Well he's got to learn something somewhere from sombody. He hasn't a clue unless someone somewhere tells him the something to say.

I hadn't noticed Obama being handicapped in this regard. He always seems to have something to
say and usually says it very well. I don't agree with him as often as I used to. I do agree with him
a lot more than I agree with McCain or George Bush.

here is a good blog I found
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu...ddress=296x7694
COMPARE CARTER TO REAGAN

(4 yrs to 8 yrs. So, use Average per year on some and Monthly average also.)

ONE SIMPLE QUESTION.
HOW COULD THE DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP ALLOW THE TRASHING OF CARTER AS A FAILED PRESIDENT??? DISGUSTING.



--------------------JOBS-------------------------------------------------

Real Increase—Carter-13.0% in 4 years—Reagan-17.5% in 8 yrs

Carter 10,488,000 in 4—Reagan 15,935,000 in 8.

Per month Carter averaged far more than Reagan
218,000 to 175,000.


Care to compare number of homes built per year. Don’t. Reagan killed S & L’s.
Care to compare GDP growth without massive spending (borrow) programs.
Carter-3.4%--Reagan 3.4% even with major spending
Care to compare Increase in National Income and GDP to Debt Growth
Care to compare percent increase in Federal Revenues
Care to compare GDP Growth in “Real” dollars per year

Care to compare First THREE Years---
First figure is carter

Real GDP—+3.2%-- +1.3%= -59% less for RR
Industrial Production--+3.0%--+.01%= -97% less for RR
Rate Capacity Utilization 83.4% --75.9% = -9% less for Reagan
Plant-Equip. Expend. +14.6%--.8%= -95% less for Reagan
Housing Starts—1.76 Million—1.28 million = -27% less for Reagan
Domestic auto sales—8.48 million—6.25 million= -26% less for Reagan
Business Failures—8461—24,291= +189% more for Reagan
Civilian Unemployment—6.5%--9.0%= +38% more for Reagan
Number Unemployed—6.74 million—9.89 million=+47% more for Reagan
Real Disposable Income Growth--+1/9%--+1/3%= - 32% less for Reagan
Prime Rate—10.96%--14.94%= +35% more for Reagan
Federal Budget Deficit—48.5 Billion—153.billion= +215% more for Reagan
Farm Income--+1.75%---5.7%= -326% less for Reagan

Comparison Above of 13 items from CBO Record 3-26-84

Care to compare number killed overseas
Care to compare percent Increase in Defense Spending
Care to compare number of LIES told
Care to compare numbers of departments with SCANDALS
Care to compare numbers of administration members who were investigated, went to prison, convicted or charged.
Care to compare respect by foreign nations
Care to check 1947 National Security Act that was instrumental in checking the expansion of communism.
Care to compare number of times president went to church.
Care to compare how historians rank them without $$ spent by conservative think tanks
(In 1994 Reagan was ranked tenth from bottom-- Conservatives have spent millions
re-inventing his average record).
Care to compare as DEREGULATOR? Airlines-Financial Institutions-Transportation
Care to compare with which created FEMA
Care to check who was President when FISA was passed into law?
Care to check who started Centcom—As-RDJTF-Rapid Deployment Task Force-
(Reagan changed name to Centcom) -U.S forces designated for possible employment to Middle East.
Carter produced the First Arab-Israeli Peace Treaty
Carter normalized trade with China
Carter led the Senate to obey our treaty and yield control of Panama Canal.
Carter killed the neutron bomb
Carter won Nato agreement to match Soviet missiles in Europe
Carter limited strategic nuclear arms with Salt II Treaty.
Carter paid UN dues in full, on time and without conditions.
Carter got third world majorities against Vietnam’s intervention on Cambodia.
Carter placed embargoes on Soviets for invasion of Afghanistan
The great anti-communist Reagan lifted them while Soviets were still in Afghanistan
Carter efforts were significant on—Human Rights impartiality, nuclear build down, energy sustainability, Middle East peace, non-interventionism .
Same President who said this—“The oil flow from the Persian Gulf is a vital interest to the United States and this country will employ any means necessary including military force to overcome an attempt by a hostile power to block that flow.”

