If it was about morals how about this choice?

[Ford Prefect]

Exit polls showed that moral values played a big roll in the choice of many citizens.
So who would you rate as the more moral of these two presidents?
George W. Bush
Jimmy Carter

Note: Secret hidden agenda! I have always felt that Jimmy Carter was the finest person ever elected president of the USA, or any other country I can think of at this moment. He does however seem to make the case that a "good" person is not necessarily a "good" president.

[Dedman]

If you are talking moral character only, I have to go with President Carter all the way.

[Avder]

Carter.

And I agree that good people do not nessecarily make good presidents.

Carter got screwed over by circumstance (the last few years of the 70's really SUCKED) and republican cooperation with the hostage takers.

[Tyranny]

Carter didn't have any balls.

[roid]

it's a strange question indeed.

would an ★■◆● be the world's best president?

to many it would be a question of how selfish he is. screw group A to empower group B, this makes B strong but is a strong B the definition of a good president?

hmm. you'd have to define what a good president's JOB is. is it to make things the best for america? or the world? or humans? or what. it's a hard definition to make, and i see many people with different definitions of it (and the official rhetoric is often full of hipocracy and double standards).

[Tyranny]

Our Presidents job is to make things better for America. This isn't an easy task however and MANY Presidents have fallen on their asses trying. Thats why the good ones always stand out.

We come first, everything else is secondary. If we were a united world then things would be different, but we aren't unfortunately. Too many conflicts of interest for that to happen and frankly some of us just don't get along together.

[Iceman]

Yes, speaking only of moral character and values, Jimmy Carter wins hands down. I believe he has a pure heart and is sincerely concerned for all of humankind. Too bad his knowledge of economics sucks the chiz and his leadership abilities are absent.

BTW Vader, I disagree with you about Jimmy getting screwed. He just didn't have the balls needed to win in the hostage situation. He let the terrorists yank his chain and he failed to enforce any boundaries with them. As a result, they learned early on that they could have their way with him without any real consequences. As a result the USA got the ole 8==>(_o_). I was old enough at the time to see this and understand this and this one particular point is part of the reason Why I am a Disgruntled Democrat

BTW: I voted for Jimmy

[Zuruck]

Carter, without a doubt. Look at what he's done with his status since, habitat for humanity, nobel peace prize, no other living president has such notability. He honestly wants to do good, but people see honesty and genuiness in office as a weakness and not a strength. As Tyranny put it so eloquenty, most Americans want to kick ass and watch death and destruction on TV.

[Sirian]

As Tyranny put it so eloquenty, most Americans want to kick *** and watch death and destruction on TV.

Self-flattering nonsense.

Liberal elitism is transparent -- to everybody except the liberals spouting it.

Thomas Jefferson would be ashamed at the kinds of snobbery coming from the left, post-election. Maybe some of you left-wingers are due for a refresher course in the principles upon which this nation was founded, starting with Jefferson's words:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. ... Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. ... The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. ... In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Societies exist under three forms, sufficiently distinguishable. 1. Without government, as among our Indians. 2. Under governments, wherein the will of everyone has a just influence; as is the case in England, in a slight degree, and in our States, in a great one. 3. Under governments of force; as is the case in all other monarchies, and in most of the other republics. To have an idea of the curse of existence under these last, they must be seen. It is a government of wolves over sheep. It is a problem not clear in my mind that the first condition is not the best. But I believe it to be inconsistent with any great degree of population. The second state has a great deal of good in it. The mass of mankind under that, enjoys a precious degree of liberty and happiness. It has its evils, too; the principal of which is the turbulence to which it is subject. But weigh this against the oppressions of monarchy, and it becomes nothing.

We may say with truth and meaning that governments are more or less republican as they have more or less of the element of popular election and control in their composition; and believing as I do that the mass of the citizens is the safest depository of their own rights, and especially that the evils flowing from the duperies of the people are less injurious than those from the egoism of their agents, I am a friend to that composition of government which has in it the most of this ingredient.

