REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Carter - Worst President Ever?

POSTED BY: KWICKO
UPDATED: Monday, March 31, 2008 15:14
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 4055
PAGE 1 of 1

Wednesday, March 26, 2008 8:12 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


This came up in a different thread, and before we delve too deeply into it, I thought maybe we should avoid threadjacking the other post and just bring this discussion over here.

Here is the challenge I laid out:

Quote:

I'm willing to bet that ANY claim you can make about Carter being a terrible President, I can counter-claim something bigger and worse from the current Executive.

Example: "Carter got Americans held hostage in Iran."

Counterpoint: Bush got over 3000 Americans killed on 9/11, and over 4000 American soldiers killed since then in Iraq.

Example: "Carter was responsible for the highest gas prices we'd ever seen up to that time."

Counterpoint: $5.39 per gallon. 'Nuff said.

See? It's fun. Let's play!



Hero rose to the occasion admirably, and posted this:

Quote:

First of all I consider Carter the worst President ever. I also consider him among the best ex-Presidents ever, which is kind of unusual. So you ask why he was bad:

1. He was a Democratic President with a Democratic Congress who from day one was unable to pass meaningful legislation because he could not get along with his own party's Congressional leadership.

2. He mishandled Iran's leadership crisis leading to the revolution and the hostage crisis...which he mishandled.

3. 14% Interest rates, 12% unemployment, double digit inflation...and those were the good numbers.

4. Billy Beer

5. He let the Commies roll him again and again. Completely failed to appreciate the nature and scope of the Communist threat.

6. He allowed the military to deteriorate to the point where ships could not put to sea and planes could not fly because of lack of trained personel or spare parts. We also lacked the ability to respond militarily to any crisis of any size.

7. Camp David laid the groundwork for much of the Isreal-Palestine problems we face today.

It goes on, but three major problems Carter failed to deal with properly were the Commies, the Economy, and military preparedness. The rest are normal policy and crisis responses that every President faces. The Commies ran the table on us in the late '70s, the military needed reinvestment after Vietnam that they didn't get till Reagan came along. The economy was what got him in the end (and a lot of us too). It was unsustainable and compared to today, was several orders of magnatude worse then where we are.

H



All of those are good points, and here we have a place to discuss and compare. I may have a tall order trying to answer each charge with a worse one from the Bush regime, but I'll give it a shot...

Who else wants to play? Who WAS the worst President in American history? Hoover, who fiddled while the banks and Wall Street collapsed? Wilson, who tried to get us into the League of Nations? Lincoln, who actually allowed the country to be split in two, and had to fight America's bloodiest war to put it back together? Nixon, under whom America actually lost a war for the first time in its history, and who took to covering up two-bit burglaries to try to pass the time whenever he wasn't drunker than nine hundred indians?

Who's worse than Carter? And if it's Bush, then how, exactly?

I'll be back to weigh in and check in. I'm hoping to actually learn quite a bit. Already, I'm impressed. 14 per cent interest rates? 12 per cent unemployment? I'm shocked. Maybe it just wasn't that bad in Texas, but I can't remember anyone in my family ever having a hard time finding a job or keeping a roof over our heads...

As for double-digit inflation - have you checked the price of oil lately? It's gone from $30 a barrel the day before we invaded Iraq, ot over $100 a barrel today. Wouldn't that be TRIPLE-DIGIT inflation? Jet fuel has more than doubled in the past year. Flour has gone up 400 per cent. What ISN'T on the rise? Hell, pot's gone up from the $10 "lids" we used to buy in high school, to somewhere over $120 an ounce last time I even heard someone quote a price. Makes me glad I quit smoking back when it was still cheap!

Anyhoo, let's open this discussion up!

Mike

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 26, 2008 9:43 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
whenever he wasn't drunker than nine hundred indians?

Was that an ethnic slur? Shame on you.

However, if you change it to "900 Frenchmen," all will be forgiven. The French are ok to slur. (And I know I don't have to tell you about satire.)

Other than that, I have no intelligent comment on the Carter presidency. All presidents look alike to me.

--------------------------
When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.
--P. J. O'Rourke

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 26, 2008 11:00 AM

KIRKULES


I don't think Carter was the worst President ever. I was a big defender of Carter until recently when he started doing things unbecoming a former President. He started to irritate me when he began to conduct his own foreign policy, but what really got me pissed is when he started badmouthing Bush in the press. No former President did that to him when he was in office. If he had just built houses for Habitat and his behind the scenes work at the Carter center, I would still be defending him today.

I would say one of our worst Presidents was FDR. His policies extended the Depression and led to our current welfare state and out of control bureaucracy. He made up for that somewhat by being a good war time leader.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 26, 2008 11:12 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


I vote for Ray-gun, the facist gun in the west. (I can't take credit for that, it was something I saw.) However I have too much to do to count the ways why.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 26, 2008 11:13 AM

CHRISISALL


I personally measure stinky Presidents on my Needless Kill-o-meter.
On that yardstick Bush ain't THE worst...close but no ceegar.

There's also the F**k Up The World In General-o-meter, and sadly, by that, he's right there on top.

On the Dumass-o-meter he also wins (mostly 'cause Dan Quayle was not a Prez).

He also scores extremely high on the S**t On The Constitution-o-meter.

Carter rates very low on all these counts, so Bush is clearly a worse President.





Objective Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 26, 2008 11:29 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
I'm impressed. 14 per cent interest rates? 12 per cent unemployment? I'm shocked. Maybe it just wasn't that bad in Texas, but I can't remember anyone in my family ever having a hard time finding a job or keeping a roof over our heads...


