Once again Jimmy Carter proves he is an idiot...

[billvon 3,008]

Your one warning. Any more attacks will result in a ban.

[funjumper101 15]

So you have nothing but uninformed opinions that you think are facts.

That pretty much sums up the modus operandi of Reich Wing Conservatives. No real facts, just bombastic bullshit parroted from those that do your thinking for you.

If Barak Obama, during the 2008 election cycle, had communicated with, and made back channel deals with Al Quaed on matters of foreign policy, would you consider that to be good politics, or a treasonous act against the USA?

[Amazon 7]

rehmwa

***All modern presidents have used back channels and others outside their administration to try to make progress to solving international issues for things that they could not do in the full light of the press.

though true - Obama would be super naive to try and use Jimmy for anything. Jimmy is way past his prime for this type of tasking. O is not that dumb to use him. Pretending or assuming this is scripted by the executive branch is silly.

Numerous presidents have used Jimmy since he left office to do the things they could not do. I know that some would refer to those presidents as RINO's for doing so but he has done as asked... and probably gone beyond that based on what used to be called statesmanship before Shock and Awe diplomacy came to the fore with such great results for our nation on the world stage.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

When you are POTUS you are responsible for it all; good, bad, indifferent.

Except Bush of course....anything bad during his tenure was the responsibility of somebody else.

Cause, as it turns out, invading Iraq a second time was about as goat-fuck-stupid a thing as anybody could have done.

[lawrocket 3]

I agree that Carter is far from an idiot. I think that he as among the more intelligent Presidents oof the past century. He that that degree of idealism that was refreshing when he came on board. And that idealism of the electorate was smashed.

The problem is that Jimmy Carter has made a second career out of intervening and meddling in international affairs. Annd I can't say that his support of people demonstrates what I would think to be "smart" choices. Let's look at those whom Carter has praised:
(1) Tito - Carter said he was a man who believed in human rights
(2) Nikolai Ceaucescu - Carter said that they both agreed in just economics and politics and agreed on human rights
(3) Hafez al-assad - carter praised his humanitarianism
(4) Remember Carter in Haiti?
(5) Carter actually praised Kim I'll Sung. Let that sink in
(6) Think Castro did a great job for his people.
(7) Arafat. A big buddy of his.

Carter is not an idiot. Which means there HAS to be something else going on. Why is an intelligent guy praising these guys? It seems like Carter has good stuff to say about anyone who tells him what he wants to hear. Or anyone who makes him feel important.

I think it's a matter that he is inherently a very intelligent and a very good man. He wanyts to see the goodness in everybody and enters discussions thinking the worst are the purest. Yeah - he truly believes that he prevented war between the US and North Korea. And did it by stroking the NoKo despots.

Carter's presidency was one of an inexorable lust for detente. But in doing so, he attacks the US and its allies. Carter handles post-presidency the way he handled his presidency: with soft syrupy and sometimes glowing words to those that want to destroy the US (See Ayatollah Khomeini) and saving harshest criticism for the US and its Allies.

He MUST think that nothing as his fault. That he had nothing to do with it. That the US was at its best when he was leading it. The shit hit the fan in the Middle east when he was running things. Iran. Iran-Iraq war. Afghanistan. Syria. Jordan. All this was happening. We are dealing with the long-term consequences.

I think Carter thinks he is more moral than anyone else. And he appeals to morality. Carter actually wrote that he thinks and has told Israel's leadership that Israel's biggest mistake was that it moved more toward secularism. I'm serious - he thinks that Israel's situation in the Middle East would improve if Israel was more orthodox. Yep - lost track of God and the prophets.

Just once I'd like to see Jimmy Carter say that he screwed up. That he could perhaps recognize that detente with evil is an act of evil. We don't hear that. His methods failed miserably as President but he is continuing to tout their supremacy.

He's intelligent. That isn't enough.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rehmwa 2]

Wow, rocket, that was pretty much perfect.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[lawrocket 3]

[Reply]I still think Carter was probably the most decent human being to serve as POTUS in my lifetime, and the one who I would most want to be my next-door neighbor.

