I always thought Ulysses S Grant was after I saw him fall off his horse drunk in the Beverly hillbillies
OT- Jimmy Carter has died at 100
- Thread starter msstatelp1
- Start date
- Status
RIP Mr. Peanut- worst president in my lifetime
May the end of the inflation era end with his passing
Do you realize most Senators (esp Republicans) have been waved to fight in wars?
Probably not, go read some other bs on your "news" channel.
I have always found it ironic that Carter is probably the only legitimate Southern Baptist and certainly the most devout to ever hold the office of President, yet modern day Evangelicals hold a relatively low opinion of him. Yet, not nearly as ironic as Donald Trump getting a free pass for just about anything from the same folks who wanted Bill Clinton throw out of office for lying under oath about a blowjob.
I didn't realize Trump got a BJ in the oval office by his intern and then lied under oath about it. FoxNews did an incredible job covering that one up, so good CNN, NBC, CBS and MSNBC never reported on it.
You simple mind, the US BUILT the damn thing. Paid for it 100%. We bought the land from the French in 1902, after they failed miserably at trying to build the canal. And paid Panama $10 MM for the rights to use it in perpetuity. Of course we should have kept control of it. No different than strategic military bases in other countries we've controlled for decades
He was an awful president overall but he also deregulated the airlines (which has been a huge boon to the average american, as commercial flight was just for the rich and business travelers before), he deregulated trucking (again, huge boon to average person), and railroads (I'm less clear on this; we let railroads condemn private land to build their lines and give them extensive privileges, and then deregulate, which is basically a license to charge the lower of 10% less than trucking would cost or the price at which the freight would kill the business) and he was the one that appointed Paul Volcker, who I believe had started to tame inflation before Reagan was elected, and even if he had been a good president, that alone probably would have caused him to lose his second election. ,
We spent like $375M for it in the early 1900's. Why shouldn't we have had control over it?
This is really dumb and I just don't get it. Democrats won that battle. They established that sexual immorality and lying under oath, at least provided it's about sex, doesn't matter when it comes to national politics (also reaffirmed this with John Edwards, although I don't think he committed perjury?). What is the deal with pretending to have amnesia and pretend that that battle wasn't fought and won?
He was the worst president (history is still out on Biden) and I’m not so sure about the “good man” narrative.
He wrecked our economy.
Made a nuclear Iran and North Korea possible (the later after his presidency when Clinton sent him to negotiate with the Norks).
He said more than once that the United States had very limited ability to influence world events, so the Soviets said “Hell yeah!”, and invaded Afghanistan which gave birth to al-Qaida.
Carter’s actions and/or lack thereof gave us Ayatollah Khomeini, and now the current Ayatollah is itching for nuclear war with the Great Satan (us) and the Little Satan (Israel).
He didn’t cause the energy crisis of the 70’s, but he made it much worse.
He‘s also an anti-Semite. Just read his “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid“
He wrecked our economy.
Made a nuclear Iran and North Korea possible (the later after his presidency when Clinton sent him to negotiate with the Norks).
He said more than once that the United States had very limited ability to influence world events, so the Soviets said “Hell yeah!”, and invaded Afghanistan which gave birth to al-Qaida.
Carter’s actions and/or lack thereof gave us Ayatollah Khomeini, and now the current Ayatollah is itching for nuclear war with the Great Satan (us) and the Little Satan (Israel).
He didn’t cause the energy crisis of the 70’s, but he made it much worse.
He‘s also an anti-Semite. Just read his “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid“
Good lord. Roosevelt straight up declared he took the land. The US supported a regime change and creation of a country just to get what it wanted. It then 'negotiated' an Agreement with a Frenchman who didnt even live in Panama. All this was done by threat of withdrawing military protection.
Thats how we 'bought the land'.
- A French company tried to build it and failed.
- Another French company came in and also failed.
- The US tried to buy the land and equipment and Colombia(the country that controlled the land) said no due to the proposed terms.
- The US then supported a revolution to break Panama off from Colombia and form a separate country in order to sign an agreement with Panama.
- US Navy was down there and kept Colombia from stopping the revolt.
