The World According To Jimmy Carter

You know, I had this same problem for awhile LSM. Look at my signature line. It fixed most issues.

Foxfyre wrote:

In due respect OE, do you wish to be held personally to the standard you just imposed on LSM?

Generally, yes, I wish to be held to this standard. I would at least clarify my point after someone asks my about it, and make clear whether I was just stating my opinion, or citing facts and would probably provide links for that.

Foxfyre wrote:

I, like MSM, believe the United States is the best place in the world to live.

No problem with that. You'll notice the difference between your statement and LSM's statement, though.

Foxfyre wrote:

But a statement affirming a personal preference I think we can let slide without corrupting the integrity of the forum.

I was commenting on LSM's statement after she had posted that she has seen many countries, and that she knew the USA were the best country in the world.

I could probably find a lot of quotes of yours in which you made proclamations expressed as fact without prefacing it with IMO.

But can you back up your assertion here by showing links to your posts that you hold everybody else to the same standard you expect of MSM? Or is it just those you disagree with that are required to conform to your standard?

I could have just as easily said "I know it is the best place to live", but then I am not as widely traveled as MSM.

Well, while not as widely traveled as MSM I have been some places other than the USA. I KNOW the USA is a better place to live (for me) than any of those based on that experience and some of those places were quite beautiful with quite nice amenities. I strongly expect I would not change my mind if I were able to visit the rest of the world as well.

But if you wish to be equitable and fair here, you will criticize that member for making an unsubstantiated statement of fact though I expect it is one you agree with.

cicerone imposter wrote:

The US falls way down in the Best Place To Live scale.
http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/QUALITY_OF_LIFE.pdf

Your link doesn't work.
Do you know of another country that people are literally willing to die to get into?

LoneStarMadam wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

The US falls way down in the Best Place To Live scale.
http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/QUALITY_OF_LIFE.pdf

Your link doesn't work.
Do you know of another country that people are literally willing to die to get into?

Spain, France, just about any European country. African migrants routinely drown in the Strait of Gibraltar.

Most people are not free to go and live in another country when their own country doesn't suite them, at least not without significant risk, so the idea that one must leave their country of residence if they don't think it is the best place on earth to live is ridiculous, and flies in the face of some peoples ideas on immigration into the US.

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 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:

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 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.

Which you are entitled to and others are entitled to challenge. I haven't seen anyone on this site who is so critical of Carter (dishonest and ignorant are very strong words to use against someone without backup) actually fess up to having read the book. I confess that I haven't read it either, though I have it and intend to. Based on what I have read and what has been summarized, I don't see what all the fuss is about.

And I got your point, I just don't buy it.

The Dershowitz piece (I posted yesterday I think) very clearly outlines the many problems of fact/integrity he found with the book. And as a registered Democrat and former enthusiastic Carter supporter who nobody would accuse of being any kind of right wing nut, he certainly was not writing out of any conservative or anti-Democrat or anti-Carter bias.

Foxfyre wrote:

The Dershowitz piece (I posted yesterday I think) very clearly outlines the many problems of fact/integrity he found with the book. And as a registered Democrat and former enthusiastic Carter supporter who nobody would accuse of being any kind of right wing nut, he certainly was not writing out of any conservative or anti-Democrat or anti-Carter bias.

How about a pro-Israel bias?

I've read his piece and what I get from it is that he doesn't like the book because it's not a complete history of the region as Dershowitz would have written it. Well, it's not trying to be a complete history of the region. The book is about life in the occupied territories, a fact that many pro-Israel reviewers don't seem to grasp. There is no backup in his piece or any other that I've seen posted of Carter's "dishonesty" or "ignorance". Only allegations that he failed to properly weight his criticism with the typical pro-Israel justifications that we so often see in writings about the region.

Well, I won't presume to speak for anybody but myself, but I consider it dishonest to intentionally omit facts necessary to present an accurate account of an event or situation especially when condemning the actions or words of somebody else.

And anybody who would not know to include such facts in a presumed authoritative history would certainly be ignorant.

Foxfyre wrote:

Well, I won't presume to speak for anybody but myself, but I consider it dishonest to intentionally omit facts necessary to present an accurate account of an event or situation especially when condemning the actions or words of somebody else.

(I'm saving this quote for later use.)

But here again, you're taking Dershowitz's word for it that he is actually condeming someone else's actions or words and he is actually omitting facts necessary to present an accurate account. It's all very subjective.

Quote:

And anybody who would not know to include such facts in a presumed authoritative history would certainly be ignorant.

Why do you and others insist on presuming his book to be an authoritative history?

ATLANTA (AP) -- Former President Jimmy Carter Friday defended his harsh criticism of Israeli policy in his latest book.

Speaking at The Carter Center, Carter said he hopes to erode the "impenetrable wall" that blocks the American public from seeing the plight of Palestinians.

The top-selling book -- "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid" -- has been criticized by pro-Israel groups and led to the resignation of Kenneth Stein, a Carter Center fellow and a longtime adviser to the former president.

Carter said he intended the book to provoke debate on Israeli policy that has been stifled by the news media and others, who he says have been "almost unanimously silent."

The book follows the Israeli-Palestinian peace process starting with Carter's 1977-to-1980 presidency and the peace accord he negotiated between Israel and Egypt.

It doles out blame to Israel, the Palestinians, the U.S. and others, but is most critical of Israeli policy.

Stein, an Emory University professor, sent a letter to Carter claiming the book was one-sided and full of factual errors.

Carter said Friday that Stein hadn't played a role in the Carter Center in 13 years and that his post as a fellow was an honorary title.

He also said his book was double-checked by Carter Center staff as well as an unnamed "distinguished" reporter

No. I am using Dershowitz's words because they effectively condense some of the major problems with Jimmy Carter's book. Dershowitz has obviously read the book. You have said that you have not.

You apparently haven't been following CNN, Fox, MSNBC, and other who have shown clips of Carter saying that it was or at least making that implication.

I'm not sure what you're trying to show me with that last quote (that wasn't there when I replied). Are you making the point that Carter had his book fact checked and is asserting that it is accurate?

There is a difference between being historically accurate and being an "authoritative history", but you know that.

Foxfyre wrote:

No. I am using Dershowitz's words because they effectively condense some of the major problems with Jimmy Carter's book. Dershowitz has obviously read the book. You have said that you have not.

And you also have said that you have not read the book, so how would you know if his words "effectively condense some of the major problems" with the book? The fact is that his review is extremely subjective and as such cannot be taken as a factual dispute of Carter's actual points in the book. For instance, Dershowitz doesn't claim that there is not apartheid in the occupied territories, only that it doesn't exist inside the state of Israel (debatable, but conceded by Carter so I won't argue) and that Carter says it isn't based on race. Well, nobody said that the only basis for apartheid is race. Yet he insists that the title is "indecent". He doesn't claim that Carter isn't right about the plight of the Palestinians and the pathway to peace, only that he didn't properly absolve Israel of any responsibility for the situation. Dershowitz clearly has a very strong pro-Israel bias, so why should I or anyone else jump on his bandwagon without having read the book?.

And I get really tired of those who think a Jew or one who is pro-Israel is incapable of objectively reciting and/or defending his/her own history too. You might as well say that I who was born and raised in the USA and am very pro-American cannot provide any kind of objective analysis of my own nation's history or any of my own ancestry. And let's be sure that we don't accept anything Walter or Thomas or OE tell us about Germany or believe anybody from Canada or the UK know anything about their history either.

(Sorry for that last rant, but that is a red herring that really bugs me.)

I agree that he is saying he had is book checked and is accurate, and I don't think anyone is claiming that it is inaccurate (except Stein). The claim is that he didn't give "enough of the facts" meaning he didn't delve far enough back into history to properly absolve Israel of all responsibility. It's the same argument Hamas might make -- that someone reporting on a suicide bombing neglected to mention the fact that the IDF had just leveled an apartment building full of sleeping families. It's an argument not entirely without merit, but useless in the current environment where the facts on what is going on in the occupied territories are very rarely reported in context or at all.

Something purporting to be an authoritative history is claiming to be a complete account of the history of a given subject and the authority on that subject in that historical context. At least that's what I take it to mean. If you've read any of his book you'd know it reads like a memoir, not a history book.