Carter voted best ex-President

Look what happened to America under his watch. Hostages taken, a failed Military attempt to free them, recession, double digit unemployment, along with double digit inflation, mortgage rates at 19-20%.
Care to expound on your pathetically failing post James. I didn't think you would :lol:

Hostages were taken not due to actions taken by Carter. In 1953, the CIA overthrew the Democratically elected leader of Iran because he threatened to nationalize British oil. He was replaced with the Shah of Iran, who along with his secret police, SAVAK, repressed the Iranian people. It's one of the reasons also why many Iranians hate America today.

In 1979, the Shah fell, the people now in charge were pissed off, and took hostages.

Note: I'm not saying it was right that they took hostages, but you can't blame Carter for the fact hostages were taken.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/October-Surprise-Americas-Hostages-Election/dp/0812919890]Amazon.com: October Surprise: America's Hostages in Iran and the Election of Ronald Reagan (9780812919899): Gary Sick: Books[/ame]

The Former President of Iran, Bani-Sadr, also stated that Reagan made a deal with Teheran to delay the release of the hostages.

And if you don't believe that, not sure what to tell you. It isn't exactly far-fetched considering not even five years later, Reagan and his Administration are making secret weapons deals with the Iranians and Contras.

Wrong. I can blame Carter for the ineptness in which he handled the hostage crisis.

And no, I don't believe Reagan made any deal to delay the release of the hostages. That's leftwing smear machine rhetoric. If you look at what would have been at risk for him had something like that been found out, it would not have been worth to him, IMO.

Fact is, the Iranians knew they wouldn't be facing Jimmy Carter anymore but they aren't going to come out and say they worried someone with some balls might do something. They're going ot paint themselves in a good light.

Those secret weapons deals were for what purpose? To secure the release of other hostages. It doesn't make it legal, but it's not like they were doing it without a good reason.
 
Yip, but he never got us into a unnecessary war, now did he?
No, he just killed Special forces troops, and paid to train Bin laden.

6.jpg

Yeah, wouldn't want to forget the CIA was slipping weapons over the Afghanistan border to the muhajadeen under Carter's watch.
 
Look what happened to America under his watch. Hostages taken, a failed Military attempt to free them, recession, double digit unemployment, along with double digit inflation, mortgage rates at 19-20%.
Care to expound on your pathetically failing post James. I didn't think you would :lol:

Hostages were taken not due to actions taken by Carter. In 1953, the CIA overthrew the Democratically elected leader of Iran because he threatened to nationalize British oil. He was replaced with the Shah of Iran, who along with his secret police, SAVAK, repressed the Iranian people. It's one of the reasons also why many Iranians hate America today.

In 1979, the Shah fell, the people now in charge were pissed off, and took hostages.

Note: I'm not saying it was right that they took hostages, but you can't blame Carter for the fact hostages were taken.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/October-Surprise-Americas-Hostages-Election/dp/0812919890]Amazon.com: October Surprise: America's Hostages in Iran and the Election of Ronald Reagan (9780812919899): Gary Sick: Books[/ame]

The Former President of Iran, Bani-Sadr, also stated that Reagan made a deal with Teheran to delay the release of the hostages.

And if you don't believe that, not sure what to tell you. It isn't exactly far-fetched considering not even five years later, Reagan and his Administration are making secret weapons deals with the Iranians and Contras.

Wrong. I can blame Carter for the ineptness in which he handled the hostage crisis.

And no, I don't believe Reagan made any deal to delay the release of the hostages. That's leftwing smear machine rhetoric. If you look at what would have been at risk for him had something like that been found out, it would not have been worth to him, IMO.

Fact is, the Iranians knew they wouldn't be facing Jimmy Carter anymore but they aren't going to come out and say they worried someone with some balls might do something. They're going ot paint themselves in a good light.

Those secret weapons deals were for what purpose? To secure the release of other hostages. It doesn't make it legal, but it's not like they were doing it without a good reason.
actually, THAT is quite funny
in that claim George HW Bush is alleged to have flown in an SR-71 blackbird to set that up
LOL
 
Yip, but he never got us into a unnecessary war, now did he?
No, he just killed Special forces troops, and paid to train Bin laden.

6.jpg

Yeah, wouldn't want to forget the CIA was slipping weapons over the Afghanistan border to the muhajadeen under Carter's watch.
and the fact that Iran being taken over by radical islamists was the basic start of the current war
 
President Carter is a Mensa member! I get tired of the "he isn't smart peanut jokes". By the way, HE put solar panels in the white house, and THEN Ronald Reagan removed them. Imagine, back in the 70's, a time of complete indulgence at the expense of outdoor anything, a man who saw the need, put up some panels, and was forgotten for it. I'm here to bring him back, and his panels. Thank you former President Carter, if only we'd listened!

Peace to all,

Mister Flew

Well, there you have it. Putting solar panels on one of our nation's historical markers more than makes up for all his fuckups.:cuckoo:
 
Carter was the worst modern President, no doubt about it. He didn't have a sinister agenda as some on here have implied though. He was just a bumpkin way out of his league who surrounded himself with a mix of incompetents and embryonic neo-cons and got played. The truth is bad enough, no need to make it something it's not.
 
Hostages were taken not due to actions taken by Carter. In 1953, the CIA overthrew the Democratically elected leader of Iran because he threatened to nationalize British oil. He was replaced with the Shah of Iran, who along with his secret police, SAVAK, repressed the Iranian people. It's one of the reasons also why many Iranians hate America today.

In 1979, the Shah fell, the people now in charge were pissed off, and took hostages.

Note: I'm not saying it was right that they took hostages, but you can't blame Carter for the fact hostages were taken.

