Poll: Democrats Dump their Heroes?
- Thread starter SIXERS24
- Start date
I get what you are saying, Dems get embarrassed and all that. Maybe the Dems should offer some trades?
Teddy Roosevelt? No wait, he left the Republican Party and ran as a third party candidate.
John Anderson? No, he too ran on the Republican ticket and later ran as a third party candidate!
Donald Trump!!! No, Has that independent streak.
This just isn't working. Tell you what, here's a list of U.S News' Ten Worst Presidents, instead of playing partisan politics how about we complain about these guys?
http://www.usnews.com/news/special-reports/the-worst-presidents/slideshows/the-10-worst-presidents/2
Teddy Roosevelt? No wait, he left the Republican Party and ran as a third party candidate.
John Anderson? No, he too ran on the Republican ticket and later ran as a third party candidate!
Donald Trump!!! No, Has that independent streak.
This just isn't working. Tell you what, here's a list of U.S News' Ten Worst Presidents, instead of playing partisan politics how about we complain about these guys?
http://www.usnews.com/news/special-reports/the-worst-presidents/slideshows/the-10-worst-presidents/2
JFK: plenty of reports of him sleeping with white women, but how many women of color was he reported to have bedded?
1. FDR
2. W. Wilson
3. Obama
4. LBJ
5. J. Carter
6. Bush 2
7. Bush 1
I cant do 10 but my list is more accurate.
Took a quick run through as I was certainly interested in their take, but no Jimmy Carter? Is a top 5 or 10 list for worst presidents even valid if Jimmy Carter isn't on there?
Carter usually ranks around 26th in these rankings while W. comes in around 34th which out of 44 Presidents would correctly put him at 10th worst.
The most recent survey from the American Political Science Association (APSA) ranked Carter at #26 out of 44. It also indicated Dubya (#35) was the most polarizing president followed by Obama (18th with a caveat that it's too early to give a full grade -- I would say it's also too soon to give Dubya a full grade).
Furthermore, the ranking referenced by DanL was from US News and World Report AND was a compilation of 5 independent surveys (CSPAN, Wall Street Journal, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. (this was written as a scholarly article so there's that caveat), Siena, and Ridings-McIver).
Your statement just makes you look ignorant, but you seem to excel at that.
Last edited:
this country is in trouble if we can only have fun and be entertained by how bad we are, and how bad our presidents are. it reminds me of the iowa football program
Vietnam is on Kennedy’s shoulders as much as LBJ’s.
And yes, “BJ” Bill Clinton should be on this list because he is a sexual predator. His habitual crimes against women are a disgrace. And the way Hillary helped him hide and continue his abuse of women is just as bad if not worse.
And yes, “BJ” Bill Clinton should be on this list because he is a sexual predator. His habitual crimes against women are a disgrace. And the way Hillary helped him hide and continue his abuse of women is just as bad if not worse.
I welcome this new OiT full of sunshine and optimism. Better sware off Jones and Hagee if you want the good feelings to last.
And president Carter was hardly anti-Jewish. The Camp David Accords have been one of the most important diplomatic initiatives in the history of the Arab/Israeli conflict, and have made Israel much more secure than it would have been without them. Calling out Israel's offensive policies under the Netanyahu administration does not make one anti-Jewish.
Former President Jimmy Carter once again is getting way out in front of the U.S. government on the Middle East, co-authoring an op-ed in which he calls for Washington to recognize designated terror group Hamas as a legitimate “political actor” — while blasting Israel for its military campaign in the Gaza Strip.The scathing column on ForeignPolicy.com was written by Carter and Ireland’s former president Mary Robinson.”
I guess stupidity comes in twos and as Garth Brooks once sang, “I got friends in low places.” What would compel a former U.S. president to pen a piece supporting an Islamic terrorist organization? Or perhaps Carter agrees with Nancy Pelosi that Hamas is a humanitarian organization. Jimmy Carter’s position reflects the deeply rooted anti-Semitism that exists in the Democrat party. It is a fundamental position of the progressive socialist Left.
Also -
Carter the Antisemite; Carter the Bigot
Someone who attempts to deny the reality of Jews being killed — whether by the Nazis sixty-odd years ago, or by Hamas in the last few — is an antisemite. It makes no difference if the person making such revisionist statements is a former U.S. President with a Nobel Peace Prize, or a current Iranian President with nuclear ambitions. There is always an ulterior motive for such lying. In the case of Carter’s defense of Hamas, it is part of his attempt to whitewash an overtly antisemitic Islamist group that believes (according to “The Covenant of Hamas,” Articles Seven, Twenty-two, Twenty-Eight, and Thirty-Two) that “The Day of Judgment will not come about until” the killing of the Jews; that the Jews “were behind the French Revolution, the Communist revolution . . . World War I . . . World War II”; that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is not a forgery, but rather proof of the Jews’ nefarious intentions; and that by their very existence, “Israel, Judaism and Jews challenge Islam and the Moslem people.”