There are some movies that illustrate how depressed the country was by 1980. Watch Rocky, Miracle, Rambo...not for the plots, those were great, but check out the settings. Jobs were scarce, money was pretty hard to come by. You think somebody has a hard time when a sub-prime jumps to 8%, my parents had a 16% fixed rate on their house in 1980, in 1982 they bought a new house at 7% and cried real tears.

I grew up in West Virginia. I remember soup, chili, brown beans...cause that kind of meal stretched the food for our five family members. I remember collecting cans to buy baseball cards cause there was no allowance. My school bus stop was across the street from the unemployment office and there were lines every day. The only good jobs were working for the State and my family got two of them (police and school administration)...we were lucky, except the time the State ran out of money and could not pay the schools.
Quote:


As for double-digit inflation - have you checked the price of oil lately? It's gone from $30 a barrel the day before we invaded Iraq, ot over $100 a barrel today. Wouldn't that be TRIPLE-DIGIT inflation?


Excellent point. But inflation had been negligible since the '80s, so net inflation is still well below even a modest increase since 1981.

And inflation is not reflected by the price of a single commodity, it is like a rising tide rather then a wave. Yet we see inflation because oil makes it more expensive to produce goods, including food, and then transport it to stores. Its a real problem, but not really enough to hit us this hard except when combined with the weak dollar (meaning money buys less) and many feel the weak dollar is partly responsible for the high cost of oil (meaning they make less selling for $110 then they did last year for $90), especially since supplies are presently sufficient (unlike a couple years ago after Katrina).

Economic turmoil is understandable. We are at war and that always hurts an economy. Our financial situation has been weak since 1999, in large part due to poor planning by the Clinton administration, coupled with 9/11, the war, a huge natural disaster (along with the complete destruction of a major City), the high cost of oil, weak dollar, and the failure to make tax cuts permanent (hope Grandpa dies this year...otherwise the Death tax goes 0-50% in about a day...try financial planning without certainty).

Personally I give Bush a lot of slack, we were weak on January 20, 2001 and have been taking a lot of hits since then. But our outlook on the evening of September 10th of that year was very bright.

Many were predicting major economic turnarounds by year end as tax cuts took effect.

We hoped to have an energy bill that included producing energy (like...get this wacky idea...drilling for oil...in America).

We were a few months into revamping the military to meet modern challenges by increasing emphasis on special forces, rapid deployment, and modern technology.

There was bi-partisan support for many of the President's plans (a lot of people forget the efforts he made to reach out to Democrats, which was a Bush trademark from dealing with the Texas legislature...hell, Ted Kennedy loved 'No Child Left Behind'...but he may have been drunk).

Our worst scandal was the Congressman who murdered his intern.

Even oil was coming down off its 2000 highs under Bill Clinton. Dollar was strong, interest rates were way down. Times were good for a lot of people.

September 11th was a defining moment in American history...people changed, some for better, many for worse. I don't think people generally understand its pyschological impact on, not just America, but the entire world. There is fear there and it translates into global economics and instability. But we'll ride it out. If the Cold War taught us anything its that we must stand firm and hold to our faith that Democracy and America will win out in the end.

A lot of people don't agree with Bush's policies, particularly on the war, and that's ok. One group that overwhelmingly supports him and the war are those men and women fighting it. Compare that to 1979 when most soldiers didn't even support sitting on their ass, much less having to actually do something (I know, my lazy, good-for-nothing brother was a soldier...God help us). I think that's a huge difference and it says a lot.

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 26, 2008 11:38 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

I personally measure stinky Presidents on my Needless Kill-o-meter.
On that yardstick Bush ain't THE worst...close but no ceegar.



That would put LBJ, Nixon, and Truman pretty high up there (Truman for Korea, not for nuking Japan - which I don't consider "needless". It was a hard choice he had to make, and I think he made the *right* one.)

I still have to respond to Hero's charges against Carter, but unfortunately my time is short, my hours long... But I've not forgotten.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 26, 2008 11:43 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Truman for Korea, not for nuking Japan - which I don't consider "needless". It was a hard choice he had to make, and I think he made the *right* one.

I think he could have achieved the high "HOLY S**T" factor without zapping so many civies, though...

But that's just meisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 26, 2008 11:47 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
There is fear there and it translates into global economics and instability. But we'll ride it out.

Dang H, this is possibly the best post of yours I ever read here...

*faints*

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 26, 2008 11:58 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Oh Chris, I like your meters.

Needless Kill-o-meter:
Tie. 1) Lincoln, 700K in the Civil War. I want to free the slaves too, but there wasn't a less bloody way to do it?
2) Harry Truman, 220K in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, not counting those who died in the aftermath. I know we were at war, but can you say overkill?
Edited to add: 3) Andrew Jackson, 17K Trail of Tears. That was TRULY unnecessary.

F**k Up The World In General-o-meter:
How about Woodrow Wilson? Under him, we got the IRS and the Federal Reserve. Nothing bad happened immediately. But it was the conception and inception of the global economic grief that is about to come.

S**t On The Constitution-o-meter:
For me, it might be a 4 way tie between Lincoln (federalization), Wilson (income tax and fed reserve), FDR (New Deal), and Bush (Patriot Act). Oh hell, so many presidents shit on the Constitution, it really is so hard to decide. Cause each president's shit is built on previous piles of shit--so should one particular president be singularly blamed for dumping an extra generous contribution of shit?

