I can’t count Nixon as worst. All he got up to was ordinary political dirty tricks.
Of post WWII presidents, I count Bush II as the worst: the Iraq War, the rollback of environmental protections, the attack on the Bill of Rights, the tax cuts whose benefits went almost entirely to the wealthy, the global gag rule plus holding back funds for the UN Family Planning fund, the No Child Left Behind legislation, the overruling of the states on medical marijuana, the chipping away at separation of chuch and state (including abstenence-only education as well as the faith based things).
Gotta hand it to you, Avhines, you really had me going there! Swiftian wit and irony, like, “this is what one would post if one were a soulless and contemptible human pustule, a robotic monstrosity devoid of compassion and ignorant of humanity.” Just for a second there, I thought you might be serious!
Very droll, sir, very droll. A quibble, though…a minor point, really, but that’s the trouble with quibbles…the irony is perhaps just a bit too subtle. If you are not more careful, your masquerade of a cruel and heartless greediot might be too convincing.
If he loses the election over it, it will be because of factors he presumably did not anticipate – mainly, the way things went from bad to worse after his speech in front of the “mission accomplished” banner.
The number of unskilled, poorly educated citizens is greater than the number of jobs in existance that can be filled by an unskilled, poorly ecuated person. How do we arrange employment for every unskilled, poorly educated individual with child support obliations?
Apparently, as I understand it, we’re going to put them in hard labor camps run by private enterprise. If they try to escape, apparently we shoot them. Because this is the non-coercive way. Oh, and since the private enterprise running the place will have to pay for guards, presumably the prisoners will make very little in order for the business to turn a profit. Conditions for living will of course be minimal for the same reason. Of course, this will cut down on what the custodial parent is actually able to receive, before the deadbeat becomes too weak to work at all, but hey - it’s free enterprise, and it’s non-coercive.
You said this re the suggestion that if the govt sets up workcamps to enable deadbead dads to earn money to support their kids, this would cost some tax dollars.
I don’t understand your reply. The problem is that for a person with no particular skills and not much education, there are few jobs to be had. And those that exist do not pay enough to cover one’s own living expenses plus child support. What entrepreneur is going to want to hire the unskilled / poorly educated? What is the entrepreneur going to hire them to do?
I’m with the libs on some issues, such as ending the wars on drugs, gambling, and prositution. And fully informed juries. But I want more help for the poor, not less.
Actually, I don’t want a war on fully informed juries. I want juries to be fully informed of their right to find for the defendant if they think that either (a) the law is unjust or (b) enforcing the law would in the case before them be unjust.
And of course, fully informed juries are off topic, as are the wars on drugs, gambling, and prostitution. I’ll now shut up about all such matters – on this thread, at least. If anyone wants to start a thread on any of these things, please do so and post a link here.
No he didn’t. I can’t provide a direct link, but if you go to this page, and do a search, you can hear several instances where he says the word. None of the speeches/press conferences are complete, but many provide a good sampling of how he said the word as different times.
**M2690 bd.4 **
*VVL-01-0313-020
October 4, 1977
Abstract: Jimmy Carter addresses the United Nations General Assembly. He calls on all nations to reverse the build up of arms, conventional and nuclear. *
There’s a link to an audio file under each of these. Listen to this speech. Carter says “nuclear” at 1:54 into the speech, and again at 2:18, 2:29, and 2:37.
He does have a quirk about it. He does NOT say “nuke-u-lar” but he definitely has a problem with the “l” and says it somewhat like “nuc-e-ar.” A silent l is as strange-sounding as Dubya’s quirk.
These all came up in a search for “nuclear” in the Abstract, but he probably said it other times not mentioned in the Abstracts. Here are other instances:
====
**M3521 bd.1 **
*VVL-01-0313-104
January 14, 1981
Abstract: Jimmy Carter’s formal farewell to the American public. Carter warns of the danger of nuclear war, the need to protect the environment, pressure groups, and talks about human rights. *
President Carter says “nuclear” at 5:02, 5:24, 5:36, 6:13, 7:21, 8:04, 8:14 and 14:57.
This is such a good speech. It’s somber, sad, and powerful. No matter what one thinks of the man’s presidency–he had a bad time to put it mildly–but can we all agree that he was/is a good, decent, kind man? I’d highly recommend listening to this. His decency and gravity is easy to hear here. It’s only 16:33 long.
===
**M2729 bd.14 **
*VVL-01-0313-035
January 1, 1978
Abstract: Jimmy Carter in India tells of his promise to Prime Minister Desai that the U.S. is sending both nuclear fuel and heavy water. Broadcast on NBC TV. *
13 seconds into the speech.
====
**M3113 bd.3 **
*-01-0313-139
May 29, 1979
Abstract: Press conference. Jimmy Carter talks about votes SALT II, nuclear weapons, the Near East, and Bert Lance. Source of Recording: Broadcast on CBS-TV. *
1:42 into it.
(Fascinating blast from the Cold War past)
There are others, but I haven’t listened to them to get the timings.
