RESPECT to Jimmy Carter...

Email Print posted by chrisandyasemin 04/19/2008 06:37:02 PM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
He's my new hero for the time being, he's getting so old and yet he's out there making the most of his post-presidency years. See below article:

http://www.washingtonpost.c om/wp-dyn/content/article/2 008/04/18/AR2008041801256.h tml?nav=rss_world

I'm going to keep my post brief since this will most likely spark a world of discussion anyways but I do want to say that I'm glad that SOMEONE is opening a dialogue with Hamas (the party that won democratic elections in Palestine fair and square, whether others agree with them or not), and I'm glad that he didn't allow the US and Israel to keep him from doing so. I'm dissapointed that in the 21st century people and nations from time to time still act like 6-year-olds by "not speaking" to one another to solve issues, whatever they may be. Perhaps Iran will be next...

http://www.washingtonpost.c om/wp-dyn/content/article/2 008/04/18/AR2008041801256.h tml?nav=rss_world

< A Canadian conservative's perspective | Friday Fun Post: Where Do You Most/Least Want To Visit? >
 Display:
RESPECT to Jimmy Carter... | 69 comments (69 topical, 0 hidden)
agree (none / 0)
Where and when did this new anti-diplomacy fad begin?  What do we have to gain by building walls and not communicating (aside from the obvious benefits to Halliburton, etc.)?  Might some good actually come from opening dialogue?  It's worth the risk in my opinion. 

by desertpear on 04/19/2008 07:49:00 PM EST

Anti-Diplomacy: When and why (none / 0)

As far as I can tell it began with Reagan.  Nixon was willing to talk to China and Vietnam and Carter was spooning with the damn Shah.

Reagan found himself in the awkward position of trying to satisfy powerful supporters who were getting stupid rich off the cold war while our opponent was begging for peace.  He resolved this awkward situation by claiming it was weakness to even talk to the ruskies. 

Gorby and his wife responded by hanging out in New York and looking a cute old couple until Reagan had to break down and talk to them.  He spent the rest of his time desperately trying to slow down the collapse of the cold war until his loser VP finally slipped up and failed to stop the Germans from sledgehammering the wall when the Russians stopped paying people to guard it.  If only they would have asked I am pretty sure Bush (I) would have had KBR or Blackwater take over gaurding the Berlin Wall for the commies (at the taxpayers expense + cost of course) but Gorby was done for good this time.

The lesson Republicans learned was that talking to people sometimes led to the end of wars and therefore military contracts.  Since the point of government is to create endless war and military contracts diplomacy is bad.  (Lets just see drugs or terror call for a summit!). 

by ProfRich on 04/19/2008 11:56:30 PM EST

[ Parent ]
thanks--you've nailed it (none / 0)
It seems like people now act as if this non-diplomacy has always been our approach, but I remember differently like you describe.  Since 9-11 the tactic has been to use the label "terrorist" to isolate various groups.  It seems like a method to reinforce the feelings of "us and them" in the American public.  Same with "not counting" Iraqi civilian casualties.  They seem to me ways of making certain groups of people seem less than human and increasing American xenophobia.

by desertpear on 04/20/2008 02:08:24 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Recall (none / 0)
How the people of the Soviet Union were dehumanized by our media and government.

by ProfRich on 04/20/2008 03:51:03 PM EST

[ Parent ]
priceless (none / 0)

Carter was spooning with the Shah?!? Who do you think gave him his billions? George H.W. Bush, sold him a U.S. printing press (Intaglio 20$ bills) in 1958. Bushie was working for the spooks after the crossbones and has had his dirty hands filthy with mid east oil nearly as long. All of our foriegn policy blunders of the past twenty years are directly related to this simple fact. We would not have gotten mixed up with the Taliban eradicating poppies in the 90's (which directly led to 9/11), would not have gotten mixed up with the Afghani warlords, nor Osama Bin Laden and his Mujadeen, nor the Iranian Revolutionary Army, nor Saddam. It all leads back to George H.W. Bush and the Shah. I love Carter but he was played for the fool, plain and simple, no two ways around it.

Read more about the October Surpise, if you are interested. 

If our current President Bush weren't such a fucking duck, he could really use a Nixon to China moment to take Iraq off the front pages. (Check out the audio archives at University of Virginia for the Nixon phone logs, conversation with Kissinger, he explicity says that is the reason for China trip. His comments on what the Chinamen would do to the anti-war liberal youth here are quite telling -in light of the Olympics and Tibet- and how he would have liked to treated them.)

I repropose my war on war, though I'm not sure if it would actually involve any war, very confusing. Thanks for the comments Rich, insightful and witty as usual. The lesson republicans learned, priceless.