Imagine the praise had Reagan made that statement.

Carter increased CAFE standards—Reagan cancelled them. Loved oil people. Backers in California. Henry Salvatori. Pals first America second.

When Carter left office it took 3.6 years of average income to purchase an average priced new home. After Reagan’s years it took 4.2 Years and now under Bush II 5.4 years.

When Conservatives hit on Carter as a “do nothing” administration they best not check the FACTS.

Inflation was Carter’s big handicap. Remember Oil Prices? Food prices?
Inflation had nothing to do with his Fiscal policies

Reagan took credit for whipping inflation. Blarney Baloney.
It was Carter’s hire Paul Volcker. Who whipped inflation (at cost of 5 million jobs)
Reagan had inflationary fiscal policies. Carter did not.

Evangelicals want a true, devout, Christian? They better look to a genuine one. Carter.

Conservatives re-invent and trash other presidents in an effort to promote Reagan.
Reagan was not by any means an above average President.
Blarney Baloney Deluxe. An actor acting in a role as President.
He was graded as a C president.
Historians use numbers not emotions.
500 in 1994 rated him tenth from bottom
in 1994 one of top two historical societies polled members and rated him 21% above average 79% below average.

Reagan honored Nazi SS Troops. Carter Fought.

NO NUMBERS REVEAL AN ABOVE AVERAGE RECORD

If anyone has some present them I will use them

Carter's Energy principles/plans- 1977

The first principle is that we can have an effective and comprehensive energy policy only if the government takes responsibility for it and if the people understand the seriousness of the challenge and are willing to make sacrifices.

The second principle is that healthy economic growth must continue. Only by saving energy can we maintain our standard of living and keep our people at work. An effective conservation program will create hundreds of thousands of new jobs.

The third principle is that we must protect the environment. Our energy problems have the same cause as our environmental problems -- wasteful use of resources. Conservation helps us solve both at once.

The fourth principle is that we must reduce our vulnerability to potentially devastating embargoes. We can protect ourselves from uncertain supplies by reducing our demand for oil, making the most of our abundant resources such as coal, and developing a strategic petroleum reserve.

The fifth principle is that we must be fair. Our solutions must ask equal sacrifices from every region, every class of people, every interest group. Industry will have to do its part to conserve, just as the consumers will. The energy producers deserve fair treatment, but we will not let the oil companies profiteer.

The sixth principle, and the cornerstone of our policy, is to reduce the demand through conservation. Our emphasis on conservation is a clear difference between this plan and others which merely encouraged crash production efforts. Conservation is the quickest, cheapest, most practical source of energy. Conservation is the only way we can buy a barrel of oil for a few dollars. It costs about $13 to waste it.

The seventh principle is that prices should generally reflect the true replacement costs of energy. We are only cheating ourselves if we make energy artificially cheap and use more than we can really afford.

The eighth principle is that government policies must be predictable and certain. Both consumers and producers need policies they can count on so they can plan ahead. This is one reason I am working with the Congress to create a new Department of Energy, to replace more than 50 different agencies that now have some control over energy.

The ninth principle is that we must conserve the fuels that are scarcest and make the most of those that are more plentiful. We can't continue to use oil and gas for 75 percent of our consumption when they make up seven percent of our domestic reserves. We need to shift to plentiful coal while taking care to protect the environment, and to apply stricter safety standards to nuclear energy.

The tenth principle is that we must start now to develop the new, unconventional sources of energy we will rely on in the next century.

These ten principles have guided the development of the policy I would describe to you and the Congress on Wednesday.

Our energy plan will also include a number of specific goals, to measure our progress toward a stable energy system.

These are the goals we set for 1985:

--Reduce the annual growth rate in our energy demand to less than two percent.

--Reduce gasoline consumption by ten percent below its current level.

--Cut in half the portion of United States oil which is imported, from a potential level of 16 million barrels to six million barrels a day.

--Establish a strategic petroleum reserve of one billion barrels, more than six months' supply.

