office genius.
Carter was the one who caused energy prices to sky rocket with all of the price fixing that he did. The Carter days were filled with long gas lines, unbelievably high interest rates, enermously high tax rates, and misery for everybody. But then again, at least everybody was the same, which is what the liberals want. The misery was spread equally.
The increased price of oil during Carter's presidency was due to the Iranian Revolution. President Carter imposed price controls after the prices went through the roof.
Unemployment was higher during the Reagan years than during the Carter years and home mortgage rates were at their highest point in history during the first four years of Reagan's presidency.
I realize you're not old enough to remember those times, but you should do some research instead of just parroting the Limbaugh line.
"Unemployment was higher during the Reagan years than during the Carter years"
That's false as well. Reagan created 8 million new jobs when he was president and unemployment DECREASED. Inflation was also 12.5% when Reagan entered office and was 4.4% when he left. Interest rates fell an amazing SIX POINTS, and there was an 8% growth in private wealth. Also, Carter's price fixing policies simply made the situation worse. I didn't say that he was entirely responsible for it, but he certainly made it worse. Also, how can you possibly know how old I am. Are you able to read minds?
Rino... to refute your *claims* about Reagan's economy, please read Al Franken's book, Lies, and the Lying Liars who tell them... and, by the way, I CAN read minds- yours is like an archie and jughead comic, with the words whited out...
Bogus
http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/feature/2004/06/08/reaganomics/index.html
But let's talk economics. It is not too early to contradict those who would elevate Reagan above Franklin Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, or even Bill Clinton, on this score. Yes, Reagan did change the course of history. But his economic legacy was mainly destructive, and especially so for the world's poor and our own working class.
Among postwar administrations, who had the best record on economic growth? The answer is Kennedy-Johnson (49 percent over eight years), followed by Clinton (34 percent), followed by Reagan (32 percent). Among postwar two-term presidencies, Reagan beats out only Eisenhower (21 percent) and Nixon-Ford (24 percent). Call him the best of the Republicans, if you want.
The unemployment rate stood at 6.6 percent when Kennedy took office and at 3.4 percent when Johnson left it. The average over their eight years was 4.8 percent. When Clinton came in, unemployment was at 7.4 percent; it averaged 5.2 percent during his two terms and fell to 3.9 percent by the end. And for Reagan? Unemployment stood at 7.5 percent at his inauguration, and it averaged that same 7.5 percent during his entire eight years. The jobless rate was 5.4 percent when Reagan left office.
Inflation did come down -- from just over 10 percent in the oil crisis year of 1980 to just over 3 percent in 1983. But at whose expense? Here the correct contrast is with FDR, who controlled inflation while doubling output over four years in World War II. In the process, Roosevelt leveled the pay distribution and created the modern American middle class.
Reagan's disinflation came from unemployment over 10 percent, from his attack on unions, and from high interest rates, which drove up the dollar and cheapened imports. Those measures bankrupted much of the manufacturing belt. They damaged the middle class. And they created a vast trade imbalance and a rising external debt whose consequences haunt us still. Precisely what Roosevelt built, in other words, Reagan did much to destroy.
That is from John Kenneth Galbraith one of the most respected economists of all time
"Reagan's disinflation came from unemployment over 10 percent, from his attack on unions, and from high interest rates, which drove up the dollar and cheapened imports"
That's false. Interest rates went down six full points during the Reagan years. They were much lower than what they were during the Carter years. The fact is that Reagan lowered interest rates and lowered inflation at the same time, which is something that is very hard to do. Also, Kennedy had many of the same economic policies as Reagan, despite the fact that he was a Democrat. Kennedy cut taxes ACROSS THE BOARD just like Reagan did. Democrats were more conservative in those days.
Oh it IS. Your EVIDENCE it is false would be WHAT? You got YOUR degree in economics WHERE again? Why is it we should ignore a man who TAUGHT economics at HARVARD one of the most famous economists of ALL TIME and take YOUR word for it? No I dont think I will do that. John Kenneth Galbraith has CREDIBILITY when talking economics YOU DONT.
Nice ad hominem attack. Maybe you should actually try to refute what I say. The fact is that interest rates came WAY down when Reagan was President. That's a documented fact. From the article:
"Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency."
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-261.html
I DID refute what you said. WHERE is your degree in Economics from? Did Galbraith teach economics at Harvard or didnt he? Why in the world should YOUR opinion on economics carry more wieght than someone who actually IS one of the most renowned economists in American hisstory? See those points DID refute your OPINION.
No. Those were simply add hominem attacks. That's a logical fallacy. You probably didn't even look at the link I posted. That link showed the truth and showed that your beloved professor lied about interest rates. Interest rates went WAY down under Reagan. THAT'S A FACT! How can you possibly dispute a documented fact?