 

by tiggerporn on 04/21/2008 11:33:45 PM EST

[ Parent ]
A True Maverick (none / 0)
Carter so often does the logical thing, says no to intolerance, says no to wayward presidents, and really lives out the true meaning of his faith. Bravo to a man who has finally figured it all out. He is a blessing to our democracy.
 
And of course, he'll draw the wrath of those who need to have an enemy in order to justify their otherwise undirected fear and hatred. But that's the point, isn't it? A two thousand year old story alive and well in a little Georgia town.

by Verified1 on 04/19/2008 10:27:51 PM EST

History's Biggest Loser (none / 0)
Most of you kids are too young to remember the Clinton Years, and the horrible shape the country was in.

In July 1979, Carter made this five minute address to the American people. Everybody listened, because the speech occurred in prime time, and all three networks carried it. We only had three channels back in those days if you can imagine.

Here’s what happened to Jimmy Carter a few months later.
loser

by KenTX on 04/20/2008 06:32:04 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I don't get your point (none / 0)
"in conclusion, I KenTX want to say ........" (please fill in blank) I'm not quite following. So Americans don't respond well to criticism or they don't like Carter or they are stupid or he was wrong or what? Please complete your thoughts.

  

by chrisandyasemin on 04/20/2008 07:15:58 PM EST

[ Parent ]
blogging from my blackberry (none / 0)
I meant to say "Carter Years" not "Clinton Years". Not being able to edit an existing post really annoys me.

by KenTX on 04/20/2008 07:37:33 PM EST

[ Parent ]
finishing my thought (none / 0)
There is an objective way to measure the success of a presidential administration. When he ran for reelection, how many electoral votes did he win? By this measure, Jimmy Carter was the worst president in history.

by KenTX on 04/20/2008 07:48:37 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Masses can make mistakes (none / 0)
I am indeed too young to know of the Carter years but I think the masses are a poor way to measure a president's/ his administration's success. I sometimes think what our nation would be like if Gore had won and not Bush. Or what the world would be like if Hitler and the Nazi party hadn't rose to power via the people, and the number of lives that would have been spared... Although people sometimes make fudged-up decisions, it is ultimately the aftermath and thus history that will decide who was a good and who was a bad president. I think many would agree today in hindsight that it would have been better if Carter had served a second term instead of Reagan's election (and the beginning of this ridiculous right-wing movement we have to deal with today that is dragging us back into the 19th century).

Or maybe I am alone in rooting for Nobel Peace Prize Winners who use their heads and hearts for the better good of mankind.

by chrisandyasemin on 04/20/2008 09:31:42 PM EST

[ Parent ]
spoonfulls of history (none / 0)
"I am indeed too young to know of the Carter years but I think the masses are a poor way to measure a president's/ his administration's success."
44 million Americans, representing "the masses" said, "No thanks Jimmy. We've had enough already!" I suppose you think that elitists should be selecting our presidents.

"I think many would agree today in hindsight that it would have been better if Carter had served a second term instead of Reagan's election."
I think many would agree today in hindsight that it would have been better if Herbert Hoover had served a second term instead of FDR's election. However, the masses threw Hoover's ass out of office, and the rest is history.

Like you said, you're too young to remember the Jimmy Carter years. It was horrible. Liberals love to talk about today's "weakened American economy" and our "weakened reputation abroad". In the 1970s, we were the laughing stock of the world with double digit unemployment, and gas lines around the block because Carter froze gasoline prices!
carter line
You should have seen this fukkin country in 1979! That's why I presented the famous Jimmy Carter Malaise Speech.

"The beginning of this ridiculous right-wing movement we have to deal with today that is dragging us back into the 19th century."
Do you even live in this country?

by KenTX on 04/20/2008 11:21:27 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Fact checking (none / 0)

"Like you said, you're too young to remember the Jimmy Carter years. It was horrible. Liberals love to talk about today's "weakened American economy" and our "weakened reputation abroad". In the 1970s, we were the laughing stock of the world with double digit unemployment, and gas lines around the block because Carter froze gasoline prices!"

Well, I am old enough to remember. The gasoline lines of the 70's were caused by:

A) OPECs oil embargo, which was a reaction to the Arab-Israeli war in 1973. Small Japanese import cars became wildly popular in the US as American automakers were caught with inventories of gas-guzzling cars in the face of high fuel prices. The Datsuns and Toyotas were everywhere. (sound familiar?)

