NationStates Jolt Archive

As opposed to Bush, who's just bought and paid for with oil money. Or Blair, who's bought and paid for by any old fool with a bank account *cough Bernie Ecclestone cough*, or indeed any other politician.

Because NO politician EVER is corrupt!!!!!!!!1! :p

Oh, I'm not saying the others are pure either.

Just saying that what comes out of Carter's mouth is also paid for.

But, the economy has done far better under Bush than it did under Carter.

You know what I find funny? During Clinton's era, when the economy was booming, the neo-cons were shouting "economies take a long time to adjust, the acts of a president don't affect the economy during his term!" and that the good economy under clinton was really the work of bush sr. and regan

And we heard the same things, in reverse, when the economy under bush Jr. tanked. It's not his fault, we're feeling the effects of clinton! So clinton good economy, all glory to his predecessors the republicans. Bush bad economy, all blame to the prior, democratic president.

Except now the economy is recovering. Sorry folks, can't have your cake and eat it too. Either presidents can affect economies in their terms, or they can not.

If Bush gets credit for the growing economy, he gets credit for the economy going into the crapper a few years ago.

If however the economies react slowly, then clinton gets the credit for this, and the blame for the bad economy of the carter era falls squarely on ford.

If however the economies react slowly, then clinton gets the credit for this, and the blame for the bad economy of the carter era falls squarely on ford.

And to a greater extent, Nixon.

And to a greater extent, Nixon.

true, although nixon has already been so villified in american conciousness that it's almost a gimme for the republican party

"OK, we'll let you pin the carter era bad economy on Nixon, nobody likes him anyway, but in return we get to continue to felate regan's zombie penis and credit him with the clinton boom economy"

true, although nixon has already been so villified in american conciousness that it's almost a gimme for the republican party

Actually, according to research that I have done, most people did not want Nixon gone at all though they knew he was guilty.

Actually, according to research that I have done, most people did not want Nixon gone at all though they knew he was guilty.

That must've been the Encyclopedia Republicana you were leafing through...

I'm sure his son was a great improvement as well. The like father like son is unfortunately sadly understated here.

It's inaccurate. We should wish GWB was more like his father. We'd have a better president. You may not love GHWB, but he was a damn sight better than what we have now. I haven't met many who would argue otherwise.

Oh, I'm not saying the others are pure either.

Fair enough.

Just saying that what comes out of Carter's mouth is also paid for.

But... he's a politician... isn't that taken as read?

Actually, I've found that politicians with no career any more tend to speak Teh Troot more often than not, even if they are paid to do it.

*shrugs* Usually I'd agree, but in this case I think the christian sects should've said something. Because they didn't, many members of other sects felt semi-compelled to vote for him just because he was seemingly surrounded by all this positive christian praise.

Again, I realize I'm tarbrushing here, but I think in this context it's necessary.

Again, just an excuse for bigotry and no different than the excuses made all to frequently by the Anti-Muslims. I don't excuse. Your argument is not compelling and I can't think of ANY reason why I would be responsible for others because they happen to use the name "Christian" in a way I completely and entirely disagree with. I'm also not responsible for other white people, other blue-eyed people, other people who grew up in Chicagoland, other people who like banana cake, or any of million other things that put me in groups with people not of my choosing. To ask me to answer for others is bigotry. In doing so, you treat me not as an individual as any reasonable person should and would do.

You hold me responsible for the actions of others and I will not answer for them. Tarbrushing is synonymous with bigotry.

But... he's a politician... isn't that taken as read?

For many people, no.

Actually, I've found that politicians with no career any more tend to speak Teh Troot more often than not, even if they are paid to do it.

While it's true that Bush sucks, on a foreign policy level, and on a "religion sticking in your face" level, his economic policies are quite evidently far superior to anything Carter could think of.

Again, just an excuse for bigotry and no different than the excuses made all to frequently by the Anti-Muslims. I don't excuse. Your argument is not compelling and I can't think of ANY reason why I would be responsible for others because they happen to use the name "Christian" in a way I completely and entirely disagree with. I'm also not responsible for other white people, other blue-eyed people, other people who grew up in Chicagoland, other people who like banana cake, or any of million other things that put me in groups with people not of my choosing. To ask me to answer for others is bigotry. In doing so, you treat me not as an individual as any reasonable person should and would do.

You hold me responsible for the actions of others and I will not answer for them. Tarbrushing is synonymous with bigotry.

Go on and shrug for us, Atlas. Take a load off and mingle with the little people for a spell.

Go on and shrug for us, Atlas. Take a load off and mingle with the little people for a spell.