Because you see everything in that simplistic righwing way. First the interest rates CLIMBED at first after his tax cuts then they dropped but remained high by historic standards. I didnt see where he said they didnt fall only that they were high. Try to keep up. No I didnt check the site because since you misunderstood the post, that is him saying WHY not WHAT the statistics are irrelevant
The economist you're talking about is also a left wing partisan. I provided a link by the libertarian CATO institute which showed the enormous benefits of Reagan's tax cuts. The point is that we can both come up with economists on each of our sides who either describe the benefits of Reagan's tax cuts or describe the negative aspects of Reagan's tax cuts. The difference is that I didn't rely on somebody else to make my argument. I know a thing or two about economics. I've taken many economic classes in my lifetime, and I've also researched a lot about it.
And the Cato institute is a far right libertarian think tank. John Kenneth Galbraith is pretty much the most famous American economist of all time he taught at Harvard he worked on the economic counsel for Kennedy a president whose economic policies I have seen you praise. He is certainly one of the most respected economists of all time. You just declaring him far left isnt going to cut it. He gave HIS opinion. YOU just said it was wrong. YOU dont have the weight to dismiss Galbraith anymore than I do to dismiss Alber Einstien.
I thought that libertarians were far right on some issues and far left on other issues?
Yes, Reagan did change the course of history. But his economic legacy was mainly destructive, and especially so for the world's poor and our own working class.
Among postwar administrations, who had the best record on economic growth? The answer is Kennedy-Johnson (49 percent over eight years), followed by Clinton (34 percent), followed by Reagan (32 percent). Among postwar two-term presidencies, Reagan beats out only Eisenhower (21 percent) and Nixon-Ford (24 percent). Call him the best of the Republicans, if you want.
I like that. Solon uses another person to make an arguement he can't make. Then this so called "expert" contradicts himself in the first two paragraphs that solon uses to prove a point. (what that point was I lost when this expert contridicted himself).
First he calls Reagan's economic legacy "mainly destructive", then follows that with showing that Reagan had the 3rd best record for post-war presidents. Also, it should be noted that this "expert" used Kennedy/Johnson as an example of "post war" presidents. If I recheck my history, I think they were "current" war presidents and should be left off that list. Making Reagan the second best president among post war presidents.
Some expert....doesn't even know the difference between post war and current war and doesn't know the difference between a 'mainly destructive economic legacy' and 2nd best of all.
The worst gas lines were in 73 when NIXON was president. I remember. Nice propaganda line though.
Please explain? With specifics.
How exactly did President Carter ruin the entire economy when he was president?
Just because you say it doesn't mean it's so.
worrierking, I just got back from lunch, and thought I'd see if you'd gotten your response. No? Let me fill in;
Because RH was told that Jimmy Carter destroyed the economy, and he's in Beck's target audience.
As pointed out by other posters here, JC was pretty honest about the state of things, and the GOP found an old actoe with a nice smile who was willing to lie to the American people about the things they wanted to be lied to about.
Carter didn't negotiate with the Iranian hostage takers, and has been condemned for it. The new guy insisted he didn't negotiate with terrorists, did just that, and has been canonized by Republicans.
Is Morning in America over yet?
I went to a party several weeks after they buried Reagan. There were three Republican couples and my wife and I.
Several people were still crying, real tears, two weeks later. It was surreal. One of the people said that they've been glued to the TV for the past few weeks.
They went on to describe this alternate universe where we were standing tall and all of this other crap. I'll never forget that night.
The only other topic of conversation was about how the illegal immigrants they hired to work in their homes were so much better workers than Americans and they could pay them less than minimum wage. Of course they saw nothing wrong with this.
King, how can I make sure I don't get invited to these parties?
My neighbor named his first born Reagan. No kidding.
Julia
Now, if THAT isn't child abuse4...
I was a freshman in college when Nixon died. The guy who lived across the hall from me in the dorm locked himself in his room for two full days and cried.
And he had the entire 4-hour funeral procession on tape.
Nothing to do with anything, except your Reagan story reminded me of it.
There's no accounting for taste.
Nixon?
F__king Nixon?
And the guy taped the thing?
You're story wins. Hands down.
When he played the tape was there an eighteen minute gap in the middle?
Lol. That was good.
: )
So, you guys judge his entire presidency on a "gap" on a tape? But, give Clinton top nods while "going down" on employees.
Nixon got us out of one the most difficult wars of all time (one that a democrat promoted as a 'just war') while Carter caused one of the worst mistakes (removing the Shah which allowed Khomeini to return to power) and consider Carter a great president.
Obviously, liberal minds are severly tweeked! But, that only makes sense since they believe in murdering babies before the get to breath fresh air. All the while complaining about soldiers who are fighting to protect their nation as being murderers.
About HALF of the Americans who died in Vietnam died during Nixons term that AFTER running on a secret plan to end the Vietnam war. Exactly WHAT are you blaming Carter for NOT doing? Invading Iran in order to stop a popular revolution to oust one of the most brutal tyrants in the world who Amnesty International had just named the worlds worst torturer????? Nothing short of killing tens of thousands of Iranians could have stopped the Shah from being overthrown this after WE toppled their FREELY elected leader Mohamed Mossedegh to install him in 53.
