's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

Jimmy Carter cont.(31 posts)

Jimmy Carter cont.PEDDLEFOOT
Oct 15, 2002 6:59 AM
I'm here. Go ahead.
re: Jimmy Carter cont.Dave Hickey
Oct 15, 2002 7:04 AM
Since when does being a Republican or Democrat have ANYTHING to do with helping the poor or homeless? The same thing applies to peace. If anything, Carter is acting more like a Republican. He's doing these things WITHOUT government intervention.
re: Jimmy Carter cont.PEDDLEFOOT
Oct 15, 2002 7:16 AM
I never mentioned anything about Repblican or Democratic politics.I agree with you that a man's personal politics can go against the normal veiw of whatever party he associates himself with.

My understanding of the initial thread was that he disagreed with his personal politics.That is how I read it.I respect your opinion and hope this clears up any misunderstanding.

From my experience I have found that a persons personal feelings and beliefs tend to guide his political views.This is neither a good or bad thing IMO.

Thanks for having this discussion.It's been interesting to get a little glimpse of the human behind the screen name.I will allow you to have the last word.

I leave you with respect of your opinons and views and hope you do the same.I hope to be able to reply to your future threads knowing more about the person behind the name.Good riding to you.
re: Jimmy Carter cont.Dave Hickey
Oct 15, 2002 7:22 AM
Differences in opinion are what makes this board fun. It would be real boring if we all agreed. I have great respect for what Jimmy Carters done since he's been president.

Cheers Pettlefoot.

re: Jimmy Carter cont.ClydeTri
Oct 15, 2002 7:28 AM
I started this...I should have left out the comment about "politics" all together I guess..I find Jimmy Carter to be an honest, well meaning, kind of guy you would want for a neighbor. I do not agree with his political beliefs though as he tends to be leftest leaning, finding fault with USA (go read some current news articles). He was IMHO a very ineffective Prez, high interest rates, high unemployment, destroyed the military, etc. But, he is a man of integrity, whether or not you agree with his views.
Three comments about him winning the Nobel Peace Prize:
1) any "peace prize" that is awarded to Yasir Arafat is a joke.
2)Jimmy wanted this Nobel prize and has lobbied for it hard. A truely worth person doestn lobby for it and doesn't care if he/she wins it.
3) After announcing Carter won it, some on the Nobel committee used the occasion to denounce Bush. Others on committee countered saying they didnt speak for them. It appears his choice was picked for political pursposes by some on the commitee to make a point, which is WRONG IMHO...Carter himself should have denoucned the committee doing this.
but as I said..nice cruiser..
Righting an old wrongscottfree
Oct 15, 2002 7:53 AM
Fact is, Carter should have won the Peace Prize back in -- was in '79? -- when Begin/Sadat shared it after the Camp David accords. Everybody pretty much agrees on that. He was disqualified on a technicality; his nomination wasn't received by the deadline. So the two guys HE brought together get the prize and he goes home emptyhanded. Hardly fair. But then life's not fair, as I think he said a couple of times.

In some ways, it's a damn shame he finally got the prize this year, under these circumstances, and with those comments being made about Bush. Not sure this is the year Jimmy, specifically, did things worthy of the recognition. But it's hard to argue that his lifetime's achievement in service of peace and human rights doesn't qualify him. The Nobel commmittee may be full of it in some ways, but Carter can't be blamed for that. The bottom line is, if he's not worthy of the peace prize, no one is.
re: Jimmy Carter cont.mohair_chair
Oct 15, 2002 8:00 AM
Jimmy wanted this Nobel prize and has lobbied for it hard