In response to the charges of antisemitism and bigotry that followed the publication of Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, Carter claimed (as he continues to do) that on the contrary, he has been consistently preoccupied with Israel’s well-being and safety: “Well I think if you look at the history of my public career of the last thirty years, the preeminent goal that I’ve had in my mind has been to bring peace to the people of Israel. And I’ve worked on this without cessation during my adult life in politics” (“In Depth with Jimmy Carter,” C-SPAN 2, 12/3/2006). Part of fulfilling this “preeminent goal,” apparently, has been Carter’s declaration on Al Jazeera TV (1/14/2007) that when it comes to Palestinian rockets, which are intentionally aimed and fired at Jewish towns and cities in Israel, “I don’t consider — I wasn’t equating the Palestinian missiles with terrorism.” He followed this exoneration of rocket attacks with a criticism of suicide bombings, though not on moral grounds. Rather, he saw suicide bombings as problematic because they turn “the world away from sympathy and support for the Palestinian people.” Palestinian rockets posed no such problem for the Palestinian cause, and therefore Carter, in his overwhelming concern for the people of Israel, was careful not to pass judgment on their use.
Alan Dershowitz has also noted (“Why won't Carter debate his book?” The Boston Globe, 12/21/2006) that Carter considers Sheik Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahyan to be his “personal friend,” and has accepted money as well as an award from him:
This is the same Zayed, the long-time ruler of the United Arab Emirates, whose $2.5 million gift to the Harvard Divinity School was returned in 2004 due to Zayed’s rampant Jew-hatred. Zayed’s personal foundation, the Zayed Center, claims that it was Zionists, rather than Nazis, who ‘were the people who killed the Jews in Europe’ during the Holocaust. It has held lectures on the blood libel and conspiracy theories about Jews and America perpetrating Sept. 11.
And, as The New York Post has pointed out (“Jimmy for Terror,” 1/15/2007), Carter’s idea of bringing peace, as outlined in Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, implicitly allows “the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups” to continue “the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism” until “international laws and the ultimate goals of the Roadmap for Peace are accepted by Israel.” When that happens, it may be imperative, according to Carter, that the Arab community and Palestinian groups announce that they will no longer engage in terrorism, but in his book he appears to believe there is absolutely no need to cease killing Israelis by various means before then. Thus, with Carter traversing the globe, writing, lecturing, defending Hamas and Hezbollah, and tirelessly trying “to bring peace to the people of Israel,” those desiring the Jewish State’s destruction and attempting to murder its citizens can be certain of having a well-respected mouthpiece to advance their aims.
Under intense criticism, Carter, during his lecture at Brandeis University (1/23/2007), revised his position on the acceptability of terrorism against Israelis. This was hardly heartening, however, as he refused — and continues to refuse — to admit to a single additional error on his part about Israel, or to any other misleading notions in Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. As reported on NPR (“Jimmy Carter Defends Peace Not Apartheid,” 1/25/2007): “In that [Brandeis] appearance, the former president defended the book’s accuracy, save one passage Carter now calls ‘terribly worded,’ that seemed to justify terrorism by Palestinians on Israeli citizens.” When asked on NPR if the “terribly worded” statement sent him “flipping through the pages of the book to see if there is anything else there that wasn’t expressed the way you had intended,” Carter responded: “I don’t believe so.” Perhaps Carter is incapable of believing otherwise. Like the Hezbollah and Hamas terrorists for whom he is an apologist, and like his personal friend Sheik Zayed, Carter is certain he is doing God’s word by assailing Israel. He differs from them, though, in one essential respect: Carter duplicitously claims that his actions are actually motivated by a desire “to bring peace to the people of Israel.”
http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/121831/sec_id/121831
I guess stupidity comes in twos and as Garth Brooks once sang, “I got friends in low places.” What would compel a former U.S. president to pen a piece supporting an Islamic terrorist organization? Or perhaps Carter agrees with Nancy Pelosi that Hamas is a humanitarian organization. Jimmy Carter’s position reflects the deeply rooted anti-Semitism that exists in the Democrat party. It is a fundamental position of the progressive socialist Left.