See, I do this weird thing where I speak for me. Since he's talking about how we Christians, a group I'm necessarily a part of, are responsible for the actions of others, I would be hypocritical to speak for more than myself. See how that works. Oddly, your suggestion here is for me to create the same fallacy he is. Amusingly, it's not as if I should ignore it either since he's complaining about precisely that. So I point out his fallacy and move on.

Slipping off the particular issue, and making it broader, don't you think as individuals who are supposed to support the idea of respecting individuals as, you know, individuals rather than as being a part of overly broad groups, that we should be embarrassed when we do the same thing? How can one say that DK or DDD are wrong to do it to Muslims when it's okay for me to do it or you or anyone else we happen to "agree" with. I don't buy into us versus them. I won't. I needn't. And I find it amusing that pretty much anything anyone says to the contrary is worthy of spite in some minds.

By the way, I prefer to put it like this -

My horse really IS too high. I sometimes don't get enough oxygen.

Yours is almost a compliment. Though I doubt you meant it that way.

Regardless of his issues with the current Administration, it's always been considered to be very bad form for a former President to speak out against a current one. Add to that the fact that Carter was one of the most ineffective Presidents in our history whose actions led directly to the formation of an Islamist State in Iran and trashed the US economy and I think the man is finally senile.
You really should read some Iranian history. It will help you straighten out your facts?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/timeline/beb81fe06a3de10a699bccfc56863881.png

Oh, and as for what Carter says - he's bought and paid for with Arab money:
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976879837

.....sez Alan "credibility" Dershowitz, right wing Hawk, Bushevik, and part-time plagarist.

Note ye well the following paragraph. It says that Carter is essentially trotting out "The J00S OWN EVERYHING" and then does a bit of fancy footwork which I've outlined in bold
In his recent book tour to promote Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, Carter has been peddling a particularly nasty bit of bigotry. The canard is that Jews own and control the media, and prevent newspapers and the broadcast media from presenting an objective assessment of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and that Jews have bought and paid for every single member of Congress so as to prevent any of them from espousing a balanced position. How else can anyone understand Carter’s claims that it is impossible for the media and politicians to speak freely about Israel and the Middle East? The only explanation – and one that Carter tap dances around, but won’t come out and say directly – is that Jews control the media and buy politicians.
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976879837

What a wanker.....

Derhowitz is one of the few people I'm almost content to dismiss completely out of hand as a source....except for the fact I take great pleasure in exposing him for the lying snide little shite he is.

I don't know if anyone has gotten to this yet:

Carter: Anti-Bush remarks 'careless or misinterpreted'

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/21/carter.bush.ap/index.html

I don't know if anyone has gotten to this yet:

Carter: Anti-Bush remarks 'careless or misinterpreted'

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/21/carter.bush.ap/index.html
It still doesn't change the fact that the Bush-kebab is the worst President of the US ever.

It still doesn't change the fact that the Bush-kebab is the worst President of the US ever.

I find it slightly ironic that that is what people have said about every president since the first GW. (George Washington)

I don't know if anyone has gotten to this yet:

Carter: Anti-Bush remarks 'careless or misinterpreted'

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/21/carter.bush.ap/index.html

Yes. It's apparent that Carter can backtrack everywhere except about his book.

I find it slightly ironic that that is what people have said about every president since the first GW. (George Washington)


Not really. The current pres is the worst until the next one.

Perhaps "Worst Pres SO FAR" is more accurate than "ever" but still...

It's inaccurate. We should wish GWB was more like his father. We'd have a better president. You may not love GHWB, but he was a damn sight better than what we have now. I haven't met many who would argue otherwise.

Certainly, I should have thought it out better. I would definately prefer Bush Sr. to what we have now. Shame.

Not really. The current pres is the worst until the next one.

Perhaps "Worst Pres SO FAR" is more accurate than "ever" but still...

I like that. I am going to get ahead of the game. Whoever wins the next election you are the WORST PRESIDENT SO FAR!!!!

Somebody sounds like a sore loser, and an elitist one at that. Just because he won the Nobel prize doesn't mean he's superior to Bush, nor does it give him the right to whine like a spoiled brat and undermine the morale of our troops with his pretentious airs.

You sir, lack perspective.

James Earl Carter was not a great President, but he has been an outstanding former President. I think winning the Nobel Prize for Peace allows him some room to comment. I served in the military at the pleasure of four Presidents (Reagan, Bush the Elder, Clinton and Bush the Junior) among those four he demonstrated the least amount of understanding about his responsibilities as Commander In Chief of the Armed Forces.

You who speak of undermining morale do not understand for ONE MINUTE the concept of troop morale. All you need to do is have an understanding of what is immediately important to the average soldier in the field.

Provided for your convenience is the list of ACTUAL morale affecting factors in the field.

A. Logistics

1. Food.

2. Rest.

3. Quality of equipment provided.

4. Efficiency of mail delivery for letters from home.

B. Chain of Command

1. Is your troop commander doing their job? Is he doing it well?

2. Are you being sent out on productive and useful missions?

3. Does the chain of command want to minimize casualties whenever possible?

4. Is there a viable plan in the field to accomplish missions? Does Brigade support these goals?

Remember, you are dealing with Immediate needs first. Where does the CIC fall? He is the ultimate authority in which to lay blame or compliment.

Where do FORMER CICs fall? Do the troops even give a crap that President Carter said what he said? Most importantly...and this is a question your little, knee-jerk emotional statement doesn't handle is...do they agree?

Having been in the field myself, I can tell you my average airman did not pay much attention to matters above their paygrade. The only time they did make comments to me about it, was when they asked me if I thought that we were being "done right" by the Chain of Command and our ultimate boss, the current President.

Do not speak of matters of which you know nothing, or get your marching orders from a political party, it only proves you a total ignoramus.

See, I do this weird thing where I speak for me. Since he's talking about how we Christians, a group I'm necessarily a part of, are responsible for the actions of others, I would be hypocritical to speak for more than myself. See how that works. Oddly, your suggestion here is for me to create the same fallacy he is. Amusingly, it's not as if I should ignore it either since he's complaining about precisely that. So I point out his fallacy and move on.

Ahh, but therein lies the problem of interpretation. I said, in general (well actually I merely replied in the affirmative) "christians were responsible".

And, indeed, there was a specific group of people that played a significant role in GWB being elected, namely, evangelical christians. So people, who were christians, played a part. Ergo, some of those responisble, were christians.

now this doesn't lable ALL christians, just as al qaeda doesn't speak for ALL muslims. But pointing out that the evangelicals ARE christians is no more a falacy than pointing out that al qaeda are muslim.

Ahh, but therein lies the problem of interpretation. I said, in general (well actually I merely replied in the affirmative) "christians were responsible".

And, indeed, there was a specific group of people that played a significant role in GWB being elected, namely, evangelical christians. So people, who were christians, played a part. Ergo, some of those responisble, were christians.

now this doesn't lable ALL christians, just as al qaeda doesn't speak for ALL muslims. But pointing out that the evangelicals ARE christians is no more a falacy than pointing out that al qaeda are muslim.

Actually, I was speaking to the fallacy you corrected. You were specific in your statement and as such it was accurate. Szanth was tarbrushing and admits it. He said repeatedly that one should expect Christians to support Bush and that we're responsible for Bush even if we didn't vote for him or ever support him by not doing something greater than would be required of, let's say, an atheist. I don't hold myself responsible for the actions of other to which I have not affiliated myself. I know you don't. Szanth admits he does and it was to this fallacy I was referring.

Yes. It's apparent that Carter can backtrack everywhere except about his book.

..which he doesn't have to, as its perfectly valid and stands up to scrutiny. Unlike A. Dershowitz.....

..which he doesn't have to, as its perfectly valid and stands up to scrutiny. Unlike A. Dershowitz.....

Dershowitz's claims about Carter being paid by Arabs is irrefutable.

You were saying?

I like that. I am going to get ahead of the game. Whoever wins the next election you are the WORST PRESIDENT SO FAR!!!!

This is only relevant if you show how you do such a ranking. For example, GWB is the best president ever assuming I prefer presidents that have no respect at all for individual rights, particularly those outlined by the Bill of Rights. See, that's how we know what we're talking about.

Dershowitz's claims about Carter being paid by Arabs is irrefutable.

You were saying?

Wow, arrogant much? On what do you base your assertion that Dershowitz's claims are irrefutable?

Dershowitz's claims about Carter being paid by Arabs is irrefutable.

You were saying?

Seeing as I just showed how he was being (at the most generous) disengenous oin the one paragraph I bothered with, saying that anything that comes in the same text is "irrefutable" is rather presumptous

The fact that Carter received money from Arabs is not the issue. Its the implication that he therefore acts in their interests and is in essence their mouth piece. As he says nothing that various international and Israeli organisations and figures don't already say, this is untrue.

Do you agree with the various implications made by M Moore regarding the Bush family and the Saudi royal family...just as a matter of interest? Or do we only scream about "Arab money" when it suits us?

And doesn't it strike you as ironic that you can use the receipt of money from Arab sources as some sort of slur, when Dershowitz tries to blacken the name of Carter by falsely claiming that Carter uses the same tactics as you, except in reference to Jewish money? Personally, I look forward to the day we can broaden out the term "anti-semite".

Personally, I look forward to the day we can broaden out the term "anti-semite".

I prefer the terms anti-Arab and anti-Jew.

Wow, arrogant much? On what do you base your assertion that Dershowitz's claims are irrefutable?

My guess is, it's his Divine Infallibility. Sorry, His Divine Infallibility.

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j315/crashcow/NSG/adersh.jpg

Praise be!

-Long ass Troll-slaying-

Sounds about right.

You being former USAF, I do have one question:
I'd heard it said that the majority of fighter planes we use (which I think are still F-16s) are getting old and no real push is being made to reoutfit/replace them. Is this true? And if so, wouldn't this be the responsibility/fault of the DoD, which reports to the Commander in Chief? And if so, wouldn't this be a significantly greater cause for lost morale than the words of a former president?

Wow, arrogant much? On what do you base your assertion that Dershowitz's claims are irrefutable?

[sinister far-right freako-nutjob]Dershowitz is a Jew. He has ... powerful interests backing him[/sinister far-right freako-nutjob]

:p

I suspect that's not the real reason but it's a fun one to mock nonetheless. :p

The newest shout by the republican party, ever since the senate majority leader was called a traitor for criticizing the war, is that any dissent about the war "emboldens our enemies" and is thus treasonous. That sounds so like something straight out of alpha complex, I'm adopting it into my games. From now on, if the computer ever hears you talk about failure, or bad odds, or a complete screw up somewhere, you will be accused of treason for "emboldening our commie mutant traitor terrorist enemies."

That must've been the Encyclopedia Republicana you were leafing through...

Actually no it was not. It was from a Political Science Journal.

Actually no it was not. It was from a Political Science Journal.

Surely you could name the article then?

It still doesn't change the fact that the Bush-kebab is the worst President of the US ever.

Oh I actually sincerely doubt he will be rated the worst but he is not that far from it.

Surely you could name the article then?

As soon as I find my Jump Drive, I will upload it.

Dubya is obviously the worst president in my (admittedly short) lifetime. No contest.

My parents have told me that he's the worst in their lifetimes, and they are informed and honest individuals whom I have no reason to mistrust.

My grandfather insists that Taft was worse, but then he also insists that life was better back before the horseless carriage ruined everything by allowing people to ride when they oughta be walking, uphill both ways. It is unclear when my grandfather was born, but I believe he pre-dates the invention of the wheel.

:D

"Guilty Yes; Impeachment, No": Some Empirical Findings
Patrick J. McGeever
Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 89, No. 2 (Jun., 1974), pp. 289-299
doi:10.2307/2149260
This article consists of 11 page(s).

That is the information for Glorious Alpha Complex

"Guilty Yes; Impeachment, No": Some Empirical Findings
Patrick J. McGeever
Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 89, No. 2 (Jun., 1974), pp. 289-299
doi:10.2307/2149260
This article consists of 11 page(s).

That is the information for Glorious Alpha Complex

it's available on the net here. http://www.jstor.org/view/00323195/di980363/98p0337x/0?frame=noframe&userID=92bbba27@ewu.edu/01cc99331300501bf00da&dpi=3&config=jstor

And you make a misstatement. 44.7% of respondents (on page 291) opposed any method of punishment. That is not quite "most people." The breakdown was 20% said he should be impeached, 15% said he should resign, and 18% said he should be censured by congress.

So most people thought he should be punished in some fashion.

it's available on the net here. http://www.jstor.org/view/00323195/di980363/98p0337x/0?frame=noframe&userID=92bbba27@ewu.edu/01cc99331300501bf00da&dpi=3&config=jstor

And you make a misstatement. 44.7% of respondents (on page 291) opposed any method of punishment. That is not quite "most people." The breakdown was 20% said he should be impeached, 15% said he should resign, and 18% said he should be censured by congress.

So most people thought he should be punished in some fashion.

I need to re-read the article and at the moment I can't do so. I do not have complete access to JSTOR at the moment. I do have it on my jump drive but it is missing and that irritates me.

Sounds about right.

You being former USAF, I do have one question:
I'd heard it said that the majority of fighter planes we use (which I think are still F-16s) are getting old and no real push is being made to reoutfit/replace them. Is this true? And if so, wouldn't this be the responsibility/fault of the DoD, which reports to the Commander in Chief? And if so, wouldn't this be a significantly greater cause for lost morale than the words of a former president?


The USAF is on track with the F-22 (ATF) fighter program. The USAF Air Superiority version is being developed/administered by Boeing/Lockheed-Martin/Pratt & Whitney and will completely replace the F-15 in that role. The 100th F-22 is in final phase right now. The "Navalized" version never came to fruition.

The Navy still uses Toms, Hornets and SuperHornets. They are still trying to develop the new start fighter for the Navy's future

As for the F-16 Falcon, it was a piece of shit aircraft with serious maintainence issues that just happened to be a really good interceptor. It never supplanted the F-15, in fact the 15 went all the way to model designator F-15K and until the 22 was the pre-emiment Air Superiority multi-role fighter aircraft.

Hope that helps.

it's available on the net here. http://www.jstor.org/view/00323195/di980363/98p0337x/0?frame=noframe&userID=92bbba27@ewu.edu/01cc99331300501bf00da&dpi=3&config=jstor

And you make a misstatement. 44.7% of respondents (on page 291) opposed any method of punishment. That is not quite "most people." The breakdown was 20% said he should be impeached, 15% said he should resign, and 18% said he should be censured by congress.

So most people thought he should be punished in some fashion.

You are indeed right. But when one looks at Table 2, you can see that the overwelming majority wanted little or zero punishment whatsoever. It is a rather interesting article though. I found it fascinating.

You are indeed right. But when one looks at Table 2, you can see that the overwelming majority wanted little or zero punishment whatsoever. It is a rather interesting article though. I found it fascinating.

The vast majority of Americans are sheep and their views can be easily modified dependent on the question, method of question and poll technique. That is why polls are TOOLS, not the ultimate answer to the six million dollar question.

The vast majority of Americans are sheep and their views can be easily modified dependent on the question, method of question and poll technique. That is why polls are TOOLS, not the ultimate answer to the six million dollar question.

No need to tell me that but it is the closest thing we have to actual opinions on the subject. Most of the time.

The USAF is on track with the F-22 (ATF) fighter program. The USAF Air Superiority version is being developed/administered by Boeing/Lockheed-Martin/Pratt & Whitney and will completely replace the F-15 in that role. The 100th F-22 is in final phase right now. The "Navalized" version never came to fruition.

The Navy still uses Toms, Hornets and SuperHornets. They are still trying to develop the new start fighter for the Navy's future

As for the F-16 Falcon, it was a piece of shit aircraft with serious maintainence issues that just happened to be a really good interceptor. It never supplanted the F-15, in fact the 15 went all the way to model designator F-15K and until the 22 was the pre-emiment Air Superiority multi-role fighter aircraft.

Hope that helps.




The US Navy doesn't use F-14's any more. They've all been decommissioned. The SuperHornet took over it's role until the JSF is developed.

The US Navy doesn't use F-14's any more. They've all been decommissioned. The SuperHornet took over it's role until the JSF is developed.
Which is kind of stupid since the F-14 was better at dogfighting. It could target 6 planes at once with it's Phoenix missiles and it didn't have to keep the plane in sight after firing.

Source: Associated Press (http://home.bellsouth.net/s/editorial.dll?fromspage=all/home.htm&categoryid=&bfromind=7406&eeid=5220590&_sitecat=1522&dcatid=0&eetype=article&render=y&ac=-2&ck=&ch=ne&rg=blsadstrgt&_lid=332&_lnm=tg+ne+topnews&ck=&cntp=beta)



Very out of character for him, sure he's been Anti-Bush but this is some heavy bashing here. But I can't really disagree

War for the sake of we THINK they might one day be a problem. (Or going to war for made up reasons)
Ignoring the separation of church and state.
(Giving money to groups that will help the poor... ONLY if you're their religion.)
Completely ruining whatever standings we have with the international community.
Abandoning any thing to do with the environment until recently, mainly because his hand is so deep in Polluting companies's pockets to care.
Not even trying to tell Israel to at least calm down a little.
and
ignoring any nuclear disarment process, despite the fact that the cold war is freaking over.

Yeah, I have to agree.


President Jimmy Carter, Yuck.

The US Navy doesn't use F-14's any more. They've all been decommissioned. The SuperHornet took over it's role until the JSF is developed.

Ahh, that's right. I thank the Navy for the contribution. The poster below is right, the SuperHornet doesn't hold a candle to the Tom.

No need to tell me that but it is the closest thing we have to actual opinions on the subject. Most of the time.

In any case, the reasoning was probably along the lines of "Yeah, he's guilty, but kicking him out of office right now would destabilize things. What if congress just tells him not to do it again? that should take care of it."

Source: Associated Press (http://home.bellsouth.net/s/editorial.dll?fromspage=all/home.htm&categoryid=&bfromind=7406&eeid=5220590&_sitecat=1522&dcatid=0&eetype=article&render=y&ac=-2&ck=&ch=ne&rg=blsadstrgt&_lid=332&_lnm=tg+ne+topnews&ck=&cntp=beta)



Very out of character for him, sure he's been Anti-Bush but this is some heavy bashing here. But I can't really disagree

War for the sake of we THINK they might one day be a problem. (Or going to war for made up reasons)
Ignoring the separation of church and state.
(Giving money to groups that will help the poor... ONLY if you're their religion.)
Completely ruining whatever standings we have with the international community.
Abandoning any thing to do with the environment until recently, mainly because his hand is so deep in Polluting companies's pockets to care.
Not even trying to tell Israel to at least calm down a little.
and
ignoring any nuclear disarment process, despite the fact that the cold war is freaking over.

Yeah, I have to agree.

Leave it to Carter to make an uncreative comment. :rolleyes:

Ahh, that's right. I thank the Navy for the contribution. The poster below is right, the SuperHornet doesn't hold a candle to the Tom.

Su30MKI (or was it Su35MKI?) ftw (apart from the F-22).

Leave it to Carter to make an uncreative comment. :rolleyes:

Then he trie to backtrack it and said he was comparing it to Nixon's. Sounds to me like that is fire control.

What a nice little troll you are.

Oh, dear, I have been here only a few days and allready I'm accused of being a troll. What's wrong, did I insult your boyfriend? A troll am I? So the majority of the US population are trolls are they? Does thinking that NeoCon Zealots are responsible for the state the USA is in make me a troll? Does thinking that people do not deserve to be treated like utter shit in their own country because of their skin colour make me a troll?

Go back to drinking your Kool-Aid.

What irritates me is the messianic certainty in which these true believers make outrageously illogical statements.

I am further irritated by President Carter speaking a hard truth and then backing down. In for a penny, in for a pound. When 60% of the country agree with him, what's the penalty?

Tony Fratto. The junior varsity has indeed been sent out, nitwit.

Oh, dear, I have been here only a few days and allready I'm accused of being a troll. What's wrong, did I insult your boyfriend? A troll am I? So the majority of the US population are trolls are they? Does thinking that NeoCon Zealots are responsible for the state the USA is in make me a troll? Does thinking that people do not deserve to be treated like utter shit in their own country because of their skin colour make me a troll?

Go back to drinking your Kool-Aid.

*sighs* Ok. You said it yourself that you are new here. I called you a troll because of the number of gun smilies you used.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12675601&postcount=229

Those smilies makes you a troll as another poster stated:

God you make our side look bad. Please go away.

And yet more proof.

Thank you.

aww shrubby is pissed:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/20/carter.bush.ap/index.html

That's so cute. The best defense that they can come up with is "he's saying bad things about the pwesident."

I wonder if that would have worked as well for OJ's lawyers. You Honor, how are we supposed to trust the word of a prosecutor that runs around calling people murderers all the time?

*sighs* Ok. You said it yourself that you are new here. I called you a troll because of the number of gun smilies you used.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12675601&postcount=229




Its people like you who are polluting the US and making people hate you so much. I cannot beileve that you can even defend the actions of an idiot like Bush. Who has proven himself to be a traitor, not just to his country but to democracy and civilization. And you are defending him and that, my GOP loving friend, makes you a traitor too. You are a disgrace to your country sir. Shame on you

Carter wasn't the best president or in the top 10 even or 20. His presidency was riddled with problems too although probably worst Nixon second worst Bush, third worst Carter.

:(

Its people like you who are polluting the US and making people hate you so much. I cannot beileve that you can even defend the actions of an idiot like Bush.

I am defending no one. I do not even support this administration. Please take your character assassinations elsewhere.

Who has proven himself to be a traitor, not just to his country but to democracy and civilization. And you are defending him and that, my GOP loving friend, makes you a traitor too.

I voted third party in 2004. Try again some other time.

You are a disgrace to your country sir. Shame on you

Shame on you for assuming things about me. Please leave troll. If you want to be taken seriously, stop with character assassinations and gun smilies. It does nothing for your credibility.

I am defending no one. I do not even support this administration. Please take your character assassinations elsewhere.

Yeah, coming from someone who praised Congress losing nerve and taking Bush's cock up their asses by dropping the timeline requirement from the funding bill as "compromise."


I voted third party in 2004. Try again some other time.

Yeah, and in a nation whose political system you yourself acknowledge as being fixed in favor of the two main parties, that is a copout of the most disingenuous sort.

Shame on you for assuming things about me. Please leave troll. If you want to be taken seriously, stop with character assassinations and gun smilies. It does nothing for your credibility.

You're assuming you have any character left to assassinate Corny. A Bushevik like you talking about someone else's credibility is a laugh riot.

Yeah, coming from someone who praised Congress losing nerve and taking Bush's cock up their asses by dropping the timeline requirement from the funding bill as "compromise."

And yet...I was praising the compromise itself, not the fact that timelines were dropped.

Yeah, and in a nation whose political system you yourself acknowledge as being fixed in favor of the two main parties, that is a copout of the most disingenuous sort.

What? That I voted third party? Would you prefer if I had not voted at all?

I am defending no one. I do not even support this administration. Please take your character assassinations elsewhere.

Why then are you harassing people who AGREE WITH YOU? Do you like argueing?



I voted third party in 2004. Try again some other time.

Try what? You act like a Bush supporter in your posts, you dont seem to have a bad word to say about him.

Shame on you for assuming things about me. Please leave troll. If you want to be taken seriously, stop with character assassinations and gun smilies. It does nothing for your credibility.

I think you will find it is you who is the troll, my idiot friend who never responds to posts properly. You are the one who has registered a second account to troll with. Corny.

Source: Associated Press (http://home.bellsouth.net/s/editorial.dll?fromspage=all/home.htm&categoryid=&bfromind=7406&eeid=5220590&_sitecat=1522&dcatid=0&eetype=article&render=y&ac=-2&ck=&ch=ne&rg=blsadstrgt&_lid=332&_lnm=tg+ne+topnews&ck=&cntp=beta)



Very out of character for him, sure he's been Anti-Bush but this is some heavy bashing here. But I can't really disagree

War for the sake of we THINK they might one day be a problem. (Or going to war for made up reasons)
Ignoring the separation of church and state.
(Giving money to groups that will help the poor... ONLY if you're their religion.)
Completely ruining whatever standings we have with the international community.
Abandoning any thing to do with the environment until recently, mainly because his hand is so deep in Polluting companies's pockets to care.
Not even trying to tell Israel to at least calm down a little.
and
ignoring any nuclear disarment process, despite the fact that the cold war is freaking over.

Yeah, I have to agree.



they are both assholes...whores if you will.
fuck both of them....carter found god...lol...he sure sold out to get to be president like they all did..he is just doing penance now..fucking liar

I think you will find it is you who is the troll, my idiot friend who never responds to posts properly. You are the one who has registered a second account to troll with. Corny.

Insults do nothing for credibility. And no, I am not this corny person.

As to responding properly, I have. It is you who have launched insults at me. That does nothing for credibility either.

Now if you want me to respond, lose the quote boxes around your answers.

What I dont understand is why you defend the actions of a man that you dislike?

What I dont understand is why you defend the actions of a man that you dislike?
He does seem to be doing quite a bit of that through different threads?

He is claiming third party supporter status (Libertarian?), yet seems to back Bush for the most part.

Either way, I call it wishy washy (http://www.answers.com/topic/wishy-washy).

What I dont understand is why you defend the actions of a man that you dislike?

HOw is saying Carter is the worst president (for a variety of reasons) defending Bush?

Incase you missed sir/ma'am, Carter backtracked on his statements and compared it to Nixon's. So if he backtracked his statements, does that not stand to reason that even he was wrong in what he said?

Saying something is wrong is not actually defending someone else! It is called putting things into perspective. Is Bush worse than Carter? I do not believe so but then, time will only tell.

HOw is saying Carter is the worst president (for a variety of reasons) defending Bush?

Like your fellow Bushevik Comrade in Arms Kimchi- who came up with the bunk post suggesting Congress had worse public approval rating than Your Beloved Dear Leader Bush George-Dubya, you're implying that Bush isn't the national disaster that he has proven himself to be time and time again. Thereby serving as an apologist for this administration.

Incase you missed sir/ma'am, Carter backtracked on his statements and compared it to Nixon's. So if he backtracked his statements, does that not stand to reason that even he was wrong in what he said?

Carter has spent most of his life being a soft-spoken polite human being. It's a shame that when something pisses him off he doesn't have the resolve to stay pissed off and not be so conciliatory. Like Congress with the timeline, he should have stuck to his guns and kept pushing.

Saying something is wrong is not actually defending someone else! It is called putting things into perspective. Is Bush worse than Carter? I do not believe so but then, time will only tell.

Carter never racked up the massive amount of debt to China, nor the reputational damage for the United States, nor the overextension of the armed forces in his one term that Your Beloved Dear Leader has in two. Apologism and finger-pointing is defending Shrubya, Corny.

Like your fellow Bushevik Comrade in Arms Kimchi- who came up with the bunk post suggesting Congress had worse public approval rating than Your Beloved Dear Leader Bush George-Dubya, you're implying that Bush isn't the national disaster that he has proven himself to be time and time again. Thereby serving as an apologist for this administration.

I am so glad that I do not have your logic for it is profoundly...no no. I will not say it for it will go against my nature.

Carter has spent most of his life being a soft-spoken polite human being.

He is a wonderful human rights advocate. I will not take that away from him.

It's a shame that when something pisses him off he doesn't have the resolve to stay pissed off and not be so conciliatory. Like Congress with the timeline, he should have stuck to his guns and kept pushing.

Maybe. I will not argue that changing one's tune like he did was probably not a smart move.

Carter never racked up the massive amount of debt to China, nor the reputational damage for the United States, nor the overextension of the armed forces in his one term that Your Beloved Dear Leader has in two. Apologism and finger-pointing is defending Shrubya, Corny.

As I said. Believe what you will.

I am so glad that I do not have your logic for it is profoundly...no no. I will not say it for it will go against my nature.
And just what is your nature?

He is a wonderful human rights advocate. I will not take that away from him.
That automatically makes Carter a better man then your beloved Dear Leader!!

And just what is your nature?

To be as polite as possible!

That automatically makes Carter a better man then your beloved Dear Leader!!

I will wait on that and see what Bush does when he leaves office. Carter did far more out of office than in it just like Bush's father and Bill Clinton. Both advocating human rights and teamed up to help those suffering.

To get an idea of how bad the President has been, imagine, 5 and a half years ago he had the highest approval rating in history. Today he has one of the lowest in history.

How could anyone screw things over so badly...

To get an idea of how bad the President has been, imagine, 5 and a half years ago he had the highest approval rating in history. Today he has one of the lowest in history.

How could anyone screw things over so badly...

Not to excuse the decisions of this Administration, the press and politicians also plays a factor in approval ratings.

Hey, may I just explain, who is/was Jimmy Carter for me and who are the Bushes.(If anyone is interested in a non-us viewpoint).

I was born in 69 so that you fist get busy with news from the world some years later. I can remember the RAF in Germany and the revolution in Persia. So that's all end70ies. Carter was the first US president I knew. And I only saw a man of peace, respect and dialog. (e.g. camp david).

Both Bush presidents talk in short simple sentences and do rapid decisions. It seems to be simple minded. But that would be too easy, may be all right for Reagan. But Bush is a political system. Every step within political decisions is well thought of and calculated. And it provoked terrorism in brought war to the US.

Of course, any nation has the right to act for their own advantage. And indeed, that is, what you exoect from a leader. But the limit is reached. Too ego-centric (or let us say imperialistic) politics automatically lead to "problems" that could be as light as opponents, heavier as enemies, or finally crictical like terrorism. But it is self made.

Jimmy Carter had to fight old-fashioned opinions (e.g. jews and arabs will never tolerate each other) and, consequently, had opponents in the different ultra-conservative societies (of the US, Israel and also arab nations).

GW has to fight the opinion that the US is responsible for all evil in the world. Sure, this opinion is bullshit. But a little responsibilty for the evil shall be demanded. And you have to do something good in order to fight this opinion.

But unfortunately the US citizens demiss their best prsidents or kill them. And re-elect the idiots.

But unfortunately the US citizens demiss their best prsidents or kill them. And re-elect the idiots.

So I guess Reagan was a great president since he was nearly assassinated. Bush I was also nearly assassinated when he visited Kuwait. *shrugs*

Not to excuse the decisions of this Administration,
You are by posting....

the press and politicians also plays a factor in approval ratings.
Ummmm. it has a lot more to do with Bush's abysmal record!! :p

You are by posting....


Ummmm. it has a lot more to do with Bush's abysmal record!! :p

And the press and other politicians. Notice the phrasing I used? I put in the word also meaning that they too contributed to Bush's low approval ratings.

And the press and other politicians. Notice the phrasing I used? I put in the word also meaning that they too contributed to Bush's low approval ratings.


Yes but mostly its to do with the fact that he is distroying America.



You and Bush-> :fluffle:

Yes but mostly its to do with the fact that he is distroying America.



You and Bush-> :fluffle:


You from T-town?