The World According To Jimmy Carter

LoneStarMadam wrote:

At least this thread has stayed on topic for the most part, that's a change.
I do believe that Carter is an anti-Semite, not out of meaness, but he likes to be for the underdog, ususlly only liberal underdogs, but none-the-less, underdogs. The Palestinnain leaders are a vicious people & teach their countrymen & kids to hate Israelis & most in the west, I don't see how anybody can deny that. However, because the palestinnians have portrayed themselves as homeless & their land stolesn, Jimmy has bought it. Again, he was one of the worst, most ineffective presidents we have ever had the misfortune to vote into office. I applaud his habitat for humanity, that's all IMO, that he's ever done that's positive.

Well, apart from rising deficits, unacceptable interest rates, double digit inflation, and decimation of our military and the stock market under Carter, he did in fact do some commendable things. The agency I ran benefitted enormously under his community grant program and provided seed money for some programs that provided significant benefits to folks who otherwise wouldn't have had them. (One was the starter fund for the Domestic Violence Association of Central Kansas.) He also had a work incentive program that let me hire a lot of the kids that used to sit on the front walk, roll smokes (I HOPE with tobacco) and hang out all day doing nothing. He did broker a peace deal between Egypt and Israel. Also we can't blame him for everything that happened on his watch as some of it resulted from decisions made prior to his watch just as George Bush has inherited some problems from the Clinton administration and before.

But he does have this passion that pretty well exhonerates Palestine and its leaders from any criticism from him or excuses their behavior, and it sure seems difficult for him to focus on much that is good about Israel.

Dartagnan wrote:

LSM, thy hypocrisy is truly impressive!

In another thread you defamed a Seattle rabbi as a Grinch because he wanted a menorah at the airport, yet here you are calling Carter an anti-Semite. Have you no shame?

Dartagen-thy ignorance knows no bounds.
Had you read the article, you'd know that it wasn't I that called him a grinch, but the title of the article dubbed him a grinch.

LoneStarMadam wrote:

Dartagnan wrote:

LSM, thy hypocrisy is truly impressive!

In another thread you defamed a Seattle rabbi as a Grinch because he wanted a menorah at the airport, yet here you are calling Carter an anti-Semite. Have you no shame?

Dartagen-thy ignorance knows no bounds.
Had you read the article, you'd know that it wasn't I that called him a grinch, but the title of the article dubbed him a grinch.

You titled your thread "Rabbi a Grinch" even though the article you posted made it clear he wasn't. Quit your dishonesty if you want to be taken seriously here.

Foxfyre wrote:

See? No discussion or speculation is allowed of the opinions of those who report on a book they have read. To do so is 'parroting others accusations'. I wonder if you criticize those who discuss George W. Bush or Donald Rumsfield or other more conservative figures with as much enthusiasm when they are accused without substantiation?

I wonder if you ever get tired of this rhetoric. We're not talking about discussion or speculation, we're talking about accepting someone else's analysis of a book you haven't read when that someone is likely to have or clearly does have a bias. And having accepted it, repeating it as if it is fact, even going further in condemnation at times than the person who wrote the review.

And who am I to tell you what you are and are not allowed to do? Feel free, but expect to be challenged.

Quote:

I don't have any problem with Jimmy Carter basing some observations on his religious faith. You have said that you do.

No, I said I have a knee-jerk revulsion when I hear it.

Quote:

Quote:

Based on your take on this, is it not inappropriate for you to speculate or assume anything of his intentions re that?

Well, the parts I was speaking about are the parts of the book that I read so, even though I haven't speculated as to his motives I could do so. But it would still be speculation. If I accused him of being anti-semitic because of it, that's not speculation.

I haven't accused him of anti-semitism. Some making book reviews have. It is the book reviews vs the book being discussed. Would you care to outline some 'rules of debate' here as to what might be speculated on and what might not? And if there are any personalities to which the rules should not apply?

Quote:

But to accuse those discussing a book review of a popular political figure of malfeasance or some other icky term because they use the words the reviewers use is a bit extreme in itself.

What I'm accusing you of doing is parroting someone else's opinion about a book you haven't read, and I find the practice of doing so unseemly, though I guess "icky" works too. I believe I said that was "my opinion". But here is what I'm talking about.

Foxfyre wrote:

But to stay with the integrity of the thread, when we say Jimmy Carter was no great shakes as a President and that he is either extremely dishonest or extremely ignorant in much of what he says in his new book, that's exactly what we mean too. And it is opinion just as is our opinon re the best place in the world to live.

Foxfyre wrote:

That is the implication I got from Dershowitz commenting on Carter's book; and, knowing something of the history of Israel, Palestine, etc., I think Dershowitz is telling it exactly as it is. Stein went further to say that much of the book was also factually incorrect.

Foxfyre wrote:

I won't dispute that Carter has a right to be heard. I think, though, it is fair game to question whether something disingenuous or incompetent 'deserves' to be heard.

Foxfyre wrote:

He probably is a very decent man. But a rewrite of history born out of anti-Israeli or worse, anti-Semitism, is not a decent act.

So, how do we solve this seeming contradiction -- that a decent man would commit an indecent act? Hmm, well Dershowitz says he did so it must be so.

Quote:

I maintain that Jimmy Carter is a former President of the United States, he is still entitled to the title, he actively inserts himself into current affairs of state, and he is as fair game for criticism as any other political figure. To declare him off limits while heaping all matter of criticism and accusations on others just doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Nobody declared him off limits. You are entitled to your opinions about other people's opinions and everything else under the sun, and I am entitled to ridicule the way you arrive at your conclusions.

Foxfyre wrote:

LoneStarMadam wrote:

At least this thread has stayed on topic for the most part, that's a change.
I do believe that Carter is an anti-Semite, not out of meaness, but he likes to be for the underdog, ususlly only liberal underdogs, but none-the-less, underdogs. The Palestinnain leaders are a vicious people & teach their countrymen & kids to hate Israelis & most in the west, I don't see how anybody can deny that. However, because the palestinnians have portrayed themselves as homeless & their land stolesn, Jimmy has bought it. Again, he was one of the worst, most ineffective presidents we have ever had the misfortune to vote into office. I applaud his habitat for humanity, that's all IMO, that he's ever done that's positive.

Well, apart from rising deficits, unacceptable interest rates, double digit inflation, and decimation of our military and the stock market under Carter, he did in fact do some commendable things. The agency I ran benefitted enormously under his community grant program and provided seed money for some programs that provided significant benefits to folks who otherwise wouldn't have had them. (One was the starter fund for the Domestic Violence Association of Central Kansas.) He also had a work incentive program that let me hire a lot of the kids that used to sit on the front walk, roll smokes (I HOPE with tobacco) and hang out all day doing nothing. He did broker a peace deal between Egypt and Israel. Also we can't blame him for everything that happened on his watch as some of it resulted from decisions made prior to his watch just as George Bush has inherited some problems from the Clinton administration and before.

But he does have this passion that pretty well exhonerates Palestine and its leaders from any criticism from him or excuses their behavior, and it sure seems difficult for him to focus on much that is good about Israel.

Isn't he also responsible for US Dept of Ed? What a boondoggle that is. As I've said before, we were overseas for his WH tour of duty & him as C-n-C sucked.

LoneStarMadam wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

LoneStarMadam wrote:

At least this thread has stayed on topic for the most part, that's a change.
I do believe that Carter is an anti-Semite, not out of meaness, but he likes to be for the underdog, ususlly only liberal underdogs, but none-the-less, underdogs. The Palestinnain leaders are a vicious people & teach their countrymen & kids to hate Israelis & most in the west, I don't see how anybody can deny that. However, because the palestinnians have portrayed themselves as homeless & their land stolesn, Jimmy has bought it. Again, he was one of the worst, most ineffective presidents we have ever had the misfortune to vote into office. I applaud his habitat for humanity, that's all IMO, that he's ever done that's positive.

Well, apart from rising deficits, unacceptable interest rates, double digit inflation, and decimation of our military and the stock market under Carter, he did in fact do some commendable things. The agency I ran benefitted enormously under his community grant program and provided seed money for some programs that provided significant benefits to folks who otherwise wouldn't have had them. (One was the starter fund for the Domestic Violence Association of Central Kansas.) He also had a work incentive program that let me hire a lot of the kids that used to sit on the front walk, roll smokes (I HOPE with tobacco) and hang out all day doing nothing. He did broker a peace deal between Egypt and Israel. Also we can't blame him for everything that happened on his watch as some of it resulted from decisions made prior to his watch just as George Bush has inherited some problems from the Clinton administration and before.

But he does have this passion that pretty well exhonerates Palestine and its leaders from any criticism from him or excuses their behavior, and it sure seems difficult for him to focus on much that is good about Israel.

Isn't he also responsible for US Dept of Ed? What a boondoggle that is. As I've said before, we were overseas for his WH tour of duty & him as C-n-C sucked.

Yes, the Department of Education was his invention and it has been pretty darn destructive to education as well as being a huge money pit. And yes, he was abominable as Commander in Chief, and all his other negatives outweighed the positives for sure. I just think a man deserves to have the positives pointed out along with the negatives.

Dartagnan wrote:

LoneStarMadam wrote:

Dartagnan wrote:

LSM, thy hypocrisy is truly impressive!

In another thread you defamed a Seattle rabbi as a Grinch because he wanted a menorah at the airport, yet here you are calling Carter an anti-Semite. Have you no shame?

Dartagen-thy ignorance knows no bounds.
Had you read the article, you'd know that it wasn't I that called him a grinch, but the title of the article dubbed him a grinch.

You titled your thread "Rabbi a Grinch" even though the article you posted made it clear he wasn't. Quit your dishonesty if you want to be taken seriously here.

Still haven't read the article huh. There are many links that call the rabbi a grinch, you don't like it, too bad. I don't write the stuff, I just piost the articles. Are you always so thin skinned?

LoneStarMadam wrote:

Dartagnan wrote:

LoneStarMadam wrote:

Dartagnan wrote:

LSM, thy hypocrisy is truly impressive!

In another thread you defamed a Seattle rabbi as a Grinch because he wanted a menorah at the airport, yet here you are calling Carter an anti-Semite. Have you no shame?

Dartagen-thy ignorance knows no bounds.
Had you read the article, you'd know that it wasn't I that called him a grinch, but the title of the article dubbed him a grinch.

You titled your thread "Rabbi a Grinch" even though the article you posted made it clear he wasn't. Quit your dishonesty if you want to be taken seriously here.

Still haven't read the article huh. There are many links that call the rabbi a grinch, you don't like it, too bad. I don't write the stuff, I just piost the articles. Are you always so thin skinned?

Actually, I did read the article as well as others in the local press. I even watched O'Reilly interview the rabbi. No one, except the hate mailers, called him a Grinch. Several other posters debunked your smear, but you never replied. You cut and ran.

I was discussing talking about the thesis of this thread which after all is somebody else's opinion about Jimmy Carter's book. You are the one who has objected to anybody agreeing or repeating anything in the book reviews or commentary or, mercy, adding their own opinion to the mix. And challenging a person's opinion with a rebuttal is far different than personally accusing the person offering the opinion. And if I recall accurately, you went much further than challenging. You told me to stop saying it.

Foxfyre wrote:

He probably is a very decent man. But a rewrite of history born out of anti-Israeli or worse, anti-Semitism, is not a decent act.

Please support these accusations or I have to beg you to stop making them.

No, I don't feel free. If you offered a rebuttal to my posts so that we were actually debating the subject, I would feel free.

But it doesn't contribute anything to the thread or any kind of interesting exercise when the person offering a point of view is not rebutted, but is personally criticized.

Quote:

Quote:

I don't have any problem with Jimmy Carter basing some observations on his religious faith. You have said that you do.

No, I said I have a knee-jerk revulsion when I hear it.

Oh well that's very different than actually saying you have a problem with it. My apologies.

I haven't accused him of anti-semitism. Some making book reviews have. It is the book reviews vs the book being discussed. Would you care to outline some 'rules of debate' here as to what might be speculated on and what might not? And if there are any personalities to which the rules should not apply?

But to accuse those discussing a book review of a popular political figure of malfeasance or some other icky term because they use the words the reviewers use is a bit extreme in itself.

So I take from this that you have no intention of discussing the topic but will continue to focus on the manner in which I choose to discuss it. That's certainly your prerogative. But it sure makes for poor debate.

Dartagnan wrote:

LoneStarMadam wrote:

Dartagnan wrote:

LoneStarMadam wrote:

Dartagnan wrote:

LSM, thy hypocrisy is truly impressive!

In another thread you defamed a Seattle rabbi as a Grinch because he wanted a menorah at the airport, yet here you are calling Carter an anti-Semite. Have you no shame?

Dartagen-thy ignorance knows no bounds.
Had you read the article, you'd know that it wasn't I that called him a grinch, but the title of the article dubbed him a grinch.

You titled your thread "Rabbi a Grinch" even though the article you posted made it clear he wasn't. Quit your dishonesty if you want to be taken seriously here.

Still haven't read the article huh. There are many links that call the rabbi a grinch, you don't like it, too bad. I don't write the stuff, I just piost the articles. Are you always so thin skinned?

Actually, I did read the article as well as others in the local press. I even watched O'Reilly interview the rabbi. No one, except the hate mailers, called him a Grinch. Several other posters debunked your smear, but you never replied. You cut and ran.

So why aren't you posting this on THAT thread instead of this one? Is there something in the water that liberals drink that makes them unable to focus on a topic and debate the TOPIC instead of the motives, character, methodology etc. of those debating the opposing position?

Foxfyre wrote:

Dartagnan wrote:

LoneStarMadam wrote:

Dartagnan wrote:

LoneStarMadam wrote:

Dartagnan wrote:

LSM, thy hypocrisy is truly impressive!

In another thread you defamed a Seattle rabbi as a Grinch because he wanted a menorah at the airport, yet here you are calling Carter an anti-Semite. Have you no shame?

Dartagen-thy ignorance knows no bounds.
Had you read the article, you'd know that it wasn't I that called him a grinch, but the title of the article dubbed him a grinch.

You titled your thread "Rabbi a Grinch" even though the article you posted made it clear he wasn't. Quit your dishonesty if you want to be taken seriously here.

Still haven't read the article huh. There are many links that call the rabbi a grinch, you don't like it, too bad. I don't write the stuff, I just piost the articles. Are you always so thin skinned?

Actually, I did read the article as well as others in the local press. I even watched O'Reilly interview the rabbi. No one, except the hate mailers, called him a Grinch. Several other posters debunked your smear, but you never replied. You cut and ran.

So why aren't you posting this on THAT thread instead of this one? Is there something in the water that liberals drink that makes them unable to focus on a topic and debate the TOPIC instead of the motives, character, methodology etc. of those debating the opposing position?

I have posted on that thread. I'm raising the issue here because LSM is making accusations re Carter as an anti-Semite while her own anti-Semitism is revealed in the other thread. If you consider this irrelevant, so be it.

I just want to say that I'm baffled at how the american liberal vs. conservative construct even applies here. There is nothing about this topic that aligns easily with liberal or conservative and seems to have almost nothing to do with political preferences.

This may be the first occasion I've had to agree with you on something, LSM. Now if I could just get the words "lone star madman" out of my head when I read your screen name.

It doesn't bother me, I just have a bad habit of reading things incorrectly and humorously. I even started a thread about it. The Truth About Vietnamese Vets