Also -
Carter the Antisemite; Carter the Bigot
Someone who attempts to deny the reality of Jews being killed — whether by the Nazis sixty-odd years ago, or by Hamas in the last few — is an antisemite. It makes no difference if the person making such revisionist statements is a former U.S. President with a Nobel Peace Prize, or a current Iranian President with nuclear ambitions. There is always an ulterior motive for such lying. In the case of Carter’s defense of Hamas, it is part of his attempt to whitewash an overtly antisemitic Islamist group that believes (according to “The Covenant of Hamas,” Articles Seven, Twenty-two, Twenty-Eight, and Thirty-Two) that “The Day of Judgment will not come about until” the killing of the Jews; that the Jews “were behind the French Revolution, the Communist revolution . . . World War I . . . World War II”; that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is not a forgery, but rather proof of the Jews’ nefarious intentions; and that by their very existence, “Israel, Judaism and Jews challenge Islam and the Moslem people.”
In response to the charges of antisemitism and bigotry that followed the publication of Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, Carter claimed (as he continues to do) that on the contrary, he has been consistently preoccupied with Israel’s well-being and safety: “Well I think if you look at the history of my public career of the last thirty years, the preeminent goal that I’ve had in my mind has been to bring peace to the people of Israel. And I’ve worked on this without cessation during my adult life in politics” (“In Depth with Jimmy Carter,” C-SPAN 2, 12/3/2006). Part of fulfilling this “preeminent goal,” apparently, has been Carter’s declaration on Al Jazeera TV (1/14/2007) that when it comes to Palestinian rockets, which are intentionally aimed and fired at Jewish towns and cities in Israel, “I don’t consider — I wasn’t equating the Palestinian missiles with terrorism.” He followed this exoneration of rocket attacks with a criticism of suicide bombings, though not on moral grounds. Rather, he saw suicide bombings as problematic because they turn “the world away from sympathy and support for the Palestinian people.” Palestinian rockets posed no such problem for the Palestinian cause, and therefore Carter, in his overwhelming concern for the people of Israel, was careful not to pass judgment on their use.
Alan Dershowitz has also noted (“Why won't Carter debate his book?” The Boston Globe, 12/21/2006) that Carter considers Sheik Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahyan to be his “personal friend,” and has accepted money as well as an award from him:
This is the same Zayed, the long-time ruler of the United Arab Emirates, whose $2.5 million gift to the Harvard Divinity School was returned in 2004 due to Zayed’s rampant Jew-hatred. Zayed’s personal foundation, the Zayed Center, claims that it was Zionists, rather than Nazis, who ‘were the people who killed the Jews in Europe’ during the Holocaust. It has held lectures on the blood libel and conspiracy theories about Jews and America perpetrating Sept. 11.
And, as The New York Post has pointed out (“Jimmy for Terror,” 1/15/2007), Carter’s idea of bringing peace, as outlined in Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, implicitly allows “the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups” to continue “the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism” until “international laws and the ultimate goals of the Roadmap for Peace are accepted by Israel.” When that happens, it may be imperative, according to Carter, that the Arab community and Palestinian groups announce that they will no longer engage in terrorism, but in his book he appears to believe there is absolutely no need to cease killing Israelis by various means before then. Thus, with Carter traversing the globe, writing, lecturing, defending Hamas and Hezbollah, and tirelessly trying “to bring peace to the people of Israel,” those desiring the Jewish State’s destruction and attempting to murder its citizens can be certain of having a well-respected mouthpiece to advance their aims.
Under intense criticism, Carter, during his lecture at Brandeis University (1/23/2007), revised his position on the acceptability of terrorism against Israelis. This was hardly heartening, however, as he refused — and continues to refuse — to admit to a single additional error on his part about Israel, or to any other misleading notions in Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. As reported on NPR (“Jimmy Carter Defends Peace Not Apartheid,” 1/25/2007): “In that [Brandeis] appearance, the former president defended the book’s accuracy, save one passage Carter now calls ‘terribly worded,’ that seemed to justify terrorism by Palestinians on Israeli citizens.” When asked on NPR if the “terribly worded” statement sent him “flipping through the pages of the book to see if there is anything else there that wasn’t expressed the way you had intended,” Carter responded: “I don’t believe so.” Perhaps Carter is incapable of believing otherwise. Like the Hezbollah and Hamas terrorists for whom he is an apologist, and like his personal friend Sheik Zayed, Carter is certain he is doing God’s word by assailing Israel. He differs from them, though, in one essential respect: Carter duplicitously claims that his actions are actually motivated by a desire “to bring peace to the people of Israel.”
http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/121831/sec_id/121831