Dumass-o-meter:
Yeah, ok, I can't think of anyone more compelling than Bush for this meter. Maybe Buchanan, who believed secession was illegal, but stopping it was also illegal, and just twiddled his thumbs while the country plunged into Civil War.

Here is a link where you can vote for your bottom 3:
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/worstpresidents/

--------------------------
Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature.... Life is either a daring adventure or nothing.
--Helen Keller (1880 - 1968), The Open Door (1957)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 26, 2008 12:09 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Hero,

I agree with Chris. That is the best damn post of yours that I had ever seen on RWED. Well written, well argued, well said.

--------------------------
It is not easy to see how the more extreme forms of nationalism can long survive when men have seen the Earth in its true perspective as a single small globe against the stars.
--Arthur C. Clarke, The Exploration of Space

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 26, 2008 12:12 PM

CANTTAKESKY


This is a bit tangential to this thread, but in my browsing on presidents, I found this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Presidents_by_genea
logical_relationship


Notice how everyone is related to Millard Fillmore. It's kind of creepy.

--------------------------
Of those around at the moment, Islam is the only one that has any appeal to me. But, of course, Islam has been tainted by other influences. The Muslims are behaving like Christians, I'm afraid.
--Arthur C. Clarke

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 26, 2008 12:12 PM

HIXIE129


Bush II, 4000 US Dead, tens of thousands injured, several thousand permantely. Over 175,000 iraq civilan dead, Iraq economy is a mess, no medical, or public utilities> US in Trillion debt and it AIN'T OVER!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 26, 2008 2:20 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by canttakesky:
Oh Chris, I like your meters.


Wow, but you breathed real life into 'em!

Coolisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 26, 2008 2:45 PM

RIVERLOVE


You can read all the history books ever written, but until you see the HBO film " White Light, Black Rain" you cannot possibly have the slightest idea of what occured at Hiroshima & Nagasaki. That one movie totally changed my opinions of the events, and totally changed my beliefs about many things.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 26, 2008 3:18 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Riverlove:
You can read all the history books ever written, but until you see the HBO film " White Light, Black Rain" you cannot possibly have the slightest idea of what occured at Hiroshima & Nagasaki. That one movie totally changed my opinions of the events, and totally changed my beliefs about many things.

Personally, I already feel that the civilian deaths there were as close as one can get to serving Satan- give a radio call; vapourize so many...not the Capital...not an anchored fleet...not an airstrip, but cities of innocents. Hitler wasn't the only monster, just the most singularly identifiable.

-and before I hear any "it was necessary"'s, a pre-emptive effue to all of you that take the stance that these major decisions are made by men of knowledge & wisdom. They're idiots, just like you & me, that kissed ass enough to be in a position of power. They sometimes know LESS than the moderately informed citizen.

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 26, 2008 5:09 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
-and before I hear any "it was necessary"'s, a pre-emptive effue to all of you that take the stance that these major decisions are made by men of knowledge & wisdom. They're idiots, just like you & me, that kissed ass enough to be in a position of power. They sometimes know LESS than the moderately informed citizen.

Unfortunately, that’s not a lesson, you’ve quite learned. You still pretend that people in power are “monsters.” While Hitler might have been, those that chose to drop the bomb did not do so because they wanted to exterminate a people, but because they saw the hundreds of thousands of allied soldiers killed in the Pacific, they saw the millions of Japanese killed, and they were tired of the nearly quarter of billion total deaths, the total destruction of much of Europe, Japan and surrounding islands. And they wanted it to be over. The truth is, as self-righteous as the anti-war types are, put in the position of being told you have the power to end this right now, you would say “yes” in a heart beat, even though you’ll lie right now and say you wouldn’t.



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 26, 2008 5:21 PM

TANKOBITE


What'd Truman do wrong with Korea? I'm a republican and I'm actually quite a big fan of President Truman.

-----------------------------------------------------------
There's a widow in sleepy Chester
Who weeps for her only son;
There's a grave on the Pabeng River,
A grave that the Burmans shun;
And there's Subadar Prag Tewarri
Who tells how the work was done.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 26, 2008 5:39 PM

TANKOBITE


Amen; I sat down with a man who fought in the Pacific (and earned the Medal of Honor in Korea) and he's convinced that the Atomic bomb saved his life.

Look at Okinawa, the first actual Japanese island we invaded; here's an interesting fact about it:
Quote:

Okinawa was the largest amphibious invasion of the Pacific campaign and the last major campaign of the Pacific War. More ships were used, more troops put ashore, more supplies transported, more bombs dropped, more naval guns fired against shore targets than any other operation in the Pacific. More people died during the Battle of Okinawa than all those killed during the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Casualties totaled more than 38,000 Americans wounded and 12,000 killed or missing, more than 107,000 Japanese and Okinawan conscripts killed, and perhaps 100,000 Okinawan civilians who perished in the battle.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/okinawa-battle.htm

Even the Wikis support that; with at most (wikipedia's words, not mine) ~ 200,000 Japanese killed in the bombings and ~218,000 killed in Okinawa (if you take the highest civilian casualties, like we did with the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks)


How much worse would have the invasions of the mainland have been for all countries involved?

-----------------------------------------------------------
There's a widow in sleepy Chester
Who weeps for her only son;
There's a grave on the Pabeng River,
A grave that the Burmans shun;
And there's Subadar Prag Tewarri
Who tells how the work was done.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 26, 2008 8:31 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


I'll go with either the only President ever Impeached twice, or the second President ever Impeached, or the only President Impeached in the 20th Century, or the only President Impeached after our first century of Independence. Oh, wait, that's the same guy!
Clinton.
There are many other reason, but if you don't already see them, you are not paying attention, and will not entertain discussion, just argument.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 27, 2008 12:08 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Jimmy Carter says "I got what America needs right here"

http://www.theonion.com/content/opinion/i_got_what_america_needs_right

He'd have my vote.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 27, 2008 2:35 AM

JONGSSTRAW


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:

Originally posted by Riverlove:
You can read all the history books ever written, but until you see the HBO film " White Light, Black Rain" you cannot possibly have the slightest idea of what occured at Hiroshima & Nagasaki. That one movie totally changed my opinions of the events, and totally changed my beliefs about many things.

Personally, I already feel that the civilian deaths there were as close as one can get to serving Satan- give a radio call; vapourize so many...not the Capital...not an anchored fleet...not an airstrip, but cities of innocents. Hitler wasn't the only monster, just the most singularly identifiable.

-and before I hear any "it was necessary"'s, a pre-emptive effue to all of you that take the stance that these major decisions are made by men of knowledge & wisdom. They're idiots, just like you & me, that kissed ass enough to be in a position of power. They sometimes know LESS than the moderately informed citizen.

Chrisisall


Don't be so hard on Truman or the others who made the decision to drop the bombs. They really had no idea of what they were doing in terms of the forces that would be unleashed in those cities. They had no idea about radiation and its' "after the event" lingering effects of death, disfigurement, and torturous agony. Doctors had no idea what they were seeing and dealing with...it was just an un-imaginable horror that words can't describe. I think Truman and the military just thought that it was a big bomb...you know...lots of TNT value. They were clueless as to what it really was. The US did make a lot of "restitution" in the form of medical assistance and flying victims to the US for plastic surgery, but it was sadly infinitessimal compared to the enormity of what was done to those people. The final insult to the survivors was the Japanses themselves. Society generally shunned the survivors out of fear and ignorance, and the Govt. decided at some point in the 50's to stop teaching or making any refernces to the events for schoolchildren. There are generations of Japanese today living in the modern cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that have no idea of what occured there 63 years ago. That is very unfortunate. They should be proud of the story of the "survivors" and proud of what their defeated and devasted country was able to become over time.
Back to the topic : Carter was clearly NOT the worst President in US history...we've had many lousy Presidents...including:
Van Buren
Harrison
Tyler
A. Johnson
Pierce
Buchanan
Wilson
Coolidge
Hayes
Grant
Who's the worst depends on your point of view.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 27, 2008 6:37 AM

PIRATECAT


Look the number one thing that Carter really screwed up is and still today our intelligence network. He got rid of all our operatives all over the world we have never gotten back to what we once had. Talk to any retired or senior agents. That is why we rely so heavily on the Brits and Israelies. The military was in bad shape. You just don't form an army overnight. The first gulf war military was 10 years of rebuilding. Also no gas. Everything else has been said here. Oh yeh the K car. In the 76 convention he sounded great nothing came to pass. Look I dropped out of high school went to Liverpool England all I remember is limies giving me a hard time about jc being weak. cubans in angola, ruskies in afganastan, and America killed john lennon bla bla. And me not being pc said hey pull out of n ireland that always gets em. Damn that was 28 years ago ain't been back since. I think Truman was the last true democrat president. The economy is not that bad just in a few areas of overtaxed and priced cities. Its the high end of the housing market that is the problem. The war is worth staying in the fight. I'm glad I'm in 2008 not 1978. later gator pc

"Battle of Serenity, Mal. Besides Zoe here, how many-" "I'm talkin at you! How many men in your platoon came out of their alive".

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 27, 2008 6:59 AM

PIRATECAT


Hero I just read your post all I can say is My country tis of thee sweet land of libertee. made me Carolina proud.




I am so tired I'll check ya'll out in a day or two oh yeh don't forget The deer hunter or slapshot now those are time peices.

"Battle of Serenity, Mal. Besides Zoe here, how many-" "I'm talkin at you! How many men in your platoon came out of their alive".

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 27, 2008 8:07 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
I think he could have achieved the high "HOLY S**T" factor without zapping so many civies, though...


Truman could have dropped them on some deserted island in front of witnesses. But the point was not merely to demonstrate a new weapon. We were at war, so the point must have been to utterly destroy the enemy's ability to fight.

If Japan had not surrendered then further conflict and perhaps large scale invasion would have commenced.

I note for the record, Hiroshima was largely untouched by conventional bombing till that point. It was an industrial city, headquarters of the 2nd Imperial Army, an army supply and training base, and conduit for the movement of troops and supplies. The City also contained no POW camps and there was a chemical weapons plant located nearby. Hiroshima was not the first choice. Kyoto was chosen by the committee because it was Japan's intellectual center, but it was removed because it was a cultural and not a military target.

I further note regarding Nagasaki. The city was a major seaport. It was an industrial city that produced ships, weapons, and all sorts of war materials for the Japanese military. Those industries were well dispersed throughout the City to lessen the effects of conventional attack. A prior bombing had caused the large scale evacuation of the City's children before the atomic bomb.

I lastly note the projected casualties for Operation Downfall estimated a 60-90 campaign resulting in as many as 1.2 million Allied casualties including over 250,000 dead. That did not include naval losses from the expected Kamikaze attacks. Japan estimated a 1 in 6 ratio of hits per plane (better then the 1 in 9 at Okinawa) and estimated American losses to be approximately 400 ships.