[billvon 3,008]

Quote

Except Bush of course....anything bad during his tenure was the responsibility of somebody else.

And except for all the good stuff Obama did, of course. Benghazi? All his fault. Killing Bin Laden? Had nothing to do with him.

[quade 4]

billvon

Killing Bin Laden? Had nothing to do with him.

To be fair, Obama killing UBL was only because GWB didn't think killing UBL was important anymore.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[JerryBaumchen 1,373]

Hi rocket,

I could not have said it any better.

JerryBaumchen

[lawrocket 3]

billvon

Quote

Except Bush of course....anything bad during his tenure was the responsibility of somebody else.

And except for all the good stuff Obama did, of course. Benghazi? All his fault. Killing Bin Laden? Had nothing to do with him.

All sides do it. Everyone. Obama blames Bush for everything bad. Stuff he hasn't been able to fix. But takes credit for everything that isn't going bad.

Bush fans blame Obama. And Clinton. Clinton supporters cotinue with the bullshit about leaving Bush with a balanced budget. Just like Bush supporters talk about Obama's first year spending.

When in reality they all have a role to play in the successes and failures. Like getting bin Laden. Maybe Bush wouldn't have had the balls to commit an Act of War against Pakistan by sending the military in to execute him.

All the actions fit together to form part of the puzzle. Jimmy Carter has his place, too. But he was and still is a politician.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,008]

>All sides do it. Everyone.

Definitely!

[kelpdiver 2]

lawrocket

Bush fans blame Obama. And Clinton. Clinton supporters cotinue with the bullshit about leaving Bush with a balanced budget. Just like Bush supporters talk about Obama's first year spending.

It's a hell of a lot fairer to blame Bush for messing with the nearly balanced budget than it is to blame deficit spending in 2009 on Obama given that a) the budget was already set and b) the economy was total shit.

The 2001 tax cuts were not required. Perhaps nice, given that the budget was close to even and it came as a result of tax increases. The Iraq War certainly wasn't necessary to deal with Bin Laden and we could have exited in 2004 for far less than the trillion we ended up spending in unsuccessful nation building. Get it, depose Saddam, get out.

That's a lot of spending that can't be blame on the end of the boom.

[lawrocket 3]

[Reply]It's a hell of a lot fairer to blame Bush for messing with the nearly balanced budget than it is to blame deficit spending in 2009 on Obama given that a) the budget was already set

[GeorgiaDon 362]

I don't disagree with your comments. I have great admiration for Carter's humanitarian work; the leadership of the Carter Center has put the eradication of a number of truly horrible diseases within reach, and millions of people no longer live under the threat of onchocerciasis, trachoma, lymphatic filariasis, etc. On the other hand, I do not agree with all of his foreign policy positions. I recall being especially miffed at his support for the Shah of Iran, for example.

However, the point of my earlier post was to express my contempt for the remarkably juvenile tactic of branding anyone with whom one does not agree an "idiot". It doesn't improve matters that the poster whines about people "attacking the messenger", when in fact that is exactly and entirely what his thread does. When called on it, he responds with a spittle laced diatribe complaining about spittle laced diatribes.

I've come to the conclusion that libertarians are much more interesting than conservatives when it comes to discussion and debate of ideas. Libertarians generally actually have the ability to discuss ideas logically, which makes me think about my own beliefs and principles more critically. Most of the conservatives who post here in Speaker's Corner seem incapable of explaining anything logically, and they seem to be overtly hostile to anyone who holds beliefs that deviate from theirs even slightly.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[GeorgiaDon 362]

Quote

When you are POTUS you are responsible for it all; good, bad, indifferent.

So Bush II was responsible for 9/11??? Not a position I would have expected of you.

Quote

Wow...who would have thought demonizing Carter would evoke almost as much spittle laced diatribes ...

Quote

Most of the people who post here were sucking thumbs, filling diapers, or were just a nasty thought in daddy's mind during the Carter administration so all you really have is coming from Wiki or your university education. Therefore I won't debate Carter's presidency or his merits as a person.

I think it's quite obvious whose post is a "spittle laced diatribe".

