AMAZING Barack Obama inauguration photo

[Bryan]

Oh my goodness Bryan, where in the world do I start?

I suggest you read this book.

http://books.google.com/books?id=UEGPFX ... lt#PPP1,M1

In a nutshell, that guy couldn't effectively manage a Burger King, let alone a country IMHO. He was always concerned with process but provided little in the way of direction IMHO. You could say he came in at a bad time and that affected his performance, and I somewhat agree with that, but it goes WAY beyond that for me. Read that book I cited.

I _did_ read the excerpt of the book at that link you provided (except I skimmed-over the part about his religious views, which don't particularly interest me), and I have to say that if anything, I have even MORE respect for President Carter than I did before, thanks to those passages showing what a really smart guy he is. But in all other ways, it seems to be nothing more than a simple-minded hatchet-job on Carter, attempting to find fault anywhere it possibly can. I laughed out loud when I got to the part complaining about how Carter never said "Happy Thanksgiving" or "Merry Christmas" to a White House secretary!

But anyway, I have no idea why you would claim that he "couldn't effectively manage a Burger King", except for just obvious political bashing. Carter's success at managing and expanding his family's farming business after his return to Plains after his military service is a clear testament to his business shrewdness and acumen. And did you notice how even the author of that book described Carter as a "penny-pinching conservative" at one point during his stay on the school board?

Margaret Thatcher said it best IMHO: "He had no vision of what direction America should follow......" (And because of that, his administration was an incoherent, ineffectual mess philosophically wise and lacked fundamental philosophical direction IMHO.)

Now we may like or dislike Reagan, Clinton or Bush Jr., but you knew where they stood and they had a philosophy. They were not process presidents to a fault like Carter IMHO.

I don't know what you mean by "process President".

I know this isn't giving specific details and that is unfair to you Bryan but that's where my dislike of Carter lies. It is more of a "global" philosophical opinion of Carter. So, yes, maybe it is unfair that I use Carter as a whipping post and take cheap shots at him.

I do feel that a lot of people use Carter as a "whipping-boy" for the frustration they felt over the Iranian hostage crisis. But that's obviously misplaced hatred: why on earth would reasonable people let themselves feel that way toward Carter for something that was beyond his control?

BTW, you didn't answer my question about your use of the phrase "roll over and play dead like Jimmy Carter". Was THAT a reference to the Iranian hostage crisis?? If so, don't you think you owe him an apology for saying such an inapropriate thing?

Edit: I do have one question for you Bryan: Why did the hostages get released immediately after the Iranians realized Reagan was going to be the next president?

CORRECTION: the hostages didn't get released "immediately after the Iranians realized that Reagan was going to the next president", they DELIBERATELY released the hostages moments after Reagan was inaugurated, which isn't the same thing. And there are a couple of slightly different theories about why they did that:

1) There was a fascinating PBS documentary a few years ago which presented the argument that the Republicans had made a secret deal with the Iranians to release the hostages after Reagan's election, and the Iranians followed that agreement TO THE LETTER, releasing them seconds or minutes after Reagan's inauguration.

2) Even barring the conspiracy theory described in (1) above, it nevertheless appears that the Iranians did in fact DELIBERATELY release the hostages seconds after Reagan's inauguration just as a childish way to take one final swipe, one final insult, at President Carter.

 

[patagonia]

Great picture cassin...

yeah, I thought the same..... judge clarence thomas is napping...zzzzz

 

[Old Baldy]

Yes, I owe Carter an apology Bryan. It's unfair to say any president rolls over and plays dead when our citizens are threatened. They all want to protect us. Some are more effective at it than others but their desires are pretty similar IMHO. I'm sorry president Carter, that was a cheap shot!

"Process" means someone is more interested on the method and procedures to make policy than the actual policy itself. The actual policy itself is second in line to the methods and procedures for getting a policy in place. It should be the other way around IMHO.

It leads to what Margaret Thatcher concluded about Carter's performance (i.e., "he had no vision of what direction America should follow"). Margaret Thatcher was in a position to know FAR more about the effectiveness of Carter than I was. I respect Thatcher and when she says something like that I have to take notice. That isn't just political bashing coming from her IMHO. That is her true opinion of Carter and she has said much the same thing about him over the years from my viewing interviews with her on TV.

Those are very strong words Bryan and, unless you don't believe/respect Thatcher, they say alot.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on our views of Carter and whether he was an effective president or not. (We've had this argument before and neither one of us will budge. You think he was great, I think he was lousy.)