**M2730 bd.1 **
*VVL-01-0313-121
December 30, 1977
Abstract: First press conference ever of a U.S. President from behind the Iron Curtain from the Victoria Hotel in Warsaw Poland. Carter answers questions about nuclear arms and biochemical warfare reduction, daily communications with Arab leaders, U.S. preference for a Palestinian homeland connected with Jordan, his Baptist faith and his hopes for more religious freedom in all countries, his hopes that Soviet influence on Poland will diminish, the Helsinki and Belgrade conferences on human rights, increasing human rights in Poland, the energy crisis in the world, but mainly in the United States, U.S.-Polish economic intercourse up to one billion dollars in 1978, the neutron bomb, his hopes that Poles can visit family members in the U.S. and vice versa, includes post-interview comments on the state of Polish Jews. *
===
**M2775 bd.1 **
*VVL-01-0313-124
February 17, 1978
Abstract: Jimmy Carter’s news conference from the Hilton Inn Cranston Rhode Island. With questions from Helen Thomas, Frank Cormier, Ed Bradley, James McCartney, and Joshua Resnek. Carter answers questions on the coal strike, the economy, tax cuts, arms to the Arabs, federal snow storm relief, public opinion input into building nuclear plants, appointment of U.S. attorneys on a political basis, Humphrey-Hawkins bill and full employment, giving land in Maine to local Indian tribes, Adam Smith’s economics. Broadcast on ABC TV. *
Agreed! Just not during the time he actually had to serve. Poor man, he aged decades in just 4 years. He did not thrive on all the conflict. I think it was because he was too decent. You have to be a shark at that level.
Even if there have been presidents that were drunks, adulterers and liars, they have not precipitated changes to the world order in where a global conflict of cultures and destruction of world economies has come so tantalisingly close. Nixon may have been a liar, but his government stopped U.S involvement in Vietnam, and brought a reconciliation towards China, oh and lets not forget Salt I arms limitation treaty. Where as this president is dangerously close to bringing about a regional conflict in the Middle East between us and them.
You know, she was tactless about it, but oddly enough, that’s what taxes are. The sharing among the populace as a whole the expense of those things believed to benefit society as a whole. This, of course, includes national defense. Of course, that’s much more important than feeding or educating kids, as is feeding contracts to Haliburton and other elements that now constitute the biggest federal budget in history. Just as lying about getting a blow-job is much more important than lying about starting a war.
Hey, you’ve got yours, right? How dare evil people patronize you by asking you to pay to prevent ignorance, illness, or starvation? After all, it’s their own damn fault, isn’t it? If they weren’t stupid, lazy, or immoral, they’d be educated, healthy, and making loads of money! It’s easy, right. All you need is a little hard work, and voila! money by the bucketful.
Everybody knows they breed like rabbits, anyway. So a few die. There are more. Ignorant? Hey, where else will we get our cheap unskilled labor?
Glad to see you’ve got your priorities straight there, milroy.
Much easier to do those things when people aren’t shooting at you.
Conversely, how do you know what he or anyone wants to do with their money? Maybe they want to provide better things for themselves or their children. Maybe they want to do more benificial things with their lives but are prevented because of the need to provide for others. Maybe they want to donate money to charities and organizations that promote changes in society that the donater believes in. It’s easy to paint others with a broad brush rather than to try and find out what the crux of the matter is, isn’t it?
I’m sure they do want to do nice things with their money. And I believe there should be limits to how much providing we do as a society for those less fortunate. Oddly enough, I’m not a communist, nor even, probably, a socialist. But I do think that one of the prices we as fortunate members of this society should pay is to help provide for those less fortunate, if only to protect ourselves. If you can’t wrap your mind around the idea of providing for others because it’s the right thing morally, how about the idea that by providing health care, we prevent infectious disease. Ever read about the plague? The miracle is that we haven’t had one in recent years. How about the idea that, by seeing that our poor are in a position to get a good education and become comfortable economically, we not only retain our competitive edge with the rest of the world, but we expand our domestic markets? Of course, it wouldn’t be as easy to sell crap for ridiculous prices to an educated consumer base, but in the long run I suspect it would pay off.
And, btw, I’m not asking for those for whom extra taxes would make the difference between comfort and poverty to pay more. I’m asking for those whole earnings are six figures plus to pay more. They are the ones who have benefited the most from all this country has had to offer (including significant infra-structure, for which we have all paid!), and with the exception of the very lowest tax bracket, they are the ones who got far and away the largest tax cut from W percentage-wise as well as the more obvious dollar-wise.
THe fact is, if everyone pays a little, it is bearable for all. If no one must pay, few people will. Private charities are all very well, but really what you’re saying is “let the other guy worry about it.” Ever read Dickens? Try Oliver Twist. There’s your liberatarian dream.
The crux of the matter? The crux of the matter is “how dare you take any of my money?” You can dress it up in ideology all you want, but that’s what it boils down to in the end. There is no liberty, no right more precious than holding on to every cent, no matter how desperate those in need. Otherwise, how could anyone who calls himself a libertarian even consider voting for an adminstration that includes John Ashcroft, grand inquisitor wanna-be?
)