ex-Pres Carter is chicken!

[YASNY]

Apparently I wasn't clear.

 

 

Jimmy Carter was the absolute worst president in my lifetime.

 

 

Also want to mention that the respect for presidents must not include current ones. At least not around here.

[Texsox]

Apparently I wasn't clear.

 

 

Jimmy Carter was the absolute worst president in my lifetime.

 

 

Also want to mention that the respect for presidents must not include current ones. At least not around here.

 

I guess you aren't as old as I thought. And so much for your opinion on needing religion in our lives. He was easily the most truly religious President of the group. Unlike every other one in my lifetime, he actually walked the walk. He stayed involved in his faith long after it wasn't just for politics sake.

[NorthSideSox72]

Apparently I wasn't clear.

Jimmy Carter was the absolute worst president in my lifetime.

Also want to mention that the respect for presidents must not include current ones. At least not around here.

My opinion on this may change with the perspective of time, but as of now, the worst Prez of my lifetime is the current one. Hands down. Forgetting even about issues and political equations, the guy just has very little ability to lead or manage at that level.

 

Carter was definitely south of the median though. Probably 3rd worst in my lifetime, if I give it some thought. I do agree with YAS' general sentiment on Carter - good man, lousy President.

[EvilMonkey]

Reagan after leaving office went and gave a little speech in Japan for US$3,000,000. Carter went and built homes and championed for human rights around the globe. I am forgetting, and it's late, what did Carter earn a Nobel prize for? I guess that broght disrespect to the office.

Bush would kill her in a debate, so why would he be afraid? Why would he be chicken?

 

YASNY, worse in your lifetime? Worse than Ford? Nixon?

No, Tex, the disrespect for the office came every time he opened his mouth the last 6 or 7 years when he slams the US, Bush, etc for whatever perceived slight he sees. Isn't he an American? How about trying to change things from within if you believe something is wrong? Instead, he sucks up to every anti-American he can find, every crackpot thats available, and continues to take swipes at this great country. Hate Bush all you want, show a little respect for the office.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1456239.stm

The third paragraph says it all.

By publicly criticising the present occupant of the White House, in a newspaper interview with the Columbus Ledger-Enquirer, Mr Carter has broken one of the great unspoken rules of American politics.

He consistently talks like he is still an insider, privy to the goings on in negotiations and cabinet meetings, when in fact he is no where near the inner working of things to be able to make half the statements he does.

[YASNY]

I guess you aren't as old as I thought. And so much for your opinion on needing religion in our lives. He was easily the most truly religious President of the group. Unlike every other one in my lifetime, he actually walked the walk. He stayed involved in his faith long after it wasn't just for politics sake.

 

How does Carter's faith figure into whether or not he was a good or bad prez. I said he was a great man. His faith was part of the reason I believe he is a great man.

[Rex Kickass]

I would say Carter is an expert in the conflict with Israel area given that he negotiated the first peace between Israel and an Arab state.

[YASNY]

I would say Carter is an expert in the conflict with Israel area given that he negotiated the first peace between Israel and an Arab state.

 

Then there was the Iran hostage crisis and 20+% interest rates. I will say this much about Carter. The fact he was a 'bad' president in my opinion could have been do the fact he was considered a Washington outsider when he was elected. He really didn't get much cooperation from either party.

[Balta1701]

Then there was the Iran hostage crisis and 20+% interest rates. I will say this much about Carter. The fact he was a 'bad' president in my opinion could have been do the fact he was considered a Washington outsider when he was elected. He really didn't get much cooperation from either party.

The 20% interest rates were at least not directly the fault of Jimmy Carter, they were the fault of 20+ years of Congress and the President trying to spend enough money to avoid having a recession on their watch and thus driving inflation crazy. In other words, deficit spending in order to try to have "Guns and butter" (sound like any other chief executive you know?)

 

The 20% interest rates actually corrected the problem after a time by slowing down the inflation rate. I'd go so far as to actually give Mr. Carter some credit for nominating Paul Volcker to the Federal Reserve, as he was the one who pumped up the interest rates that finally slowed down the decline in the value of the dollar.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

And say what you will about Carter, but he has lived a very noble life. I believe he has walked the talk for many decades. Could you imagine Reagan building homes for poor people? Traveling the world to monitor elections. I am far prouder of Carter than anyone that followed him.