Amazon.com: October Surprise: America's Hostages in Iran and the Election of Ronald Reagan (9780812919899): Gary Sick: Books

The Former President of Iran, Bani-Sadr, also stated that Reagan made a deal with Teheran to delay the release of the hostages.

And if you don't believe that, not sure what to tell you. It isn't exactly far-fetched considering not even five years later, Reagan and his Administration are making secret weapons deals with the Iranians and Contras.

Wrong. I can blame Carter for the ineptness in which he handled the hostage crisis.

And no, I don't believe Reagan made any deal to delay the release of the hostages. That's leftwing smear machine rhetoric. If you look at what would have been at risk for him had something like that been found out, it would not have been worth to him, IMO.

Fact is, the Iranians knew they wouldn't be facing Jimmy Carter anymore but they aren't going to come out and say they worried someone with some balls might do something. They're going ot paint themselves in a good light.

Those secret weapons deals were for what purpose? To secure the release of other hostages. It doesn't make it legal, but it's not like they were doing it without a good reason.
actually, THAT is quite funny
in that claim George HW Bush is alleged to have flown in an SR-71 blackbird to set that up
LOL

I can see that. A WWII Grumman Avenger torpedo-bomber pilot hops righ tinto a Blackbird and .....:lol::lol::lol:
 
Carter was the worst modern President, no doubt about it. He didn't have a sinister agenda as some on here have implied though. He was just a bumpkin way out of his league who surrounded himself with a mix of incompetents and embryonic neo-cons and got played. The truth is bad enough, no need to make it something it's not.

One thing I can't really call Carter is "sinister". "Bumpkin" works pretty good though.:lol:
 
Carter sucked as President.

As an ex-President he is bound to be better if for no other reason than that he is no longer in power.

But even so, he is a lousy ex-President too since he lacks the ability to adhere to some rational precedents. And when he is spouting-off in his typically thoughtless, doctrinaire way, he probably still causes more problems than he hopes to solve.

For example, when he makes the grandiose pronouncement that MOST of the opposition to President Obama's efforts to change healthcare delivery in America is based on race, he is being a jackass.

Nobody who gives it much thought (and who is honest about these things) would deny that some portion of the opposition opposes President Obama on the basis of race. But it is baseless to say that "most" of the opposition is based on race. The fact that he has no proper basis to say such a thing, but spews it anyway, is one of the most fundamental flaws of who and what Carter is.
 
wrong. I can blame carter for the ineptness in which he handled the hostage crisis.

And no, i don't believe reagan made any deal to delay the release of the hostages. That's leftwing smear machine rhetoric. If you look at what would have been at risk for him had something like that been found out, it would not have been worth to him, imo.

Fact is, the iranians knew they wouldn't be facing jimmy carter anymore but they aren't going to come out and say they worried someone with some balls might do something. They're going ot paint themselves in a good light.

Those secret weapons deals were for what purpose? To secure the release of other hostages. It doesn't make it legal, but it's not like they were doing it without a good reason.
actually, that is quite funny
in that claim george hw bush is alleged to have flown in an sr-71 blackbird to set that up
lol

i can see that. A wwii grumman avenger torpedo-bomber pilot hops righ tinto a blackbird and .....:lol::lol::lol:
yup
 
Either you accept the poll or you don't. You don't get to cherry pick with it. That's what you anti-government libertartoids and the far right wing of the GOP did in 2008 and got your asses kicked up through your throats so you could hear the Democrats pounding on your collective butt. Either Rasmussen is acceptable or it isn't. Be consistent!
 
Last edited:
Either you accept the poll or you don't. You don't get to cherry pick with it. That's what you anti-government libertartoids and the far right wing of the GOP did in 2008 and got your asses kicked up through your throats so you could hear the Democrats pounding on your collective butt. Either Rasmussen is acceptable or it isn't. Be consistent!
whos not accepting the poll
its the wording of the question you dont seem to get
its WHO has been BETTER since leaving office
and Carter couldnt HELP but be better
:lol:
 
Either you accept the poll or you don't. You don't get to cherry pick with it. That's what you anti-government libertartoids and the far right wing of the GOP did in 2008 and got your asses kicked up through your throats so you could hear the Democrats pounding on your collective butt. Either Rasmussen is acceptable or it isn't. Be consistent!

I am consistent. Polls suck. They reflect only the opinions of those polled, and the answers to the specific questions they are asked.

And I got news for you ... Democrats didn't pound anyone's collective butt. The GOP kicked its own ass so stow away the pom poms, hun?
 
Carter was not a bad president. He was the victim of circumstance.

The stupid monetary policies of Paul Volcker doomed Carter.

Carter brought home the hostages and helped establish peace between Egypt and Israel.
 
I am consistent. Polls suck. They reflect only the opinions of those polled, and the answers to the specific questions they are asked.

And I got news for you ... Democrats didn't pound anyone's collective butt. The GOP kicked its own ass so stow away the pom poms, hun?

The Republicans were incompetent but it was also a butt-kicking. The Democrats ran a very good campaign.

The Democrats raised mountains of money and created a vast infrastructure across the country. They beat the Republicans badly right across the board on electoral tactics, strategy, fundraising, get-out-the-vote, and so on.
 
I am consistent. Polls suck. They reflect only the opinions of those polled, and the answers to the specific questions they are asked.

And I got news for you ... Democrats didn't pound anyone's collective butt. The GOP kicked its own ass so stow away the pom poms, hun?

The Republicans were incompetent but it was also a butt-kicking. The Democrats ran a very good campaign.

The Democrats raised mountains of money and created a vast infrastructure across the country. They beat the Republicans badly right across the board on electoral tactics, strategy, fundraising, get-out-the-vote, and so on.
LOL did it really take that much to beat the rep the repubs had?
LOL
they shouldnt have had to spend a DIME
 

Forum List

Back
Top