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[lawrocket 3]

[Reply]However, the point of my earlier post was to express my contempt for the remarkably juvenile tactic of branding anyone with whom one does not agree an "idiot".

[kelpdiver 2]

lawrocket

I disagree. For two reasons:
(1) It's disingenuous to blame any president for budget. Congress alone has the power to tax and spend;
(2) Bush took over during a quasi recession. (Two non-consecutive quarters of negative growth. The dotcom bubble bursting.) He got stuck with a deficit that he didn't ask for. Obama's 2009 budget and Bush's 2001 budget were already set.

nonsense. Bush pushed the tax cuts, both in 2001 and 2003 when he had nearly unlimited political capital post 9/11. He also sold the public on a second war in Iraq based on lies. He created an entire new department of Homeland Security.

If he had just cut taxes, or just increased spending like mad, we could pretend this was a response to the moderate recession, but no free ride for both.

Quote

That's a lot of spending that can't be blame on the end of the boom.

Similarly, we're out of iraq. And spending is going up and up. The largest deficits in history have been the last six years. No TARP. No war in Iraq.

The president ought to appoint a debt commission. Oh. Wait. He did. And promptly ignored their report (as did Congress)...

[funjumper101 15]

It appears that you grasp of recent historical events is lacking.

Here are the answers to the two questions.

The first question -

Speaking of idiots, can you name the US political figure that was instrumental in getting Hamas elected? The one that pushed for, and got, the general election that put Hamas in power. The one that ignored the well informed people who warned, correctly, that a general election would result in Hamas being elected?

Answer = Shrub

Context - Hamas is in power in Gaza due to ShrubCo's actions. That has worked out badly, hasn't it?

The second question -

If Barak Obama, during the 2008 election cycle, had communicated with, and made back channel deals with Al Quaeda on matters of foreign policy, would you consider that to be good politics, or a treasonous act against the USA?

Answer - A treasonous act against the USA

Context - During the 1980 Presidential election cycle, Ronald Reagan negotiated with Iran regarding the fate of the hostages. Reagan cut a deal to have the Iranians keep custody of the hostages until after the election. Reagan then used the fact that the hostages had not been freed against Carter during the election. Treason at the highest level, with absolutely no consequences to the traitors.

I can't wait for the Reich Wing Conservatives to weigh in on these FACTS about Saint Ronnie. It will make for amusing, and sickening, reading.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

During the 1980 Presidential election cycle, Ronald Reagan negotiated with Iran regarding the fate of the hostages. Reagan cut a deal to have the Iranians keep custody of the hostages until after the election. Reagan then used the fact that the hostages had not been freed against Carter during the election. Treason at the highest level, with absolutely no consequences to the traitors.

In fact, Reagan was following his party's successful playbook. For, similarly, during the 1968 campaign, while peace negotiations with the North Vietnamese, led by the Johnson Administration, were making progress, leading to the possibility that a peace deal might be in place in time for Democratic candidate Humphrey to benefit from it, Republican candidate Richard Nixon's operatives deliberately undercut (and successfully de-railed) the negotiations by secretly contacting the South Vietnamese government and convincing them they'd get a better deal under a President Nixon than under a President Humphrey. When LBJ found out about this, both he and Republican Senate Minority Leader Dirksen privately agreed that this was treasonous. Nixon then went on to campaign against the Johnson Administration's inertia in Vietnam, and promised the public that he (Nixon) had a "secret plan" to end the war quickly (which was a lie).

[weekender 0]

funjumper101

It appears that you grasp of recent historical events is lacking.

Here are the answers to the two questions.

The first question -

Speaking of idiots, can you name the US political figure that was instrumental in getting Hamas elected? The one that pushed for, and got, the general election that put Hamas in power. The one that ignored the well informed people who warned, correctly, that a general election would result in Hamas being elected?

Answer = Shrub

Context - Hamas is in power in Gaza due to ShrubCo's actions. That has worked out badly, hasn't it?

The second question -

If Barak Obama, during the 2008 election cycle, had communicated with, and made back channel deals with Al Quaeda on matters of foreign policy, would you consider that to be good politics, or a treasonous act against the USA?