It is, indeed, of little consequence who governs us, if they sincerely and zealously cherish the principles of union and republicanism.

The first principle of republicanism is that the lex majoris partis is the fundamental law of every society of individuals of equal rights; to consider the will of the society enounced by the majority of a single vote as sacred as if unanimous is the first of all lessons in importance, yet the last which is thoroughly learnt. This law once disregarded, no other remains but that of force, which ends necessarily in military despotism.

The will of the people... is the only legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect its free expression should be our first object.

All... being equally free, no one has a right to say what shall be law for the others. Our way is to put these questions to the vote, and to consider that as law for which the majority votes.

Where the law of the majority ceases to be acknowledged, there government ends, the law of the strongest takes its place, and life and property are his who can take them.

It is not probable that local discontents can spread to such an extent as to be able to faze the sound parts of so extensive a Union; and if ever they should reach the majority, they would then become the regular government, acquire the ascendency in Congress and be able to redress their own grievances by laws peaceably and constitutionally passed.

I know no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.

Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question.

At the formation of our government, many had formed their political opinions on European writings and practices, believing the experience of old countries, and especially of England, abusive as it was, to be a safer guide than mere theory. The doctrines of Europe were, that men in numerous associations cannot be restrained within the limits of order and justice, but by forces physical and moral, wielded over them by authorities independent of their will. Hence their organization of kings, hereditary nobles, and priests.

The only point on which [General Washington] and I ever differed in opinion was, that I had more confidence than he had in the natural integrity and discretion of the people, and in the safety and extent to which they might trust themselves with a control over their government.

I am not discouraged by [a] little difficulty; nor have I any doubt that the result of our experiment will be, that men are capable of governing themselves without a master.

It was by the sober sense of our citizens that we were safely and steadily conducted from monarchy to republicanism, and it is by the same agency alone we can be kept from falling back.

Difference of opinion leads to enquiry, and enquiry to truth; and that, I am sure, is the ultimate and sincere object of us both. We both value too much the freedom of opinion sanctioned by our Constitution, not to cherish its exercise even where in opposition to ourselves.

In every country where man is free to think and to speak, differences of opinion will arise from difference of perception, and the imperfection of reason; but these differences when permitted, as in this happy country, to purify themselves by free discussion, are but as passing clouds overspreading our land transiently and leaving our horizon more bright and serene.

Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.

If we suffer ourselves to be frightened from our post by mere lying, surely the enemy will use that weapon; for what one so cheap to those of whose system of politics morality makes no part?

Truth advances and error recedes step by step only; and to do our fellow-men the most good in our power, we must lead where we can, follow where we cannot, and still go with them, watching always the favorable moment for helping them to another step.

I tolerate with the utmost latitude the right of others to differ from me in opinion without imputing to them criminality.

Others... may condemn what they would not if seen in all its parts.

He alone who walks strict and upright, and who, in matters of opinion, will be contented that others should be as free as himself and acquiesce when his opinion is freely overruled, will attain his object in the end.

Every man cannot have his way in all things. If his opinion prevails at some times, he should acquiesce on seeing that of others preponderate at other times. Without this mutual disposition we are disjointed individuals, but not a society.

- Sirian

[Birdseye]

While we're riling up old men:

Those willing to give up a little liberty for a little security deserve neither security nor liberty.

Benjamin Franklin

Seems all the more relevant in a post 9-11 world. haha

---
But yeah, Carter.

[Mobius]

This is a silly thread.

"Most Moral" is a meaningless concept. Moral WHAT exactly? My morals may seem exceptionally good to one person, but to you I might appear a monster - it's all a question of perception.

The more important questions are these:

Which POTUS was the most honest?
Which POTUS had the most integrity?
Which POTUS sold-out least to get to the top?
Which POTUS was best for the American people?