General Groves was planning for additional bombs (7-10) to be available to support allied operations, there effectivness would likely have been devestating to the Japanese mainland and civilian population far in excess of what they suffered by the two bombs that were used.

As you can see, the use of the bombs was far more then merely a 'Holy Shit' demonstration. It was, as Truman said, a promise that "If they do not not accept our terms, they may expect a rain of ruin from the air the likes of which has never been seen on this earth." It was a demand of immediate and unconditional surrender that, when accepted, allowed us to be as generous in our victory as we were determined in the midst of battle.

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 27, 2008 8:42 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
You still pretend that people in power are “monsters.”

They CAN be... "I didn't KNOW that shaking my one-year old son was gonna break his neck *sob*"
Quote:

While Hitler might have been, those that chose to drop the bomb did not do so because they wanted to exterminate a people
I'm sorry then, just dim-wittedness, however, The Operative in Serenity would have fully approved of it.
Quote:

, but because they saw the hundreds of thousands of allied soldiers killed in the Pacific, they saw the millions of Japanese killed, and they were tired of the nearly quarter of billion total deaths, the total destruction of much of Europe, Japan and surrounding islands. And they wanted it to be over.
So...kill a million civies...good idea.
Quote:

The truth is, as self-righteous as the anti-war types are, put in the position of being told you have the power to end this right now, you would say “yes” in a heart beat, even though you’ll lie right now and say you wouldn’t.


I won't lie, I'd okay blasting those bastards in a second- but I'd demand better TARGETING!!!!

Look Finn, I'm a martial artist- been in some fights IRL too, I ain't no pacifist...someone tries to kill you, you try to kill 'em right back.
Someone tries to rob me, I'll knock 'em out and take their money for my trouble.
Some peeps forfeit their right to be on this planet, and need to be shown the door, just not INNOCENTS is all.
But then we don't have a history of blasting RICH enemies, just their poor. We didn't nuke Kyoto because we saw war profit in the future for us. So we wiped out factory workers.
That, by definition, sucks.

The all self-righteous Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 27, 2008 8:54 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:


I note for the record, Hiroshima was largely untouched by conventional bombing till that point. It was an industrial city, headquarters of the 2nd Imperial Army, an army supply and training base, and conduit for the movement of troops and supplies. The City also contained no POW camps and there was a chemical weapons plant located nearby.

If that's true, then it's not as reprehensible as I have believed, still, why not TARGET the base...or drop it just offshore near the military targets to take out as few civies as possible? Did the REALLY have no idea of the devastation that would follow? There WERE tests at Los Whachamacallit...
Quote:



As you can see, the use of the bombs was far more then merely a 'Holy Shit' demonstration. It was, as Truman said, a promise that "If they do not not accept our terms, they may expect a rain of ruin from the air the likes of which has never been seen on this earth." It was a demand of immediate and unconditional surrender that, when accepted, allowed us to be as generous in our victory as we were determined in the midst of battle.


I appreciate that you didn't call me a liar, Hero. And I do see your point of view...I just have a hard time wrapping my head around such awesome lethal force being unleashed where non-combatants are concerned.

The somewhat less self-righteous Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 27, 2008 9:01 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:


Don't be so hard on Truman or the others who made the decision to drop the bombs. They really had no idea of what they were doing in terms of the forces that would be unleashed in those cities. They had no idea about radiation and its' "after the event" lingering effects of death, disfigurement, and torturous agony. Doctors had no idea what they were seeing and dealing with...it was just an un-imaginable horror that words can't describe. I think Truman and the military just thought that it was a big bomb...you know...lots of TNT value. They were clueless as to what it really was.

That is typical thinking...
Quote:

The US did make a lot of "restitution" in the form of medical assistance and flying victims to the US for plastic surgery
That's the non-monsterous part.
Okay...it WAS war...wonky choices were made...I still mean to say monsterous things can be born of good intent, when they're rushed and seen as being a righteous means to a justifiable end....

The beat-down Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 27, 2008 9:07 AM

TANKOBITE


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
So...kill a million civies...good idea.



Please see my post about actual casualty rates of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings vs. the battle of Okinawa. Not a million civvies were killed, not even close. Hell, we didn't even match up to what the Japanese did to Nanking...

-----------------------------------------------------------
There's a widow in sleepy Chester
Who weeps for her only son;
There's a grave on the Pabeng River,
A grave that the Burmans shun;
And there's Subadar Prag Tewarri
Who tells how the work was done.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 27, 2008 9:18 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Tankobite:

Please see my post about actual casualty rates of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings vs. the battle of Okinawa. Not a million civvies were killed, not even close.

I was rounding it up for dramatic effect, dude.
Besides, that 200,000 number may not include the thousands upon thousands that died later of burns & radiation & cancer.
But yeah, not a mil.

The sometimes non-literal Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 27, 2008 9:44 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Truman could have dropped them on some deserted island in front of witnesses. But the point was not merely to demonstrate a new weapon. We were at war, so the point must have been to utterly destroy the enemy's ability to fight.
There were a lot of reasons to bomb Hiroshima, but I often wondered why the bombing of Nagasaki didn't give Emperor Hirohito enough time to formulate a response.

