OMG Politics, I'm over it already.

[mongooz]

and Israel would have been wiped off the map?

just a point. that was never going to happen. the only reason that Iran, Iraq and Syria are still on the map, is that WE (the usa) have been able to keep Israel on the bench.
we haven't been saving Israel from the arabs......we've been saving the arabs from Israel. just sayin'
(Israel has nukes (and had them then too).....the rest DO NOT, and Israel HAS the fortitude to USE them, were it not for us convincing them not to)

 

[jp_nyc]

Israel has been in no serious danger from the Arabs or Iranians since it humiliated them in 1967. And I guarantee you no Arab or Iranian leader has seriously contemplated risking that humiliation a second time since the siege of Mecca in 1979 showed how dangerous it is for regimes in the Middle East to appear weak. Israel has never had a reason to use its nukes since its spies stole the technology from the USA.

 

[Flamencology]

Carter's ability to point out Amerca's shortfalls without actually having a solution all but sealed the election for Reagan. He was one of those "I've identified the problem", but I have no idea how to fix it Presidents and the American public responded by voting for a leader (actor or not). Don't get me wrong, Carter did many great things with the presidency, but actually being president wasn't one of them.

So the zero need to invade Iraq; is that because when Iran got done wiping the floor with Carter, we would have had zero influence in the region and Israel would have been wiped off the map? Or is there some perfect solution For the Middle East that Carter was working on, but the pesky American voters got in the way?

I don't think that the "good person, bad president" argument holds water, given that his successor was one of the worst presidents in history.

And I don't give Reagan a single ounce of credit for resolving the hostage crisis.

Sure, Carter wasn't able to unite the country behind him. But that's the country's loss. You wouldn't be dealing with many of the same issues that plague us today: dependence on oil (especially foreign oil from the Middle East), environmental issues, etc.

 

[wagdog]

I don't think that the "good person, bad president" argument holds water, given that his successor was one of the worst presidents in history.

And I don't give Reagan a single ounce of credit for resolving the hostage crisis.

Sure, Carter wasn't able to unite the country behind him. But that's the country's loss. You wouldn't be dealing with many of the same issues that plague us today: dependence on oil (especially foreign oil from the Middle East), environmental issues, etc.

Disagree on Reagan, on both accounts. Carter's handling of the hostage crisis and the failed rescue attempt was a tremendous blow to America's prestige. While I don't agree with several of the actions Reagan took, by and large, he was what the country needed after Carter. There's a reason GHWB rode Reagan's 2-term coat tails into office.

The country's loss for not getting behind him? Really? I'd say failing to lead the country was one of Carter's greatest downfalls, but I don't blame the country for it. Maybe the country didn't approve of his handling of the oil crisis? I seem to recall gas prices skyrocketing and gas rationing - all of which in retrospect was completely unnecessary. Or maybe the country didn't like seeing its citizens held hostage and embassy taken over?

 

[mongooz]

^^^^^
yea....i was "in" when the embassy was taken. it DID NOT help morale in the military. we pretty much gave up on Carter.
Reagan got elected largely because of carter's failures. gas prices, 55 MPH, the attempt to change over to metric.....and the hostage crisis.....he was done.
and i remember a press conference with reagan before the election when he was asked what HE would do about the hostage crisis. his answer was "i will bomb them back to the stone age". THAT sealed his election.....and surprisingly......on the day of his swearing in.....Tehran gave up the hostages.....jeez....i wonder why. (sarcasm)

 

[mongooz]

reagan-nomics was complete bullshit. it's part of why our economy is STILL f'ed up.
but how he projected US power was very good. lots of potential enemies had second thoughts about their expansionism.
the wall came down under reagan, and that wasn't a coincidence. just sayin'

 

[sunvalleylaw]

I enjoyed the vid.

I feel it's impossible that any self-described Republican have any solid grasp on economics - this is a guy who presumably supported Reagan - so some of his statements were 'WTF?'. But most were very accurate.

As I said earlier, I had a whole post drafted about stuff I think I learned as an idealistic fiscal conservative in my youth, and econ major at UW Seattle, and over the years through practical experience. I felt the post was too self based so deleted it. But this vid I ran across kinda hits on what I was trying to say. The free market works in some areas where rational self interest can actually work and people have reasonable bargaining power and choices, and for a variety of reasons, does not work in others. And for me, that includes considering "externalities" such as the environmental costs of production, shipping, etc. Those costs need to be accounted for. But the President says it pretty well here.

 

[Help!I'maRock!]

55 MPH, the attempt to change over to metric.....

So let me get this straight. Driving slower and saving people's lives, and converting to the worldwide standard scientific measurement system were legitimate reasons to not vote for a candidate or sitting President? This is why I don't believe in "the good ol' days", that people were smarter, and this generation is a disgrace (for any number of reasons). People have always been stupid.

 

[wagdog]

So let me get this straight. Driving slower and saving people's lives, and converting to the worldwide standard scientific measurement system were legitimate reasons to not vote for a candidate or sitting President? This is why I don't believe in "the good ol' days", that people were smarter, and this generation is a disgrace (for any number of reasons). People have always been stupid.

I recall the way the lowering of the speed limit was foisted on the states was to withhold federal hwy funds if the states didn't comply. This didn't sit well with the public and was seen as federal overreach.

While I was personally in favor of the metric system (and still am), I believe this was seen as the same type of thing (maybe, I really don't remember why we didn't convert to metric).

Were these seen as reasons not reelect a sitting president? Possibly. My recollection of the era was that the gas crisis had a lot to do with it, but most certainly the mishandling of Iran and the hostage crisis pretty much sank Carter.

50% of the population have always been of below average intelligence. :P

 

[Help!I'maRock!]

I recall the way the lowering of the speed limit was foisted on the states was to withhold federal hwy funds if the states didn't comply. This didn't sit well with the public and was seen as federal overreach.

While I was personally in favor of the metric system (and still am), I believe this was seen as the same type of thing (maybe, I really don't remember why we didn't convert to metric).

Were these seen as reasons not reelect a sitting president? Possibly. My recollection of the era was that the gas crisis had a lot to do with it, but most certainly the mishandling of Iran and the hostage crisis pretty much sank Carter.

50% of the population have always been of below average intelligence.

"Federal Overreach" is what the opposition party says when they're not the ones in favor of the legislation. Neither party actually believes in states rights. They just want credit for passing it on "their watch".

"Average intelligence" isn't a measure of actual intelligence. We're all stupid in some way, but there are far more stupid people out there than smart people.

 

[wagdog]

"Federal Overreach" is what the opposition party says when they're not the ones in favor of the legislation.

Pretty sure, not positive, but pretty sure the general consensus was that withholding federal hwy funds was looked at as an overreach of the federal government by most people regardless of party. I'm just going on memory here, that was a long time ago - but I don't recall the way the 55 mph speed limit was implemented was very popular and I'm pretty sure the term "federal overreach" was often used to describe it.

You had asked if lowering the speed limit was something that would cause people to vote against a sitting president; the answer is yes, it was one of the reasons. Not because of what it was, but how it was implemented. That coupled with Carter's disastrous handling of Iran and other reasons mentioned before.

 

[Help!I'maRock!]

Pretty sure, not positive, but pretty sure the general consensus was that withholding federal hwy funds was looked at as an overreach of the federal government by most people regardless of party. I'm just going on memory here, that was a long time ago - but I don't recall the way the 55 mph speed limit was implemented was very popular and I'm pretty sure the term "federal overreach" was often used to describe it.

You had asked if lowering the speed limit was something that would cause people to vote against a sitting president; the answer is yes, it was one of the reasons. Not because of what it was, but how it was implemented. That coupled with Carter's disastrous handling of Iran and other reasons mentioned before.

The question was rhetorical, to illustrate that people are morons, especially when it comes to elections. Always voting against their best interests in the name of machismo, or worse, groupthink.

 

[sunvalleylaw]

Here in Idaho, it is interesting how the primary political party defies "federal overreach" to the point of denying a large percentage of the state's population decent medical care by refusing Medicaid expansion: http://www.idahostatesman.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article68014107.html Yet spends time passing law to disallow cities and counties statewide the ability to pass their own laws on issues such as minimum wage. Apparently the right to self govern locally only extends so far, and "overreach" from a conservative statehouse to communities that view the issues differently is ok. http://kuow.org/post/idaho-cities-blocked-raising-minimum-wage Asshats. Oh, and we are well on the way to clearing completely unpermitted concealed weapons. That's right, no concealed weapons permit required. Just go out and buy your saturday night special and shove it in your pocket. But don't worry, Gov. Butch "encourages and hopes" folks will get some training. http://www.localnews8.com/news/gov-otter-signs-permitless-concealed-carry-bill/38702180 I hate my state politically.

