i always think it's funny when people with such a loose grasp on proper grammar and syntax try to use the word "liberal" as an epithet.
the guy was a terrible President. he had no relationship with Alan Greenspan, which explains the inflation, but regardless, you're right. he was ineffectual and sometimes downright cowardly. tell me, though: who cares? that was 30 years ago. think about today.
if the most favorable comparison you can make between Bush and Carter is inflation, keep moving. at least Carter didn't completely dismantle the Constitution, declare open war on an entire religion, rob his own people of their civil liberties, and illegally imprison and torture thousands of innocent people.
there is no comparing Bush with anyone prior -- there has never been (and hopefully will never be again) a President so horrible.
2007-11-04 04:12:05
·
answer #1
·
answered by Andrew 5
·
4⤊
1⤋
Even many who remember Jimmy Carter's presidency as a near disaster - of 12 percent inflation and 20 percent interest rates, of malaise and gas lines and tension in the Middle East - have come to recognize Carter as some kind of great man. His genius was not for the presidency, not for administration, policy and compromise, but for the ex-presidency, for moral leadership, for setting an example of decency and world citizenship.
Jonathan Demme's new movie, "Jimmy Carter: Man From Plains," shows how Carter has been living his life since leaving office on Jan. 20, 1981, traveling, speaking, working with the Carter Center and building homes for Habitat for Humanity. We see an 82-year-old man putting in a travel schedule that would exhaust someone half his age. Long past being driven by a need to redeem himself historically, safely ensconced in the pantheon of Nobel laureates, Carter is a vision of pure altruism and commitment.
How many other presidents or even plain Americans could we say this about? How likely do you think it is that George Bush will devote his post-presidential life to moral leadership?
2007-11-04 13:15:53
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
0⤋
In the Carter time there was an oil shortage that created problems. Also, how could Carter "let" people into our embassy...was he on guard there?
He supported "good" foreign relations. You can make more changes in the world by being a good model ...one people want to emulate...than you can by being a bully.
It used to be everyones dreamed of being like the USA until we began acting like old communist Russia. Now we look like the "bad" guys. We had a right to go into Afganistan, but not Iraq.
I will agree that Iraq was a major problem, but then there are many other countries that are too...countries all over the world struggle with competing in the world today. Their problems are also their culture and culture cannot be beat out of someone...they need to be educated to see that there are other ways of being. Education is really the only way.
2007-11-04 12:09:23
·
answer #3
·
answered by suigeneris-impetus 6
·
4⤊
0⤋
Wow, that's quite a defense of the current administration..."Remember how bad it was 30 years ago?"
Carter "allowed" people to take over the embassy?? Is that the same way Bush "allowed" people to plow planes into buildings in NY and DC, or the way Lincoln "allowed" the civil war to happen? Get REAL!
Stuff happens, and the president has to deal with it, regardles of political party. Your contempt for liberals comes through loud and clear, but don't try to cover up the horrible mistakes of this administration by pointing to the distant past.
2007-11-04 12:19:29
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
0⤋
Well, Bush "let" planes fly into our WTC and kill 3000 people.
And Jimmy carter got our bpeople back--alive--withoutstarting two warsto do it.
As for inflation--he inheerited that from the Republicans--and brought the inflation rate down. Bush inherited the low inflation rate of the past few years. Now--as a result of more GOP irresponsible deficits, its climbing.
So, yes--liberals remember Jimmy Carter. And hope for another president like him.
2007-11-04 12:07:14
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
6⤊
0⤋
Why do you cons always have to bring up a leader who has been out of office for 20+ years?Why don't you talk about the president who has most disgraced the oval office?I don't mean Nixon!Bush ignored national security and terrorism until AFTER we were attacked!
What orders did he give afetr getting the warning of 8/6/2001?
Why did FBI HQ in Washington deny FISA warrants its Minneapolis office requested in the weeks prior to 911?Especially since they already had a suspect in custody who wante to fly a plane into the WTC????????
2007-11-04 12:12:46
·
answer #6
·
answered by honestamerican 7
·
3⤊
0⤋
Jimmy Carter inherited a total mess(especially inflation)...created by Richard Nixon.
The oil embargo, and taking the US off the gold standard, did more to create inflation that few can imagine.
And Carter didn't let them just march right into our embassy. Totally rediculous.
2007-11-04 11:59:37
·
answer #7
·
answered by Villain 6
·
8⤊
1⤋
I remember when Jimmy Carter started the program to get us off imported oil. In addition, he put solar panels on the roof of the white house that Reagan had taken down when he got into office. Now look where we are.
2007-11-04 12:10:56
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
0⤋
Jimmy Carter was actually too smart to be President.
He has a degree in Nuclear Physics.
He is a Naval Academy Graduate.
He wanted us to solve the energy shortage by pursuing alternative energy sources.
George W. Bush is the dumbest President we ever had.
George W. Bush can't even pronounce Nuclear.
2007-11-04 12:07:03
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
2⤋
OMG... look, George W. Bush was an awful president, alright? Liberals hate him, moderates hate him, even a good number of Conservatives nationwide hate him. Let's just move on and hope if a Republican is elected in 08' that they won't suck just as bad.
And if Clinton gets elected instead of a Republican, then reconsider Bushs' stances on things like immigration, Iraq, and health care and bring in a Republican candidate in 2012 that will actually do SOMETHING and not be as horrible as Bush, OK?
I don't understand why people are still trying to defend Bush when it's pretty clear that even people in his own group dislike him.
2007-11-04 12:00:53
·
answer #10
·
answered by Bluefast 3
·
5⤊
2⤋