Jimmy Carter is a disgrace

Meow! I have yet to address an issue?? What do you think I've been doing in this topic? What is it you require for 'addressing' to have occurred? Do I have to provide a picture of Jimma french-kissing Osama Bin Laden to satisfy you? Of COURSE I'm conservative, so what? That's why I dislike liberal positions - I know that may not be obvious to you, but it's true.

But I'm used to discussions like this at this site, and you have to have a thick skin, so I grew one. It's not hard when you try to discuss climate science with a part-time actor (Walter Winch) who, after calling you a denier and screamer and other names, still refused to discuss ONE contradictory article I linked to - so much for some liberals who hyperventilate about "discussing the issues".

I still have no idea what defense one can have for an ex-president visiting the head of a terrorist organization, who said himself that Carter's visit lent legitimacy to Hamas, in a time when these Islamic radicals are in a war with us. This same ex-president apparently thinks it's perfectly fine for him to lend his past presitige to a pack of butchers with American blood on their hands, regardless of the fact that the U.S. strongly asked him not to and when he is not in any elected position that allows him to affect U.S. foreign policy. Yet Jimma thinks he is the center of the universe, and somehow running around hugging our mortal enemies is going to make him into a statesman.

I disagree - I think that it makes him a traitor. And now he's had a second meeting with Hamas - the arrogance of this man is astounding ... and it's from Hamas' own maw that you hear them claiming legitimacy - sickening and disloyal.

DAMASCUS, Syria — Defying U.S. and Israeli warnings, former President Jimmy Carter met again on Saturday with the exiled leader of the militant Hamas group and his deputy.

The two Palestinians are considered terrorists by the U.S. government and Israel accuses them of masterminding attacks that have killed hundreds of civilians. Both governments have sharply criticized Carter's overtures to the militant group.

Carter met Mashaal and his deputy, Moussa Abu Marzouk, for about an hour Saturday morning, after more than four hours of talks the night before.

Carter, on what he has called a personal peace mission, is the most prominent American to hold talks with Mashaal, whose group claimed new legitimacy from the meetings with the Nobel laureate.

"Political isolation by the American administration has begun to crumble," Mohammed Nazzal, a top figure in Hamas' political bureau, told The Associated Press after Friday's meeting in Damascus. The U.S. government has had no contact with Hamas since designating it a terrorist organization in 1995.

Son, I have yet to see you actually "address" an issue. I wish I could say that I realize you strive to understand but judging from the bulk of your posts here, you're in the right-wing whackjob camp, which is rife with unreason and emotion -- not to mention prone to lying and innuendo.

However, congrats on figuring out how to use google to find a definition.

Inter, you're only proving how enamored liberals are of using ad hominem attacks instead of addressing the issues they claim to want to discuss so fervently. If your argument is so strong, why insist on attacking those you don't agree with?

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.

It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or personally attacking an argument's proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument. It is also used when an opponent is unable to find fault with an argument, yet for various reasons, the opponent disagrees with it.

You like to keep underscoring my point that you're truly a moron, don't you?

Did I just hear yesterday that Isalamo Whack Job claiming that they were going to take the Vatican over and end the Catholic Religion?

What a bunch of sweeties they are. They only thing they understand or deserve is an M-60 enema.

Well, gee jenni and inni, thanks for that wonderfully rich response. Inter, I realize you strive to understand but judging from the bulk of your posts here, you're in the liberal camp, which is rife with unreason and emotion. My God, the radical Islamists THEMSELVES say that Christianity is their enemy - how dense do you have to be not to understand this? Well, I guess as dense as yourself.

I personally don't believe in any god or religion, but I can certainly figure out what's going on when one of them is actively attacking the other, cutting heads off, lobbing rockets into civilian centers, blowing up pizzerias, nightclubs and school buses. With those people, you don't hug like Jimma - you kill them, period, or neutralize them politically.

If you don't agree, fine, but Jimma goes over and hugs the leader of a United States-designated terrorist organization. I just read this morning that a bill is being introduced to strip the Carter Center of taxpayer funding (nauseating, isn't it?) and noise is being made about revoking his passport according to U.S. law.