Hey, that's a good arguement! Did you notice the similarities between your claims of what the Shah did and what Saddam did? Yet, YOU claim this current war is illegal! Where's the logic for THAT one?
Please use some of the VAST knowledge you have to explain why removing Saddam is illegal and the removal of the Shah was to be expected?
Well, since you asked...
The most obvious difference is that WE DIDN'T REMOVE THE SHAH! We may have INSTALLED him in the first place, but had nothing to do with removing him from power. Got that, Auto? WE... DIDN'T... REMOVE... THE... F*CKING SHAH! The IRANIAN PEOPLE did that! We simply refrained from further interfering in their internal matters. We decided NOT to get our troops bogged down in what was certain to be a long & bloody occupation of a Middle Eastern country.
You see what I'm saying here? Do ya' get the difference now? Do you see how in one case we merely allowed an independent people the right of self-determination as they overthrew their much hated & intensely brutal dictator... but in the second case we invaded & occupied a sovereign nation, getting our own people killed & maimed, blowing untold billions of dollars, & stirring up huge levels of hatred against our country.
So, then... what reasonable conclusions can we draw from the profound DIFFERENCES in our actions in these two examples?
Auto?
We simply refrained from further interfering in their internal matters. We decided NOT to get our troops bogged down in what was certain to be a long & bloody occupation of a Middle Eastern country.
Yeah, I get exactly what you're saying. Democrats had the chance to stop terrorism before it became "cool" to be a terrorist. But they wimped out because they have no b*lls! Instead we get murderous factions that create unrest world-wide. Good job, Carter!
but in the second case we invaded & occupied a sovereign nation, getting our own people killed & maimed, blowing untold billions of dollars, & stirring up huge levels of hatred against our country.
You really have no clue, do you? We didn't stir up hatred of the US by invading Iraq. They hated the US since Carter "allowed" the Shah to be removed. I know you can't do it, but how was the Shah's "sovereign nation" different than Saddam's "sovereign nation"? Especially since you seem to think one was a murderous tyrannical leader and the other was a peaceful man.
Good?
Oh, Jesus, that was BRILLIANT!
Kind of reminds me of sports commentators who cant mention the US victory over the USSR in hockey in 1980 ("Miracle on Ice") without also talking about how it "lifted America up" and "gave the whole country a boost when it desperately needed it," blah blah blah. When Pope John Paul II died, we heard two weeks of coverage about how he had saved the world from Communism. When Reagan died, we heard the same thing. When Ford died, we heard about how he was universally admired and respected (funny how all admiration and respect didnt translate into a second term..) The Reagan Retconning was the worst though. There are people in the GOP and out of it who have been trying to elevate Reagan to demigod status for decades. That doing this requires a complete rewriting of history doesnt bother them in the slightest. Worship of a drooling, narrow-minded, corporate patsy and warmonger is all that matters to these people.
Carter didn't negotiate with the Iranian hostage takers, and has been condemned for it.
Hey, that's good. Carter takes credit for not negotiating with terrorists he receives credit for putting into power. The only good thing about Carter is that he is a Christian. Although, most in the left don't know what that means since they are mostly CINO.
Ya know Autopsychotic you dont have to work so hard to prove you are a moron. That has already been established. You DONT have any amazing mind reading powers so you have NO ability to judge the hearts of anyone. Since you try to do so even though the bible specifically says that is something only God can do I think you ought to worry a whole lot more about YOUR Christianity and a whole lot less about others. You are a mindless cretin so what you think about OUR religious beliefs really matters less than the price of Amaranth in Guatemala
You're a perfect example of CINO liberal. You claim it, but NEVER show any signs of being one. You probably carry a VERY large Bible, so that you appear to be holier-than-thou to ALL who see you. You know what Jesus called people like that in His day? Brood of vipers. The similarities astound me!
He tried to price fix energy prices which made the situation even worse. The long gas lines and extremely high oil prices were at least partly because of the price fixing and other anti-free market policies. Tax rates during the Carter days were extraordinarily high. The top rate was about 70%. Very few people would have the incentive to work when you have to give the vast majority of your money to the government. High taxes reduce incentives to work and promote laziness. Carter pursued anti-growth policies which caused the economy to stagnate and the entire country to suffer. It was the result which always comes from liberal economic policies. The gap between the rich and the poor narrows and everybody becomes more equal, but the economy as a whole shrinks and the economic pie becomes smaller. There ends up being less of it for everybody. There is more equality in the end, because the misery is spread equally.
Har! that's great. Now do the feminazi one.
Seriously, do you actually buy the bit about people whose taxes go up as they make more money getting lazier and refusing to work?
Yeah, I do. Seriously, what would be the point of working when you have to give the vast majority of your money to the government? You'd be better off just leaving it in the bank and letting it grow. There's no point in working when you have to give almost all of your money to the government.
hmmm, if you didn't work how would you live? What would you eat?