 

[wagdog]

Always voting against their best interests in the name of machismo, or worse, groupthink.

Agreed.

 

[Help!I'maRock!]

Agreed.

He's been a marginally better president than Bush II. Which isn't saying much, if anything.

 

[wagdog]

Oh, and we are well on the way to clearing completely unpermitted concealed weapons. That's right, no concealed weapons permit required. Just go out and buy your saturday night special and shove it in your pocket. But don't worry, Gov. Butch "encourages and hopes" folks will get some training. http://www.localnews8.com/news/gov-otter-signs-permitless-concealed-carry-bill/38702180 I hate my state politically.

Do you have high crime rates there? Do you think they'll rise? What exactly do you think the result of permitless concealed carry is going to be?

FWIW, VT has always had permitless carry (concealed, open - whatever). We also have one of the lowest murder rates in the country.

Oh, please put your pistol in a holster before shoving it in your pocket.

 

[sunvalleylaw]

Do you have high crime rates there? Do you think they'll rise? What exactly do you think the result of permitless concealed carry is going to be?

FWIW, VT has always had permitless carry (concealed, open - whatever). We also have one of the lowest murder rates in the country.

Oh, please put your pistol in a holster before shoving it in your pocket.

More of this stuff. (see below) And this guy had a permit when they were required. I understand your arguments, but the negligence, and sloth of people regarding really learning to be skilled at something (like properly handling deadly weapons) is not to be underestimated. Requiring some sort of training and registration does not (IMHO only, I know others vehemently disagree) unduly restrict ownership of weapons. Completely opening the gates for concealed carry would tend to enlarge the population, which will bring along the persons among that population that are untrained, unskilled, and careless.

http://www.idahostatejournal.com/ne...cle_18228ab2-3383-11e4-af7e-001a4bcf887a.html

and really, I am not surprised with Idaho's move here. Disagree with it as I do. I am more pissed that people who need medical help, such as 18 year olds who have been kicked out of foster homes because they are too old, and other working poor, have to wait while they adjourn and get around to talking about it some more later before expanding medicaid.

 

[wagdog]

More of this stuff. (see below) And this guy had a permit when they were required. I understand your arguments, but the negligence, and sloth of people regarding really learning to be skilled at something (like properly handling deadly weapons) is not to be underestimated. Requiring some sort of training and registration does not (IMHO only, I know others vehemently disagree) unduly restrict ownership of weapons. Completely opening the gates for concealed carry would tend to enlarge the population, which will bring along the persons among that population that are untrained, unskilled, and careless.

http://www.idahostatejournal.com/ne...cle_18228ab2-3383-11e4-af7e-001a4bcf887a.html

and really, I am not surprised with Idaho's move here. Disagree with it as I do. I am more pissed that people who need medical help, such as 18 year olds who have been kicked out of foster homes because they are too old, and other working poor, have to wait while they adjourn and get around to talking about it some more later before expanding medicaid.

Yikes! Lucky no one else was injured. See the aforementioned comment on a pocket holster what probably would have likely prevented that. We have had two recent negligent firearm discharges in VT that I'm aware of. I'm sure there are more that go unreported.

I do support people being able to exercise their rights - all of them.

 

[VoidTerraFirma]

He's been a marginally better president than Bush II. Which isn't saying much, if anything.

Marginally? Are you nostalgic for endless, unbudgeted ground war and anthrax in your mailbox?

 

[sunvalleylaw]

Yikes! Lucky no one else was injured. See the aforementioned comment on a pocket holster what probably would have likely prevented that. We have had two recent negligent firearm discharges in VT that I'm aware of. I'm sure there are more that go unreported.

I do support people being able to exercise their rights - all of them.

Sure, that's fine. I personally just do not see requiring reasonable training and registration being undue restriction on those rights. And apparently as it turns out, some training in how to properly handle weapons seems to be helpful. But beyond that, taking the legislative time to pass this law well not taking the time to solve the Medicaid issue seems like a colossal waste. I am sure that the many people that have no access to healthcare in the state are pretty glad they can stick a gun in your back pocket or front pocket or wherever.