--Increase our coal production by about two thirds to more than 1 billion tons a year.

--Insulate 90 percent of American homes and all new buildings.

--Use solar energy in more than two and one-half million houses.

We will monitor our progress toward these goals year by year. Our plan will call for stricter conservation measures if we fall behind.

I cant tell you that these measures will be easy, nor will they be popular. But I think most of you realize that a policy which does not ask for changes or sacrifices would not be an effective policy.

This plan is essential to protect our jobs, our environment, our standard of living, and our future.

Whether this plan truly makes a difference will be decided not here in Washington, but in every town and every factory, in every home an don every highway and every farm.

I believe this can be a positive challenge. There is something especially American in the kinds of changes we have to make. We have been proud, through our history of being efficient people.

CARTER 1981 STATE OF uNION FANTASTIC SO PROPHETIC

imagine 8 for carter-8 for dukasis-8 for clinton-8 for gore

WHAT A WONDERFUL WORLD

First, it's all about the oil, and it always has been. Each person inside the "NSA" came to the table with their own idealistic or mercenary reasons for the war, but the president is the person who decides who is in his NSA. Great book on this subject, and very bi-partisan is "Running the World: the Inside Story of the National Security Council and the Architects of American Power. I have this book for sale for 5.99 in my little book business. It was read only once, by me.
It describes who and how national security issues have been decided (and who had the most influence) since the Truman administration. It also documents how the NSA advisors have almost all been proteges' of Kissinger and they only come out of two or three think tanks and two or four Universities. This makes the decision making limited in scope because of the lack of diversity. It might explain why we keep doing the same things over and over and expect a different result.

Second, a book I don't own, but I have read, is called The Grand Chessboard . The quotes on the first page of this thread are from that book.

He did set up the Mujahadeen and he did lure the Soviets into Afghanistan. This is one of the reasons I want us out of Afghanistan. It will bleed us for another 20 years with no progress what-so-ever. The right place to fight was Iraq, but we messed it up, and we let the monied interests take the whole situation away from the idealist people, and completely screw it all up. Now, there is nothing left for us to do except salvage whatever we can in terms of security and draw down. It's a HORRIBLE choice, but, the US has elected someone that simply isn't competent and he allowed his Oedipal complex, and the race for oil to cloud any thoughts about how the situation could/would change once inside the country. Now, we have no credibility, and no one will back us up. In the end, the Europeans have a very vested interest in Russia's actions, but they are so used to us leading the way, and so mistrustful of Bush, that they will not ever stand up to Russia, even if it means that in the end, they are going to be in deep trouble too.

You must not be paying attention then.......or you don't care that the messiah isn't as bright as y'all think he is.

I was watching one of the Sunday morning news hours where Obama was being interviewed. The commentator asked him a question about an economic issue; the annointed one gave a really swell answer. There was but one problem, the answer was to a different question than the one asked. And what was really swell is the reporter just let it go.

But what else should we expect? Obama hasn't got any experience in several things he's got answers for. He'll make somebody a great finger puppet.

Maybe you overlooked how he got mortgage interest rates up as one of Carter's accomplishments. Everyone loved those 17 and 18 percent mortgages.

Obama is most definitely as bright as we think he is....but, I'm sorry to have to inform you Marine, he's not the messiah. Can you handle that truth?

if Bush didn't manipulate the interest rates now, it would be 25% right now
And a helleva lot more people foreclosing now(what is it about 1750% more than in Jimmy's days

I by the way do not mind the high interest rates- at least I would be making money and so would
the older people who have ZERO stock and keep their money in money markets and cd's.

Give me Jimmy Carter anytime with the interest rates.

History will show Jimmy Carter one of the ten best
And Reagan, Ford,Bush41 Bush43 way down in the bottom five. When the final accounting is done,
God knows who will rise, and who will go straight down.

And everyone knows that the POTUS has sole responsibility for establishing fiscal policy which determines interest rates, money supply and related factors.

The economy survived those years on its own strengths. Let's just see how quickly the nation gets out from under the debt and economic woes that will have resulted from BushCo... if ever.... ah, but the FED's printing presses have never pumped more paper money into trying to forestall a complete crash at any time in history. This administration and the FED have artificially kept an economy going and created a calamity in the making that we'll be lucky to dig out of in decades... not years.

Oh... I forgot... running the government on credit, and the economy on credit cards, and devaluing the dollar by half in eight years or so is just fine. This is America... and we'll be rich or broke pretending.

Done by Paul Volcker.

A staunch conservative republican.

He got inflation under control.

As did the use of leeches get sick people better in the middle ages.

I hadn't noticed any such handicap myself. I would be interested if Marine has any evidence to that effect other than a video or other site having nothing to do with the question.

Added note: What Marine cited was of course no such evidence of anything that sometimes Obama is indeed a typical politician doing what they often do. (Besides his citing that interview being most ironic!)

Wait a minute here.

You are criticizing Obama for giving an answer to a different question than the one asked. You are making this criticism. I assume that there aren't two people posting under the name of "Marine".

Anyway, I for one try not to let that sort of thing just go. Not so swell perhaps?

Well, it wasn't just him, it was just about everyone. Especially Kissinger and Rumsfeld during the Reagan administration. Every country makes stupid decisions, and they pay the price. What if Alexander had stayed and Conquered Afghanistan? What if Rome had not made the decision to rely on mercenaries to carry out their policies? What if Britain had never left India....I mean....this what if situation could go on for ever. The truth is that people tend to try to make the best decisions possible at the time and they are often wrong.



Absolutely agree. The question I have is, is oil, with it's importance in the global economy enough of a reason to go to war? Why do countries go to war? Isn't it almost always about resources? Isn't it at least the larger part of the equation. If we become so righteous about our "no war" policy, then do we risk being totally subjagated by China even faster? If we end up in that position then how many more Darfur or Ossentian, or Kurdish or Armenian genocides will we have to sit by and watch because we are the loser in this game of capture the oil? If this is about Europe's energy, then where the EHell is the EU in this current conflict? They are powerless I guess right? Or, did they capitulate a long time ago and thus can only utter platitudes for an end to hostilites? Meanwhile, thousands upon thousands die.


Arne wrote:

This is true, I don't think Brzezinski is dumb, and he is a person that anyone should listen to on many matters.

Marine wrote:

When did we become "you liberals" or "the liberals"? You wanted to vote for Al Gore! I think he is MUCH more Liberal than Obama. Why has it suddenly become "us" meaning you and maybe IH against others here who try to have an open mind from what I can see? Perhaps too open of a mind? There are Freepers on the Left and Freepers on the Right, and I don't think either side has a hope of getting a president elected, and they should be called out if they are not even representing the Democratic or Republican opinion if we ARE talking about the two parties. They paid their dues here, so they can write whatever they want, but anyone could tell them they are not representative of either Party. Certainly I am not liberal on foreign policy, but I am on domestic policy....much more so than just about anyone on this board. You, IH, Arne, Tom, are all to the right of me on domestic stuff. In fact, you are "centrists" as far as I can tell. So, the labels don't really need to be brought out to scorn.

As for a PBS website. They are or were run by a Bush guy and then he quit and then they were run by a woman appointed by Bush and there was this big flap over it four years ago. I don't know what happened to that, but I do know that it is very hard to document something unless you have it from the persons mouth. That is why, I provided the link to the book written by Brzezinski himself! No one needs to argue about what he believed at the time if you are reading his own words. The question becomes "does he still think this". Maybe he thinks all that was a mistake.

What if, fresh water becomes the scarce commodity in the world? What if it isn't oil? Well....it would make sense to me that every nation would be doing the same things as they are now doing for oil, for fresh water. If you were thirsty, and your crops were dying due to constant drought, I think we would all fight for more fresh water. Oil, is for now, akin to this in my opinion. I am not happy with anyone's death, but as I see what a lack of oil can do to price, and not here either, but in places where people are really starving because of its price, I realize it is better for us to have it, than for us to allow dictators to use it to control us, and let their own people starve....knowing that no one will intercede on their behalf because China will turn a blind eye.