B) The Iranian revolution and the fall of the Shah of Iran, which caused Iranian oil production to drop to about a fourth of it's prior rate. This happened in 1979. We had supported the Shah because he was sympathetic to American oil interests, even though he was hated by the Iranian population because of his heavy-handedness. (sound familiar? Saddam anyone?)

Carter came in at the tail-end of these events. Whatever can be said of his attempts to control oil prices and their effectiveness or lack thereof, it's ridiculous to claim that he caused the inflation and loss of auto-manufacturing jobs that came with high oil prices. I also remember that Carter was the last president who tried to instill a sense of urgency about oil dependency in the US public. History has proven him correct and his opponents wrong.

by bfaul on 04/21/2008 04:24:54 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I remember (none / 0)

He turned off the heat in the White House and wore his "long underwear".   ; It was goofy but it was leadership.

Blaming Carter for the oil shock of the 1970s is as stupid as blaming FDR for the Great Depression. 

by ProfRich on 04/21/2008 05:08:12 PM EST

[ Parent ]
cause and effect (none / 0)
What caused long gas lines in 1979?

Artificial government-imposed price controls.

What eliminated the lines, increased gas prices (temporarily), reduced demand (temporarily), spurred fuel efficiency, promoted conservation, promoted increased exploration and production, increased refinery expansions, and eventually brought the price of oil and gasoline down to historic lows after factoring inflation?

Deregulation of gas prices and the miracle of free market forces.

by KenTX on 04/21/2008 05:48:53 PM EST

[ Parent ]
This is your proof? (none / 0)

"After 1980, oil prices began a six-year decline that culminated with a 46 percent price drop in 1986. This was due to reduced demand and over-production, and caused OPEC to lose its unity. Oil exporters such as Mexico, Nigeria, and Venezuela expanded. The US and Europe got more oil from Prudhoe Bay and the North Sea."

Do you even read the things you link to? 

by bfaul on 04/21/2008 07:55:26 PM EST

[ Parent ]
time for YOU to read (none / 0)
This is what I said caused the extreme drop in oil prices:
"the miracle of free market forces"

This is what the link said caused the extreme drop in oil prices:
"a 46 percent price drop in 1986...was due to reduced demand and over-production"

Read my quote again:
"What eliminated the lines, increased gas prices (temporarily), reduced demand (temporarily), spurred fuel efficiency, promoted conservation, promoted increased exploration and production, increased refinery expansions, and eventually brought the price of oil and gasoline down to historic lows after factoring inflation?"

Are you intentionally stupid, or can you just not help it?

by KenTX on 04/21/2008 08:36:20 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Kongratulations! (none / 0)
Ken, I now put Jimmy Carter's chances of winning the 2008 election at substantially less than 1%

by ProfRich on 04/22/2008 12:24:52 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Reared your own comments (none / 0)

"What caused long gas lines in 1979?"

Answer: Shortages due to the Iranian revolution and subsequent decrease in world oil supply.

Is that simple enough for you, asshole? 

 


by bfaul on 04/22/2008 12:30:16 AM EST

[ Parent ]
economics for bfaul (none / 0)
Here’s a 1979 gas coupon.
jimmy
The government printed 5 billion of the coupons at a cost of $12.5 million. This was Jimmy Carter’s response to the oil shortage. Somebody told the idiot that this plan would never work, so he scrapped it.

When the demand curve exceeds the supply curve, there are three options.
1. Implement price controls and suffer long gas lines.

2. Ration gasoline like we did during WWII, where all drivers are allocated a gallon per day.

3. Let the price rise and allow market forces to work.

The Carter Administration finally settled on option 3, after the other two didn’t work.

High gasoline prices encouraged exploration, production, refinery expansions, conservation, production of fuel efficient vehicles.

After the price of gasoline at the pump tripled overnight, there were no more long gas lines.

It wasn’t long before supply increased, demand decreased, and prices started dropping like a rock.

Your brain is like a rock, only much smaller.

by KenTX on 04/22/2008 11:06:26 AM EST

[ Parent ]
You left out (none / 0)

Nationalize the industry.  Why not?  Its clearly crooked as hell and a great danger to the country.

Or we could get the hell out of Iraq and back off Afghanistan so they drop this arbitrary price increase that exists simply to punish us for our hubris.  We could try that.

Oh, and Ken, I guess you don't have a strong background in geology (shocking!) but rocks come in lots and lots of sizes.  Is bfaul's brain smaller than those rocks that used to fall on the coyote?  Because that could still be really big.

by ProfRich on 04/22/2008 01:56:16 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Richonomics (none / 0)
"OPEC has arbitrarially set the WTI benchmark at $117, in an effort to punish the U.S for the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq." Is that stated correctly?

by KenTX on 04/22/2008 02:39:23 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Maybe (none / 0)
I was more or less just fucking with you.

by ProfRich on 04/22/2008 02:50:09 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Ken, you are a genius (none / 0)

You've solved the oil problem!