There ARE consequences to one's actions, even to a lil ole peanut head like Jimma "Hug a Thug" Cah-tah.

http://townhall.com/funnies/2008/04/18/3

Ha, Ha, Ha......

Wow. That was a truly dumb post. This was one particular gem:

"Christianity right now, whether you understand it or not, is locked in a mortal struggle with radical Islamists"

Oh that we could all have the higher understanding possessed by "Grinch."

God, what a moron.

The GOP must really be in sad shape that they feel the need to complain about Jimmy Carter.

Not one thread here on this site about George W Bush. You know the current occupant. I wonder why not.....

I mean, both the president of the U.S. and the Israeli government asked him not to meet with Hamas, a terrorist organization who is very fond of foreign movies, blue jeans and lobbing rockets blindly into civilian towns. This isn't out of character for this miserable excuse for a human being - he has consistently agitated against Israel - and Jimma finds no moral qualms whatsoever about dishonoring the presidency and what this country stands for by hugging the Hamas leader, a butcher with so much blood on his hands it would make a slaughterhouse worker blanch.

And yet we have people rushing to defend Jimma. Well, I don't understand you. Christianity right now, whether you understand it or not, is locked in a mortal struggle with radical Islamists, a group of whom are also known as Hamas. Jimma should be meeting with those who stand against these terrorists - we don't need to 'reach out' or 'understand' them (we already do, that's the problem) - we need to neutralize them.

Jimma's posturing for the enemy is sickening, and I am ashamed this person slunk into and out of the highest office this country has to offer. Here's an excerpt from a Townhall column I agree with, to back up my feelings ...

Will Jimmy Carter please just go away?

By Burt Prelutsky
Friday, December 22, 2006

And, finally, how is it that Jimmy Carter, that sanctimonious phony who was a disaster during his four years in the White House and a disgrace in the quarter of a century since, can pass himself off as equal parts statesman and saint? While most of us wished that he would simply slink back to his peanut farm after Ronald Reagan whupped his butt in ‘80, we hadn’t realized how starved he was for the spotlight.

Recently, he has been barnstorming all over the country, peddling his book, “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.” Carter contends that his purpose in writing the book -- in the unlikely event it was he and not some anonymous ghost who actually put Carter’s vile thoughts on paper -- was to open a dialogue about the Middle East. He calls upon America to take what he calls a balanced approach to the Israeli-Palestinian problem. He claims that America unfairly favors Israel because of the Jewish lobby. He also compares Israel to South Africa in the bad old days, equating the fence they’ve built as protection against terrorists with apartheid.

Where does one begin to deal with all the lies foisted off by Mr. Peanut? Would he have called for a balanced approach to Germany and Czechoslovakia or Germany and Poland in the 1930s? Would he have carried Chamberlain’s umbrella back from Munich?

Forgetting Jews in congress and the senate, why would any American, aside from Steven (“Munich”) Spielberg, find a moral equivalency between Palestinians and Israelis? Israel keeps trying to trade land for peace, and they keep getting their school buses and pizza parlors blown up in exchange. For people who are traditionally known to be pretty sharp when it comes to horse-trading, this doesn’t seem like a very smart way to conduct business. But, God knows, they keep trying.

Something that Carter, who has often boasted of his close friendship with Yasser Arafat, insists on overlooking is that prior to 1948, the “Palestinians” were in fact the Jews living on the land that was the basis for the modern state of Israel. It was land, mainly sand, they had bought at inflated prices from Arabs for over 50 years. The fact that it is now the Arabs who are known as Palestinians is the result of a clever P.R. firm that suggested that if they wanted to picture themselves as underdogs in order to garner sympathy, they should stop calling themselves Arabs. After all, there were only about five million Jews in Israel and about 125 million Arabs surrounding them, and calling for their extinction.

Now why on earth would Carter call for a balanced approach? After all, Israel, in spite of occasional differences with the U.S., is a staunch ally, one of the few nations that sides us with us at the U.N., and is the only western democracy in a part of the world where Islamic Nazis run wild.

Whenever I hear an American claim that he favors Arabs in this ongoing conflict, a conflict perpetuated by a people who think Hitler left the job only half-done, I wonder why. Whenever I hear an American claim that people who treat their women like chattel; who live under theocratic rule; who oppose freedom of speech and certainly religion; who cheered and danced on 9/11 and then, for good measure, insisted that Israel was behind the attack; and who pay homage to suicide bombers; are preferable to Israelis, a people who share our values and who are exactly like us, except that they’re Jewish, I know that I’m in the presence of an anti-Semite.

Even if he happens to be a former president of the United States.

Denise Tiller, Midwest Voices 2008

Jimmy Carter wasn't a great president because he wasn't a good manager and he was probably too moral.

I believe Mr. Carter sincerely tries to live his Christian faith. Instead of condemning people, he takes action to make this a better world. If more people around here acted out of compassion and understanding, we'd could solve poverty and abortion and we wouldn't have started an endless expensive war.

And we know who the worst president of the 21st century is.

Denise Tiller, Midwest Voices 2008

Given the opportunity to examine what our policies are (and should be) towards Palestine and Israel, and to put the conflict in historical perspective, Balano instead uses his column to launch an attack on President Carter for his ongoing efforts to engage the various parties in the conflicts over there. He even conveniently omits the Camp David accords, to date one of the most significant steps towards achieving peace in the region -- and in which Carter was a prime mover.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_David_Accords

Seriously, KC Star -- how low are your standards for these Midwest Voices columnists? This guy is a joke.

With your rapier like wit. "Jimma" is the way it is pronounced down there on the peanut farm don't you know? And no one, absolutely NO ONE needs any gimmick or help to poke fun at this total loser.

Sorry nimrod, I didn't know he was one of your heroes, but then I could have probalby guessed after reading your comment.

Rogue: Wow...nice play on names. I believe that I have heard my 6 year old nephew do this, except that it was to the effect of Smelly Ellie, or something very similar. Good tactic though, as adults debating political affiliation and views on platform, to make fun of someones name is genius!

http://townhall.com/funnies/2008/04/17/1

What an absolute loser. The absolute worst President in the history of America. Only Osama Obamba has a chance to be worse.....

at least he doesn't have that to worry about anymore...or maybe he does since it's now the 21st Century??? we've now seen the worst in our 232 year history.

If you stand for being clue less where does that mean you sit? Since when did betraying your countries ally, "like the shah" become idealism? Since when did betraying a military pact we had with the Iranian people come from "a sense of general malaise" as opposed to Carter. No President is allowed to swear an oath to the constitution of the USA and then betray our agreements made to friends, because it's illegal, please read the constitution it is what carter was supposed to uphold. Since when did making agreements, publicly stating you support a person "like the shah" and then stabbing him in the back make you a decent human being??? Lets talk frankly, since millions of innocent human beings have been killed in cold blood as a result of Carters lack of respect for human rights, it does not take a genius to realize ROSS IS RIGHT.

I'll give you this Carter did very well at pretending to be for human rights , for poor peoples welfare, for womens rights, for democratic ideals.

Based solely on results, he undermined the Shah who had brought his people stability and security, as well as from 9% literacy to over 85% literacy, from $130 a year income to over $2800 in 1975, the 9th wealthiest economy in the world at the time and soon to be the 5th, creating a middle class, providing health care for all and moving towards a democratic system.

He Portrayed him as a dictator, a murderer and a crook which it is obvious he was not. (They had in their jails less than 3000 people) Carter then brought Khomeini as a man of peace, even though he had read his book written in 1972 and knew this guy was a cold blooded murderer and terrorist and wanted to destroy, the great satan, America as he says in his book. All this, even though most (around 70%) of the people in IRAN hate the idea of an islamic state and have lost their freedom in their own country. What a Democrat!! What a freedom lover!! Almost 30 years has gone by and Carter has yet to answer for his sick crimes against human rights and freedom.

And what did Carter deliver? An Islamic republic that stones women to death, around 100 women a year get killed and the same number of children, has taken away human rights previously there, has taken its people to being the 103 wealthiest people from the 9th (even though they are receiving 12 times as much money from oil than the shah's team received)/massive corruption. And when students or women come to fight the system they get killed or jailed.

I think that it was absolutely correct for the head of the US military represented in NATO, General Alexander Haig to have resigned in response to Carter going against his recommendation and sending officers under his command to Iran with orders to prevent the Iranian military from protecting the constitution of Iran. Got that? Carter directly interferred.

Do you Get that we would not be fighting in IRAQ and that 9/11 or the millons of innocent non combattants would not have been killed in Afganistan had JIMMY CARTER not betrayed the SHAH??? Remember that.

That's former Democrat NYC mayor Ed Koch's opinion, not just mine ... the following is an excerpt from Ed Koch's April 15th article at the link below ... so if Ross has it wrong (he hasn't), so does Mr. Ed :-)

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/04/looking_back_at_life.html

Ford lost to Jimmy Carter. I came to know Carter well.

When he ran for reelection, he asked me to campaign for him in 1980 - I was by then Mayor of New York City -- and I said that I would vote for him, but not campaign for him because he was then engaging in hostile acts towards Israel. I was popular with the Jewish community and when I would not campaign for him unless he changed his position, he called me to his hotel in New York when attending a fundraiser and said, "You have done me more damage than any man in America." I felt proud then, and even more today, since we now know what a miserable president he was then and the miserable human being he is now as he prepares to meet with Hamas.

Oh geez, Carter wasnt that great. Regan wasnt that bad. The selection of presidents gets worse with every election. Still too tightly controlled.

finished with carter? Lets see, Reagan created Al Queda in Afganistan during the soviet occupation and then walked away. He showed the way for terrorists when he cut and run after 220 marines were killed in a terrorist attack in lebanon. He left us with the largest federal debt up until george bush showed up and even then reagan signed on to half a dozen tax increases while Prez. Yes, carter could have been a better president. But the capper was reagan's comment upon being sworn in and seeing carter on on tv help build houses for the poor and called him "pathetic". Reagan left office and the first thing he did was go to japan to give a speech for $ 2 million. Who is/was the better human being ?

Jimmy Carter was instrumental in negotiating the peace deal between Israel and Egypt, which has lasted almost three decades. No other American president has matched that achievement. Fighting our enemies may ultimately be necessary, but talking with them should always occur first.

Sorry Ross. I do not think it is appropriate to blame Carter for anything. Our country was in a general malaise after Nixon up to midway through Reagan's first term. It was because of all the crap we got wrong... Kennedy killed, cold war escalates, Vietnam, Watergate. The malaise was because of our general place in the world. It had nothing to do with Carter. If he is bad at anything it is being too boring and not inspiring enough.

He is an idealist. That is why he talks to bad people. He believes in the good of all people. Does anyone really think that there are sith lords out there that care about nothing but doing evil? Come on. Everyone justifies the bad things that they do because from their point of view it is not bad. It is good. For example, when we bomb a village and kill 20 innocent people (but 10 terrorists) we call it collateral damage, they call it murder. Do you blame them? Lets get real. I for one hardly blink an eye anymore when I hear about innocent death that we have caused in the name of "freedom." That is very pathetic of me. What have we become?

Where you stand is where you sit. Remember that.

Ross one of the best things I have ever read. Dead on, Carter was horrible and we are still paying for it. This guy is clue less and so is the rest of the democraps. All their names are interchangeable. Ed Muskie, Gene McCarthy, George McGovern, Walter Mondale, Hubert Humphrey, JAMES EARL CARTER, Al Gore, John Kerry, Michael Dukakus (sp?), Pelosi, Reed, OBAMA & CLINTON. Boy howdy didn't Lyndon Baines Johnson know how to screw up a war? See any thing in common. This is why the democraps will blow this election, it is because they blow, or suck depending on the time of the year. We are lucky that just enough Americans see through their masks. I am not saying Bush or McCain is any prize but we are voting for the lesser of 2 evils.

no Ross..you are disgraceful. Help me understand what is so wrong with talking with people? Even your enemies...