The thing I have looked for in Obama, that I was worried I would not find (but did find in Hillary because she does LISTEN to others) is whether or not he would make his decisions based on the advice of a narrow band of opinion. I can never know for sure, but I have read and watched, and I really do believe that he makes up his mind after listening to many opinions from many areas. He does not simply listen to the Party dogmatics. It doesn't make him any less fallable, but it gives me more hope than I had that if he wins he will not rush blindly into something stupid to pacify his compatriots in thinking.

there is lots of doubt that this marine actually wanted Al Gore at all
though that marine said he did back then

Either just saying it then for effect, or saying it now for effect

because the two don't become one.

Heart, what do you mean by, "Freepers?"

Thanks for your post Hear. We need more like them, IMCO. More thought and less concern about whether the results fit ANY notion of political correctness.

People can agree or disagree with you on foreign policy, but unless they are willing to take the kind of hard, cold-eyed, illusion-avoiding look that you are willing to take, then in my opinion they are simply full of it and need to do more thinking and less talking for a while. The world is a tough place for anyone with any kind of idealism. You can make things easy by losing your idealism or adopting all kinds of comforting illusions. Or you can choose something tougher.

Well...if you ever go to the Free Republic website you find a bunch of really, really, right wing folks....and they are commonly refered to as freepers. They are responsible for a lot of the perjurative statements concerning wingnuts and liberals and such. Over the course of the past few years, I've witnessed the Left side of the spectrum, if you will, do similar things to those who are not towing the far Left line. So, I see no difference between those who are Left freepers and those who are right freepers. They are both fanatics, and I think Pegatha has a signature line that reads "A fanatic is someone who won't change the subject, and won't change their mind". Well...I add in the demonization of independent thinking. Similar to how unfortunately, "swiftboating" became a perjurative verb, so too, has freeper become such.

Graham, Marine might not have ever told YOU who he supported, but has said it to those who he knows, respects and who he would have no possible reason to lie to. You can call his opinions into question, but it is not necessary to say that a person doesn't believe what they say they believe, because it is faulty debate and bad form as the person cannot prove a negative.

I am not sure that I completely understand where Marine is coming from, but despite my disagreements with him I don't think he is your stereotypical right-winger. He seems to have an old-fashioned populist streak, which if my understanding is correct was quite common among Southern Democrats years ago.

Marine is coming from his own independent place. He thinks a LOT about his ideas and that is all I can ever ask anyone to do. I do agree with him on many things, and yes, I think the place he grew up formed a lot of his populist opinions. He also lives in a very liberal place believe it or not (I didn't know that either), but then....think about where Lyndon Johnson came from, or Barbara Jordon and Lloyd Bentsen. They were Texans.

Thank You for your kind words Arne.

Well Heart; there is one great big difference between Al Gore and Barrack Obama and that's one is thoroughly quailified to be president and has demonstrated it through years of public service to the United States of America. The other has virtually no experience at all. I think you are smart enough to figure out which one is which.

"Texas is a very liberal place? Say what?

Up until the 1980s a republican couldn't get elected to an office of any importance here. Then we were invaded and the invaders took over the politics of the state. I think the worst mistake Texas ever made was not demolishing the bridges over the Red River to prevent the huge influx of Yankees dragging their U-Haul trailers in from Michigan, Illinois, and Pennsylvania.

Where I live had been a democratic stronghold for years but we've been overwhelmed by the yuppies fleeing Dallas for life in the country.

Yes! that's exactly what I''m saying. I think marine said it better.

You know, where he comes from in Texas never recovered from the Depression. Yes. Democrats rule in that state even now I think. Georgia too has always been run by Democrats. It's only in the past 10 years that has changed.

I do understand what Marine is saying about Al Gore and Obama's experience. I agree. I just know that there are tough choices to be made here and I think I have to consider things I encounter every single day, and not things that I don't. The Republicans are really good at getting people to focus on issues that just don't affect them, but get them all emotionally charged up (like gay marriage) and off they go to the polls to vote Republican.