The reason that makes the mot sense to me is based in the following:
Quote:

The Soviet Foreign Minister Molotov informed Tokyo of the Soviet Union's unilateral abrogation of the Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Pact. Two minutes past midnight on August 9 {three days after the bombing of Hiroshima on Aug 6) Tokyo time, Soviet infantry, armor, and air forces launched an invasion of Manchuria. Four hours later, word reached Tokyo that the Soviet Union had declared war on Japan.
The United States and the Soviet Union were never comfortable allies. By that time, the USA was face to face with the Soviet Union on two fronts: in Europe and the Pacific. I think the bombs were meant as much a warning shot across the Soviet's bow as they were to burn Japan into submission; a statement that we were unmitigated bastards who would do to Mother Russia what we just did to Japan.

But, to get to the topic of the thread... Worst President? I'd have a hard time choosing between Lincoln and Hoover and (I project) that when all is said and done GW Bush will fall into that pantheon.

My vote for Lincoln is based on the idea that he should just have let the Southern States go. A rural, slave-owning nation would have become the Africa of North America, it would have faded into economic oblivion.


---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 27, 2008 9:46 AM

JONGSSTRAW


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
I think he could have achieved the high "HOLY S**T" factor without zapping so many civies, though...


Truman could have dropped them on some deserted island in front of witnesses. But the point was not merely to demonstrate a new weapon. We were at war, so the point must have been to utterly destroy the enemy's ability to fight.

If Japan had not surrendered then further conflict and perhaps large scale invasion would have commenced.

I note for the record, Hiroshima was largely untouched by conventional bombing till that point. It was an industrial city, headquarters of the 2nd Imperial Army, an army supply and training base, and conduit for the movement of troops and supplies. The City also contained no POW camps and there was a chemical weapons plant located nearby. Hiroshima was not the first choice. Kyoto was chosen by the committee because it was Japan's intellectual center, but it was removed because it was a cultural and not a military target.

I further note regarding Nagasaki. The city was a major seaport. It was an industrial city that produced ships, weapons, and all sorts of war materials for the Japanese military. Those industries were well dispersed throughout the City to lessen the effects of conventional attack. A prior bombing had caused the large scale evacuation of the City's children before the atomic bomb.

I lastly note the projected casualties for Operation Downfall estimated a 60-90 campaign resulting in as many as 1.2 million Allied casualties including over 250,000 dead. That did not include naval losses from the expected Kamikaze attacks. Japan estimated a 1 in 6 ratio of hits per plane (better then the 1 in 9 at Okinawa) and estimated American losses to be approximately 400 ships.

General Groves was planning for additional bombs (7-10) to be available to support allied operations, there effectivness would likely have been devestating to the Japanese mainland and civilian population far in excess of what they suffered by the two bombs that were used.

As you can see, the use of the bombs was far more then merely a 'Holy Shit' demonstration. It was, as Truman said, a promise that "If they do not not accept our terms, they may expect a rain of ruin from the air the likes of which has never been seen on this earth." It was a demand of immediate and unconditional surrender that, when accepted, allowed us to be as generous in our victory as we were determined in the midst of battle.

H


Sorry Hero, but I must disagree with all that. By Summer of 1945 Japan was hardly in any kind of shape to continue the war for much longer. They had no resources, and the Allies had cut off most of their supply lines. Kamakazes would never have been a factor like they were at Okinawa due to the fact that we destroyed almost their entire air force in that battle. The "pilots" that they sent to crash into our ships were just kids, little kids with the most minimal training possible. They "practiced" their flying and suicide attacking using sticks and toys. They weren't even trained on how to land a plane. The survivors of Hiroshima & Nagasaki stated repeatedly after the war that they couldn't believe America felt it had to do what it did. The Japanese people themselves knew the war was lost...all their men were dead, and they had nothing to eat. An Allied invasion of the Japan itself would have met very little resistance compared to what they had been dealing with during the island hopping campaigns of the previous years. The militarists who lauanched their ill-fated attempt to conquer Asia and the Pacific would not have given up so quickly, I'll grant you, but I just can't imagine why we couldn't have taken a large group of the highest ranking POW's we had to an island somewhere and given them a sample demonstration...before we dropped a nuke on 100,000 civilians. Similarly, I also don't understand the mentality of the Dresden fire bombings at the end of WWII....same thing...un-necessary, totally inhumane, and in my opinion, done mostly out of revenge and hatred.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 27, 2008 10:10 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
I just have a hard time wrapping my head around such awesome lethal force being unleashed where non-combatants are concerned.


There is a concept in the art of war known as 'Total War'. The idea is that in order to defeat your enemy you must destroy their ability to make war. What does a nation need to make war? An army, industry, supplies, equipment, transportation, food, recruits, command and control, communications, etc. In that sense every nearly any target can be a military target. A bridge, a farm, a factory, a base, a road...etc.

Bombs in World War Two were area effect weapons. You couldn't hit the broadside of a barn with an iron bomb dropped from a B-29 40,000ft up. You could hit is with 20,000lbs of bombs carried in a standard load. They were most often dropped from great heights with little or no guidance. So if your goal was to destroy a railyard, supply bases, factories, headquarters, bridges, etc...the only way to hit your target was to bomb large portions of the city its in.

Japan understood this and they understood the risk they were undertaking before the war began. Yamamoto said in 1939: "Japanese cities, being made of wood and paper, would burn very easily."

I note for the record that on March 9, 1945 we firebombed Tokyo using 334 B-29s. The firestorm destroyed 16 square miles of the City and killed over 100,000 people (5x as many died in a similar attack on Dresden, Germany). All the targeted factories were destroyed. By June 40% of the six largest Japanese cities had been utterly wiped out and dozens of smaller towns completely destroyed.