To muddle the topic with a question of morals is the sort of question I expect from a bible thumping idiot from the mid-west. Frankly, it matters not one Iota what morals the POTUS has, as long as he performs the job well. (A good set of morals might mean he does a good job, but is by no means a guarantee!)

Who gives a toss (no pun intended) if the Pres gets blown in the oval office if he's doing a great job in every other respect? There was a time when America turned a blind eye (JFK) - but no longer.

Ford, I take it you're a GOPer?

I think your initial question is like comparing apples with oranges - you can't possibly believe Dubya has any morals at all can you? I mean the guy is a lying dirtbag, a manipulator extraordinaire, he's a drunk, an idiot, a terrible business man, a draft dodger, and the list goes on and on.

[Pebkac]

you can't possibly believe Dubya has any morals at all can you? I mean the guy is a lying dirtbag, a manipulator extraordinaire, he's a drunk, an idiot, a terrible business man, a draft dodger, and the list goes on and on.

[Dedman]

you can't possibly believe Dubya has any morals at all can you? I mean the guy is a lying dirtbag, a manipulator extraordinaire, he's a drunk, an idiot, a terrible business man, a draft dodger, and the list goes on and on.

Like you said, it's all a matter of perception. In this particular case, the majority of Americans percieve that you are incorrect Mobi

[woodchip]

Considering Carter professed to have "lust" in his heart and tried to beat a helpless rabbit to death, I'm not sure where one views Carter as having high morals. This while he was president.
Bush on the other hand, while havinging a more boistrous past, while president has lead a more decorum presidency without any tabloid like actions or utterances. As to lying, Carter lied just as much as any president while performing his duties.

"Carter got screwed over by circumstance (the last few years of the 70's really SUCKED) and republican cooperation with the hostage takers."Vader

Oh come on Vader, your not bringing up that old US emmissary sent to Iran on a SR-Songbird to get Reagan elected clap trap now are you?

[roid]

Our Presidents job is to make things better for America. This isn't an easy task however and MANY Presidents have fallen on their asses trying. Thats why the good ones always stand out.

We come first, everything else is secondary. If we were a united world then things would be different, but we aren't unfortunately. Too many conflicts of interest for that to happen and frankly some of us just don't get along together.

you do realise the ideology highlighted as green text PERPETUATES the text in red, right?

[Sirian]

GWB was a wild man in his younger days. He got tamed by a good wife, and perhaps by fatherhood. I don't think I know as much about Jimmy Carter's youth.

Looking just at the two men while in office, I cannot say that either was immoral. Woodchip's comments about President Carter are unfair. However, so are many comments made about President Bush by his critics.

Comparing President Carter to Senator Kerry may be a much more interesting snapshot. Kerry attends church regularly, and he may be a sincerely religious man, but it's hard to tell. I saw Kerry pandering to lots of special interest groups, telling them what they wanted to hear. Telling the auto-makers, proudly, that he owns an SUV, but denying to environmentalists that he does, then when called on it, offering up lame nonsense about his "family" owning the SUV. Now which is it, Senator? Telling a Jewish audience one thing and an Arab audience something else. Even a few such instances, and one gets the impression that the man has no core beliefs or values. Those are the signs of horse hockey. One never saw anything of the like from Jimmy Carter.

Agree or disagree with Carter, one knew where he stood and why. Same with Bush. I wonder how many of those who voted for Kerry understood him. There seemed to be a lot of polls indicating that many Kerry supporters were more passionate about being against Bush than being for Kerry.


- Sirian

[Ford Prefect]

Woodchip:

Considering Carter professed to have "lust" in his heart

Mr. Carter got a lot of flack for that comment. It turns out it is a quote from the bible. Lothar quoted the whole thing awhile ago and Mr. Carter was placing himself in the context of the teachings of Christ, for that a Christian nation mocked him. I'll see if I can find the quote. It is just that sort of thing that the Republicans seem to trot out about Mr. Carter to try to discredit him. Or they make fun of his alcoholic brother. A man who the President showed the love you would expect for a brother.