Funniest thing I heard was some idiot on tv, with Republican talking points, said "Obama is the most Liberal member of congress. He's to the Left of Bernie Sanders" (the guy couldn't say Ted Kennedy because he was in the hospital). I just about woke the dead laughing over that. Every four years they use that line, and every four years it's "To the Left of Ted Kennedy", and after awhile you would think that someone would wonder how many Senators could be "the most Liberal in congress". You might get a rise out of people by saying "Ted Kennedy", because the Republicans have branded him, but to be honest I don't think that's accurate. Yet, to say "Bernie Sanders"....NO ONE KNOWS WHO THAT IS!!! That's what made it so funny!

But, to get back to the point here....there is a race to capture oil. Policy maker's know it. Brzezinski and Carter knew it back then. Carter was an idealist you know. He couldn't believe that people could be as nasty as they were. I thing that was his flaw. He assumed people had honor, and they did not have it.

The government gives us all some mythology, and some plausible humanitarian reasons to go along with them to war. They make the wars about ideals and they really are about resources. Sometimes they aren't even about our countries resources, but about corporate resources (more and more). They simply lie. I am tired of the lies because I have too much of a propensity for believing in ideals.

I can ONLY HOPE that Iraq turns out to be a good thing, but I do know it was a lie. It was a confluence of interests, and only a small contingent of people who genuinely wanted to free people from dictatorship. I was certainly one of them.

But, I hate the way the world looks at us now. I hate the way the lie came out so full force to the world. I don't think we can have any credibility if we elect McCain, but I don't think he's evil. I don't think the people that listen to Brzezinski are evil either. He is only one, of the few people that have respect on world affairs. It's not exactly the most lucrative thing you can do and most are lured to areas of study that are going to enable them to live decently. There aren't very many people willing to live on the kind of salary that the government pays for that kind of advice. I do hope that someone will open it up to others so that the incestuousness of advice is reduced. I hope that more charismatic and brilliant people can be brought into the fold, so we get a better picture of what is going on in the world. It doesn't matter who gets elected, if the list of people who are knowledgeable about an area of the world numbers in the two digits. We will simply get the same kind of policy with minor differences.

Texas will vote for Obama.

I'm pretty sure there are more Democrats in Texas than Republicans. What got them to the polls to vote for Ann Richards? Probably because of the dishonor of the sitting governor's refusal to shake her hand after the debate. Southerners do tend to be more polite. Probably because in the south people dueled a lot and if you didn't talk slow and show politeness to others you would end up dead.

Well, I need to get a little history straight about Texas. The great depression didn't hit Texas nearly so hard as it did the rest of the country. Sure Texas was in the downturn just like everyone else but most of Texas was outside the Dustbowl, just the Panhandle suffered like Oklahoma and Kansas but the rest of the state chugged on, just at a slower pace.

Another reason why things weren't as bad here in Texas as they were in a lot of other places is a matter of perception. The United States has had greater downturns in the economy than was suffered in the great depression but the standard of living was so much lower in those prior downturns folks just didn't notice it was so bad. Texas was a rural state and pretty much still in the 19th century when the great depression hit in 1929. Texans just didn't have that much to notice that things got worst.

What kept the democratic party the party of Texas was hatred of republicans passed down from father to children over the era of reconstruction following the Civil War. I bet most of y'all don't know it but in 1874 the Texas Militia, the folks of my avatar, had to be called out to evict a republican governor from office who when he lost the election just flat refused to step down and allow the democrat winner to take office. Another republican wasn't elected Governor of the State of Texas until over a hundred years later and the only reason Clements won was cause la Raza diluted the democratic vote. If Mario Compean hadn't taken away votes from the democrat John Hill Texas might not a given the republicans a chance for a while longer.

By the 1990 though we'd been invaded and much of old Texas was thoroughly infiltrated by Yuppie Damned Yankees. And the democratic party didn't help matters either cause the term Blue Dog Democrat was coined by a Texas Congressman for the Northeastern democratic establishment trying to choke them blue by forcing their agenda down the nation's throat.

As far as Obama carrying Texas a snowball has a better chance in Hell G4A.