Any proof to your claim?
I didn't think so nmmohair_chair
Oct 15, 2002 10:35 AM
Jimmy saw & approached 'politics' as somethingscottfree
Oct 15, 2002 7:23 AM
larger & more expansive than the narrow little Repub vs Demo crap that passes for politics in this country today. For him, human rights WAS politics. It was part of his appeal when he ran; it was part of what ruined him when he won.
I agreems
Oct 15, 2002 8:28 AM
I do not think that there is any real debate about the success of Jimmy Carter's Presidency -- it largely was a disaster. But, a significant part of the disaster was the fact that he was undercut by his own party. I was a college intern for a Democratic member of the House of Representatives in the Summer of 1978 and returned as a staffer for six months in 1980 before I went to law school. Jimmy Carter's ideas, to borrow a phrase from business school types, were "out of the box." Some were off of the wall, but others were good. However, the Democratic party regulars did not view him as one of their own and savaged him as well as, if not better than the Republicans did. It is an interesting coincidence that the two Twentieth Century Presidents with the most disasterous presidencies, Herbert Hoover and Jimmy Carter, both devoted significant energies to international relief outside of their presidencies -- Hoover in the aftermath of WWI and Carter during the last twenty years. I think that Carter's Nobel is well-deserved, even though I disagree with the spin that the Nobel committee has tried to place upon the award.
Will Carter be proud of the company he's in? Arafat has one!chopper
Oct 15, 2002 9:52 AM
Oct 16, 2002 2:27 PM
I'm sure Carter IS proud of the company. Arafat is the Osama Bin Laden of 20 years ago (anyone else remember when he was the world's most wanted terrorist?) Carter has always been especially friendly with those who hate America. Thomas Sowell put it well when he said, "Jimmy Carter has long been a favorite of those abroad who are anti-American, and a case could even be made that he was the first anti-American president."

Oh, and for anyone who says the media isn't biased, here are some quotes which represent the feelings of virtually all of the media. (I might point out that I disagree with all of them).

"[Jimmy Carter] has become, in the opinion of many, the greatest ex-President of modern times." --ABC's Charles Gibson ++ "Man of peace. Twenty-one years after leaving office, former President Jimmy Carter has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. ... It's so wonderful." --NBC's Katie Couric ++ "Honoring a lifetime of peacemaking: Jimmy Carter wins the Nobel Peace Prize." --CBS's Dan Rather ++ "Jimmy Carter gets the Nobel Prize for Peace for two decades of service to the world. ... In the mid-1990s...he was occasionally introduced as the only man who has ever used the presidency as a stepping stone to greatness." --ABC's Peter Jennings ++ "Is it fair to call him the best former President in, at minimum, modern American history, and perhaps, well, I guess, the last 200 years?" --CNBC's Brian Williams ++ "...[T]here is hardly a troubled place in the world he hasn't visited, worked in, in a quest to bring peace and spread democratic values." --CNN's Aaron Brown ++

The rejoinder: "There is an ex-President who not only sought peace but who achieved peace, who reduced the threat of nuclear annihilation dramatically and liberated tens of millions of people from dictatorship. His name is Ronald Reagan." --Bill Kristol

And another good one: "Well, that's because you're delusional on this matter." --Bernard Goldberg to Phil Donahue on his statement that conservatives control the media.
re: Jimmy Carter cont.Pygme
Oct 15, 2002 8:56 AM
Jimmy Carter reminds me if San Francisco/Greenwich Village/Montrose areas (in Houston.)

Basically proof that ultra liberalism leads to disaster and degeneracy. Just like those area are replete with drug abuse, rampant HIV, and crime, Carter's presidency was a shambles.

Perhaps the mistake was the Marial Boat Lift. Castro was on the verge of being ousted from power. Partly because his country could not support his own people and partly because those people were getting ready for a coup. Castro's solution: Give the trouble makers to Jimmy Carter. Had Jimmy put his foot down and refused to accept that farse, it is entirely possible Castro would not be there today.

The list goes on and on.

What was Jimmy's answer to USSR invading Afghanistan? Boycott the Olympics. A lot of good that did.

You want the Panama Canal. Sign here X________. It's yours.

Double Digit inflation.

17-20% Interest rates.

Can we forget the hostages?

Gut the military (what "good liberal" needs a military anyway?) then wonder what went wrong in the desert in Iran.

Mile long lines at gas stations.

I dont doubt for a second that Jimmy Carter was probably the most ethical/honest/caring man to ever be PUSA. But his liberal slant was better suited for raising peanuts that leading a nation.
I decline to get into ascottfree
Oct 15, 2002 9:38 AM
pissing contest with conservatives today, but I must rush to say that almost none of this can be blamed on Carter's so-called 'liberalism'; the connection, if there is one, is far-fetched indeed.