Tidbit: I've heard rumors that Reagan informed the Iranians he believed the taking of American hostages was an act of war and he would act accordingly. That sounds much more plausible than "the Iranians were taking one last jab at Carter before he left office".

IMHO, Carter had the "dove" philosophy and Reagan had the "hawk" philosophy in terms of their overall beliefs. It isn't hard to imagine the Iranians were much more fearful of Reagan than Carter IMHO.

Finally, here's how historians, scholars, etc., rank Carter. Not too good IMHO.

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics ... Presidents

Opinions yes, but not good. Are they all wrong Bryan? Where would rank Carter?

 

[blueshard]

Hey Gardener, I was wondering if you could help me out with this...

"Consider a situation where The Fed "wants" the GSE funding cost to be, say, 2%. The market wants it to be 4%, because the market perceives more risk than The Fed would like to have it admit."

So, this is what they mean by "capping" right... ignoring the path of the free markets and trying to control them?

"The Fed can cause the GSE paper to trade at 2%, but if it does so it will be the only buyer of said paper, because nobody else will buy at a 2% coupon."

Forgive my ignorance here... but this is saying that because 2% is not reflecting the risk in the market the borrowing sectors of the economy won't buy that paper and so the The Fed buys it at 2% and then gives it to the borrowing sector making the borrowing sector controlled by the Fed?

I apologize if I am way off here. Thanks in advance for anything that you can tell me here.

 

[optimus prime]

BTW, you didn't answer my question about your use of the phrase "roll over and play dead like Jimmy Carter". Was THAT a reference to the Iranian hostage crisis?? If so, don't you think you owe him an apology for saying such an inapropriate thing?

Did you mean inappropriate?

Or is that the American spelling? :woot:

 

[Bryan]

Did you mean inappropriate?

Or is that the American spelling? :woot:

LOL! Yes, I _did_ mean "inappropriate"! Do you feel better now, for having caught me in a rare typo?

 

[The Gardener]

Forgive my ignorance here... but this is saying that because 2% is not reflecting the risk in the market the borrowing sectors of the economy won't buy that paper and so the The Fed buys it at 2% and then gives it to the borrowing sector making the borrowing sector controlled by the Fed?

Exactly. The market wants to price GSE paper at 4%, this yield being the risk premium that a buyer requires in order to hand over the cash. Bernanke wants the yield to be at 2%, so Bernanke is engaging in federal purchases of GSE paper in an attempt to manipulate the yield back down to 2%. The only problem is that in doing this, NOBODY will purchase the paper, because they don't want to settle for a 2% yield when similarly risky paper is yielding 4% in other areas of the debt market.

The main concept that the blogger is trying to get across is that in the debt market, if you engage in, say, a manipulation of 40% of the lending volume, you don't just decrease the amount of willing lenders by 40%, you decrease the amount of willing lenders by 100%, because the market will drive the potential lenders' money into other vehicles that will yield them the 4% that they are looking for.

What a disgusting mess.... our own government using taxpayer money to openly manipulate markets. This doesn't help contain loss, it SPREADS it, because nobody will trust the yields being quoted if they are manipulated.

 

[ali777]

Did you mean inappropriate?

Or is that the American spelling? :woot:

LOL! Yes, I _did_ mean "inappropriate"! Do you feel better now, for having caught me in a rare typo?

Why do you use underscore (_) as a prefix and suffix to _DO_? Is it your way of pointing out that you are stressing the verb there?

I'm seriously asking. I'm curious and I'd like to know the answer.

 

[Bryan]

Why do you use underscore (_) as a prefix and suffix to _DO_? Is it your way of pointing out that you are stressing the verb there?

Correct.

 

[optimus prime]

Did you mean inappropriate?

Or is that the American spelling? :woot:

LOL! Yes, I _did_ mean "inappropriate"! Do you feel better now, for having caught me in a rare typo?

I do feel much better. lol. It's all fun.

 

[CCS]

I read up on the abortion executive order. Basically, the conservatives started it by refusing to fund any charities in other countries that provide contraceptives or abortions to poor women. Clinton reversed it. Then Bush re-instituted it, and now Obama got rid of it again. It does not mean the US is paying for abortions. These charities provide food and many other services to the poor. It just means that the ones that also provide birth control services will not be discriminated against under the Obama administration. A real easy, low skill move, but one I'm happy about.

I don't agree with abortions after 6 months, but I do think abortions before 3 months are a very necessary service. Sad I must choose between extremes, but since 99% of women don't even get abortions after 6 months, and it usually is for life endangerment reasons, I feel fine voting for the choice party. I'd really like a party that is fiscally conservative and pro-choice, but the libertarians seem to only give lip service to pro-choice, but want to undermine it any way they can financially.

 

[blueshard]

Alright, thanks for taking the time Gardener, that really clears it up for me. Yeah this is a mess. This thread is all of the place too! (no thanks to me!) lol

 

[squeegee]

I tried to read all that crap because I wasn't here for a while but I dunno why people are making a big deal about Obama saying yes to bombing Pakistan? This is the best decision so far in that war if it happens. I dream the day we invade that small sh*t hole on that map and delete all the redundant clowns from it. Finally somebody will take action and make a difference. This war is like playing Monopoly, it will never ends but a least if we can help them to take charge again of their Country, that will be a start because this is the ultimate goal, kill the bad guys as much as we can so the autority (Police, Military,..) can take over that silly place.

 

[CCS]

Yeah, hopefully we don't all get drafted to go over there. I'm 29, and I don't feel completely safe from the draft.

 

[blueshard]

In hard economic times people tend to join the military.

Also, I believe we are "friends" with Pakistan.. we are just bombing an area on the border.

Thirdly, the US can't afford another large scale war

 

[Old Baldy]

I read up on the abortion executive order. Basically, the conservatives started it by refusing to fund any charities in other countries that provide contraceptives or abortions to poor women. Clinton reversed it. Then Bush re-instituted it, and now Obama got rid of it again. It does not mean the US is paying for abortions. These charities provide food and many other services to the poor. It just means that the ones that also provide birth control services will not be discriminated against under the Obama administration. A real easy, low skill move, but one I'm happy about.

I don't agree with abortions after 6 months, but I do think abortions before 3 months are a very necessary service.

I agree. Not really funding it in this situation but I worry it might change.

 

[Bryan]

Yes, I owe Carter an apology Bryan. It's unfair to say any president rolls over and plays dead when our citizens are threatened. They all want to protect us. Some are more effective at it than others but their desires are pretty similar IMHO. I'm sorry president Carter, that was a cheap shot!

I'm glad to hear you say that, OB! President Carter did spend an ENORMOUS amount of effort and energy in working on the hostage crisis. He had an ENORMOUS amount of behind-the-scenes diplomatic efforts constantly going on, and I think the worry and concern over it aged him during that final year in office more than any other President. And there was the aborted military operation (with a few tragic deaths) which he had to live with, too. So secret was that operation, to this very day the details of that plan have never been revealed.

"Process" means someone is more interested on the method and procedures to make policy than the actual policy itself. The actual policy itself is second in line to the methods and procedures for getting a policy in place. It should be the other way around IMHO.

I don't think I know much more than I did before!

The "method and procedures for making policy" would include holding meetings between the President and his Cabinet members to discuss any proposed policy, so are you saying it's bad to hold meetings?? I still don't really understand what you're saying about "process".

It leads to what Margaret Thatcher concluded about Carter's performance (i.e., "he had no vision of what direction America should follow"). Margaret Thatcher was in a position to know FAR more about the effectiveness of Carter than I was. I respect Thatcher and when she says something like that I have to take notice. That isn't just political bashing coming from her IMHO. That is her true opinion of Carter and she has said much the same thing about him over the years from my viewing interviews with her on TV.

Those are very strong words Bryan and, unless you don't believe/respect Thatcher, they say alot.

I have no idea what Margaret Thatcher meant by saying that President Carter "had no vision of what direction America should follow". How would SHE know what "vision" he had?? Personally, I think his more moderate politics were much preferable to those of his immediate successor (Thatcher's pal Ronald Reagan), who got Americans used to the idea that it's not really necessary to pay our tax bills, and who TRIPLED the national debt during his tenure in office as a result.

Tidbit: I've heard rumors that Reagan informed the Iranians he believed the taking of American hostages was an act of war and he would act accordingly. That sounds much more plausible than "the Iranians were taking one last jab at Carter before he left office".

Then why did they release the hostages immediately AFTER Reagan was inaugurated, rather than just BEFORE? If they were somehow terrified of Reagan himself, they would have released the hostages IN ADVANCE of Reagan's Presidency, so that they could avoid his (supposed) retaliation. But noooo, they were obviously just taking one final slap at President Carter by releasing the hostages on Reagan's watch.

And the fact that the Iranians were listening on their radios the entire time during the inauguration (so as to release the hostages at the EXACT correct moment) has all the earmarks that support that PBS guy's claim that the Republicans had made a secret deal with the Iranians NOT to release the hostages until after the election. That whole thing with the exact timing of the hostages' release has a REALLY REALLY bad smell to it, and it smells like a Republican dirty trick!! uke:

IMHO, Carter had the "dove" philosophy and Reagan had the "hawk" philosophy in terms of their overall beliefs. It isn't hard to imagine the Iranians were much more fearful of Reagan than Carter IMHO.

LOL! I don't think those fanatical Iranians could have cared LESS who the President was, except for their fundamental desire to rub Carter's nose in the whole hostage crisis mess.

Finally, here's how historians, scholars, etc., rank Carter. Not too good IMHO.

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics ... Presidents

There's some revealing information at that link: "Another presidential poll was conducted by The Wall Street Journal in 2005, with James Lindgren of Northwestern University Law School. As in the 2000 survey, the editors sought to balance the opinions of liberals and conservatives, adjusting the results 'to give Democratic- and Republican-leaning scholars equal weight.' Franklin D. Roosevelt still ranked in the top-three, but editor James Taranto noted that Democratic-leaning scholars rated George W. Bush the sixth-worst president of all time, while Republican scholars rated him the sixth-best, giving him a split-decision rating of 'average'."

So all those "scholars" who took part in the poll were just as highly political as the average guy on the street, with the Republican scholars rating George W. Bush as among the best, and the Democrat scholars rating him as among the worst. In other words, even professional historians and scholars are subject to the same unfortunate biases and prejudices (like bitter frustration from the Iranian hostage crisis) for disliking President Carter, just like the average person.

Opinions yes, but not good. Are they all wrong Bryan? Where would rank Carter?

I'd rank Carter among the better Presidents, for his intelligence and his work ethic, and his accomplishments like the Camp David agreement between the Israelis and the Egyptians (which has held TO THIS VERY DAY, one of the very few Middle East successes), and the Panama Canal treaty.

 

[optimus prime]

Well the abortion executive order wasn't too pleasing for me but not the end of the world because abortions are here to stay no matter what I think.

Why are you against abortion? If it's because you believe its killing a baby then do you think accepting it because it's here to stay is right?

As for abortions.... Not my ball game either way... Personally, I'd rather keep the child, but don't you think people can decide for themselves?

I'm interested to know people's feelings. Why would you rather keep the kid? Do you think an abortion is killing a baby?

Totally agree. I am anti-abortion, but I don't think its government's role to make that call.

Who should be allowed to make a decision like that?

I don't agree with abortions after 6 months, but I do think abortions before 3 months are a very necessary service.

Why? Why not after 6 months but before 3 months? What about say 3 months and 1 day? Is it right to treat abortions the same as the legal age to drink or the legal age to drive? One day it’s wrong, next day it’s OK. That’s fine for something like drinking or driving, but what about human life? Seems a bit black and white to me.

I was never really bothered about abortion because I never thought about it, wasn't my problem. Then I saw some horrific photos. It then kicked in what was happening. Yet I still do nothing. Eventually people will look back at us with disgust. Like we do with the Jewish holocaust or Slavery.

 

[ali777]

As for abortions.... Not my ball game either way... Personally, I'd rather keep the child, but don't you think people can decide for themselves?

I'm interested to know people's feelings. Why would you rather keep the kid? Do you think an abortion is killing a baby?

I don't have an opinion on killing the baby either way, I've never really thought about it. I should add that I wouldn't approve of a late abortion. So, in a way when the baby is formed, maybe I do view it as a killing.

It's a strange subject. I used to be careless in my youth and I had unprotected sex with a few random women. The morning after, one girl told me she was probably at the ovulating stage. I was as cool as a cucumber and told her to get a morning after pill... How is this different than abortion?

I guess, I'm OK with early termination but not late termination. I don't know what the limit is.. Are the UK guidelines at 14 weeks?

I'd keep the baby because I want to be a father one day anyway. In a very strange way, getting someone pregnant never really scared me. If someone comes to me and says I'm a father, I'd be pleasently surprised. I don't think there is ever a right time to have a baby, so anytime would be OK...

I've been with couple girls that were extremely scared of getting pregnant. One of them was playing it safe and was still a V, the other one was (1) on the pill and insisted on the (2) condom and asked me to (3) withdraw... the probability of 1 and 2 failing at the same time is like 5 in 10,000 :dunno: ... It's their body, and I have to respect their wishes... I think it's different for women...

If the situation arose (I have had a false alarm), I'd tell her that I'd do my share and I prefer keeping the baby. However, I'd leave the final decision with her, since it's her body.

 

[Cassin]

awesome pic!