NationStates Jolt Archive

Jimmy Carter must have got a knock on the head. Or is he really a Christian neocon underneath?

Former President Jimmy Carter yesterday condemned all abortions and chastised his party for its intolerance of candidates and nominees who oppose abortion.
"I never have felt that any abortion should be committed -- I think each abortion is the result of a series of errors," he told reporters over breakfast at the Ritz-CarltonHotel, while across town Senate Democrats deliberated whether to filibuster the nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. because he may share President Bush and Mr. Carter's abhorrence of abortion.
"These things impact other issues on which [Mr. Bush] and I basically agree," the Georgia Democrat said. "I've never been convinced, if you let me inject my Christianity into it, that Jesus Christ would approve abortion."
Mr. Carter said his party's congressional leadership only hurts Democrats by making a rigid pro-abortion rights stand the criterion for assessing judicial nominees.
"I have always thought it was not in the mainstream of the American public to be extremely liberal on many issues," Mr. Carter said. "I think our party's leaders -- some of them -- are overemphasizing the abortion issue."

Carter has always been a religious person, and he's proven it through his actions, particularly since he lost re-election, but he's missing one very important point. There's plenty of room for and tolerance for pro-life politicians in the Democratic party--the Senate Minority leader is opposed to abortion, for instance. If we were so intolerant, would he be in that position of power? Don't think so.

And by the way, as a matter of courtesy, if you're going to post stuff like this, can you at least provide a source for the entire story?

Way to omit the harsh criticisms Carter has towards the religious right, Sierra.

OMG, a NS conservative only posting half a story without a link in order to support their twisted view of reality? No way!

"I've never been convinced, if you let me inject my Christianity into it, that Jesus Christ would approve abortion."
Who gives a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut what Jesus would approve?

Who voted Jesus as president? :rolleyes:

This guy always was a loser and he still is.

Way to omit the harsh criticisms Carter has towards the religious right, Sierra.

OMG, a NS conservative only posting half a story without a link in order to support their twisted view of reality? No way!
The story comes from the Washington Times, which I trust about as much as I trust Fox News (or Corneliu, but I repeat myself :D (joke!)). It's possible that Carter said exactly what he's quoted as saying--it's equally possible he's being quoted way out of context.

Who gives a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut what Jesus would approve?
Jesus would approve of being nailed . . . to a tree.

The story comes from the Washington Times, which I trust about as much as I trust Fox News (or Corneliu, but I repeat myself :D (joke!)). It's possible that Carter said exactly what he's quoted as saying--it's equally possible he's being quoted way out of context.

Indeed, but based on what I've been seeing Carter talk about in the last week, he seems rather upset at the hijacking of Christianity by the religious right.

Way to omit the harsh criticisms Carter has towards the religious right, Sierra.

OMG, a NS conservative only posting half a story without a link in order to support their twisted view of reality? No way!

Considering that most of the Left on this forum answer most arguments with one of the following:
1. OMFG, you're so funny!
2. OMFG, you are a Bush lover!
3. OMFG, you are so evil for saying that!
4. OMFG, nothing that comes from <fill in the blank> is ever, ever true.

And occasionally from a few posters,
5. OMFG, you are a Jew lover!
6. OMFG, you are a Christian!
7. OMFG, you are an American!


I can count on one hand the number of posters on the Left who
a) even attempt a cogent argument
and
b) ever post a link that actually supports what they are saying

Considering that most of the Left on this forum answer most arguments with one of the following:
1. OMFG, you're so funny!
2. OMFG, you are a Bush lover!
3. OMFG, you are so evil for saying that!
4. OMFG, nothing that comes from <fill in the blank> is ever, ever true.

And occasionally from a few posters,
5. OMFG, you are a Jew lover!
6. OMFG, you are a Christian!
7. OMFG, you are an American!


I can count on one hand the number of posters on the Left who
a) even attempt a cogent argument
and
b) ever post a link that actually supports what they are saying


You KNOW I support my arguments and link when I have something to say.

I can count on one hand the number of posters on the Left who
a) even attempt a cogent argument
and
b) ever post a link that actually supports what they are saying
I just want to know which finger I am. :D

I just want to know which finger I am. :D

I have a feeling that both you and I are represented by the longest digit.

You KNOW I support my arguments and link when I have something to say.

Here's a good one for you to start on.

Unlike you, I listen to a variety of news sources - from Pacifica Radio News to Fox News. I also read a large number of blogs and other collated sources from the left, right, and overseas.

I read around 5000 words per minute.

Unlike you, I do not discount a news source and reduce its value by 100% because it appears "political" or "biased". Many people have made that claim about virtually every news source, from Pacifica to Fox.

So I try to see what's missing. Sure, everyone covers the big stories, to almost the same level of detail, in the same order of discovery, and the only thing that differs is the spin - and they all spin.

But...

I find that there are days when no news agency in the US prints or broadcasts international events that are broadcast on BBC World.

I find that there are complete events and quotes that occur - and can be verified later, that are published by a single news outlet (right, left, or center) and not appear in the others.

This does not automatically make them untrue, or out of context. If you were to read the Washington Times article, you would note that his comments came out several different times in several different ways - so it would be hard to argue "out of context".

Carter is also a fairly straightforward, simple speaker. Not a man prone to flowery language and run-on sentences.

The news to me is where I find the differences - if everyone is covering the same story the same way with the same facts, it's not news.

Here's a good one for you to start on.

Unlike you, I listen to a variety of news sources - from Pacifica Radio News to Fox News. I also read a large number of blogs and other collated sources from the left, right, and overseas.

I read around 5000 words per minute.

Unlike you, I do not discount a news source and reduce its value by 100% because it appears "political" or "biased". Many people have made that claim about virtually every news source, from Pacifica to Fox.

So I try to see what's missing. Sure, everyone covers the big stories, to almost the same level of detail, in the same order of discovery, and the only thing that differs is the spin - and they all spin.

But...

I find that there are days when no news agency in the US prints or broadcasts international events that are broadcast on BBC World.

I find that there are complete events and quotes that occur - and can be verified later, that are published by a single news outlet (right, left, or center) and not appear in the others.

This does not automatically make them untrue, or out of context. If you were to read the Washington Times article, you would note that his comments came out several different times in several different ways - so it would be hard to argue "out of context".

Carter is also a fairly straightforward, simple speaker. Not a man prone to flowery language and run-on sentences.

The news to me is where I find the differences - if everyone is covering the same story the same way with the same facts, it's not news.

Sierra, your stated assumptions about me are pure and unadulterated bullshit and you know it. I also find your assertion that you read 5,000 words a minute to be laughable.

For a more complete version of Carter's opinion on abortion, try reading his interview on LArry King this week.

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0511/02/lkl.01.html


KING: What are your thoughts on the nomination of Samuel Alito to the high court?

CARTER: I don't know anything about him. He was named by President Bush right before I started traveling on this book tour and I haven't heard much about him. I think there's going to be a hard fight about it. My prediction is that he's going to be confirmed as the next justice of the Supreme Court. I'm not personally, as I mentioned in my book, I'm not all that concerned about the issue of abortion.

KING: Why?

CARTER: Well, Larry, I'm different from some people. I'm a Christian and I never have been able to believe that Jesus Christ would approve abortions unless the mother's life or health was directly threatened or perhaps if the pregnancy was a result of rape or incest.

I think we ought to minimize abortions and I tried to do this when I was president. I was operating under Roe v. Wade ruling of the Supreme Court but I did everything possible to minimize the number of abortions when I was in the White House.

And I would say one of the key things is resulting from what women say when they have an abortion. Two-thirds of them maintain that they are having an abortion because they cannot afford to support another child.

So, we created the Women's and Infant Children Program, which is called the WIC Program, W-I-C Program and we expedited adoptions and we gave instruction to young people, health training and so forth, on what caused pregnancy so they could avoid unnecessary pregnancy if they decided to have extramarital affairs which I don't think they ought to have but they're going to have them. So, we can minimize abortions without being open with them.

KING: Are you saying, Mr. President, you would favor the overturning of Roe v. Wade?

CARTER: I didn't say that. I think Roe v. Wade, if interpreted very strictly, is OK in our country but for instance late term abortions I cannot at all accept that as a proper thing to do and under Roe v. Wade we could greatly minimize the number of abortions in this country if we took the actions that I just described.


So he is not for overturning Roe V Wade, but he doesn't generally agree with abortion. Frankly that is very much in line with most people who are pro-choice. It's not something they really WANT to see happen, but they aren't for making it illegal.

His views on religion vs science in that interview puts no doubt on how he feels about ramming ID into science class either.

I also find your assertion that you read 5,000 words a minute to be laughable.

Laugh all you like. I'm the one who reads two legal boxes of depositions in an hour, and can abstract the key parts into a paper in another hour.

I do this ALL the time. I have eidetic memory - something that should have slipped away when I was a child. It was extremely useful when I was in the Army.

I can count on one hand the number of posters on the Left who
a) even attempt a cogent argument
and
b) ever post a link that actually supports what they are saying

Wow man you must be a freak to have so many fingers.

Wow man you must be a freak to have so many fingers.

You must be a freak to not understand written English.

I said, "count the number of posters"
not "count the types of posters"

Big difference, and it makes your attempt at a joke look ill.

Laugh all you like. I'm the one who reads two legal boxes of depositions in an hour, and can abstract the key parts into a paper in another hour.

I do this ALL the time. I have eidetic memory - something that should have slipped away when I was a child. It was extremely useful when I was in the Army.

Well, then, you should have no problem finding and posting a good study/article/argument on my global warming thread, since no one else seems able to do so.

Well, then, you should have no problem finding and posting a good study/article/argument on my global warming thread, since no one else seems able to do so.

I would like you, in turn, to compare and contrast as many news sources as possible on a mix of stories - see who doesn't cover the story at all, and come up with a reason why. See who covers it differently (if at all), and try to explain why. And see who covers a story that no one else covers, and try to explain why.

And don't assume that just because it's the New York Times, CBS, or even Fox News that it's the truth. Just don't assume automatically that it's a lie or distortion.