Lynn, don't destroy the fantasy.I think this is the Rush Limbaugh angle.Rush may be looking out for the trust fund babies who don't have to work and can just live off of their interest.
I don't know if RH is one of the fabulously wealthy and looking out for himself, or if he's one of the working suckers that has been conned into voting to make sure the Paris Hiltons of the world don't suffer too much by paying taxes.
HBL
My guess... working class sucker.
The rich usually try & disguise their greedy self-obsession by at least PRETENDING to care about working people.
My guess... working class sucker.
My guess is that posting on this site is his job. He couldn't be much good at anything else. Oh wait...he's not much good at this either.
Debunked posted a good excerpt from "what's the matter with Kansas" on the first (Foser) thread.Relevant to the suckerinng of the average American to the benefit of the rich.
You could just live off the government. With the incredibly high tax rates, you could get a lot of benefits from the government. Or if you already had a decent amount of money you could just leave it in the bank and let it grow. With interest rates like there were in the Carter years at about 15%, your money could grow pretty fast if you put it in a CD or some other high interest account.
What a shameful lazy irresponsible man you are, living off of the government indeed when your healthy and abled bodied. Seriously RINO nobody loves paying taxes. It’s a necessary fact of life and the common good is an important thing to support. I live in a state with a very high tax rate but it is also has a very high standard of living, I think MD has the second highest income per capita in the country. Life is good here so the taxes are worth it, how’s life in KS? Well RINO I always enjoy playing with you but I’ve gotta run. Have a good week-end!
"Seriously RINO nobody loves paying taxes. It’s a necessary fact of life and the common good is an important thing to support"
I'm not saying that there should be NO taxes. Taxes are necessary for the government to function and privide public benefits to the people. I just think that the people should at least get to keep A MAJORITY of the income that they earn. Do you really think that a 70% top tax rate is fair?
By and large I agree with you Rino, but most people today gripe about tax rates that are now half of what they were in Carter's day. My bet is that people will always gripe about the tax rate as long as there are taxes at all.
If you're talking about interest rates, let's discuss the mortgage rates of the Reagan years.
Mine was 15.5 %.
That must have been in the early Reagan years (81-83). I financed two houses between 83-88 and neither were over 7.5% (much higher, I will admit, than the current mortage taken out in 2003, but nowhere near 15%). Some of Carter's problems were a carry over from Ford's WIN (whip inflation now) program and some of Reagan's problems were carry overs from the Carter years. The small recession in the early Clinton years could have been a result of GHWB tax increases. Our economy is so complex that the policies of one single person or administration can not be responsible for all of it, good or bad.
Couldn't agree more Oscar. I normally don't get into these kinds of arguments because policies effect the economy long after someone else starts to make policy.
It's just that RHINO was using it against Carter and I thought I'd give him a taste of his own medicine.
With interest rates like there were in the Carter years at about 15%, your money could grow pretty fast if you put it in a CD or some other high interest account.- RINO Hunter
Geez, RH, would you cool it with the pining for your hero Carter? ;0D
Ha, ha, Good one. The one good thing that comes from high interest rates is that your money grows pretty fast in a savings account. Otherwise, high interest rates are quite a pain.
Progressives value work. Conservatives value money.
Do you think that the majority of people on welfare are conservatives or liberals?
I don't know. But I do know you said work is pointless if you don't get paid.
Yep, there are entire communities of millionaires out there who only make $3 mil per year because they dont bother to work more than 30 hours a week, because after all their taxes are too high so why bother? And I know that my taxes are so high, I decided to cut back to four days a week at work because really, whats the point of making more money, if I have to pay more in taxes?
I bet all those people living in trailer parks would just work harder if their taxes werent so high. And I bet Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, etc would be making FAR MORE money than they do now, except some days they dont even bother to get out of bed, because whats the point? The govt is going to take more in taxes anyway.
Back in the Reality-based world: I bet there isnt a single case in human history of a person working less because taxes are so high. Taxes- esp. Windfall Taxes- were amazingly high in England in the 1960s- did they stop the Beatles, etc. from churning (and paying massive taxes on) one hit after another? Of course not. That argument is the dumbest ever- there is ZERO evidence that high taxes reduces ambition. ZERO. It makes a LOT more sense to argue that high taxes encourage people to work HARDER and to be MORE inventive, since that's necessary to become rich...
When taxes are extraoridarily high as they were during the Carter years, the rich simply find loopholes and other ways to hide their money and not pay taxes. They can hire high priced tax accountants who can tell them how to bend the rules and find ways to hide their money. The people who really get hurt with high taxes are THE MIDDLE CLASS. These people don't have the money and generally don't have the knowledge to find the loopholes in the tax system that will help them hide their money and get around the high taxes. Confiscatory taxes hurt the middle class more than they hurt the rich.
So your argument is we can never raise taxes on the rich because it will hurt the middle class????? C'mon please try to make sense
No, we should never raise taxes on the rich, because they have good tax guys and will get out of it, so why bother?.
They do have good tax guys, which is why we need to go to a flat tax with no loopholes. With my plan those who make $30,000 or less wouldn't have to pay any taxes, and those who make over $30,000 would have a 17% tax rate. I know SOME liberals who actually support a flat tax, because it would ensure that the rich couldn't use all of the various loopholes to pay lower taxes.
So economic growth always slows during Democratic adminstrations? Lets look at the years 1960 to 2002
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29205-
It turns out that Democratic presidents have a much better record than Republicans. They win a head-to-head comparison in almost every category. Real growth averaged 4.09 percent in Democratic years, 2.75 percent in Republican years. Unemployment was 6.44 percent on average under Republican presidents and 5.33 percent under Democrats. The federal government spent more under Republicans than Democrats (20.87 percent of gross domestic product, compared with 19.58 percent), and that remains true even if you exclude defense (13.76 for the Democrats; 14.97 for the Republicans).
What else? Inflation was lower under Democratic presidents (3.81 percent on average, compared with 4.85 percent). And annual deficits took more than twice as much of GDP under Republicans as under Democrats (2.74 percent versus 1.21 percent)
So the eternal question we KNOW you can parrot propaganda with the best of them but do you EVER KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT?
If Carter had a failing, it was his lack of charisma that prevented him from obtaining public support for his policies during some difficult years. However, your understanding of his administration is otherwise delusional.
Actually, I think Carter's biggest failing as President was that he was TOO truthful, and TOO honest. He was actually too moral of a man. Now, whilst his Presidency left a lot to be desired, the man has worked tirelessly during, before, and after his Presidency for world peace. He has won a Nobel Peace Prize after all, and they don't just give those things away to anyone for anything. You know, working on Middle East peace, Israel, Egypt, monitoring voting around the world, you know, silly little things like that. I love it when people criticize Carter, and can't actually come up with good criticisms, or ones that actually ring true.
And yes, he did start Habitat for Humanity, which is also a great program.
Jimmy Carter actually walks the walk of a good Christian person, unlike some others that I know of. Carter has done a lot for the US, and for the world, it's just that he hasn't done the bulk of his good works while he was President.
Actually, I think Carter's biggest failing as President was that he was TOO truthful, and TOO honest.
I agree. In a way, I think we're saying the same thing.
Rino, sorry but Junior has a complete lock on "Worst President of All Time".
How can you possibly say that a President who was RE-ELECTED is the worst President of all time?
I guess that makes the voters who voted for him twice the worse voters of all all time.
Over 1 Billion served.
Or it makes John Kerry the worst Presidential candidate of all time.
Rino, do you remember seeing those "W04" bumper stickers on cars? I see people willing to take the bumper off the car rather than leave the "W04" sticker on. And with a 29% approval rating I know that there are many who have buyers remorse. Too bad he can't be returned to Wal Mart aisle 4.
And once again- Rino shows us that he believes that if a President was popular enough to be elected, he was successful. If he was elected twice, he was especially successful. By Rino's logic, of course, FDR must have been the most successful president of all time. Do you really think so, Rino? And Bill Clinton won by margins of 6 and 8 percentage points, while Bush lost the popular vote the first time and then won by 3 points- so he's significantly less successful, right/
Really, what a juvenile way to think about politics. Policies enacted? Who cares? Leave the country a better place? Whatever. The important thing is- how were the guy's ratings? And did he get re-elected?
And once again- Rino shows us that he believes that if a President was popular enough to be elected, he was successful
That's a blatant misrepresentation of what I said, but I've come to expect that from you. I never said that Bush was a SUCCESSFUL President. I simply meant that Bush isn't the WORST President of all time. I believe that Bush has had some successes as President, and also some failures. I believe that it's a mixed bag overall. My point was simply that, if Bush is really so horrible, how could a MAJORITY of the American people vote to RE-ELECT him? John Kerry must have been the worst Presidential candidate of all time if that's the case, and that doesn't speak well for the Dems who nominated him.
NO by that standard Eugene Debs would have been a much worse candidate since he lost five times.
And yet he was the one who pushed alternative energy and peace treaties with Israel.
Poor little delusional RINO, take off those blinders and those funky rose colored glasses George Bush in maintianing his tradition as a failur eis a failed president and he will go down in history as the worst president of all time
You should go back to writing limericks. At least those are entertaining.
Ya got us libs mixed up, Julie writes the limericks, I just tease RINOs.
In defense of the scurrilous Glenn
Rino's willing to wield poison pen
To discount a good man
Whose good works he does ban
From his memory again and again
He doesn't "ban" the good work, he isn't blind to the fact that his "bad" work outweighs his good work. Since liberals all consider government controlled society a good thing, then of course they would see monumental taxation as a good thing.
Since you are INCREDIBLY ASTONISHINGLY IGNORANT, your delusions are unsuprising
Your williness to impugn a good man like Carter, who has done a wealth of good which you seem incapable of acknowledging, tells me all I need to about your character or lack thereof....to AP, Max and Rino. Shameful bearers of false witness.
BTW, anybody with a cursory knowledge of computers could gather all of the details they need on Jimmy Carter's work. He has distinguished himself far and above any Republican in doing major good works around the globe including alleviating homelessness, erradicating disease and promoting peace. If you are a halfway honest person, you could do your own research instead of listening to paid liars on your TV and radio. Your bias obviously prevents you from critically anylizing his work and allows you to put Carter's nuanced positions in a way that is ideologically palatable to you, compliments of people like Rush and this awful Beck. You have made yourselve useful idiots to the right.
He has distinguished himself far and above any Republican in doing major good works around the globe including alleviating homelessness, erradicating disease and promoting peace.
I do not deny Carter claims to be a Good Christian. I don't get to judge that. Of course, "works" count for what at judgement day?
BTW, what disease is no longer present because of Jimmy Carter?
"The only good thing that Jimmy Carter did for the world was create Habitat for Humanity."--rino
Even assuming this is true, it would seem to make Carter at least a thousand times the man that Beck is.
When it comes to opinions purportedly rating Carter, I think it is important to consider the sources.
I work in the railroad industry. When the economy is good the trains run when it gets bad there arent so many trains. During the Carter presidency. five jobs a shift worked in Barstow Yard building trains. During Raygun. Three jobs a shift. Jimmy Carters presidency can reasonably be called ineffective. He is still a better man by any objective standards than Glenn Beck will ever hope to be. And NO ONE anytime soon is going to beat out Chimpy McCokespoon as the worst president in the history of the United States.
During the Carter presidency. five jobs a shift worked in Barstow Yard building trains. During Raygun. Three jobs a shift.
That's probably because Reagan knows how to run something efficiently and under Carter your worthless unions were in control. Charging un-godly prices for doing half the work. No wonder you liked Carter better, you only had to work half as hard!
BTW, my dad has a full train set in his basement, also. They sure are fun to play with, aren't they?
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
(The only good thing that Jimmy Carter did for the world was create Habitat for Humanity. The man had a failed presidency and will probably go down as the worst president of all time. He basically ruined the entire economy when he was president. - RINO Hunter / Friday June 22, 2007 02:10:18 PM EST )
Quiz you this Republican?
How many Marines did Carter sacrifice for a un-defined mission?
How many times did Carter order men into danger with orders not to shoot?? Beirut no less!!
How many times did Carter break the law to support execution squads, and drug dealers?
How many hostages did Carter trade arms for?
How many times did Carter swear under oath of policies of their own illegal invention that they could not remember?? 150 times or more that he could not remember??
How many mentally ill, children, and handicapped citizens did Carter through into the streets?
Who campaigned on fiscal responsibility only to quadruple the same deficit to hand out tax credits to his corporate/wealthy supporters??
Who ignored the energy crisis to kick the can down the road to where we are today??
I would continue except that I don't have the room. Carter failed to win re-election, and was lousy at beating his own drum, and had nothing to do with the forming of OPEC, or the taking of hostages and fall of the Shah. He had the job of dealing with these issues as he did, and as often is the case he paid at the ballot box for policies that were needed but could easily played against him at re-election!
A real man of principle, not the pretenders we have today, or a monkey's shill that had no clue, like Reagan!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Ah, the fine art of making stuff up! Another gem, thanks Rhino!
Ok...now this is a good example of Beck's sick behavior.
Beck's disrespect towards Carter here is so infantile.
But it's become pretty commonplace to smear ex-Presidents, and just about any other public figure. That doesn't make it right. I guess we have to grin & bear it folks...Welcome to America 2007.
I admire Jimmy Carter. Voted for him once. Not twice. But I thought he was one of the most honest men that ever sat in the Oval Office. Was he a great President? No. But he wasn't the worst. That would be the current occupant.
My sentiments exactly...every bit of it.
So was Reagan one of the worst Presidents of all time too, in your opinion? Or is it only Bush that you don't like?
RINO,
I said I voted for Carter once, not twice...so using a little deduction, whom do you think I voted for instead of Carter that second time? If you guessed Reagan you win the prize!
I admired & respected Ronald Reagan.
To answer your question. It's only George W. Bush I don't like.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
(So was Reagan one of the worst Presidents of all time too, in your opinion? Or is it only Bush that you don't like? - RINO Hunter / Friday June 22, 2007 06:10:57 PM EST)
The differences are only two fold.
1. A Democratic Congress his first and second term for Reagan.
2. Reagan may not have had any memory of his first term in office during his second term in office!
I would also point out that Bush has managed to post historically bad poll numbers, while Cheney has an approval rating lower than Fidel Castro! Castro is likely seen as more democratic!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
Rhino, please stop revising history to fit your pathetic view of our democracy.
OPEC was formed and voted to limit oil production in late 1975, I remember as I had only had my license for a year when the prices for gas went from .25 a gal to 1.00 a gallon. Interest Rates were high, unemployment was high and all this began during the Nixon years. Whom by the way, was the only President since WWII to order "price controls' and they were on food!
Carter deregulated the airlines, Reagan broke the air-traffic controllers union. A very good discription of the differences in the two, one wants to discourge democracy for the working man in the name of free enterprise, the other wants to promote free enterprise with fairness!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Also, I find it funny that you call Bush the worst President ever when you claim that you voted for him in 2004. Maybe you can explain that as well.
RINO,
I voted for Bush in 2000 & 2004. I've explained why here before, but it's possible you missed it.
I was a McCain backer in 2000. He didn't get the nomination. I couldn't stand Al Gore [still not crazy about him] so by process of elimination I voted for Bush even though I wasn't too excited about it.
In 2004, I voted for Bush because I couldn't stand Kerry. He's my Senator. I knew enough about him to not want him as President. By then I wasn't happy with Bush. But I went and voted for him anyway.
In hindsight, I should have sat out BOTH elections.
Okay. Thanks for the explanation.
Jeter, I think what you're missing here is precisely what makes you a reasonable, fair and likable conservative.(Don't tell anybody I said there's such an animal ;0) )--
Although you voted for Bush, you are open minded enough to realize what he has turned out to be; a lousy president.While I might question your decision to vote for him, I wouldn't call it a mistake, as I respect your reasons for making that decision.
Now a real Republican(not in name only) in your position would realize that criticizing Bush after voting for him might appear as weakness, or admitting a mistake on your part.This would necessitate denying the complete disaster of the man's presidency in order to protect your delicate ego and insecurity.
It might get so bad that you couldn't even understand the concept of somebody else realizing they had voted for a disappointing candidate, and being secure enough to say so.
I believe that Jeter told me that he was a moderate, but oh well. It doesn't really matter that much. From reading his posts it seems as if he's conservative on some issues and liberal on others. He seems pretty open minded and moderate to me. But then again I could be wrong. He actually is more conservative than me on the immigration issue. I've got to admit that.
Thanks Beach. BTW your *secret* is safe with me ;-)
I guess my decision was based on The Lesser Of Two Evils.
But as it turned out I got that wrong :-(
As much as I disliked Gore & Kerry either one would have been better than Bush.
If I can't back a candidate 100% in 2008 I'll be sitting that election out.
I'll simply have to trust the electorate to get it right next time
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
Jeter, did you take the bumper off your car to remove the "W04" or just but a new car? :-)
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
Also, I find it funny that you call Bush the worst President ever when you claim that you voted for him in 2004. Maybe you can explain that as well.- RINO Hunter / Friday June 22, 2007 06:12:32 PM EST
I voted for the first time in '76 for Jimmy Carter, enlisted in the Navy '77 til '83, as the Hostage Crisis occured in Nov '79 which saw my ship get extended cruises twice in 19 mons, once in the Med, and once in the Persian Gulf. I voted for him again as a truly honest man in the presidency, something we haven't experienced since Truman!
I was going to re-elist in '83, but after Reagan's stupidity in Beruit I couldn't stomach the idea. I saw Beruit just before the war broke out, and had been on 3 Med cruises mostly off shore of Beruit, or Tripoli. The idea we would put Marines in that kind of mission, as pacifist in the middle of a 24-7 fire fight was a good window into their madness!
I say Ron Reagan can burn in hell for eternity, and some!
So, lets not confuse me with any idiot that voted for the Chimp's Straight Man!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Given the fact that Beck's show is an entertainment show this should not be an issue, ESPECIALLY when considering Carter's opinions and statements on the Middle East situation. He's about as pro Palestine/Anti-Israel as they come.
Carter has conveniently revised history, excused the Palestinians for their tragic failure to come to terms with Israel each time the chance presented itself, and blithely ignored Israel's very legitimate security concerns.
If they really need a speaker who's friendly with the bad guys, why not this guy?
If you insist on posting these homo-erotic images we're going to have to flag them.
But the guy in the dress did look hot!
Hmmm... who flew the planes into the WTC again?
I believe that was Sadaam Hussein, with Jimmy Carter as co-pilot, and a crew of lesbians, pornographers and atheists.
shut up until you can make some sense
Before you go ragging on Jimmy Carter and Israel, remember that he made peace between Israel and Egypt, who had fought four wars.
If you read Carter's new book, you'd see that a guarantee for the security of Israel is one of his stated requirements for any peace agreement. So you really have nothing to stand on.
Israels security concerns pale in comparison to that of the Palestinian people. The Palestinians have put forward plans of their own to solve the problem in line with the international consensus. Peace in return for coughing up the land Israel took in 1967 and a Palestinian state. Israel has never come NEAR complying with 242 and other UN security counsel resolutions on the issue nor giving Palestinians realy justice and dignity. The best they have offered gave them PARTIAL access to some of their land while keeping control over them IN that land and TAKING a large chunk of it.
Ah, and here it comes - the Republic Party "it's just entertainment, it's just a joke, you libruls should lighten up" garbage that happens every time a right-wing hatemonger says something hateful.
I saw this one coming from ten miles away.
so what? Israel is a beacon of human rights and decency? not. it's too bad we don't have more politicians who put our interests ahead of Israel's.
His show is entertainment? Then why is he on Headline NEWS and on a NEWS radio station out here? Who else gets the benefit of that doubt? If someone on the left offends you, they are merely entertainment, right?
Wanting Palestinians to have human right is not Anti Israel. This is simple. Israel TOOK Palestinian land and it has put them on permanent war footing. No nation can last forever on such a footing it is in THEIR best interest to solve the problem and Carter is talking about how to do that. Being an anti Muslim bigot you dont see that. Your take on the situation however should NOT be construed as representing reality in ANY way.
Yeah, whats your point? The last time I checked, it was perfectly legal to be Pro-Palestinian and critical of Israel's foreign policy (Carter isn't "Anti-Israel.") So what are you saying? Carter can just be dismissed as a nut or a bigot because he's critical of Israel? Or because he supports the creation of a Palestinian State?
I work at a private Jewish High School. Almost alll of the students I see graduate will go to Israel to study, and some may settle there permanently. I support Israel's right to exist. I have also been critical of Israel's foreign policy, and support the creation of an Palestinian State. There's no contradiction there. So what was your point? Just to spew talking points? Or what?
Not to mention that since the Palestinians are every bit as Semetic as Jews are makes that one of the stupidest talking points on record
Beck should talk. Bush allowed Osama's family to fly out of the United States shortly after 911 meanwhile we are searched more throughly than Osama's family.
Conservatives: forget about the mastermind of 911 look over there Iraq is the place to go.
The rest of America: How is Iraq connected to 911?
Conservatives: There's no connection, but there's oil in Iraq and don't forget we don't kill and we don't covet thy neighbor's goods, nudge nudge wink wink get it get it?
Harlequin, Richard Clarke OK'd the flight and didn't send the request any further up the ladder of command. But, I guess we all know, Mr. Clarke is a total Bush Lackey.
As far as I know, Richard A. Clarke is the only person to have apologized to the nation and to the families of the victims of the attacks on September 11, 2001 for his failures.
I'm pretty sure that many more apologies are owed.
The preferred adminstration term is "Loyal Bushie." (It's great when you don't even have to make the stuff up.)
As for the decision to allow the bin Laden family to fly (when commercial aircraft were still grounded), neither is a very accurate statement. While Clarke did make the decision (with input from the FBI), whether Bush knew is unknown. Clarke could not recall the source of the request, but thought it was either the State Department or the Office of the White House Chief of Staff. I.e., Bush may have known or he may have been clueless.
As I recall Clarke's words from "60 Minutes" he ok'd the flight because he didn't feel it was necessary to go any higher for authorization. From that I took him to mean the request came from a lower level. If that proves incorrect, I will admit a mistake on my part. At the same time, we do not have proof Bush knew, so to label him as the instigator of the flight (as was done above) is also incorrect.
When is Beck going to join the FAUX crew, where they are free to smear Jimmy Carter on a regular basis?
This is a perfect example of the neo-con's "sense of humor". I had to laugh when someone yesterday tried to explain that Preck was being funny when he made the comment about offing the Clinton's - ha, ha, conservative humor... right... go back to rehab douche bag.
I'm not saying Carter was the best president, but clearly, people who think he was the worst are not familiar with Buchanan, Hoover, or Nixon to name a few.
The only reason Carter left the navy after 7 years of service was because his father died and he had to manage the family business.
When Beck's resume reflects the same amount of years of service Carter has given this country he'll have the right to criticize him so cavalierly.
It's one thing to disagree with someone's politics but to suggest a true patriot might feel more comfortable with the enemies of this country is slander.
Glenn Beck is really sick with his comments about Jimmy Carter. I guess if ABC is willing to pay 1.2 million for a Paris Hilton interview, they'll pay Beck to profer his insolence and callow opinions about one of the great statesmen of our time. Beck's execrable and desultory comments reflect his ignorance and sciolism. Carter is revered throughout most of the world and does more in a day that Beck does in a lifetime for the betterment of humanity..
HBL:
Game on!
Gosh Beaver (aka Glenn Beck) I'm beginning to wonder that gee, maybe you are all booked up too. There's a couple of wars that you support, (pick one or the other) and golly, you decided to sit both out.
How come?
Well, Carter IS anti-semitic. It wouldn't be suprising if the kind of things he says and writes wouldn't be rejected by muslim extremists. Way to go Beck
You are a liar. Carter is NOT an anti Semite. You however ARE a moron.