Answer - A treasonous act against the USA

Context - During the 1980 Presidential election cycle, Ronald Reagan negotiated with Iran regarding the fate of the hostages. Reagan cut a deal to have the Iranians keep custody of the hostages until after the election. Reagan then used the fact that the hostages had not been freed against Carter during the election. Treason at the highest level, with absolutely no consequences to the traitors.

I can't wait for the Reich Wing Conservatives to weigh in on these FACTS about Saint Ronnie. It will make for amusing, and sickening, reading.

for those not aware this is a reference to the October Surprise conspiracy theory. one of its firsts and vocal proponents was Lyndon LaRouche.

its very believable. it was planned by the same people who orchestrated 9/11, faked the moon lading and help funjumper come up with those witty word plays like "Reich Wing", "Shrubco" and Rmoney."

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

[weekender 0]

Andy9o8

Quote

During the 1980 Presidential election cycle, Ronald Reagan negotiated with Iran regarding the fate of the hostages. Reagan cut a deal to have the Iranians keep custody of the hostages until after the election. Reagan then used the fact that the hostages had not been freed against Carter during the election. Treason at the highest level, with absolutely no consequences to the traitors.

In fact, Reagan was following his party's successful playbook. For, similarly, during the 1968 campaign, while peace negotiations with the North Vietnamese, led by the Johnson Administration, were making progress, leading to the possibility that a peace deal might be in place in time for Democratic candidate Humphrey to benefit from it, Republican candidate Richard Nixon's operatives deliberately undercut (and successfully de-railed) the negotiations by secretly contacting the South Vietnamese government and convincing them they'd get a better deal under a President Nixon than under a President Humphrey. When LBJ found out about this, both he and Republican Senate Minority Leader Dirksen privately agreed that this was treasonous. Nixon then went on to campaign against the Johnson Administration's inertia in Vietnam, and promised the public that he (Nixon) had a "secret plan" to end the war quickly (which was a lie).

In fact?

c'mon you are better than this. this is a conspiracy theory. not as crazy as 9/11 truther stuff but definitely not a "fact."

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

[Andy9o8 2]

weekender

***

Quote

During the 1980 Presidential election cycle, Ronald Reagan negotiated with Iran regarding the fate of the hostages. Reagan cut a deal to have the Iranians keep custody of the hostages until after the election. Reagan then used the fact that the hostages had not been freed against Carter during the election. Treason at the highest level, with absolutely no consequences to the traitors.

In fact, Reagan was following his party's successful playbook. For, similarly, during the 1968 campaign, while peace negotiations with the North Vietnamese, led by the Johnson Administration, were making progress, leading to the possibility that a peace deal might be in place in time for Democratic candidate Humphrey to benefit from it, Republican candidate Richard Nixon's operatives deliberately undercut (and successfully de-railed) the negotiations by secretly contacting the South Vietnamese government and convincing them they'd get a better deal under a President Nixon than under a President Humphrey. When LBJ found out about this, both he and Republican Senate Minority Leader Dirksen privately agreed that this was treasonous. Nixon then went on to campaign against the Johnson Administration's inertia in Vietnam, and promised the public that he (Nixon) had a "secret plan" to end the war quickly (which was a lie).

In fact?

c'mon you are better than this. this is a conspiracy theory. not as crazy as 9/11 truther stuff but definitely not a "fact."

It is truth; it's not conspiracy theory.

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21768668

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/nixon-prolonged-vietnam-war-for-political-gainand-johnson-knew-about-it-newly-unclassified-tapes-suggest-3595441/?no-ist

[GeorgiaDon 362]

That level of treason makes Watergate look trivial in comparison. I don't believe in hell, but if I did I'd hope Nixon burns in hell for that.

I can't begin to comprehend the level of narcissism that would lead someone to prolong a war, resulting in tens of thousands of casualties, just for personal power.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[weekender 0]

i am aware of the story. i will concede that it is a more plausible theory than the October Surprise but i dont think we are at the point of calling it a "truth". right in one of your links is the headline that clearly states the tapes "suggest" this. that's not a fact. that's a suggestion.


we will have to agree to disagree.

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante