Valor, I don't know if Saddam Hussein really hated terrorists as Trump claims. Nor have I read this book which claims otherwise.
Certainly many people of different political persuasions are claiming that Bush is the worst President in history. He's got about 13 months to demonstrate that he is not at least a strong candidate for that dubious distinction. And with signs of a weakening economy, he may have an uphill battle.
Posts: 7920 | Location: in the backwoods of North Carolina | Registered: 06-07-02
While I think Saddam was more afraid of terrorists, especially Shi'a terrorists, I don't see Donald Trump as having much foreign policy expertise. I'd listen to him as much as I'd listen to george bush about balancing the budget.
Posts: 17278 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
I don't think much of Donald Trump. The fact that he happens to share an opinion with me doesn't change that. But I can think of no measure by which bush doesn't come up as the worst, the most destructive, the most incompetent, the most dangerous to our future, in terms of finance and education and constitutional governance and security. The effects are barely noted by many, but they will soon be impossible to ignore. It's just a question of whether we'll be able to survive them. Given the degree to which the political pool has been poisoned, I doubt it. Truly.
Posts: 1505 | Location: Puget Sound, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
Originally posted by frankvan: Well, yeah. That sounds about right to me. But, I've only paid attention to presidents of the U.S since FDR.
In which case, how do you, personally, rank them?
Well, I guess the closest thing to a consensus would be the fact that if he hadn't died he would have been re-elected for the fourth term:FDR. I personally would rank the rest in roughly the following order:Harry Truman, Wm Jefferson Clinton, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Papa Bush, and booby prize goes to Dubya himself. IMHO.
Is there a general consensus on which was greatest and which worst?
Well, some people still hate Roosevelt. They may be the same people who love Bush junior.
Oops, this is what comes from reliance on a very unreliable memory! I forgot about Kennedy and Johnson; so squeeze them in between Ike and Nixon. I think also in the order in which they filled the post, because I think Kennedy didn't live long enough to accomplish what he might have and Johnson was very effective at carrying out Kennedy's social programs. I really don't expect universal endorsement.
If Ronald Reagan hadn't reversed every one of Carter's oil conservation initiatives, we'd not be in the fix we're in today. Those initiatives might well be the single most important thing a president has done, certainly with respect to energy policy and maybe even with respect to security. To me, that takes Carter up the list a ways. Not to the top. But off the bottom. That space belongs, in perpetuity (as long or short as that may be), to bush.
Posts: 1505 | Location: Puget Sound, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
Originally posted by sid1114: If Ronald Reagan hadn't reversed every one of Carter's oil conservation initiatives, we'd not be in the fix we're in today. Those initiatives might well be the single most important thing a president has done, certainly with respect to energy policy and maybe even with respect to security. To me, that takes Carter up the list a ways. Not to the top. But off the bottom. That space belongs, in perpetuity (as long or short as that may be), to bush.
This prompted me to do a little research. Here is one article favorable to Jimmy Carter:
Now my thoughts...While I am no fan of Jimmy Carter, I cannot knock the idea behind his ideas on alternative fuel sources. But why would Ronald Reagan reverse these policies??? Because they were not workable at the time. He knew it was going to take years for the free market place to develop these initiatives. He took action that was crucially needed to be done at that point in time, actions to jump start the economy.
Many may criticize Reagan for removing the solar panels from the White House. I suspect they were removed because they wern't doing the job. When the panels were installed, the technology was still in its infancy & not totally developed yet.
Jimmy Carter created the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which we still have and have taken from on needed occassions. Ronald Reagan abolished the Windfall Profits Tax. The Windfall Profits Tax certainly done more harm than good.
I keep saying the free market will dictate how new technology fares out, not the government. During the Clinton years, we had low gasoline prices at the pump. People were not concerned with developing alternative fuel sources at that time.
One big hinderance is the environmental movement. We need to quit listening to them and go back to developing our own oil reserves on our own soil. Lift these stupid bans on places like ANWR. And develop what we got.
Many say President Bush doesn't have an energy policy. I disagree. He has pushed iniatitives on developing alternative fuel vehicles, and hydro-cell technology. Personally I don't like the idea of government grants being used, but I am pointing out this because his critics tend to overlook the fact he has taken action. Also we have seen more ethanol & biodiesel plants built during the Bush years, because of market demand.
Posts: 2277 | Location: Martinsville, IL | Registered: 06-03-02
No system, free market or whatever, is going to prevent oil from running out. As the first article points out, the US hit peak oil production in the seventies. No amount of tax breaks for or deregulation of oil companies is going to put more oil in the ground. Scrabbling around to exploit every last patch of oil is short-termism.
The second article says that Carter should have "stood by" the Shah which would have prevented the second oil shock. Firstly, it's not clear what practical form this "standing by" the Shah could have taken (sending troops?), and secondly, are you OK with that idea - that the US should support dictators abroad, just in order to maintain a sufficient supply of oil?
However Carter dealt with Iran, he surely did better than the Reagan administration, which secretly sold it weapons to finance terror in South America.
The ethanol scam has little to do with market demand and a lot to do with subsidies. Some say it takes more oil to make the ethanol than the ethanol replaces.
nnn-The free mark will dictate. We run out of oil, the free market will dictate what the next energy source will be. Some think coal will be the energy of the future. Perhaps solar or improved technology in battery development. And the thing about oil & gas, it is not just energy we derive from oil, it is also the source everyday products we use we don't even think about being petroleum based. For instance the computer monitor you look at 24/7 and the keyboards you wear out on a weekly basis plastic derived from petroleum products. Not to mention the carpeting on the floor of your home or the material in the clothes we wear.
As for supporting dictators, I will make reference to a quote by FDR about a South American dictator. An associate made reference to a certain Dictator as being a real SOB. Roosevelt replying, "Yes but he's our SOB". And yes Jimmy Carter should have stood by & supported the Shah of Iran. Since the fall of the Shah, Iran has been nothing but trouble.
As for the sale of aarms to Iran to help fund the Contras by the Reagan Administration, too bad it was discovered. But covert activities of this nature are actually the norm rather than the exception. We all might be surprised at what really goes on.
As for ethanol, at this point, this is still an unproven industry. As for the information in your web-site, I've seen similar info before. I am still in question as for how close to the truth the critics are. In many areas, ethanol related fuels get a tax break at the pump. OK, if we really want to do the fair market thing, I say give straight gasoline the same tax break as well Then we can get a better idea how this industry is going to survive. Sooner or later ethanol & biodiesel will have to prove their positions as viable industries. And the only way for that to happen is through the free market place.
Posts: 2277 | Location: Martinsville, IL | Registered: 06-03-02
We can't depend on the free market to plan for the future. Of course, the free market probably will have a huge influence on what will replace oil (and whether or not ethanol, in particular, will survive without subsidy) - but consumers and producers will most likely be picking from a range of options developed and researched with grants, aid, legislation or whatever not supplied on free-market principles.
For example, the car culture itself didn't arise through the free market. Road building, and help for the new industry, were supplied by public money. The infrastructure - legal and physical - which has made the car culture possible was itself made possible by the public sector.
Whatever replaces car culture will not be solely down to the free market. The free market is powerful, yes, but short-termist. We can't rely on the free market to fix everything - that's the fantastic ideological extremism of libertarians.
The free market, specifially, has no impulse to protect common property (i.e. the earth) or to limit the extremely consumerist culture of North America. But it's in those areas that the answer lies.
I'm not sure if you're saying whether or not it's OK for the US to support dictators, in order to give US consumers what they want. Are you suggesting it's OK because FDR did it? Whatever you think of Iran, the revolution was popular (though maybe less so now). It was, if you like, what 'the free market' in Iran demanded in the field of politics. What right does any US president have to intervene in how other countries arrange their affairs, just in order to facilitate the US economy?
'...This statement is even more controversial in light of the fact that it now appears this new intelligence emerged in August 2007. How could President Bush continue to threaten Iran in September and October if the evidence was mounting that international pressure had worked and that Iran had at least ceased its immediate development of a nuclear weapon?..
...Perino insists that President Bush was not told exactly what the new information was, so by implication he was not directly misleading the American public with his statements on Iran in the autumn. President Bush adopted this defence in his press conference, insisting that he got word of the NIE findings only last week and not in the briefing held in August...
...Senator Joseph Biden, the ranking member on the Senate foreign relations committee, dismissed the notion that Bush was only informed that new intelligence had come to light but was not told what it was. "If that's true," Biden said, "he has the most incompetent staff in modern American history, and he's one of the most incompetent presidents in modern American history."..'Spin, lies and contempt
How is the corn planted, harvested, taken to the processing center, and processed? Unless every stage uses renewable energy sources, more energy may be used than gained.
Posts: 17278 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
Then we can get a better idea how this industry is going to survive. Sooner or later ethanol & biodiesel will have to prove their positions as viable industries. And the only way for that to happen is through the free market place.