- The US then told the new Panamanian Government to appoint the French guy as the Panamanian Ambassador to the US. This French guy was heavily financially tied to the Canal's success, but did not live in or ever return to Panama, and he signed the Agreement the day before Panama was set to meet with the US Government and discuss a Canal Agreement proposal.
- Panama strongly disagreed with the Agreement and the US basically said '17 off' and took control of the area.
- The US set the terms and decided to pay $10MM to Panama as well as a whopping '$250K per year...which was what the Colombian Legistlature had rejected due to unfavorable terms.
- The US paid $40MM for the French equipment and work already performed(so 4x more that what was paid to Panama).
- 20 years later, the US paid Colombia $25MM for what it did to Colombia in order to get Colombia to recognize Panama as a country.
Panama knew that they had no say or power to contest the Agreement because if the US Military left, Colombia would retake the land that was part of Colombia and likely execute everyone who participated in the revolution.
The US didnt get Colombia to agree to a proposal, so they supported an uprising and created a new country, which then agreed to the terms the US had proposed.
President Roosevelt famously stated, "I took the Isthmus, started the canal and then left Congress not to debate the canal, but to debate me."
Several parties in the United States called this an act of war on Colombia.
The New York Times described the support given by the United States to Bunau-Varilla as an "act of sordid conquest".
The New York Evening Post called it a "vulgar and mercenary venture".
And this is a bad thing? We won.
I was alive when he pardoned the cowards, I don't watch the "news" channels for my opinions.
As I said in post 31...
And as I said in post 21...
I genuinely think that anyone who has read how the Canal came to be will conclude the US' actions were shady as 17 and unethical.
Its an interesting position to hold- justifying what is clearly an unacceptable way to govern and conduct international relations by saying 'we won'.
That sure can justify a ton of atrocities in this world.
Its bonkers that so many people are guided by 'if I win then its OK' in life.
Mother17er, you live in Iowa.
The area Iowa is now was included in the Louisiana Purchase from the French.
Napoleon Bonaparte eventually signed that agreement after having never actually lived in Iowa.
He made the sale for many reasons, one notably, was the financial and human loss burden France suffered from vicious slave insurgences on the island of Saint Domingue, now Haiti.
France only controlled a tiny part of the Louisiana Territory. Almost all of Iowa, which was under “French” control, was actually ripped from indigenous tribes of natives, on which I could go on for paragraphs about.
So, if my calculation is correct, according to your logic, Thomas Jefferson should be called out for the opportunistic expansionist bastard he is, and the very land from which you internet troll and rollerblade on should be surrendered back to the slave murdering French, who should then be forced to hand it back to about a half-dozen native tribes.
Hey, I am just saying that it isnt unreasonable to recognize how dirty and corrupt the procurement of the canal land was and decide to give control back after 95 or so years.
Carter is destroyed by people for agreeing to transition the land back over like 25 years time, and they dont seem to be aware of the protests, violence, and animosity that existed for decades due to Panamanians always saying 'this is 17ed up'.
Your point to land ownership shows there comes a point when it is absurd or unreasonable to untangle history. It is a very good and real point to make and keep in mind when discussing land 'ownership' between nations or civilizations.
To give all of the Louisiana Purchase back to various Native American nations/tribes at this point is unrealistic.
To undo the clearly corrupt actions the US directed in procuring the canal land and rights wasnt unrealistic.
I think that if its reasonably possible to correct clear errors in how the US behaved in recent historical land grabs, then those corrections should be considered and even implemented. The Panama Canal is one such example.
- Respecting whether another country wants to enter into an economic agreement is something I expect from the US.
- Not creating a secession in another country in order to benefit economically is something I expect from the US.
This isnt an example of some evil dictator who is harming his own people so the US gets involved and helps overthrow the evil dictator. It was simple greed and arrogance.
I appreciate your post as it adds complex consideration to the topic and furthers the discussion. I also appreciate you managing to get roller blading into the post. That sort of dedication needs to be recognized.
I will add that if you have an idea or are aware of an idea where the Louisiana Purchase can realistically be undone and Native American nations/tribes get land back that was stolen from them, I am all ears. It would be an interesting hypothetical to read.
Not to mention what he did to American agriculture. He was a dumb 17 and a very bad president.
- Status