Follow along.

How would you fellow bloggers like to get paid $100 an hour for sitting in your car.  You can even listen to the radio, blog, surf the internet, get some work done, text, talk on the phone.  Whatever you want and still get at least $100 an hour.

See, I figure that these crazy high "jawboned" gas prices are costing my family a minimum of $200 a week in increase gas prices and inflation at the grocery store and elsewhere.

According to Ken, through the miracle of price controls I could be paying, lets say, a $1.50 and be getting a gallon of milk for under $3.50 and the only downside?  I have to hang out in my car one a week for an hour.  

Sounds just terrible doesn't it?  Seriously, I take the podcast of the Turks, drive down to the corner gas station and hang out.  Not my ideal way to spend an afternoon but I also get hundreds more in my bank account at the end of the day AND OPEC's little bid to punish the US fails making us safer AND we might even avoid a Great Depression caused by explosive inflation.

I want price controls yesterday!  Of course, I could always make my run to the gas station now, at 11:30PM.  Bet I could be there and back in a half hour.

Sleep well, tonight, Ken.  For today you may have saved America. 

by ProfRich on 04/22/2008 12:22:20 AM EST

[ Parent ]
By this measure... (none / 0)

Mariah Carey is the greatest recording artist in history and Titanic is the best movie in history.

Nice argument, douche bag. 

by ProfRich on 04/21/2008 12:40:44 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Comparing Incumbent Popularity (none / 0)
Comparing the popular vote that a president received when running for reelection provides some degree of measurement of their popularity.

1936 FDR (60.8%)

1972 Richard Nixon (60.7%)

1984 Ronald Reagan (58.8%)

1956 Ike Eisenhower (57.4%)

2004 George W Bush (50.7%)

1948 Harry Truman (49.6%)

1996 Bill Clinton (49.2%)

1980 Jimmy Carter (41.0%)

1932 Herbert Hoover (39.7%)

1992 George HW Bush (37.4%)

1968 LBJ (wisely didn’t run)

by KenTX on 04/21/2008 01:45:58 AM EST

[ Parent ]
KEN: Reagan not greatest modern GOP Prez! (none / 0)

Ken proves Nixon was better president than Reagan!!!

Now if we just had some way of knocking down that Nixon legacy we could take down Ronnie in the same stroke.

Seriously, it should be noted that Nixon cheated and Clinton and Truman were in three way races.

At least Carter was better than Bush, huh? 

by ProfRich on 04/21/2008 02:07:43 AM EST

[ Parent ]
selective analysis (none / 0)
You "forgot" (as if) to mention that George HW Bush was in a three way race with a serious third party threat from Perot, who took 19% of the popular vote, which is astronomical compared with 1996, or the measely 2% Strom Thurmond took in 1948.

Richard Nixon didn't have to cheat to beat the hell out of George McGovern. It didn't make a difference of one hundreth of a percent.

The important takeaway from these stats is that Democrats traditionally have great difficulty earning greater than 50% of the popular vote. If 2008 turns out to be another year with a divided Democrat Party, and a credible third party run, ala Ron Paul, you guys could be looking at yet another loss.

by KenTX on 04/21/2008 02:22:04 AM EST

[ Parent ]
CREEP you CREEP (none / 0)
You are not seriously including Tricky Dick's '72 run you creep, are you? Um, plumbers, DNC, Cuban Brigade 2506, slush fund.
Tony Parker MVP

As the NBA play-offs in TNT heat up, and LeBron and Kobe and the Big Ticket all vie for their shot at immortality and a chance to hold the Larry O'Brien Championship trophy aloft, I hope we can all take a moment to remember just who he was. You got some fuckin' nerve Ken, some fuckin' nerve.

by tiggerporn on 04/22/2008 02:18:53 AM EST

[ Parent ]
watergate (none / 0)
Sorry, I realize that Cuban Brigade 2506 prolly doesn't ring a bell with a lot of folks. Meet the thugs who brought us the Bay of Pigs, Watergate, Iran Contra, and the Miami Dade County Election theft. Wonderful bunch of guys. Not sure what they're doing this November.

by tiggerporn on 04/22/2008 02:43:57 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Ken's "style" (none / 0)

Ken never actually argues anything.  He just nibbles at the edges until his bullshit gets called out.  Then he makes arrogant boasts about how he can't be beat and switches to something only marginally related.

He will never defend an idea or answer a direct question that has any bearing on any of his "arguments"  He is kind of like a chigger actually. 

by ProfRich on 04/21/2008 12:39:43 AM EST

[ Parent ]
You're right about one thing. (none / 0)
"Ken never actually argues anything."

There's rarely an argument, and that's the way I like it.

When I offer facts and data and links from reputable sources, there's not much left for you to argue with. You can try to attack the source, but I usually try to link WaPo, NYT, WSJ, CNN, Newsweek, Time to proactively cut your legs out from under you.

That leaves you scrambling to find evidence to the contrary, which is often very difficult. During the exchange, your assumptions are challenged and you learn something. It's an incremental process, and I find it highly rewarding as I watch you grow and develop a brain.

I want to thank you for being my faithful huckleberry. I couldn't do it without you.

by KenTX on 04/21/2008 01:00:38 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Whatever you say, Ken (none / 0)

I am sure everyone else appreciates me being your huckleberry too.

You realize that makes me Doc Holliday and you the guy he shot, right?

Check your damn sources Ken!!!

Of course then I die of TB which pretty much sucks for me. 

by ProfRich on 04/21/2008 01:06:05 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Thank you! (none / 0)
So KenTX you really don't have a stance on anything in particular? It must be because you are so busy pointing things out to others. You see, I take what I see, facts info etc and come to a conclusion about something. If new facts come along I am perfectly fine with changing my stance, its OK.

But, so are you afraid of taking a side or coming out openly about any given issue in fear that someone may point out your flaws? Its OK to change your mind, we are all human here, when new facts come up yeah, things change. And I appreciate your efforts in helping all us children here figure it out... but from now on I think I'm going to skip over your posts because I do not trust you and your "motives" are wrong (otherwise I relish taking in new information), you present information to make others feel stupid or to "cut your legs out from under you" or whatever, not only is that quote creepy but it is unnecessary in a serious exchange and it is counteproductive. I think your motive is self-serving and self-satisfying rather than to help others understand or see the light, which is why I don't ever really find your posts helpful.

"as I watch you grow and develop a brain." (another creepy quote) This quote suggests to me you frown upon people who's thoughts develop and change you don't understand why people aren't just born with all the thoughts and information. It also suggests to me that since you frown upon this you probably never change your ideas as you see it as a sign of weakness, another reason why you never come out and say anything directly.

In conclusion I am glad you dragged this discussion away from the real issue at hand, Palestine and Israel and Carters excellent humanitarian and peace efforts around the world. Do you actually have ANYTHING to say about that are are you still stuck in the 70's?

by chrisandyasemin on 04/21/2008 08:49:23 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Of course he dragged the disccusion away (none / 0)
he is a run of the mill troll ..  there was a perfectly good conversation going, troll tx cant have that.

Wanna see another creepy quote?

"But whackos like China Doll, Dick Short, PedagogicalRich, ihavenobrains can drive a moderate into the conservative camp"

This is the brain you are trying to discuss things with logically.

by Chinese Democracy on 04/21/2008 11:46:22 AM EST

[ Parent ]
you are a drag (none / 0)
That is indeed a "very creepy" post. Oooooohhh!

by KenTX on 04/21/2008 12:00:07 PM EST

[ Parent ]
read my lips (none / 0)
Read my lips: I WILL NEVER NEGOTIATE WITH TERRORISTS!!

(hmm, um, oh, huh? wha? Oh, oh that? Ya mean that Iran Contra thing, well, ya sure, I mean, well, but. Well, I mean of course when I say NEVER, well, I mean of course you know. Well, let's put it this way. Um, er. OK, so we sold some ICBM's to the Iranian National Gaurd, so, who hasn't, I mean really, OK OK, so we negotiated with a few terrorists. What? Huh? Oh wha ya mean the fact that the hostages were released the day of the inauguration, yes yes, quite a coinkidink, quite. Say, want some jelly beans? How many ya think are in there? Huh what, changing the subject, no I was just wondering. Well how the hell am I supposed to know what the Iranians did with the missiles we sold them? Gave them to Hezzbollah? Who the fuck are they? What? Well of course we had to get involved with Saddam as a result? Osama Bin who? What the raghead fighting the Commies for us? Ya ya sure we trained him, ya he's been working with Ollie for years, joint special ops training task force over at the Pentagon with the CIA. Bushy got some of his men on it. What, German businessman killed in Zurich? How the fuck should I know. Look do you wanna guess how many fucking beans are in the jar or not?!? Nancy, would you stop reading those fucking charts and get in here...

by tiggerporn on 04/21/2008 11:44:55 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Saving you the trouble (none / 0)

Saving KenTx the trouble of a reply, we all know how valuable his time is. 

 

KEN TX: What?!? Tiggerporn you fuckhead, Saint Ronny is not to be made fun of. Need I remind you, ehem, ehem, blow job. Never will the Grand Old Party, the illustrious party of Lincoln and Ike and Saint Ronny ever have a wiki blah blah blah blow job. Blow job blow job blow job. Viva blow job. I hate Hillary, I hate Bill, I hate weak willed nanny pansy fairy democrats, blow job. Did I mention the wiki page?

And, in summation, please stop waisting my valuable time pickin hairs out my asshole, making money on oil futures and trolling while listening to Rush. And oh ya, blow job. 

 

by tiggerporn on 04/21/2008 11:49:48 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Ol' Ronnie (none / 0)
If there was anything Ol' Ronnie loved more than Jelly Beans and cheating on his wife it was negotiating with terrorists.  He just couldn't get enough of it.

by ProfRich on 04/22/2008 01:00:12 AM EST

[ Parent ]
This is priceless, have you seen it yet? (none / 0)
... from the REAGAN DIARIES [this] is an actual quote that Reagan wrote about George "W" in his diaries, recently edited by author Doug Brinkley and published by Harper Collins:

"A moment I've been dreading. George brought his n'er-do-well son around this morning and asked me to find the kid a job. Not the political one who lives in Florida ; the one who hangs around here all the time looking shiftless. This so-called kid is already almost 40 and has never had a real job. Maybe I'll call Kinsley over at The New Republic and see if they'll hire him as a contributing editor or something. That looks like easy work."

From the REAGAN DIARIES------entry dated May 17, 1986.

by tiggerporn on 04/22/2008 02:00:33 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Smartest thing Ronnie ever said! (none / 0)
The best part about this is the backhand slap at the hacks at The New Republic.

by ProfRich on 04/22/2008 09:28:55 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Are you sure this is for real? (none / 0)
Will wonders never cease.  Sometimes the truth pops out in the wierdest places.  You just can't hold it back completely.  It has to burst at some seam.

by bfaul on 04/23/2008 10:36:54 AM EST

[ Parent ]
No, of course it's not for real. (none / 0)
You should know by now that everything Rich posts is a lie. It’s as easy to debunk Rich, as it is stealing candy from a baby.

But as long as he has gullible sycophants like you, who marvel at his every foolish utterance, he’s cookin turkey with propane!

Do you understand now why my participation in this forum is troubling to His Richness?

by KenTX on 04/23/2008 10:38:56 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Issues, Ken (none / 0)

Jealous much?

Look, Ken I can't make the people here on the TYT board love you (although I could stop making you look ridiculous but I won't) but you're not helping yourself by not bothering to read anything that happens here.

I didn't post that diary quote.  Do you really imagine me sitting back with a cup of camomile and cozying up by a fire with Ronald Reagan's biography???  Someone else gave us that.  I just used it to take pot shots at Ronnie and Shrub.  (and now Neal).  

Next time you triumphantly decalre someone a serial liar try to do it without continuing your compulsive lying.  It might help your credibility gap. 

Oh and I will fry a turkey on a propane burner that'll make you convert to hippie, commie, afro-marxist Clintonian liberalism and beg for a blowjob from a fat girl, Ken. 

by ProfRich on 04/23/2008 10:56:56 PM EST

[ Parent ]
honest mistake (none / 0)
Your post on Ronnie cheating on Nancy (at the age of 80) was right next to tiggerporn's lunatic ravings.

But it sure sounded like a Rich link.

by KenTX on 04/23/2008 11:29:15 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Now I see how I was confused! (none / 0)
You jumped on that post like a duck on a junebug.

Hook, line, sinker.


Thank Goodness! I almost apologized to you!

by KenTX on 04/23/2008 11:32:59 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Golly, Ken (none / 0)

That sure is damning.  I made a joke about someone else's post which happened to be wrong.  And you misattributed a post to me to make me seem like a compulsive liar.

I don't know how I can ever show my face around here again. 

by ProfRich on 04/24/2008 12:01:42 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Keep swinging, Ken (none / 0)
I never said Ronnie cheated when he was 80 or that he cheated on Nancy.  But he definitely cheated on his wife.  Maybe not Nancy (or maybe so) but on his earlier wife.  Like McCain.

by ProfRich on 04/24/2008 12:00:33 AM EST

[ Parent ]
widely known (none / 0)
Jane Wyman cheated with Lew Ayres on the set of Johnny Belinda, then she asked Ronald Reagan for a divorce.

by KenTX on 04/24/2008 12:15:58 AM EST

[ Parent ]
From what I am reading (none / 0)
She was doing Ayres and he was doing multiple starlets (presumably one at a time).  I guess they were just one of those couple with "Hollywood Values" or he couldn't keep a woman satisfied.  Maybe thats why Nancy was doing Sinatra.  I'm not saying anything, I'm just saying.

by ProfRich on 04/24/2008 12:38:21 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Hmmm.... (none / 0)
Are you sure it wasn't about Neal?

by MedfordTim on 04/23/2008 10:19:23 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Can't be (none / 0)
Neal had a job.  He was robbing us through an S&L.

by ProfRich on 04/23/2008 10:50:07 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Don't know how I missed this (none / 0)

excellent post, Chrisandyasmin. Thank you.

I don't have a dog in this fight, and my basic attitude is skepticism toward everyone over there. They all have legitimate grievances (Israeli and Arab alike). Some of them are effin terrorists, and we shouldn't countenence them. But if they're willing to talk with a former president, there's no harm hearing them out.

George Bush legitamized Hamas by allowing elections in Palastine (insert can of worms here). Sobeit. If Conservatives don't like the consequences of that policy, I don't know what to say. The 49.5% of us that didn't vote for W weren't asked to be a part of the discussion, at all. At all.

But HEY!!! HE's PRO-ISREAL. ignore everything I just said. IT IS NOT PRO-MERICAN. DOES NOT COMPUTE. DOES NOT COMPUTE. DESTROY THE TERRORISTS. DESTROY...

by hazmat on 04/20/2008 02:25:46 AM EST

By the way (none / 0)
"History's Biggest Loser (none / 0) Here’s what happened to Jimmy Carter a few months later."
"1936 FDR (60.8%)

1972 Richard Nixon (60.7%)

1984 Ronald Reagan (58.8%)

1956 Ike Eisenhower (57.4%)

2004 George W Bush (50.7%)

1948 Harry Truman (49.6%)

1996 Bill Clinton (49.2%)

1980 Jimmy Carter (41.0%)

1932 Herbert Hoover (39.7%)

1992 George HW Bush (37.4%)

1968 LBJ (wisely didn’t run)"
This points at Bush as the worst...not Carter...

by chrisandyasemin on 04/21/2008 09:03:49 AM EST

here's a nice link (none / 0)
Here's a link to The Carter Center's web page:

http://www.cartercenter.org /homepage.html

The Carter Center: Advancing Human Rights and Alleviating Suffering

Cenk should get him back on the show to talk about his most recent activities:)

by chrisandyasemin on 04/21/2008 12:01:07 PM EST

Jimmy's most recent activities. (none / 0)
1. Hating Israel. 2. Loving Palestinians. 3. Helping Jewish Americans find a new home in the Republican Party.

by KenTX on 04/21/2008 12:15:00 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Useless (none / 0)

How is any of that possibly going to lead to new defense contracts?

This is ridiculous.  Just ask Ken.

:-) 

by ProfRich on 04/21/2008 12:44:00 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Carter on TYT (none / 0)
That would be a GREAT show!

by desertpear on 04/21/2008 01:26:42 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Late entry (none / 0)

I have waited to comment because I have an obvious bias, believing that Carter is the only President since I started voting eho has an ounce of morality.

The way I feel about it is: If you are against engaging in conversation, the only other option is complete genocide - kill 'em all! That os NOT an acceptable solution to Jimmy. He is doing what SHOULD have been done by our government the day after Hamas won a rightful place at the table through being elected by their own people to represent their interests. We have no right to deny them a voice.

Go, Jimmy, go!

by MedfordTim on 04/21/2008 02:20:48 PM EST

Timbo is correct. (none / 0)
Jimmy Carter was the most moral president in U.S. History. Woodrow Wilson might come in second. Perhaps it is no coincidence that they also rank #1 and #2 as ineffective failures. Remember that Tricky Dick would be remembered as one of our greatest presidents were it not for Watergate. Nothing moral about that guy.

by KenTX on 04/21/2008 04:13:22 PM EST

[ Parent ]
But.... (none / 0)

Woodrow Wilson was an inveterate racist who called Birth of a Nation "History writ with lightning" and made it clear when he said "ending colonization" he really only meant colonies with white people.

And he got over 49% of the vote in his reelection bid!!!! 

That beats JQ Adams, Cleveland, Wm Harrison, more than doubles up Taft, Hoover, Carter and Bush (I).  Beats Polk, Filmore, Pierce, Buchanan, A Johnson, Hays, Arthur and LBJ by default.  Be consistent, Ken.

And, Ken, lets get serious.  Who is really the biggest failure as president ever?

C'mon, Ken, you know this one. 

by ProfRich on 04/21/2008 04:33:45 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Watergate and Vietnam (none / 0)
Nixon was history toast before Watergate thanks to Vietnam and Cambodia, and you're forgetting his wage & price controls again. arncha? If Nixon hadn't screwed up the economy so bad on the way out the door, Carter would be much higher on that "success" scale. Why, just imagine what his legacy would have been if Reagan and Kissinger hadn't intervened in the hostage crisis and allowed it to end during Carter's term.

by MedfordTim on 04/21/2008 05:23:15 PM EST

[ Parent ]
"IF" is for children. (none / 0)
If Bill Clinton killed Osama Bin Laden on one of the numerous opportunties has was presented, George Bush would have had an easy eight years.

Richard Clarke’s testimony was front and center in the findings of the 9/11 Commission.

The Clinton administration had as many as four chances to kill or capture bin Laden between December 1998 and July 1999, but all the operations were scuttled because of uncertain intelligence and fears that civilians or dignitaries might be killed. In one example, in May 1999, sources provided detailed reports about bin Laden's whereabouts in the Kandahar area over a period of five nights, but strikes were not ordered because the military was concerned about the accuracy of the reports and the risk of collateral damage, investigators found.

"Having a chance to get [bin Laden] three times in 36 hours and foregoing the chance each time has made me a bit angry," a CIA unit chief wrote to a colleague, adding that Tenet "finds himself alone at the table, with the other princip[als] basically saying 'we'll go along with your decision Mr. Director,' and implicitly saying that the Agency will hang alone if the attack doesn't get [bin Laden]."

The Clinton Administration’s failure to act to protect the nation was so grossly egregious, that Sandy “Scissorhands” Berger actually stole documents from the National Archives in attempt to cover up the truth.

The movie, Path To 9/11 is a dramatization of the failures of Bill Clinton.

by KenTX on 04/21/2008 06:09:36 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Funny you should quote Clarke (none / 0)

"Richard Clarke’s testimony was front and center in the findings of the 9/11 Commission."

Have you ever read his book?  If you had I doubt you would be quoting him.  He does not make this case at all.  It was the Pentagon that bridled when it came to putting together a clandestine hit on Bin Laden.  They wanted to go in with a large military force, which was not politically feasible at the time, and don't bother giving me this shit about how he should have launched an attack in Afghanistan, the conservatives would have screamed bloody murder about how he was involving us in a Soviet-style quagmire in Afghanistan.  As it was they screamed about him "wagging the dog" when he agreed to the firing of the cruise missiles.

by bfaul on 04/21/2008 08:06:56 PM EST

[ Parent ]
This argument always fascinates me (none / 0)

Just to recap

Reagan and Bush train and arm Bin Laden-irrelevant

Clinton fails to execute Bin Laden for being our ex-ally-BAD!!!!! UNFORGIVABLE!!!!

Bush clumsily and possibly intentionally lets Bin Laden get away in Tora Bora AFTER HE KILLS 3000+ AMERICANS- not worth bringing up

Damn, that is some conservatarded shit right there.  Limbaugh and his distended mouths (or is it assholes) are fucking shameless aren't they? 

by ProfRich on 04/22/2008 12:30:25 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Stop blaming Bill, little FOXie (none / 0)

The Hannity rule book in play - whenever the discussion starts veering into the land of logic, blame Bill Clinton for something. Frankly, I expect better from Ken.

But then he references one of the silliest pieces of propaganda since Tonkin and I realize what is up.

Ken, hand me your keyboard. Friends don't let friends post drunk. Come on, hand it over.

by MedfordTim on 04/21/2008 11:21:59 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I am worried too, Tim (none / 0)

There has been a shocking decline in the quality of Ken's posts.

I wonder if it is related to the collapse of the Republican party?

Ken keeps rolling back the clock looking for arguments he can win.  He got back to Wilson earlier today.  We are gonna be arguing over Martin Van Buren by the end of the week. 

by ProfRich on 04/22/2008 12:40:22 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Please (none / 0)

"Frankly, I expect better from Ken."

Are you kidding?  That's his modus operandi.

by bfaul on 04/22/2008 09:19:58 AM EST

[ Parent ]
another Carter interview in the horizon:) Go TYT! (none / 0)
Cenk mentioned today that Carter will be back on the show soon, whoo-hoo!

by chrisandyasemin on 04/21/2008 05:58:55 PM EST

RESPECT to Jimmy Carter... | 69 comments (69 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: