Tony says:

LOL, seriously!? If you people put as much thought and effort into rallying over things that actually matter instead of petty nonsense you may get something accomplished for the betterment of our country!

Mr. Fusion says:

Cow-Patty,

Really, there is no excuse for your ignorance.

I have three links to articles. If this does not get passed the spam filter I will cut it is half.

1976. In an October 28 nuclear policy statement, President Ford announced his
decision that
(quote)
the reprocessing and recycling of plutonium should not proceed unless there is sound
reason to conclude that the world community can effectively overcome the associated
risks of proliferation … that the United States should no longer regard reprocessing
of used nuclear fuel to produce plutonium as a necessary and inevitable step in the nuclear fuel cycle, and that we should pursue reprocessing and recycling in the future
only if they are found to be consistent with our international objectives.8(unquote)
With that announcement, agencies of the executive branch were directed to delay
commercialization of reprocessing activities in the United States until uncertainties were
resolved.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/RS22542.pdf

Though reprocessing for the nuclear weapons program wasn’t halted until 1992 (by the first President Bush), commercial reprocessing effectively ended in 1972 when West Valley shut down. President Ford formally curtailed it after India imported US commercial reprocessing technology and used it to build a nuclear weapon in 1974, and President Carter strengthened the ban. President Reagan lifted the hold, but by then the power industry had lost interest because of the exorbitant costs and because uranium ore deposits are far more plentiful than first thought.

http://tinyurl.com/apdkvh

And finally, how about Gerald Ford’s statement on October 28, 1976.

…

To implement my overall policy decisions, I have decided on a number of policies that are necessary and appropriate to meet our nonproliferation and energy objectives.

– First, our domestic policies must be changed to conform to my decision on deferral of the commercialization of chemical reprocessing of nuclear fuel which results in the separation of plutonium.
– Second, I call upon all nations to join us in exercising maximum restraint in the transfer of reprocessing and enrichment technology and facilities by avoiding such sensitive exports or commitments for a period of at least 3 years.
– Third, new cooperative steps are needed to help assure that all nations have an adequate and reliable supply of energy for their needs. I believe, most importantly, that nuclear supplier nations have a special obligation to assure that customer nations have an adequate supply of fuel for their nuclear powerplants, if those customer nations forego the acquisition of reprocessing and uranium enrichment capabilities and accept effective proliferation controls.
– Fourth, the U. S. must maintain its role as a major and reliable world supplier of nuclear reactors and fuel for peaceful purposes. Our strong position as a supplier has provided the principal basis for our influence and leadership in worldwide nonproliferation efforts. A strong position will be equally important in the future. While reaffirming this Nation’s intent to be a reliable supplier, the U. S. seeks no competitive advantage by virtue of the worldwide system of effective nonproliferation controls that I am calling for today.
– Fifth, new efforts must be made to urge all nations to join in a full-scale international cooperative effort – which I shall outline in detail – to develop a system of effective controls to prevent proliferation.
– Sixth, the U. S. must take new steps with respect to its own exports to control proliferation, while seeking to improve multilateral guidelines.
– Seventh, the U. S. must undertake a program to evaluate reprocessing in support of the international policies I have adopted.
– Finally, I have concluded that new steps are needed to assure that we have in place when needed, both in the U. S. and around the world, the facilities for the long-term storage or disposal of nuclear wastes.
…

http://tinyurl.com/az4ht6

Oh, did you read his seventh point? RIIIIIGHT!!! It was Carter that crippled the Nuclear generators by stopping their stock piling of waste.
/sarcasm

Paddy-O says:

#97. Maybe I wasn’t clear enough. I couldn’t find an actual ORDER from Ford. I only found one from Carter. (which I linked.) If you can find a link to Ford’s order (not links to people writing about Ford) let me know. I’ve searched. The links above talk about what Ford thought about doing… Not his orders.

Paddy-O says:

# 100 Mr. Fusion said, “You are such an idiot. Read the very last quote. It is linked to Ford’s own speech on the matter.

The above quotes ALL discuss what he ordered on October 28, 1976. ”

Fusion, I’m not mad at you or denying what you are saying.

I started looking for the ACTUAL order when you told me about it. I didn’t doubt you. I just found it strange that Carter would issue the “same” order a few months later. That is unusual. So, after looking at everything you or I could find, the conclusion is that Ford talked about issuing an order but didn’t actually get around to it (hence, no order on file anywhere) so, Carter came in and issued what Ford wanted to do.

RLF says:

#80
I will say this slow for you can understand.
You seem to infer your own biases to what you read typical conservative/liberal idiocy.
Please read the post again,SLOWLY, and see if you can get it.
I’ll Wait………………………………..

Ok then, did I once say or infer that his philosophy was incorrect?
Think carefully now……………………….

Now I’ll elaborate, Mr. Carter was weak minded fool. He made every possible mistake in implementing his policies and instead of improving matters he poisoned the waters for a generation.
Many problems we face now come from his naivete. His uncorking of the bottle in Iran, to his detriment then and ours now. His weakness that the Soviets took as a green light to invade and for ever more destabilized Afghanistan.
I would go on but my fingers would get tired.
He is living proof of the phrase; The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Mr. Fusion says:

#103, Cow-Patty,

I’m saying that there is NO Presidential Order on file from Ford stating this.

Did you actually visit the Ford Library and check it out? Did you check out the White House archives? Did you look further than the lint in your naval?

The point is I have more than adequately sourced my point with six, count them SIX (6) cites. Two were the actual texts of his speech. Five came from academic or science orientated sites. One came from Wikipedia with appropriate cites on its own.

While original sources are great, that has been done twice with the speech. Why you are fixated on this “order” is easy to understand. BECAUSE YOU DON’T WANT TO ADMIT YOU WERE WRONG.

RLF says:

#146
I guess reading a whole post is not in vogue.
I gave 2 excellent examples.
If you want me to agree that money and power have not corrupted the world you are barking up the wrong tree.
If you wish to do the right thing you MUST take into your strategies how some people will react to them.
Doing the right thing means more than just doing it, especially if you do not attempt to foresee the consequences.
In the moment of vacuum created by these unplanned moments the power hungry and morally corrupt take advantage, to everyone’s detriment.
Again this was Mr; Carter’s naivete which became a detriment to him and to us till this very day.
I only respond the way that I’m responded to. Condescension doesn’t take much effort If you wish to continue it.

Mr. Fusion says:

#109, RLF,

Do you have a pickle lodged in your butt? Geeze, your post makes no sense at all.

Scott asked you to provide something to back up your contention Carter was a poor President. Instead you babble on about whatever.

Relax. Take a few deep breaths, then think about what you intend on writing.

Misanthropic Scott says:

#112 – RLF,

If you read the post I clearly said that the first post gave 2 examples.
I guess my post was clear enough for you to respond to.

You definitely did state that. However, in the post to which you refer, you cited no further links, making it simply your ill-informed opinion.

I asked both for more specifics and for you to back up your claims. You’ve done neither. This is the definition of a troll.

Would you now care to provide a nice analysis based on historical facts?

Instead, you seem to state and restate your opinion based on your experience of the day, rather than any true historical analysis based on fact.

I shared your opinion of the day. The popular press expressed such opinions very well. Perhaps, however, you still have not read the article that I posted that started this conversation. In it, you will find out why you are mistaken and why it is the Reaganomics and corporatocracy that have been at the forefront of every administration since 1981 that have lead us to where we are.

But, perhaps reading is not in vogue where you come from.

BTW, as for me not reading your post, I have no idea how you make such an inane statement when I cited the entire meat of your post minus your condescension and replied to it. Did you fail to notice that when you accused me of not reading your post?

Perhaps it was when you failed to note that you failed to even get the post number correct, let alone the name on the post.

Mr. Fusion says:

#114, RLF,

Your politics are irrelevant. It is the substance of your statement.

One thing I truly dislike is a bald condemnation on nothing other than personal prejudices. A statement such as “I hate lepers” might sound innocuous enough. But it is still wrong. Did the whole world of lepers harm you in some way?

When you look a little deeper, that hate is really an expression of your own prejudices. You are afraid you might catch the disease. You don’t like their disfigurement. You have heard nasty stories of them from the bible.

The same with Jimmy Carter. You claim he was a ineffective President. Many historians would disagree. He could have involved us in a war that would have had casualties in the billions. Or, he could have staved off the chicken hawks and sought peace.

Carter could have deregulated the Nuclear Power industry a little more. Then we could have had a few more Three Mile Islands. He could have halted efforts by the EPA to clean up Love Canal or auto emissions.

Carter could have ignored the situation in the Middle East and seen casualties continue to mount. Instead, he brought together two very nationalistic leaders and got a peace agreement that cut the USSR out of the pie. You do realize that the loss of Soviet support to Egypt also took a serious toll on the influence that led to their invasion and defeat in Afghanistan just the next year.

Carter could have just ignored the price increase in crude oil and continued to fly around the country. Instead, he turned down the thermostat in the White House and wore sweaters. He encouraged Congress to implement auto fuel standards.

When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, there was little America could do anyway. We had no bases there or even within close range. The CIA supplied the resistance with weapons and technology, the same as the Soviets had done in Vietnam.

The Hostage incident consumed his Presidency. There was no course left for him other than to negotiate. These were American civilians being held by a mob. There was no effective government in Iran at that time. If he attempted to retrieve the hostages by force they would have been killed outright. Any alternative would almost certainly have resulted in the death of not only the hostages, but many other people as well.

So yes, you are allowed to say you dislike Carter, But unless you can back up your statement, it is just trolling, and we have enough regulars on this blog.

RLF says:

#115 #116

I wish I had the time you two have to post, but alas I have to make a living.

#115
I still do not understand your premise that ones conclusions must be based on others opinions. there is a difference between fact and opinion. So called experts have been consistently wrong for years, but I do read them because they divine facts I find useful in formulating my opinion. I also find, even though I extract facts from the writings, there opinions or conclusions to be specious. If I really looked I probably could find commentators who agree with my conclusions and post links. I just do not think it’s important that a pundit agrees or disagrees with me.

Hate is not the point.
What was so disastrous about Mr. Carter to me was his unrealized potential.
He was and is a very decent and moral man with good character and demeanor. Unfortunately his naivete in implementing his policies was quite clear.
Seeking peace while, unintentionally, appearing weak is not a good strategy.
His search for human rights was laudable(and may I say refreshing to see coming from a President of the USA). But in Iran It should have been done judiciously not instantaneously. The vacuum created by this miscalculation gave license to the fanatics who took advantage and took charge. These same fanatics stand on the verge of having a nuclear weapon, not something anyone wants to see. The other fanatics they fund destabilize the entire region.

The only reason the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan was because Carter appeared weak and impotent. They paid a heavy price over the YEARS but again that area was more militarized and the fanatics took control there as well.(Funded and armed by our efforts to expell the Soviets and their allies.)

#116
Since by his own dis action Mr. Carter created the situation in Iran it matters little about the October surprise. If you wish to talk about Reagan I think we might be in agreement on how awful he was.

I’ll leave the petty insults to you guys.

RLF says:

I’m Off of work right now–Thanks for asking.

I have, and I mean this from the bottom of my heart, zero interest in owning the DU website.

A hypocrite is someone who expounds something as wrong, incorrect, and/or inappropriate, then does it himself.

He expounded the virtues of, among other things, keeping your thermostat at or under 72 degrees and then, less than 30 days into his Presidency, cranks up the oval office thermostat.
If I did the same thing I would be a hypocrite to.
If that was the extent of his hypocrisy I could care less.
unfortunately it continues. He puts in nomination 2 people who are tax dodgers. I think it is quite possible that he did not know at the time, but when it is discovered does he ask them to step down, affirming his call for change, heck no. In true bush fashion he offers these criminals his full support–and 1 of them runs the treasury dept., you know the one that runs the IRS and the multi-trillion dollar bailout.

I would go on but I do not think anyone here can hear.

RLF says:

Only if he tells me I should.

How about the second and more important part of my post?
You know the part that proves the point.

RLF says:

I would like perfection, but I do understand that it doesn’t exist here. I do want people who have not committed crimes though, I don’t think thats too much to ask for.

You listen to Hannity? I can’t stand him. He rarely puts forth fact which makes it hard to use his statements as a foundation for any conclusions.
It has to be said though that a fact is a fact no matter the source. Mussolini once said that part of governments responsibilities was to get the trains to run on time. I agree with that statement even though the man was a repugnant piece of filth.

What makes the 1 appointment soo hypocritical is that is treasury secretary and the IRS is run by his Dept. Not to mention the multi-TRILLION dollar bailout.

I just don’t know how you can call him anything but a hypocrite.

Paddy-O says:

# 123 RLF said, “I just don’t know how you can call him anything but a hypocrite.”

It’s the same phenomenon as with the Bush apologists. No matter what the action, they’ll make excuses…