No, sorry, some of these disasters arose from circumstances beyond his control, the rest of it sprang from his odd and ineffective approach to leadership. Liberal-conservative ideology can, thankfully, be left out of a rational discussion of Carter's failures.
then why???ClydeTri
Oct 15, 2002 9:52 AM
If you wish to decline getting into a pissing contest, why did you post your reply? YOu did get into it.
Oh son ...scottfree
Oct 15, 2002 10:04 AM
That post wasn't pissing. There was no piss in it. Just some facts I felt moved to share. Some day when I'm not feeling off my feed, we can explore a true pissing contest, maybe.
Sound fun :-) let me know when your feeling better nmDave Hickey
Oct 15, 2002 10:34 AM
How typical!Pygme
Oct 16, 2002 5:53 AM
How typical of the I-am-smarter-than-thou liberal attitude.

I presented you with facts and that was "pissing." You presented me with "facts" and that was not (?) pissing?

Reminds me of Al Gore in the debates. "Uhh, I am smarter that everyone else. I really dont need to explain how. Just trust me one this one."
re: Jimmy Carter cont.Galibier
Oct 15, 2002 10:19 AM
Carter inherited the sorry economy. His appointment as federal reserve chairman, Paul Volcker, presided over the recovery as much as anyone else.

What should Carter have done when the USSR invaded Afghanistan? Duplicated Vietnam?

Where are all the horrors of a canal controlled by Panama that the conservatives forecast?

As for the hostages, when has the USA ever been successful in freeing hostages in foreign countries? The Iranians freed the hostages when Reagan took over so they could thumb their nose at Carter . . . unless you believe in the secret dealings between Reagan and the Iranians which continued through the Iran-Contra scandal.

Carter gutted the military? How so? Please provide facts regarding the military budget following the post-Vietnam restructuring. "Liberals gut the military" is a time-worn conservative battle cry meant for effect, not veracity.

Long lines at gas stations, yes. Is it better to be a country of greedy consumers piloting gas-guzzling SUVs and gorging to obesity on mounds of salted grease?
Credit where credit is due: Billy CarterMasonJ
Oct 15, 2002 10:50 AM
Billy Carter deserved the Nobel Peace Prize more than Jimmy. Billy Beer helped bring the nation closer. Billy Carter is my hero. Jimmy is a joke.
Presidents are required to have a brother that's a screw up.Scot_Gore
Oct 15, 2002 10:55 AM
George W's got his, Nixon had one, wasn't some presidents brother involved in teapot dome?
Billy Carter wasn't a screw up!MasonJ
Oct 15, 2002 10:58 AM
He produced a damn fine beer damn it!
JFK had Ted! nmClydeTri
Oct 15, 2002 11:07 AM
re: Jimmy Carter cont.Pygme
Oct 16, 2002 6:06 AM
>Carter inherited the sorry economy. His appointment as >federal reserve chairman, Paul Volcker, presided over the >recovery as much as anyone else.

My. My. My. I guess you feel GW inherited the same? Of course not. The economy was not half bad. It got progressively worse with Carter. Remember the prime interest rate when he left was in the HIGH TEENS!!!!

>What should Carter have done when the USSR invaded >Afghanistan? Duplicated Vietnam?

I guess you are right. Trouncing on the rights of hardworking, dedicated American athletes was the best thing to do. There was no need to "duplicate Vietnam." Why does it have to be a worse case scenario? Boycotting the Olympics did NOTHING good. I personally know two Olympians who were denied the most important time in their life because of stupidity. After 22 years they are still bitter and deserve to be.

>Where are all the horrors of a canal controlled by Panama >that the conservatives forecast?

I dont remember the "forcasted horrors" but I do know it was an idiotic thing to do. Give away one of the most strategic parcels of land in the World. Smart move Jimmy!

>As for the hostages, when has the USA ever been >successful in freeing hostages in foreign countries? The >Iranians freed the hostages when Reagan took over so they >could thumb their nose at Carter . . . unless you believe >in the secret dealings between Reagan and the Iranians >which continued through the Iran-Contra scandal.

Tell me when they havent...nevermind, I just did.

>Carter gutted the military? How so? Please provide facts >regarding the military budget following the post-Vietnam >restructuring. "Liberals gut the military" is a time-worn >conservative battle cry meant for effect, not veracity.

It is the truth. You know it is the truth. It will always be the truth.

>Long lines at gas stations, yes. Is it better to be a >country of greedy consumers piloting gas-guzzling SUVs >and gorging to obesity on mounds of salted grease?

"SUV" wasnt even a gleem in an auto makers eye back then. Define "greedy" for me please. Like it would be "greedy" for you to ride your high-tech, ultra expensive bike for fun when there are Americans struggling to make ends meet riding $80 huffys to work.
re: Jimmy Carter cont.Galibier
Oct 16, 2002 1:16 PM
Surely you aren't so foolish as to believe that engaging in war with the USSR in the 1970s and 1980s would be a good idea. Are you? And as for the economic downturn/stagflation of the 1970s, that began in 1973, while Nixon was still president. Look it up. My SUV comment relates to the fact that Carter proposed conservation as the measure to wean ourselves from dependence on foreign oil. That idea has been scrapped in favor of using technological advances to expand the size and horsepower in our automobiles, rather than increasing fuel efficiency. I consider this emblematic of America's gluttony, most visibly manifested by the growing obesity in this country.

All you've done is regurgitate dogma. Next time you should try acquiring facts and understanding history.
re: Jimmy Carter cont.Matno
Oct 16, 2002 2:42 PM
Panama canal is not controlled by Panama. We gave it to China, currently our biggest enemy and the biggest threat to world peace. Give it some time. Something bad will happen. (What are you going to do with a 30 million+ surplus of restless single men? Sounds like a recipe for war if you ask me...)

You don't think "liberals gut the military"? What about the 80% reduction in our nuclear defenses during Clinton's administration? They didn't just salvage those subs. They sank them. My uncle is head of explosives testing & development (what a job!) for a naval subcontractor, and that's just about all he did during the 90's. It scared him quite a bit. Especially since the supposedly "passive" Russians were actively developing 5 entirely new classes of subs during that same time (no doubt funded by US aid).

Shortly after Sept. 11th of last year, I was astounded to hear Democrats sounding like Americans. I was ecstatic. Some of them even sang "God Bless America" which I must say was quite a shock. Sadly, my elation was short lived, and most of them have now gone back to their usual rhetoric. (Which isn't to say that I'm proud of what Republicans are doing. For the most part, I'm not).
re: Jimmy Carter cont.Galibier
Oct 17, 2002 1:29 PM
Are you claiming that 80% of the USA's nuclear subs were intentionally sunk during the Clinton administration? What a joke. If you and your "uncle" are going to fabricate claims, at least make them plausible.
Bad math.Matno
Oct 18, 2002 4:10 AM
Well, if you look at it from the standpoint of our number of nuclear subs 10 years ago being 89% greater than it is now... From a reduction standpoint, it's actually a 42% reduction of what we had. Sorry for the confusion. Actual numbers are, 10 years ago: 96, now: 56. That's still a VERY substantial reduction in our defenses (which arguably were never strong enough in the first place). And that's just the nuclear subs. On the battlefield, where future wars are far more likely to take place, our nuclear disarmament is virtually complete. Following the Persian Gulf war, President George Bush, with the concurrence of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, ordered that all of our low-yield battlefield nuclear weapons be demolished. Russia and China, however, have not renounced the use of battlefield nuclear weapons or relinquished these weapons. To the contrary, the use of low-yield nuclear weapons is central to their military doctrine, as is abundantly evident from their literature, official statements, and actions. Whatever the intentions of Congress may have been in disarming our military, the fact is that this legislation has produced a policy that is tending to make the world not safer from aggression, but more vulnerable to aggression.

And notice that that nuclear reduction was under BUSH, who was supposedly conservative. You can imagine how much worse it was with Clinton as "commander-in-chief."
re: Jimmy Carter cont.Scot_Gore
Oct 15, 2002 10:47 AM
My respect for the man has grown over the years. In my first opportunity to vote in a presidential election I blamed Jimmy for the inflation, gas prices, hostages........and voted for Anderson, what idiot I was.

I remember being 16 years old, Jimmy declared "the moral equivalent of War" on our dependence on foreign energy. At 16, I said "Huh?????" More than once over the last year I've marveled at us waging the "moral equivalent of War" (only now we call it the war on terror) largely because of our reliance on foreign energy. I find myself wondering if we had waged and won that war 25 years ago, how would things be different now?

my 2 cents

Why isnt Jimmy in Bagdad?ClydeTri
Oct 15, 2002 12:43 PM
Why isnt he there monitoring the elections? He could ask Saddam why nobody else is on the ballot, no, he is running around trashing Bush....
The historical perspective on Carter (and Reagan)mickey-mac
Oct 15, 2002 8:37 PM