Total war is something Americans perfected fighting ourselves...Sheridan in the Valley, Sherman's March...it is one we prepared for fifty years to fight on a moments notice in the face of Communist aggression. But it is an art largely abandoned by conventional forces in favor of technology that allows for precision delivery of munitions with minimal harm to civilian infrastructure (its seen as safer and more efficient to be able to use one plane and perhaps one bomb to do the work of many).

It is my hope the World War 2 will be the last total war. Simply put, up until then thats how wars were fought. You can't judge the actions of Truman without understanding that fact.

Your moral sensitivity is touching, but it comes about because such wars were fought and won by the United States thus preserving the principals of liberty and the freedom to allow humanity to reevaluate how we conduct our affairs. I would suggest that until all war has been elminated the 'Total War' option must still be available.

You cannot eliminate it from our arsenal or outlaw war as a policy option in the United States until it has been eliminated in all other nations. We are far from that utopian ideal...in fact, history has demonstrated that the closer we get to eliminating war, the more likely we are to stumble upon the next one.

Look at Clinton. The cold war ends and in 1993 he gets rid of half our armed forces...2003, we need those troops, but don't have them (forcing us to 'go to war with what you've got'). Not his fault, he never saw this coming...although, to be fair, he missed a lot of stuff (like energy, oil, terrorism, Monica...)


H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 27, 2008 10:15 AM

TANKOBITE


That's possible, but you forget that even up to the point where the Emperor surrendered over the radio there was an attempt of a military coup to keep fighting. Hardly seems like the military thought it was beat; not to mention a large bulk of troops were still stationed in China which the Soviets were tasked with destroying.

I'd say however, that the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki might not be the most unbiased people to ask about that.

Edit: Though this is getting off topic...we're not even talking about Truman anymore.

-----------------------------------------------------------
There's a widow in sleepy Chester
Who weeps for her only son;
There's a grave on the Pabeng River,
A grave that the Burmans shun;
And there's Subadar Prag Tewarri
Who tells how the work was done.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 27, 2008 10:26 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Kamakazes would never have been a factor like they were at Okinawa due to the fact that we destroyed almost their entire air force in that battle.


By August they had nearly 6,000 combat aircraft available and almost all of them were configured as kamakazes. They had double that number if you included non-combat and training aircraft.

The nature of the terrain around Kyoshu and the proximity to Japanese airfields was considered a bigger threat to air defense. The fleet were constricted, unable to space themselves to the extent of Okinawa. The fleet was far larger. Japanese planes were flying short distances over friendly airspace (for Okimawa many were intercepted over water on the long distance flights).

Their army numbered in the millions, many of whom were experianced regulars and all of whom were fanatically determined to resist.

I note for the record that while we avoided possibly 1.2 million Allied casualties, the Japanese surrender following the bombing saved millions of Japanese...especially civilians. So in effect the bombing was the best outcome Japan could hope for in the summer of 1945.

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 27, 2008 10:30 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


So I'm gonna post my vote for Lincoln again. He shoudda said "Goodbye, good riddance, and don't let the door hit ya on the way out".

Now we got a bunch of resentful bleeps to deal with who're STILL fighting the "Northern War of Aggression". They shoudda had a chance to run their slave-owning backward economy into the dust. Then they'd have no one to blame but themselves.



---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 27, 2008 10:38 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Worst president ever ... well yeah, that was a major blunder. He definitely makes the list for that.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 27, 2008 10:40 AM

TANKOBITE


Well; personally I'm a big fan of Lincoln-if not for him keeping the states together I'd never have been born (Jersey father and a Floridian mother) and I'm a fan of Union and Liberty.

-----------------------------------------------------------
There's a widow in sleepy Chester
Who weeps for her only son;
There's a grave on the Pabeng River,
A grave that the Burmans shun;
And there's Subadar Prag Tewarri
Who tells how the work was done.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 27, 2008 11:09 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:


Your moral sensitivity is touching, but it comes about because such wars were fought and won by the United States thus preserving the principals of liberty and the freedom to allow humanity to reevaluate how we conduct our affairs.

Hero! Yer freakin' me out here with your lucid eloquence!!!


Astonished Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 27, 2008 11:25 AM

KIRKULES


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:


Your moral sensitivity is touching, but it comes about because such wars were fought and won by the United States thus preserving the principals of liberty and the freedom to allow humanity to reevaluate how we conduct our affairs.

Hero! Yer freakin' me out here with your lucid eloquence!!!


Astonished Chrisisall



I think he has taken the pebble from your hand. He's ready to leave the temple.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 27, 2008 11:26 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
whenever he wasn't drunker than nine hundred indians?

Was that an ethnic slur? Shame on you.

However, if you change it to "900 Frenchmen," all will be forgiven. The French are ok to slur. (And I know I don't have to tell you about satire.)

Other than that, I have no intelligent comment on the Carter presidency. All presidents look alike to me.

--------------------------
When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.
--P. J. O'Rourke



Ah - but WHOM did I slur?

Quote:

All presidents look alike to me.


Pasty. White. Male. I getcha. Maybe that could be about to change? I mean, Hellary's at least not male. And Obama's not white. Both are pretty pasty, though. :)

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 28, 2008 4:52 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Hero! Yer freakin' me out here with your lucid eloquence!!!


That is the feeling of an open mind. I have not changed, it is you who are seeing the light of reason for the first time.

I suggest you go back and read some of our past discussions. I'm sure that if you take the time and really listen to my arguments you'll be out there shouting 'FOUR MORE YEARS!' during President Bush's speech to the Republican Convention.

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 28, 2008 4:56 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by canttakesky:
All presidents look alike to me.


Some have beards...


H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 28, 2008 6:15 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:

That is the feeling of an open mind. I have not changed, it is you who are seeing the light of reason for the first time.

I'll admit to having my mind opened up a little by being here...
Quote:



I'm sure that if you take the time and really listen to my arguments you'll be out there shouting 'FOUR MORE YEARS!' during President Bush's speech to the Republican Convention.


THERE!!! THAT'S the silly silly British man I've come to expect!!!



Ho ho ho ho Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 28, 2008 8:27 AM

AVENGINGWATCHER


Hero, you are one of the most interesting people in RWED. Sometimes I agree with you and sometimes I don't. We are definitely on different sides of the same coin. Staying on topic GW will, I feel, be considered one of the worst Presidents ever. He trampled on our constitution, spied on our own people, denied the right of free speech, habeas corpus etc... and those are the things done to our own citizens. Militarily he started a war without finishing the one everyone agreed with(I agreed with the war in Afghanistan) going to war with an undermanned, under supplied Army against the advice of the highest ranking military officer in the nation. He has trashed our health care for seniors giving them no recourse, he has created huge deficits, made us absolutely China's bitch(not so eloquent I know but true) He is the only president to hurt the American economy during war time, contrary to what Hero said, wars are always good for the American economy especially in the short term.

All that being said it is very hard to say people did the right or wrong thing in hindsight. Presidents have enormous responsibilities and it is hard to criticize people who are in that position, however compared to others who have been in said position Bush 2.0 has fared the least in accordance with his responsibilities.
Now a list of things I disliked about Clinton.
He gave away OUR public airwaves.
NAFTA...dumbass
Weak on environmental issues.
He missed when he shot the missile at Osama(not really his fault but man could it have avoided some crap down the road)
He got caught with Monica(YOU'RE THE PRESIDENT SLEEP WITH MORE ATTRACTIVE MISTRESSES)

When there are no heroes where will we turn?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 28, 2008 2:28 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


My vote is Lincoln for worst president ever.

Well... right after George W. Bush, of course.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 28, 2008 6:41 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Although Carter decimated our military, intelligence, and economy, he achieved these through incompetentce, never proclaiming he "despised the military."
Clinton achieved these maliciuosly, and often proclaimed he "depsised the military" - except when he tried using CiC status to get out of legal problems.
Carter WAS the worst President, until Clinton. Carter is currently in 2nd place, but the 3 remaining current candidates give him hope of hitting 3rd place.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 30, 2008 4:06 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Ah - but WHOM did I slur?

900 indians apparently.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 31, 2008 8:10 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Ah - but WHOM did I slur?

900 indians apparently.



But *which* 900 indians? The ones on the reservations, or the ones in the call center? ;)


Hero: You said there was a lot of stuff Clinton didn't see coming, listing Monica as one of them. He may not have seen HER coming, but I bet she can't say the same of him! (Sorry, but I couldn't resist).

Lincoln - interesting choice. I'm a Marylander by birth, so I s'pose that makes me a "Yankee" - although it's not quite that simple. When Lincoln suspended the writ of Habeus Corpus, he did it so that he could wrongfully imprison the entire legislature of the state of Maryland, to keep them from voting to secede from the Union. Wouldn't have looked too good to have Washington D.C. sitting smack dab in the middle of two Confederate states (it lies on the border between Maryland and Virginia), would it?

Lincoln kept the Maryland lawmakers in prison for the entirety of the Civil War, from what I remember from my college history courses, without ever having them charged with ANYTHING - just to make sure they couldn't vote on secession.

Does that make him the worst, in my book? Nope. I *LIKE* being a Yankee. Anytime anyone wants to give me shit about it, I just have to say "Scoreboard". Check the scoreboard; who won? That's right, rednecks - WE won. The Union. The REAL United States of America. And THAT is why all those dipshit redneck states need to get that stupid-ass rebel flag off their flags and off their state Capitols - because it's the flag of a LOSER nation. Hey, at the end of WWII, we didn't let the Germans keep flying their Nazi flags, did we? Nope, 'cuz WE won, THEY lost, and suck it if you don't like it. :)




Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 31, 2008 3:14 PM

FREMDFIRMA




Bit of a waste that, Mikey, since I doubt anyone else is gonna catch the inherent sarcasm there.

Bwahahahaha

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
A.I Artificial Intelligence AI
Sat, December 21, 2024 19:06 - 256 posts
Hollywood exposes themselves as the phony whores they are
Sat, December 21, 2024 18:55 - 69 posts
Elections; 2024
Sat, December 21, 2024 18:29 - 4989 posts
Music II
Sat, December 21, 2024 18:22 - 135 posts
WMD proliferation the spread of chemical and bio weapons, as of the collapse of Syria
Sat, December 21, 2024 18:15 - 3 posts
A thread for Democrats Only
Sat, December 21, 2024 18:11 - 6965 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Sat, December 21, 2024 17:58 - 4901 posts
TERRORISM EXPANDS TO GERMANY ... and the USA, Hungary, and Sweden
Sat, December 21, 2024 15:20 - 36 posts
Ellen Page is a Dude Now
Sat, December 21, 2024 15:00 - 242 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Sat, December 21, 2024 14:48 - 978 posts
Who hates Israel?
Sat, December 21, 2024 13:45 - 81 posts
French elections, and France in general
Sat, December 21, 2024 13:43 - 187 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL