DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Michael Tee on November 29, 2006, 10:23:02 PM
-
I caught this on Larry King last night. MSM seems to have buried it pretty well. What else is new?
from
http://paulmalouf.blogspot.com/2006/11/cnn-jimmy-carter-interview-on-larry.html
<< . . . the oppression of the Palestinians by Israeli forces in the occupied territories is horrendous. And it's not something that has been acknowledged or even discussed in this country. . .
<<KING: Why not?
<<CARTER: I don't know why not.
<<You never hear anything about what is happening to the Palestinians by the Israelis. As a matter of fact, it's one of the worst cases of oppression that I know of now in the world. The Palestinians' land has been taken away from them. They now have an encapsulating or an imprisonment wall being built around what's left of the little tiny part of the holy land that is in the West Bank. . . >>
-
Spoken like the true miserable failure of a President, history will always see him as
-
What specifically did he fail at?
-
Carter is by far the best ex-president this country has ever had.
All Nixon did was write books full of lies and profit from selling real estate. Not much can be said about Reagan, Ford or Olebush, either.
His zero-based budgeting in the 1970's was the basis for the prosperity of the Reagan years.
He was set up by Kissinger and others fro a fall with the Iran Crisis. He should never have trusted Kissinger, and neither should anyone else. The Shah should never have been allowed in the US. The Embassy staff should have been brought home. The documents in the Embassy were shameful and should have been destroyed.
Carter is entirely right about the oppression of the Palestinians by the Israelis. I am pretty sure he knows why this is not made more public in the US. But he is too smart to utter the words "AIPAC" or "Zionist lobby"
-
<<Carter is entirely right about the oppression of the Palestinians by the Israelis. I am pretty sure he knows why this is not made more public in the US. But he is too smart to utter the words "AIPAC" or "Zionist lobby">>
That was obvious. I hope you watched the live interview or the tape. It was hilarious how that ass-wipe Larry King tried to set him up and how deftly Carter slipped away. "Why not?" came out really quick, and so did Carter's "I don't know why not." He was totally prepared for it. What a pro. You knew it was a bullshit question by King's total failure to follow up. Who knows, maybe the old time-server has a few shreds of decency left.
-
What specifically did he fail at?
Oh, where to start
- An economy so bad, unemployment so high, inflation rate thru the roof, that the "Misery Index" had its highest ever record applied to a President at 21.98% (currently it's 5.71% as of October 2006, under Bush, just in case you were wondering)
- Facilitated the skyrocketing price of gas, with long gas lines and rationing gas as determined by your license plate #.
- Sent hundreds of millions of our taxpayer dollars to North Korea on the promise that they wouldn't build atomic weapons and missiles to deliver them. And history has demonstrated how well that went
- He personally waged international financial war against South Africa and helped establish a regime with Nelson Mandela, a socialist who was a buddy of Libya's terrorist head of state, Muhmmar Quadafi, that has destroyed the economy there
- Forced young Olympian athletes to forget all their years of training in support of his political policy because the Olympics were to be held in the Soviet Union
- Pardoned all the draft dodgers from the Vietnam conflict and restored them to full US citizenship
- Responsible for the fall of the Shah of Iran to the Ayatoilet Cockamamie and the establishment of that insane Moslem dictatorship
- Did more to aid the cause of radical fundamentalist Islam than any other president, first by not helping the Shah of Iran when Khomeni deposed him; second by doing nothing during the hostage crisis, which perhaps was the epitome of his failure as a President.
I could go on, and on, and on, and on. suffice to say, Bush has a hopelessly long way to go to ever reach the subteranean levels of failure, that Carter achieved as President
-
Total crap.
- Facilitated the skyrocketing price of gas, with long gas lines and rationing gas as determined by your license plate #.
This was not Carter's fault. Carter did not control the flow of oil.
- Sent hundreds of millions of our taxpayer dollars to North Korea on the promise that they wouldn't build atomic weapons and missiles to deliver them. And history has demonstrated how well that went
Hundreds of millions? Bullcrap!
- He personally waged international financial war against South Africa and helped establish a regime with Nelson Mandela, a socialist who was a buddy of Libya's terrorist head of state, Muhmmar Quadafi, that has destroyed the economy there
Oh yeah, the Apartheid regime was infinitely better. As if Mandela was not the only African figure who did not cause a total instant collapse of the economy when the majority took over.
- Forced young Olympian athletes to forget all their years of training in support of his political policy because the Olympics were to be held in the Soviet Union
And why was that? Because the Soviets invaded Afghanistan! I bet you'd blather even more stupidly if Carter had NOT boycotted the Moscow Olympics.
- Pardoned all the draft dodgers from the Vietnam conflict and restored them to full US citizenship
Hooray for that! It's not like they would have won in Vietnam if every one of these brave dissenters had gone to Vietnam and even died there. Unfortunately, the numbskull Republican'ts have given us a NEW Vietnam in Iraq.
- Responsible for the fall of the Shah of Iran to the Ayatoilet Cockamamie and the establishment of that insane Moslem dictatorship
The Shah was dying. The Iranians overthrew him There was not a goddamned thing that the US could have done to prevent this. The Shah was doomed by his own hubris: he was soooo powerful and sooo egotistical that not one doctor dared to suggest that the Imperial Iranian Ass was cancerous, and he died of colon cancer as a result. Note that Carter is not respoonsible for colon cancer. The Shah was nasty little tyrant, and should never have been imposed on Iran in the first place. By the way, the man deposed by the CIA to install the Shah, Mossadegh, was elected by the people of Iran. No one ever elected the nasty little Shah.
- Did more to aid the cause of radical fundamentalist Islam than any other president, first by not helping the Shah of Iran when Khomeni deposed him; second by doing nothing during the hostage crisis, which perhaps was the epitome of his failure as a President.
Carter spent every waking moment dealking with the hostage crisis. Because of him, ever hostage returned home unharmed.
I suppose you think that Reagan did it all.
I could go on, and on, and on, and on. suffice to say, Bush has a hopelessly long way to go to ever reach the subteranean levels of failure, that Carter achieved as President
-
As I recall the price of gas went up due to OPEC actions independent of U.S. input. The gas prices probably affected the economy and contributed to some of the effects that you noted.
North Korea is an insignificant blip on the world stage, with no possibility of attacking the U.S.A. Any attempt to bring it out of isolation and into closer, more amicable relations with the rest of the world is admirable, regardless of whether it succeeds or fails. North Korea "belongs" to China in the international scheme of things, can never be a U.S. satellite, and really has very little to do with anything.
Carter fucked up majorly in Iran, firstly by not building bridges to the rebels when there was still a solid, secular middle-class component to the Revolution, secondly - - incredibly - -by following the advice of that criminal ass-hole Kissinger and allowing the Shah into the U.S. on "compassionate" grounds. You don't have to show compassion to a torturer and murderer just because he is being ravaged by cancer. He's only getting what he deserves.
That Carter waged economic and political war against the murderous racist South African government and supported Nelson Mandela as the alternative should be a source of great pride to every American. Because of that support, South Africa is no longer the racist state that it used to be. My only beef with South Africa today is that instead of executing all of the former police and army torturers and murderers (including the killers of Steve Biko and tens of thousands of others) they put them through some bullshit "peace and reconciliation" proceedings where everybody is supposed to hug one another afterward and feel good. How the fuck does anyone feel good watching the killers and torturers of their sons and daughters walking around free to enjoy the rest of their lives?
The only thing I fault Carter for in South Africa was that he failed to send U.S. ground troops to fight the bastards in the peripheral wars they were waging outside their own country against their black-ruled neighbours. There you see the real difference between bullshit U.S. opposition to racism, based only on Carter's fine words and phrases, and Revolutionary Communism's opposition to racism, where Fidel Castro sent Cuban troops to Africa to fight racism not with words but with live ammunition.
Pardoned the draft dodgers? He only went half way on that. What he SHOULDA done was hold war-crimes trials for the bastards that went over there in the first place. I'll never forgive him for not doing so. He set the example that permitted further atrocities in Iraq.
I think on the whole Carter did a reasonably good job. He fell short on some things, his worst blunder was listening to Kissinger and allowing the Shah into America, triggering the hostage crisis, but he did a few good things and I don't think he can be held responsible for some of the bad things you brought up.
-
North Korea is an insignificant blip on the world stage, with no possibility of attacking the U.S.A.
Actually, that should be "with little possibility of attacking the U.S.A."
Some of their missles have the required range to hit the west coast of the US. They're not likely to do this, however. But it's still possible.
-
Tee & Xo can rationalize all they want as to why the things I posted happened under Carter. And you both can opine how he did "reasonably good job". The fact remains they DID happen under Carter, and largely due to HIS policies or decision making as President, and history is going to judge him on such. Simple as that
-
history is going to judge him on such. Simple as that
========================================
Exactly, and you and your twisted view of history is not history.
-
... you and your twisted view of history is not history.
Whatever you "Bush-stole-the election" say, Xo :D
-
Tee & Xo can rationalize all they want as to why the things I posted happened under Carter. And you both can opine how he did "reasonably good job". The fact remains they DID happen under Carter, and largely due to HIS policies or decision making as President, and history is going to judge him on such. Simple as that
I disagree, sirs, no surprise there.
I don't really remember much about Carter's administration but I know so much more about his work since leaving office. As I said in my post yesterday, the guy is nearly a saint in my eyes. For his work in making Habitat for Humanity a success alone, he should be for all intents and purposes deified by this nation.
He did more for peace than any president since, that's for sure.
Can you even imagine W standing in Carter's place in this photo?
(http://www.achievement.org/achievers/car0/headers/car0_image.gif)
I can't.
It is standard procedure for the right to hate the Nobel Peace Prize it seems but you would think they would honor it when noting this.
Since leaving the White House, Jimmy Carter's personal diplomacy has helped to defuse international crises in hot spots from North Korea to Haiti. In 2002, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts. With Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, he is the third American president to have been so honored. The Nobel committee cited former President Carter "for his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development."
Why Carter is heaped with so much scorn really boggles my mind. It is clear to most folks that he was simply too nice to cut the throats of those around him for what I understand. Here is a guy who is more honest about and ensconced in his faith than any president in my lifetime and the people applaud that and defend it in Bush do nothing but razz Carter at every opportunity.
When the last book is writ on Jimmy Carter, it will be of praise and recognition.
-
When the last book is writ on Jimmy Carter, it will be of praise and recognition.
I've always said that while Carter did very little good while in office, he's done much good since leaving office. More so than any other President, I'd imagine.
And I agree with you - his Nobel Prize was richly deserved.
-
When the last book is writ on Jimmy Carter, it will be of praise and recognition.
I've always said that while Carter did very little good while in office, he's done much good since leaving office. More so than any other President, I'd imagine.
And I agree with you - his Nobel Prize was richly deserved.
Damn, I love consensus. Thanks, Ami.
-
I disagree, sirs, no surprise there. I don't really remember much about Carter's administration but I know so much more about his work since leaving office.
Yet the point of my comments are specific to him and his adminstration, not afterwards
When the last book is writ on Jimmy Carter, it will be of praise and recognition.
Depends on what the book is being written on. His Presidency or his post-presidency? If the latter, then you may be right
-
- An economy so bad, unemployment so high, inflation rate thru the roof, that the "Misery Index" had its highest ever record applied to a President at 21.98% (currently it's 5.71% as of October 2006, under Bush, just in case you were wondering)
Unemployment and inflation were worldwide problems at the time (look at Britain's economy) and the interest rates under Carter were extremely high because he and Volcker applied a monetarist theory to money supply, just like Thatcher and Reagan.
- Facilitated the skyrocketing price of gas, with long gas lines and rationing gas as determined by your license plate #.
Tough. He didn't bend US foreign policy to OPEC's will. We had a gas shortage under Nixon as well.
- Sent hundreds of millions of our taxpayer dollars to North Korea on the promise that they wouldn't build atomic weapons and missiles to deliver them. And history has demonstrated how well that went
Nice try. North Korea became a nuclear power under your president. For once take some personal responsiblity.
- He personally waged international financial war against South Africa and helped establish a regime with Nelson Mandela, a socialist who was a buddy of Libya's terrorist head of state, Muhmmar Quadafi, that has destroyed the economy there
Nelson Mandela was in prison the entire time Jimmy Carter was president. South Africa deserved everything it got and more. The fact that you are arguing in support of the aprtheid regime in South Africa is morally disgusting. Do you even understand what went on during apartheid?
- Forced young Olympian athletes to forget all their years of training in support of his political policy because the Olympics were to be held in the Soviet Union
Whinge a little more for us. He opposed the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
- Pardoned all the draft dodgers from the Vietnam conflict and restored them to full US citizenship
It had to be done to reconcile the divisions from Vietnam. Lets not forget that the wealthy were able to dodge the draft without fleeing to Canada.
- Responsible for the fall of the Shah of Iran to the Ayatoilet Cockamamie and the establishment of that insane Moslem dictatorship
An amazingly poor understanding of what was going on in Iran and the history of that revolution. The Shah was on his way out before Carter pulled the plug. I guess now we can add the SAVAK to the South African apartheid on your list of heroic champions of freedom.
- Did more to aid the cause of radical fundamentalist Islam than any other president, first by not helping the Shah of Iran when Khomeni deposed him; second by doing nothing during the hostage crisis, which perhaps was the epitome of his failure as a President.
The hostages were released and Carter worked everyday to get them released. There were hostages under Reagan's tenure in Lebanon that were held captive far longer.
I could go on, and on, and on, and on. suffice to say, Bush has a hopelessly long way to go to ever reach the subteranean levels of failure, that Carter achieved as President
Not really.
I'm not even a fan of Jimmy Carter, the difference is that I don't have to resort to pathetic revisionism and support of SAVAK and apartheid to attack him.
-
snip
I guess we can add Js to the rationalization bandwagon
-
Ah. Given up on rational debate altogether have you?
I know quite a bit about the history of the Iranian Revolution of 1979 and Apartheid South Africa. I'm willing to discuss both of those, are you?
-
Carter was a great President and history will forever complement and connect him with Ronald Reagan in their combined roles as they destroyed the Soviet Union (aka Evil Empire).
How could you argue that any American was responsible for more Soviet Soldier Death than Carter?
Sure Zebignew and Wilson were instrumental , but the buck stops here.
-
Listen, it doesn't really matter how history views Carter or Bush. In fact, the argument over which was a worse president is rather bizarre.
As John Maynard Keynes famously said, "in the long-run we're all dead." George W Bush and Jimmy Carter won't live to see their real legacies and the parties they led will be far different from what they are now.
What I find amazing is the lengths some people will go to villify someone. Or perhaps to show what they really believe. In this case, Sirs made the following statement:
He personally waged international financial war against South Africa and helped establish a regime with Nelson Mandela, a socialist who was a buddy of Libya's terrorist head of state, Muhmmar Quadafi, that has destroyed the economy there
It is historically inaccurate (extremely so) and also asks us to accept the arguments that eventually even Thatcher and Reagan came to deny (though it took some time).
In another few sentences we are told how the Shah of Iran was a virtual savior of his people - completely untrue and lacks any similarity with reality. The people loathed the Shah. Was that Carter's fault? No.
Now was Carter a great president? I don't think so. Monetarism (and I'm surprised no one here paid a huge tribute to Milton Friedman) was a load of rubbish. Zero-based budgeting is crap and a gimmick at best, totally unworkable in the real world of public finance. Deregulation of the airlines has been an unmitigated disaster and I could go on. I'm willing to argue on any of those points and without rewriting history in the process.
-
Ah. Given up on rational debate altogether have you? I know quite a bit about the history of the Iranian Revolution of 1979 and Apartheid South Africa. I'm willing to discuss both of those, are you?
Well, considering this topic and my comments are specific to the failures of the Carter administration, I'm not exactly sure what debating the other 2 subjects would accomplish. The rationalization efforts were just an added observation on my part. Taking each failure and rationalizing why it really wasn't so much a failure, or how it supposedly couldn't have been Carter's responsibility. The best was the NK nuke issue. You realize that NK's nuke program got it's kick start from Carter, right? There'd likely be no nukes "under this President", had Carter demonstrated ANY kind of fortitude & leadership, under his Presidency.
-
Anyone can make a list. I wasn't rationalizing, I was pointing out were your list was clearly wrong. The two issues I mentioned specifically was where I not only disagreed, but where you clearly lack any knowledge of the history of the specific situations.
A regime with Mandela? You do realize that South Africa was under apartheid until the early 1990's, don't you?
-
Whatever you "Bush-stole-the election" say, Xo
He did indeed steal it, and we would all be better off if he had not done so, f*ck you very much.
But whatever Carter did and did not do in the 1970's has nothing-NOTHING whatever to do with the fact that what he said about the Israeli's disgusting, shameful and despicable treatment of the Palestinians is entirely and indisputably true.
The US will not be respected as anything but a bully in the Middle East for so long as the Palestinians are not given a real homeland and are not being looted, abused and shoved around by the Israelis.
It is simply outrageous for Juniorbush to say how much he supports the Cedar Revolution of Lebanon, when he deliberately armed the Israelis to bomb the living crap out of the Lebanese, killing including a lot of civilians. That is like Al Qaeda declaring their support for Juniorbush's Social Security reform.
-
He did indeed steal it, and we would all be better off if he had not done so,...
Two articles of faith.
Bush stole the election , no proof nor indication but lots of faith.
Gore would have been a adequate president , no proof or indication but lots of faith.
-
<<Two articles of faith.
<<Bush stole the election , no proof nor indication but lots of faith.>>
Vanity Fair ran an excellent investigative article which proved in detail HOW the election was stolen in Florida and how the Supreme court divided straight down partisan lines to throw the result to Bush. The conservatives had to depart from their previous judicial philosophy of allowing the states to decide their own procedural problems in order to deprive the Florida state courts of jurisdiction so there is no question that they were acting out of pure partisanship.
When I referred to the print issue of Vanity Fair, Lanya took the trouble to find the on-line version of the article and post it here. DESPITE the article, the lie is still published that the allegations are without proof. The election WAS stolen, there IS proof but the Democrats do not have the balls to take on the issue.
<<Gore would have been a adequate president , no proof or indication but lots of faith.>>
No indication? I would say his public pronouncements, his defence of the environment, his condemnation of torture, these surely are SOME indications. How adequate, I admit we don't know. Just as Bush gave every indication of being a lousy president, just we didn't know HOW lousy the guy was till he actually got his hands on the wheel.
-
He did indeed steal it, and we would all be better off if he had not done so,...
Two articles of faith.
Bush stole the election , no proof nor indication but lots of faith.
Gore would have been a adequate president , no proof or indication but lots of faith.
Now look. You can get away with saying there is no proof, I can abide that for the most part. But there is no way in hell you can look at the activities of Katherine Harris in Florida in regards to the voter rolls and say there is no "indication". That's just pure stupidity. And who can know that Harris was the Florida campaign manager for Bush AND the Election Commissioner (or whatever her title was) and not be the slightest bit suspicious?
Those are clear indicators for sure. Not proof, I will give you that. But it would be enough for anyone who was so inclined and empowered to start a real investigation into the election of 2000 in Florida.
Be honest, Plane at the very least, be honest.
-
I don't know if it qualifies as "stealing" but the Supreme Court, an institution known for following tradition, precedent, and procedure acted in a truly bizarre fashion in Bush v. Gore.
In fact there have been good books and article, some written by conservative legal experts, who have commented on the oddities and peculiarites of that decision.
Just one example, it was the first Supreme Court case where the 14th amendment equal protection clause was argued and won - without a specific victim being named.
The court strayed completely from the principle of stare decisis.
There were other oddities involved and it certainly made for a peculiar court case. As I said, I don't know that it amounts to "stealing" - but it was certainly a strange moment in history.
-
Carter was a great President and history will forever complement and connect him with Ronald Reagan in their combined roles as they destroyed the Soviet Union (aka Evil Empire).
=================================================
Oh, come off it. Neither Carter nor Reagan had nearly so much to do with the end of the USSR as technology did. They could not proceed without computerizing their economy, and they could not trust the number of citizens required to computerize the economy without ending the thousands of restrictions they placed on the economy.
The leaders of the PRC have apparently managed to do this, but China is a far more unitary state than the USSR ever was. Cuba is barely getting by, and the North Koreans are essentially in the Stone Age with regard to informational technology.
The War in Afghanistan and trying to outspend the US "Star Wars" fiasco (it seems they believed this thing was actually possible, which it clearly wasn't) also had a hand in the fall of the USSR.
Probably the single most important factor was Mikhail Gorbachev becoming head of the USSR.
The USSR was NOT brought down by Reagan hollering "Tear down this Wall!" That was hype, ably performed by an actor,. but nonetheless, just hype.
-
Leonid Brezhnev.
Without a doubt he helped set the Soviet Union on a path to its ultimate destruction, or at least exacerbated the fall.
Andropov and Gorbachev certainly did their part as well. One thing Gorbachev failed to comprehend was the nationalism of many of the Soviet states.
Interestingly, this many years after the fall of communism, some of the Eastern European nations have yet to match the GDP they had under "communist" regimes. Parts of Russia and the former USSR struggle to reach 40% of their former standard of living.
-
Interestingly, this many years after the fall of communism, some of the Eastern European nations have yet to match the GDP they had under "communist" regimes. Parts of Russia and the former USSR struggle to reach 40% of their former standard of living.
=====================================================
Romania seems to be qite a bit worse off, and Bulgaria is not far behind. Mildova, Ukrane, Byelorus and the "stans" are all a lot worse off.
The idea that every nation will prosper under some sort of free capitalism is basically a myth. The culture and the economic system are clearly related. The best capitalism has done in a Hispanic country is Puerto Rico, which is far below Mississippi, and half of its citizens live in the States.
Spain, which is mildly Eurosocialist, has far and away gthe strongest and most equitable economy in the Hispanic world. It makes more sense therefore, for Argentina, Bolivia, Venezuela and Central America to emulkate Spain than to trust their fortunes in the hands of guys like Milton Friedman.
-
trying to outspend the US "Star Wars" fiasco (it seems they believed this thing was actually possible, which it clearly wasn't)
If it isn't possible, the one would have to wonder why the program was continued under Clinton - it was even expanded in 1998. It continues to this day, having a series of takedowns of test enemy missles.
-
<<Two articles of faith.
<<Bush stole the election , no proof nor indication but lots of faith.>>
Vanity Fair ran an excellent investigative article which proved in detail HOW the election was stolen in Florida and how the Supreme court divided straight down partisan lines to throw the result to Bush. The conservatives had to depart from their previous judicial philosophy of allowing the states to decide their own procedural problems in order to deprive the Florida state courts of jurisdiction so there is no question that they were acting out of pure partisanship.
When I referred to the print issue of Vanity Fair, Lanya took the trouble to find the on-line version of the article and post it here. DESPITE the article, the lie is still published that the allegations are without proof. The election WAS stolen, there IS proof but the Democrats do not have the balls to take on the issue.
<<Gore would have been a adequate president , no proof or indication but lots of faith.>>
No indication? I would say his public pronouncements, his defence of the environment, his condemnation of torture, these surely are SOME indications. How adequate, I admit we don't know. Just as Bush gave every indication of being a lousy president, just we didn't know HOW lousy the guy was till he actually got his hands on the wheel.
I don't know Vanity fairs argument , but I do know tha tAl Gore is pretty stupid.
He would have been recounting till he came out the winner even if we were recounting till the subsequent election.
All the while squelching mail in votes from the military and claiming he wanted every vote to count.
I consider it proven past any reasonable argument that Gore was attempting to steal a legitamately lost election.
If the Supreme court split on ideological or partizen lines and found "for" President Bush , then how has it reached an even balence of ideology now that President Bush has selected two of its members?
The effort to suppress Democratic voteing is mythical , I can say this with confidence because there are plenty of lawyers competant and eager to make a case of this and there is no case to be made that they can find.
The third Recount was superfluous and if a fourth recount had given to Gore a three vote victory would a Bizzaro and stupid version of Bush not have the ability to ask for another recount ?
Bush would not have been so rediculous , he does not suffer the emotional crippleing meglomainia or stupidity that Gore demonstrated.
-
I don't know Vanity fairs argument , but I do know tha tAl Gore is pretty stupid. He would have been recounting till he came out the winner even if we were recounting till the subsequent election. All the while sq
Strange thing is, Practically EVERY recount taken, by a myriad of newpaper and news organizations had Bush winning. 7, repeat 7 Supreme Court Judges deemed what Florida was doing was unconstitutional, not 5. And only 3 of those judges can be considered "conservative". 2 of them are moderates, and 4, repeat 4 judges that can be considered liberal. Hardly a "party line vote". Yet you still have the "Elvis Factor" at work here, claiming the election was stolen. Sad, when you consider how so many of those folks are supposedly intelligent
-
If gore had won the fourth recount would that really void the first three counts?
I would have supposed that it would then have to be given more recounts to see who would get the best four of seven.
Like a world series.
As far as I can see ,there is no reason to expect that a recount will be more accurate than a first count.
Nixon is a much better example than Gore is , when Kennedy was elected there was good reason to think that an investigation in Illinois would find ballot stuffing , but Nixon was a better man of principals than Gore (smarter too).
-
Anyone can make a list. I wasn't rationalizing, I was pointing out were your list was clearly wrong. The two issues I mentioned specifically was where I not only disagreed, but where you clearly lack any knowledge of the history of the specific situations. A regime with Mandela? You do realize that South Africa was under apartheid until the early 1990's, don't you?
Yes. And putting that aside, you do realize that Mandela is a socialist who apparently was a buddy of Libya's terrorist head of state, Muhmmar Quadafi? Or were they not? That was the point, & not some unconscious, under the radar support of apartheid
-
View Profile Email Personal Message (Offline)
Re: Carter Blasts Israeli Oppression
« Reply #31 on: December 01, 2006, 04:27:24 PM »
Reply with quote
Quote from: Xavier_Onassis on December 01, 2006, 03:51:33 PM
trying to outspend the US "Star Wars" fiasco (it seems they believed this thing was actually possible, which it clearly wasn't)
If it isn't possible, the one would have to wonder why the program was continued under Clinton - it was even expanded in 1998. It continues to this day, having a series of takedowns of test enemy missles.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One would not have to wonder why the program was continued. It was feeding pork into the maw of various companies that compose the Military Industrial Complex.
I said that the program wasn't capable of working during the Reagan years, and it wasn't.
So far , it has worked only on carefully controlled tests, where the incoming missile was previously announced. And that is after 20 years of flinging billions of dollars at it.
-
you do realize that Mandela is a socialist who apparently was a buddy of Libya's terrorist head of state, Muhmmar Quadafi? Or were they not? That was the point, & not some unconscious, under the radar support of apartheid
======================================================
What is obvious here is that Sirs dislikes Mandela more than he ever disliked apartheid.
It is also obvious that Sirs believes that anyone who associates with Qadaffi is exactly like Qadaffi.
Does this mean that Sirs is really no different from Botha or Voerword or the other pro-apartheid South African Leaders because he opposes Mandela?
Could Sirs actually be too dim to perceive what a hideous mess South Africa would have been had a generous, unvindictive, nonracist fellow like Mandela not been around to assist in the peaceful transition of the RSA from a racist apartheid state to a multiracial democratic one?
Compare the events in Zimbabwe with those in the RSA. What if Mandela had been another Mugabe or Mobutu?
Mandela is one of the greatest politicians on the planet. Very few Nobel laureates have come close to being so deserving as Mandela.
Mandela is to the RSA as George Washington was to the USA
-
One would not have to wonder why the program was continued. It was feeding pork into the maw of various companies that compose the Military Industrial Complex.
Hmmm, and Clinton had two years with a Democrat controlled House AND Senate in which to change this.
I said that the program wasn't capable of working during the Reagan years, and it wasn't.
If it's capable of working now, it was capable of working then. Or have the laws of physics changed in the meantime?
-
I suppose that it is possible that Ronald Reagan understood that the national shield effect of the Star Wars program would take decades to bring results , perhaps he wanted it anyway because the economy of the Soviet Union was its vulnerability.
-
What is obvious here is that Sirs dislikes Mandela more than he ever disliked apartheid. It is also obvious that Sirs believes that anyone who associates with Qadaffi is exactly like Qadaffi. Does this mean that Sirs is really no different from Botha or Voerword or the other pro-apartheid South African Leaders because he opposes Mandela? Could Sirs actually be too dim to perceive what a hideous mess South Africa would have been had a generous, unvindictive, nonracist fellow like Mandela not been around to assist in the peaceful transition of the RSA from a racist apartheid state to a multiracial democratic one?
And could it be any more obvious on how wrong Hoof is as to what Sirs thinks?
-
Nixon is a much better example than Gore is , when Kennedy was elected there was good reason to think that an investigation in Illinois would find ballot stuffing , but Nixon was a better man of principals than Gore (smarter too).
So, to clarify, you find that Nixon is a man of greater principle than Al Gore because he (Nixon) did not fight the corruption or seek the true will of the people? That is what you're saying. Right?
-
Nixon is a much better example than Gore is , when Kennedy was elected there was good reason to think that an investigation in Illinois would find ballot stuffing , but Nixon was a better man of principals than Gore (smarter too).
So, to clarify, you find that Nixon is a man of greater principle than Al Gore because he (Nixon) did not fight the corruption or seek the true will of the people? That is what you're saying. Right?
Nixon did not attempt to drag the nation into a constitutional crisis for the sake of his ego,
not that time anyway.
Gore has a worse ego problem then Nixon did , not that I am complaining mind you , as Democrats go Gore is a peach .
-
you do realize that Mandela is a socialist
So is Tony Blair, yet you seem more than able to accept his support in Iraq.
The problem is that you have no understanding of the history of South Africa. There weren't a great deal of whites who supported Mr Mandela's struggle at the time, but there were some. Of those, the socialists and communists (what few there were) were some of them because race distinctions matter little to true socialists. The Government of South Africa used the Cold War and "anti-communism" as a ploy to maintain the atrocities of apartheid as well as deploy propaganda against the ANC and Nelson Mandela.
So yes, you are supporting apartheid, you're just using ignorance as an excuse to do so. The same excuse you use with Israel.
As for Qadaffi, whilst he on one hand did use terrorism as a tactic, he also appealed to a great many African rulers for his attempts to bring unity and prevent inter-African warfare. Wars, such as the Second Congolese Civil War - the costliest war since World War II- have devestated the continent for decades and figures such as Qadaffi and Mandela have attempted to speak out against such terrible conflicts which in the aforementioned case became deadly pan-African wars.
You think Americans know terrorism? We don't know shit. Africans know terrorism, some of them live with it every damn day. Before you condemn Mandela, I suggest you learn a little more about what he lived through.
-
So is Tony Blair, yet you seem more than able to accept his support in Iraq.....So yes, you are supporting apartheid, you're just using ignorance as an excuse to do so. The same excuse you use with Israel. As for Qadaffi, whilst he on one hand did use terrorism as a tactic, he also appealed to a great many African rulers for his attempts to bring unity and prevent inter-African warfare.
And could it be any more obvious on how wrong Js is as to what Sirs thinks? But I do appreciate you validating the original point of how Mandela & Qadaffi were connected
-
And could it be any more obvious on how wrong Js is as to what Sirs thinks?
Prove it. Have the fortitude to debate the issue or move along. Or as we say in the south - shit or get off the pot (apologies ladies).
Your lack of logic and inability to actually engage in sensible debate are annoyances to say the least. As far as can be seen, I've nailed your trifling "point" to the ground.
-
And could it be any more obvious on how wrong Js is as to what Sirs thinks?
Prove it. Have the fortitude to debate the issue or move along. Or as we say in the south - shit or get off the pot (apologies ladies).
Oh I see, prove a negative, prove I don't support apartheid? Or disprove this bizarre deductive reasoning of yours that because I don't agree or support Mandela's ideology or tactics ---> sirs must support Apartheid. That's the "lack of logic" that currently exists here, Js. Not mine
-
No, prove that Mandela's support of Qadaffi was with malign intent or somehow supported terrorism. Prove that Mandela has harmed his people or that socialism as Mandela supported it was terrible.
Show something, other than a blanket statement that links Carter to Mandela to Qadaffi like it is a Kevin Bacon movie.
-
Or, embracing the sinister, I note that in geo-politics, as in politics generally, one can only approximate the ideal and be glad to have company in a revolutionary struggle with an imperfect ally who is loyal and outspoken and only partly evil. It is important to note the US's own embrace of this modus operandi with fellas like the shah, Pinochet et al., which can spread out almost immeasurably.
-
prove that Mandela's support of Qadaffi was with malign intent or somehow supported terrorism. Prove that Mandela has harmed his people or that socialism as Mandela supported it was terrible.
Um, excuse me but the current illoigical accusation I'm dealing with is how supposedly "sirs supports apartheid"
-
You don't?
-
... because you oppose/condemn Mandela, the only viable leader who could bring it down, and did.
-
... because you oppose/condemn Mandela, the only viable leader who could bring it down, and did.
And in the Principle (which we all know to be true) of you are either for us or against us , if you do not support Mandella you must therefore be a supporter of Aparthied!
I swear Sirs , it is so simple .
-
And in the Principle (which we all know to be true) of you are either for us or against us , if you do not support Mandella you must therefore be a supporter of Aparthied!
I swear Sirs , it is so simple .
It would appear so, Plane :-\
-
Well, by your own logic, it seems, Mandela can't be condemned for aligning for a while with Qaddafi for the reasons already stated, and others.
-
Well, by your own logic, it seems, Mandela can't be condemned for aligning for a while with Qaddafi for the reasons already stated, and others.
That is right, no one can be criticised at all unless they are "other".
Everyone on the correct side can do what they want.
-
This is barely worth replying to any longer, but clearly by Sirs own logic of condemning Mandela by associating him with Qadaffi, the logic can be used to turn the tables on Sirs himself.
It has nothing to do with "us versus them" Plane and if anyone is engaging in that it would be (drum roll) Sirs again who does so with Presidents Carter and Bush in this same debate.
Then he offers absolutely no defence of any of his comments.
My hope was to actually have some sort of history-based debate, but alas it was never to be.
The clear intent here was to brood over the current president's historical legacy, regardless of any real debate.
-
"The clear intent here was to brood over the current president's historical legacy, regardless of any real debate."
How much does it depend on what happens next?
The wisest of us all can fail in his best plans , and the least deserveing can luck out.
Supposeing that things go as well as they possibly could , Bush will be remembered as a liberator .
If they go as badly as they possibly could , he will seem as a Casandra.
-
There were only two viable sides in the Republic of South Africa:
Mandela's ANC and the Pik Botha Apartheid government. No one else was likely to even have a chance.
Mandela got aid from Libya and Cuba to carry out the sort of raids against strategic targets like refineries and mines that caused Botha to cede for a graceful transformation. Mandela and his successors have always stressed the nonracial nature of their movement. Botha and Mandela were both far wiser than the majority of African leaders and colonialists were, and they are both to be complemented. Their Nobel Prizes were richly deserved.
Namibia and Botswana were also graceful transformations. The years of destructive terror in Mozambique and Angola were looming in everyone's mind as how badly a decolonization could go. The ANC trained in both countries, and saw firsthand. The Whites needed no extra scaring.
The important thing was that this was a DIPLOMATIC transformation, not a military one, which is why it is so commendable.
Sirs slander of Mandela is undeserved and bogus.
-
This is barely worth replying to any longer, but clearly by Sirs own logic of condemning Mandela by associating him with Qadaffi, the logic can be used to turn the tables on Sirs himself.
It has nothing to do with "us versus them" Plane and if anyone is engaging in that it would be (drum roll) Sirs again who does so with Presidents Carter and Bush in this same debate.
Then he offers absolutely no defence of any of his comments.
My hope was to actually have some sort of history-based debate, but alas it was never to be.
The clear intent here was to brood over the current president's historical legacy, regardless of any real debate.
Kinda hard to have such a debate when it's predicated on the bogus accusation of how I supposedly support apartheid. And you'll also note you touched on just this 1 aspect of Carter's miserable legacy, as if that was all that held him back from greatness. This was a mere component of many that produced one of our worst presidents ever to have served. But you are correct in 1 aspect, I wasn't interested in debating African history, near to the interest I had in debating Carter's Presidential history specifically
-
You should note that I don't believe Carter was a good president either. The difference is that I could make a list that I could debate with other members over, whereas you would not even engage in a debate over your list. Also, I pointed out many errors with your "list", not just one.
You refused to debate any of them.
-
You should note that I don't believe Carter was a good president either.
Good, then we're in agreement. And you note I have many issues and problems with Bush as well, though likely the ones I'd use to criticize him with are likely not the ones others would.