Jimmy Carter website

Page 2 of 6  

On 24 Dec 2005 11:37:07 -0800, snipped-for-privacy@spamcop.net wrote:

Be serious. You expect a Rush Limbaugh parrot to read something. This clueless idiot just regurgitates what he hears on right wingnut radio.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
My last response on this to you Fred. I'm tired of your @#$%'ing with the follow-ups. I'm not playing that game.
wrote:

Fine Fred, yes the Geneva Convention addresses spies and saboteurs, not allowing torture, but fully allowing execution of said spies and saboteurs, they just have to be granted a trial prior to execution. They are NOT treated as prisoners of war in the same manner as uniformed regulars.

Therein lies the problem, we are now extending that "cruel and degrading" treatment clause to include "making the terrorists uncomfortable".
"Please Mr. Terrorist, we know you are planning an attack, we found parts of the explosives, the rest are gone. Where are they? Please tell us. Oh, you're thirsty -- here's a glass of water, is it too warm in here? Please, tell us where that car bomb is, please. Are you hungry? Is that chair comfortable enough. Where is that car bomb?"
Bottom line, with thinking like this, we are doomed as a country.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark & Juanita wrote:

Good. I'm glad you took the time to read them.
Now, the nest time one of your idols prattles on about how the GCs don't protect someone, what are you gonig to think about him?

No.
OTOH, water torture is tortue, no matter what you call it.
How were Habibullah and Dilawar killed?
Why?

If by thinking like this you mean abandoning morality and rejecting the rule of law, which you seem to advocate or at least excuse, yes.
--

FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 03:56:57 GMT, "Steve Peterson"

A couple of corrections: Congress granted the authority to invade (after insisting that they needed a second resolution despite the fact that the 2001 resolutions gave the president that authority). The second resolution was insisted upon by the opposition because they thought it would help them in the 2002 elections. Thus, both sides agreed upon the action. Only one person had the authority to issue the order to invade, so your comment that only one "side" decided to invade is nonsensical.

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Nore crossposting and followups
Mark & Juanita wrote:

False. The 2001 resolution authorized the use of military force in response to the attacks of September 11, 2001. It was not a blanket authorization to make war any time, any place, for any other reason. It also restricted the President to necessary and proper actions. The invasion of Iraq was neither, within the context of the 2001 resolution.

ISTR The second resoution was acted on at the request of the President. It was entirely proper for the President to request it and entirely proper for the Congress to pass it. The President should then have supported the UN inpsections that he had so adamantly inisted upon, instead of materially obstructing them, and politically undermining them.

It is accurate. The decision to invade was left to the President. The Congress waived it's authority to weigh in on that issue when it declared to include any conditional language within the war powers resolution.
--

FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Bush is a war criminal."
BS
"What can you think of that is better since he became president? "
Have you been blown up by a terrorist lately? Very short memory huh? Also, the economy is great, check the actual figures, not the boys down at the corner bar.
Walt Conner
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
crossposted to alt.politics followups to: alt.politics
WConner wrote:

One month after taking office, obviously before Clinton's national security people were in place the World Trade Center in New York was attacked by a foreign group with a half-dozen fatalities. There was no other significant successful attack by a foreign paramilitary group within the borders of the United for the remainder of the Clinton Administration.
Nine months after Bush took office, by which time HIS national security people were in place, the World Trade Center was attacked and 3,000 people killed.
Yes, you have a very short memory indeed.
--

FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dave, take off the blinders. Someone on TV said ( I don't think I remember who, but I think it's true) Bush is on track to be our worst president ever. What can you think of that is better since he became president? And don't blame circumstances for his problems, or you have to defend Jimmy Carter.
Steve

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Steve Peterson wrote:

Someone on TV says a lot of things. A lot of those someones are not really worth paying attention to. Surely you know that, so why repeat such a lame statement?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 03:52:11 GMT, "Steve Peterson"

Oh, somebody on TV said it, thus it must be true. Dang (slaps forehead, if I'd have only known, after all someone on TV said ....) Someone on TV also said that a National Guard commander typed a memo in the 1970's detailing how Bush was given special treatment -- that turned out to be forged documents. The person who most strongly pushed that story on TV never really did admit that a forgery had occurred (what was the phrase, "the documents were fake, but factually correct"?) When looking at statements, there are 1) facts, 2) opinions, 3) feelings, and 4) beliefs. What you saw on TV was someone stating an opinion based upon their opinions formed from their beliefs. Did they cite any facts that backed up their statement?

Let's see, the economy is recovering quite nicely from the Clinton recession. The stock market has recovered from both the 2000 "correction" and the severe drop that occured after 9/11. The unemployment rate has achieved what is considered virtual full employment (around 5%). The housing market has been humming along and doing very well. The deficit has decreased during the past year. Afghanistan is no longer controlled by a bunch of wild-eyed islamofascists who harbor terrorists and terrorist training camps and is well on the way to a democratic society. Iraq just held not one, not two, but three elections in which the people were able to freely choose those they want to lead them and a constitution. This after decades during which anything even resembling dissent got one's tongue cut out or worse.
The only good news for the Dems is the fact that the housing market took a large drop this past month. Anybody want to take any bets how much play that is going to get over the next month? That will get huge play time to illustrate how we live in a soup-line America in which everyone is just one paycheck away from living under an underpass somewhere. The sad thing is that the opposition party has set themselves up such that for them to do well, the rest of America must suffer some setback or major tragedy.
Are things perfect? No, but to paint Bush as the worst president ever is the ultimate in hyperbole.

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
David Stuve said:
<snip>

Balance is a valued commodity. Peace be with you in your endeavor, Dave.
Greg G.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Maybe some people rip him for the same reason you rip Bush. Some people can never leave politics out of anything.
David Stuve wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Do you think 2 presidents in a row would be impeached? LOL
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
David Stuve wrote:

http://www.motherearthnews.com/library/1987_November_December/The_Restoration_of_Jimmy_Carter
I was a volunteer at the Habitat for Humanity Blitz Build in Watts, LA about 10 years ago. All of the volunteers (over 1000 of us) met at the USC campus for the big Rah-Rah speeches to kick the week off. Jimmy, of course, was the keynote. When he was done, he came and sat in the crowd with the rest of us - right next to me (along with his SS guys). We exchanged greetings and shook hands.
I wasn't able to get near him the rest of the week, but he and his wife were out swinging hammers with everyone else.
I was surprised at how short he really is. Otherwise, he seemed like a pretty "regular" guy.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
David Stuve wrote:

PBS sometimes runs biographical pieces on the ecent President as part of their _American Experience_ series.
Either as part of that series or a separate program about Ronald Reagan showed him working on his ranch. During the time between the Republican convention of of 1976 and the 1980 Presidential campaign he spent a lot of time building a _very _ strudy wooden fence around a paddock and near to it. Evidently it was built using trees felled from the property.
--

FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
David Stuve wrote:

I wonder, when Jimmy smiles out in the shop, how much sawdust would you think he can trap wit 'dem big ol' teeth?
Tom in KY, with a pretty dang big smile myself :-D
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
He has done a lot of work with Habitat, you may find something at their site.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I hope he's a better woodworker than he was a president.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No doubt he is a better human than a top posting troll.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

<Snip>
Jimmy Carter, IMHO, was too Good a Man for the office he held.
Lenny
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.