Mobi: Not only am I not a GOPer, I am a left of center Canadian which in the U.S. is considered a communist fellow traveller with socalist tendencies.

Looks like it is Mathew 5:28
But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
I think the saying about casting the first stone applies on this one.

[Tyranny]

Our Presidents job is to make things better for America. This isn't an easy task however and MANY Presidents have fallen on their asses trying. Thats why the good ones always stand out.

We come first, everything else is secondary. If we were a united world then things would be different, but we aren't unfortunately. Too many conflicts of interest for that to happen and frankly some of us just don't get along together.

you do realise the ideology highlighted as green text PERPETUATES the text in red, right?

What is your point? Thats pretty much the underlying focus for every country on the planet. The only reason countries interact is because they need something from the others. Most of us would prefer that we do good for the rest of the world, or atleast those countries we're allies with so that it benefits us as well. The US is hardly the only country with this in mind. It doesn't stop us from being one of the better humanitarian countries on the planet though.

We've helped the human race come a hell of a long way in our short history. That isn't something that should be forgotten.

[roid]

my point was that you seemed to be suggesting the causality being the other way around. it is a little like a chicken vs egg thing though.

selfishness causes conflict. conflict can cause selfishness, but the conflict would have been originally caused by selfishness anyway.

it might have been assumed because this IS a thread about america that i was talking about america. but i wasn't singling out any country, since i'm not pointing fingers. we're all on planet home together.

i'm just being idealistic. keepin the spirit alive

[Sirian]

While we're riling up old men

A stock liberal response, of late. Would you care to be more specific? Who and/or what, exactly, are you aiming at with that quote?

- Sirian

[sheepdog]

I think Jimmy Carter is much more moral than Bush. I can't think of a critical definition of "moral" that would lead anyone to say otherwise. Well except maybe for bashing that bunny with the oar or lusting after women in his heart, Jimmy is a real good man. Not a handsome man, but a moral man. Oh and he can string words together in a meaningful sentence without a little radio in his ear telling him what to say.

[sheepdog]

Yes, I can't believe I have to put up with another 4 years of watching the smoke and gears pouring out of Bush's ears when he tries to think and talk at the same time. ACK! It's embarrassing and painful...

[Tyranny]

He isn't as stupid as some of you think. Yes, he is a horrible public speaker but that hardly makes him an imbecile.

Personally Reagan has always been the President in my lifetime that I've felt had the best morals. Granted he has been the best President in my lifetime PERIOD, but his ideals and what he did for this country stand out to me. It hurt me to see all these people come out and slam him after his death.

People will be people though.

[DCrazy]

Best morals or best priorities? There's a difference...

[Ford Prefect]

Thomas Jefferson's faith in the basic good in people is all very nice but I actually have seen the same misplaced faith in the writtings of Mao Zedong.
Try reading the little red book sometime (The Collected Sayings of Mao). He expresses the belief, amoung other things, that there is no need for a police force in a true Communist state, that the armed people will by their nature enforce order on any elements that disrupt the peace and good order of the people.
The Libitarians believe that if all property was in private hands the owners would have to act in the best interest of the future of that property.
Utopians abound. Government exists to force order on those not willing to cooperate otherwise.

Hmm.. I may have hijacked my own thread.
I think this was supposed to be about whether a good person would make a good president. Or something like that.

[Tyranny]

Both Dcrazy. He obviously had good morals and good priorities to dig us out of the cold war and put America back on it's feet. He was a decent man, hard nosed, but decent.

When you can get the rooskies to warm up to you and make them feel like friends rather then foes, you probably had some good down to earth morals. Not to mention some big balls.

He didn't pander to US citizens like a few of our Presidents have. He was just one of the people, one of the guys.

[roid]

that's a good way of putting it DCrazy.

i'm not sure if "morals" are the best thing to be debating. the word is so relative to religious beliefs.
"ideals" is a more secular word, seems more at home in political discussion.

[Sirian]

Thomas Jefferson's faith in the basic good in people is all very nice but I actually have seen the same misplaced faith in the writtings of Mao Zedong.

Let's try this again:

Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question.

Where can we put our faith? In one another, equal unto all, or in elite individuals, raised above the masses and so empowered. It is one or the other, my friend. The more trustworthy method is resoundingly clear.


- Sirian

[sheepdog]

If it makes you feel any better Tyranny I slammed Reagan right from the get go and in fact restrained myself from the time his Alzheimer's became apparent (which happened while he was office btw).

Reagan was the prototype for Bush: a handsome spokesman for a powerful behind the scenes alliance of big business and the energy industry. In a like manner the Republican party agreeably supplies some democratic process window dressing and various fundamentalist religions provide the moral oomph to the big money interests that are actually running the show. It's sad that such a large protion of the American Middle Class wants so badly to believe in the possibility of becoming part of the elite that they sellout their opportunity to fulfill their dreams of a better future by supporting these fat cats.

[Tyranny]

Interesting.

[Sirian]

the Republican party agreeably supplies some democratic process window dressing

So, you believe the Constitution of the United States is window dressing?


- Sirian

[Ford Prefect]

In a true Communist society. (A utopian dream I agree) There is no governing elite. The people rule all without leaders. Read a bit of Communist philosophy and you will see what a joke it is to call the old USSR, or China communist states. They are totalitarian states with socialist economic philosophy.
Ask Flabby Chick what Communism is really like. He lives on a successful Kibbutz.
A leaderless society is anarchy, being able to select your leaders is luxury. There will always be a ruling elite, well run societies manage to put limits on them.

[sheepdog]

Thanks Tyr I try!

Sirius,

Do you mean that I think the two party system is a sham? No.

I think that politics is in large part a matter of power and that each party is controlled by a core of established power interests. But, I can't see any sign that the Republican party engages in even the tiniest bit of internal democratic debate.

I just watched a bit of The Fog of War, the film documentary on Robert Macnamara (sp?). It reminded me of the Republican primaries of the past. It seems to me that Republican primaries used to be just as hard fought as the Democratic parties primaries of today. They served to ensure that those who did align themselves with the Republican side had to undergo a tough process of debate and prioritizing in it's effort to select a candidate.

With Reagan and Bush, that doesn't seem to have happened. They were selected in much the same way that a president of the board is selected. Political infighting behind the scenes perhaps but nothing to spark public debate among the party faithful that characterizes the Democratic primary. The sad thing for all of us is that with each lost election we Democrats are moving in the same direction. Last primary I voted for the guy who was most likely to beat Bush, and didn't feel particularly constrained to look at differenes between the Democratic candidates on the basis of issues.

[woodchip]

"With Reagan and Bush, that doesn't seem to have happened. They were selected in much the same way that a president of the board is selected. " Margo

I hope you are not talking about their first term elections. In Bush's case he had a hard fought primary with McCain. Hardly a scenario where Bush was the annoited one. Second term presidents always run unopposed so I trust you are not confusing first term with second term in your statement.

[sheepdog]

FP,

Elites are an interesting group. In recent history it seems to me that violent revolutions make a point of wiping out all eductated and professional people as well as the aristocrats, politicos and such that make up the more conventional targets of revolutionary violence.

These people aren't really politically or economically powerful, so why do groups like the Khmer Rouge target them?

I think it's because they are a wellspring for informed dissent and non-violent political change. The people who post on this board are elites in this sense, I think.

[sheepdog]

Chippy,

Hard fought, but issue based? I don't think so.*

Margo

*Who did Reagan oppose the first time? Gads I can't remember.

[woodchip]

Bush, Baker, Crane,Dole, Connally, Anderson

Hows dat?

[sheepdog]

Thanks pal! And the issues are/were?

Margo <---- pushing her luck, notices Chippy taking gloves off. Heads out to train her sheepdogs!

[woodchip]

Heh, I'd rather talk about the sheepdogs but that would be another thread.