 

 

 

 

Reagan after leaving office went and gave a little speech in Japan for US$3,000,000. Carter went and built homes and championed for human rights around the globe. I am forgetting, and it's late, what did Carter earn a Nobel prize for? I guess that broght disrespect to the office.

Bush would kill her in a debate, so why would he be afraid? Why would he be chicken?

 

YASNY, worse in your lifetime? Worse than Ford? Nixon?

 

 

You wanted Reagan to go around building homes?! He was old, frail and was in the early stages of Alzheimers for chrissakes, its not as though he was in good enough shape for construction work.

 

Ronald Reagan destroyed the Soviet Union and in so doing did more to advance the cause of human rights than Carter could ever hope to. The most Carter, in typical liberal fashion, ever did was talk about and pay lip service to the cause of human freedom. Reagan's actions as President freed hundreds of millions of people from the grip of Soviet Communism and he is reviled by the left as an evil warmonger. Freekin spare me.

 

As for Reagan's post presidency activities, I think its alright for him to score a few bucks doing speeches, he put his time in.

Edited December 18, 2006 by NUKE

[Gregory Pratt]

Jimmy Carter won a Nobel Peace Prize out of spite. He wasn't given it because all of a sudden, thirty years later, the Nobel committee decided that Carter's Israel-Egypt negotiations were magnificent; he won it because they wanted to send a message to Boosh.

 

About Carter + being an outsider affecting his Presidency: certainly. It also doesn't hurt that Ted Kennedy wanted his job and had Tip O'Neill sabotage him accordingly. However, being an outsider alone won't damn you. Being an incompetent will, and for all the issues he had to deal with from The Bostonians, he made his own problems, too, by being impersonal with Congress and making boneheaded decisions.

[Balta1701]

Ok, here's a question on Jimmy Carter...was he only the victim of circumstance, or were the problems of his administration his own doing?

 

Could a southern outsider have come in other than Jimmy Carter (purely a hypothetical person at this point) and done any better by making better decisions, or was he totally betrayed by the fact that he was a southern outsider who had to deal with a revolution in Iran and an economy battered by years of war and overspending?

 

Don't have an answer, but figured it would be an interesting question for debate.

[Gregory Pratt]

Ok, here's a question on Jimmy Carter...was he only the victim of circumstance, or were the problems of his administration his own doing?

 

Could a southern outsider have come in other than Jimmy Carter (purely a hypothetical person at this point) and done any better by making better decisions, or was he totally betrayed by the fact that he was a southern outsider who had to deal with a revolution in Iran and an economy battered by years of war and overspending?

 

Don't have an answer, but figured it would be an interesting question for debate.

 

It's both. No Democrat, IMO, could've really succeeded against Ted Kennedy and Tip O'Neill. That's an angle that isn't explored enough but it's a very valid one. Teddy wanted the Presidency; Tip was Teddy's buddy, BOOM. But that said, Carter was a mediocre President in every sense of the term. No PR skills -- remember, he barely won that election in 76. Barely. He couldn't hold a room; he couldn't talk to Congressmen and wouldn't. He pretended that it was okay for the President to "exercise" by running all over the White House, up and down the stairs, and when he had an opportunity to push for energy independence -- perhaps the one true chance an American President will have in a long time -- he s*** the bed by going out in his stupid sweater. He's a man who decided that it would be a good idea to bring his wife into the Cabinet meetings despite the wishes of his Secretaries. A bumbler in every sense of the word.

 

As far as Iran, that's quite the unexpected circumstance to deal with. But nobody made him take the stupidest military action ever -- the invasion of Iran with a dozen helicopters.

 

And then, there's character. "I won't ever lie to you" -- something that's a lie in and of itself. There's his inauguration as Governor in Georgia where he had run as a Segregationist only to come out after being elected and saying, "There's no room for racism in my state." That's why he only governed for one-term. That's why he only presided for one term. And that's why he'll live on next to Warren Harding and George W. Bush.

[Texsox]

Jimmy Carter won a Nobel Peace Prize out of spite. He wasn't given it because all of a sudden, thirty years later, the Nobel committee decided that Carter's Israel-Egypt negotiations were magnificent; he won it because they wanted to send a message to Boosh.

 

Are you serious?

[Gregory Pratt]

Are you serious?

 

Yeah, I'm serious.

 

In something of a surprise decision, the Nobel Committee awarded the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize to Carter. In 1978, the Committee selected Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin for the peace prizes for the Camp David Accords that brought peace between Israel and Egypt. Carter helped broker the deal between the two leaders. That would have been a logical time to award Carter the peace prize.

 

This year, the prize had barely been awarded when the Nobel Committee Chairman Gunnar Berge explained that the selection of Carter "should be interpreted as a criticism of the line the current [bush] administration has taken..." Like a petulant, ill-tempered child, Berge described the selection of Carter as "a kick in the leg to all that follow the same line as the United States." A couple of committee members attempted to distance themselves from this interpretation, but according the BBC, Nobel Committee member, "Gunnar Staalsett said he fully supported the chairman's remarks and agreed that the citation was indeed a criticism of Mr. Bush."

 

I'm glad that your reaction is LOLHITTING!

Mine is, too, oddly enough.

[Texsox]

Yeah, I'm serious.

 

 

 

I'm glad that your reaction is LOLHITTING!

Mine is, too, oddly enough.

Are you really this dense?

 

What you are missing is Carter is a worthy recipient, Bush is not in the eyes of the committee. They could have given it to Al Gore or Bill Clinton and really stuck it to Bush. If you will read the rest of the information on his receiving the award they looked at his body of work since leaving office, it wasn't solely on the Middle East talks.

 

The fact that the committee viewed the efforts that Carter followed as being worthy of an award, while those actions that Bush has taken are not, is not the same as saying they gave the award to Carter to stick it to Bush. They held up Carter's efforts as being noble, Bush's as not.

 

OSLO, Norway (CNN) -- Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter won the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday for what presenters cited as decades of work seeking peaceful solutions and promoting social and economic justice.

 

Carter, Democratic president from 1977 to 1981, has won praise for his tireless work as an ex-president in trying to bring peace to places from Haiti to North Korea.

 

Announcing the winner on Friday, the five-member Norwegian Nobel Committee praised Carter's decades of "untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development."

 

 

And y'all think an eighty year old man should stand up and debate, that is still laughable in my view. Reagan was too old when he left office, but you expect that from Carter.

[YASNY]

Are you really this dense?

 

What you are missing is Carter is a worthy recipient, Bush is not in the eyes of the committee. They could have given it to Al Gore or Bill Clinton and really stuck it to Bush. If you will read the rest of the information on his receiving the award they looked at his body of work since leaving office, it wasn't solely on the Middle East talks.

 

The fact that the committee viewed the efforts that Carter followed as being worthy of an award, while those actions that Bush has taken are not, is not the same as saying they gave the award to Carter to stick it to Bush. They held up Carter's efforts as being noble, Bush's as not.

 

 

And y'all think an eighty year old man should stand up and debate, that is still laughable in my view. Reagan was too old when he left office, but you expect that from Carter.

 

Good point, there.

[EvilMonkey]

And y'all think an eighty year old man should stand up and debate, that is still laughable in my view. Reagan was too old when he left office, but you expect that from Carter.

But I guess he can still write a book, go on book signings and give interviews on CNN and such, thats not as strenuous for an old man as a debate would be. Carter sets hiimself up as an expert in writing a book, gets called on it by another person, and refuses to be held accountable.

[YASNY]

But I guess he can still write a book, go on book signings and give interviews on CNN and such, thats not as strenuous for an old man as a debate would be. Carter sets hiimself up as an expert in writing a book, gets called on it by another person, and refuses to be held accountable.

 

LOL. That's another good point. I think I'll observe for a while.

[Texsox]

But I guess he can still write a book, go on book signings and give interviews on CNN and such, thats not as strenuous for an old man as a debate would be. Carter sets hiimself up as an expert in writing a book, gets called on it by another person, and refuses to be held accountable.

 

Just out of curiosity are you a big fan of Alan Dershowitz? Agree with his politics? It would seem that all of you that are calling Carter chicken must be big fans of Alan Dershowitz, hold him in the highest esteem, putting him on the same plane as a President. If a professor at Princeton challenged Carter, would the indictments be the same?

 

And at what point would Carter have to stop debating? Any and all challengers?

[EvilMonkey]

Just out of curiosity are you a big fan of Alan Dershowitz? Agree with his politics? It would seem that all of you that are calling Carter chicken must be big fans of Alan Dershowitz, hold him in the highest esteem, putting him on the same plane as a President. If a professor at Princeton challenged Carter, would the indictments be the same?

 

And at what point would Carter have to stop debating? Any and all challengers?

NOT a fan, but at this point, I would say he would know more about the situation there than carter would.

[Gregory Pratt]

Are you really this dense?

 

What you are missing is Carter is a worthy recipient, Bush is not in the eyes of the committee. They could have given it to Al Gore or Bill Clinton and really stuck it to Bush. If you will read the rest of the information on his receiving the award they looked at his body of work since leaving office, it wasn't solely on the Middle East talks.

 

Are you so dense as to ignore the chairman's words that it was a message to the President? Those were his words, not mine. Jesus Christ, mate -- first you act incredulous and smarmy in response to my claim that Carter was given the nod to spite Bush then when the chairman's own words are brought in you say, "Well, he deserved it anyway, and besides, they could've given it to Clinton or Gore to spite Bush!" which of course ignores the fact that Bush and the Clintons get along fairly well, Gore has nothing that merits Peace Prize (and Clinton is a stretch).

 

Whatever, man. Carter's Peace Prize was an award from hacks to a hack. And who gives a s*** whether or not the Peace Prize committee thinks Bush's actions are noble or not? Plenty of deserving people have never won a Peace Prize and Yasser Arafat has. Who cares about the Nobel Peace Prize, and what extra authority does it give Carter when the committee said that they were sending Bush a message with it? Screw that.

[NorthSideSox72]

Are you so dense as to ignore the chairman's words that it was a message to the President? Those were his words, not mine. Jesus Christ, mate -- first you act incredulous and smarmy in response to my claim that Carter was given the nod to spite Bush then when the chairman's own words are brought in you say, "Well, he deserved it anyway, and besides, they could've given it to Clinton or Gore to spite Bush!" which of course ignores the fact that Bush and the Clintons get along fairly well, Gore has nothing that merits Peace Prize (and Clinton is a stretch).

 

Whatever, man. Carter's Peace Prize was an award from hacks to a hack. And who gives a s*** whether or not the Peace Prize committee thinks Bush's actions are noble or not? Plenty of deserving people have never won a Peace Prize and Yasser Arafat has. Who cares about the Nobel Peace Prize, and what extra authority does it give Carter when the committee said that they were sending Bush a message with it? Screw that.

So you're saying the Nobel Peace Prize is like the Gold Glove, or the Heisman. An award no longer given for its intended reasons.

[Texsox]

Are you so dense as to ignore the chairman's words that it was a message to the President?

 

The message was Carter is worthy, you (Bush) are not. Plus you are confusing the primary reason versus an unintended or additional actions. You went on to say that Gore did nothing to deserve the prize, so I guess you would have to agree that Carter did do something? So maybe it wasn't just to send a message to Bush.

[Gregory Pratt]

So you're saying the Nobel Peace Prize is like the Gold Glove, or the Heisman. An award no longer given for its intended reasons.

 

I suppose that works. But I'm skeptical of all awards handed out by panels.

 

You went on to say that Gore did nothing to deserve the prize, so I guess you would have to agree that Carter did do something? So maybe it wasn't just to send a message to Bush.

 

There's a case for Carter...thirty years ago. Today, it isn't a "recognition" as much as a political prize.

[kapkomet]

Are you so dense as to ignore the chairman's words that it was a message to the President? Those were his words, not mine. Jesus Christ, mate -- first you act incredulous and smarmy in response to my claim that Carter was given the nod to spite Bush then when the chairman's own words are brought in you say, "Well, he deserved it anyway, and besides, they could've given it to Clinton or Gore to spite Bush!" which of course ignores the fact that Bush and the Clintons get along fairly well, Gore has nothing that merits Peace Prize (and Clinton is a stretch).

 

Whatever, man. Carter's Peace Prize was an award from hacks to a hack. And who gives a s*** whether or not the Peace Prize committee thinks Bush's actions are noble or not? Plenty of deserving people have never won a Peace Prize and Yasser Arafat has. Who cares about the Nobel Peace Prize, and what extra authority does it give Carter when the committee said that they were sending Bush a message with it? Screw that.

I actually agree with you. :shudders: