Jimmy Carter website

Page 3 of 6  


I remember thinking at the time he was a pretty lame president. However, considering our past several presidents, I'm starting to think he was pretty good.
-- Frank Stutzman
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
You do have a point.
wrote:

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

Apparently the group isn't aware of what President and Mrs. Carter have accomplished since their White House days. If you are interested, check out www.cartercenter.org.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yeah sure, look at America's Haiti if you want to see what American style 'free enterprise' does to a nation. Castro is a much better human being than GWBush.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It still amazes me the hatred and negative emotion that GWBush brings out in some people. An intelligent and rational discussion of the reasons would be facinating.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Count the dead in Iraq.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Exactly why I mentioned "intelligent and rational". One can get this sort of blather anywhere.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Joe Barta wrote:

Not possible. The idelogical Left is far worse than the ideological Right (which is pretty bad) in abandoning reason and honor in the neverending quest for power... i.e., There is neither reason nor intelligence being brought to bear from the Left (though both certainly appear on an individual level) when it comes to political matters. They just want to win at any cost.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

I'm actually thinking more on the level of "the common man"... average people that normally might not be that interested in politics or current events, and wouldn't be considered ideologically extreme. Among many otherwise regular people, there is the belief that GW (and those around him) are both profoundly evil and/or profoundly stupid, and that GW is personally the root cause of just about any happening they believe to be "bad". For those "regular people", I don't think it's about a quest for power. Actually I'd think a bit of "mob mentality" might have something to do with it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Interesting question - to tie it back to Jimmy Carter, I'm not sure either really deserves their infamy.
I think the reaction to GW comes from the fact that he's the "Face man." As such he gets to bask in the limelight of the astoungly effective Republican PR machine. (Gets guaranteed standing ovations, mostly speaks only to carefully picked audiences, almost never answers questions that aren't vetted first, etc.) On the down side, that role makes him the lightning rod for criticism every time someone in his administration does something wrong. The lightning rod effect is probably magnified due to the efforts to make him seem so heroic. Go around telling people how good or perfect you are and you'll experience a similar increase in criticism.
The average person on the street probably doesn't follow politics much, but in their eyes politicians over time tend to suffer from the death of a thousand cuts as scandals and negatives start to stick. The key to long-term success is to keep the positives outweighing the negatives. GW's positives are pretty weak right now. Current opinion polls show a majority of Americans don't approve of his handling of foreign or domestic issues. And as for negatives, unless a person gets their news exclusively from a Rupurt Murdoch owned outlet (FAUX news anyone?) there have been plenty of negatives reported in the last five years:
There's loyalty oaths that had to be signed to see him during 2004, responding slowly and poorly to the Katrina disaster, torturing POWs, secret CIA prisons overseas, a screwed up invasion of Iraq, failure to bring Bin Laden to justice, mass firings of people who disagree with GW, huge deficits, jobs and capital going overseas in record amounts, and corruption in congress. And now the NSA is spying on American citizens.
Bush isn't directly responsible for many of those things, but as 'CEO' and face man he sets the tone for the administration, and the buck does stop at his desk.
Dave
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
... snip

Let me guess, you don't actually *read* or *watch* Fox News, do you? If you did, you would realize that they have the same biased sources as all of the other news outlets. The majority of their stories come from the AP (hardly a bastion of conservative apologists) and are published verbatim from the AP. The only thing that makes them "conservative" is that fact that they have more than one or two token conservative commentators on staff and their commentators try to restore some balance to the slant that AP, Reuters, and the NYT put on all of their "news" reports.
... snip
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload


Actually Mark, I used to watch Fox News overseas. It's a completely different show, and is actually pretty good. Coming back to the US I was amazed to see the US version is like a weird parody of a news show. Everything is an swoosh-swoosh-swoosh NEWS ALERT! DANGER! PAY ATTENTION NOW! They claim that they are 'fair and balanced (tm)', but my experiences say otherwise. Flipping through the channels during 2004 it seemed like every day they had a TERROR ALERT! when none of the other channels did. Their trumped up "War On Christmas" is almost surreal, and seems to be aimed purely at getting people angry. And their hosts make me nervous - Bill O'Reilly seems to get most of his popularity by raging at and intimidating people who don't agree with him, and Hannity isn't much more open minded. As a regular guest, Anne Coulter's weird jokes (at least I think they're jokes) creep me out about killing people who don't agree with her. The other news channels report bad things happening in Iraq and Fox prefers to report how happy people are there. There's this bizarre circus atmosphere to Fox News that makes my head hurt. Yet, they're #1 I believe. Personally I think it's a deer in the headlights phenomenon. Get people's hearts pounding in anger, fear, or self-righteousness, and they'll keep watching.
After reading the London Times and the Guardian for a few years, I realize that all US media is biased. It pretty much has to be, since Americans report the news. The Brits will report things like "US Troops invade Fallujah, 2000 killed and tens of thousands driven from their homes." It's just a cold, naked fact. The US services will report the same story as "US Forces Liberate Fallujah, Rumsfeld optimistic for continued success." There's a lot of spin in that headline.
Well, have a Merry Christmas and I hope you all get your news from more than just one source.
Dave
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload


Last night, Forest Gump's 'Nam scenes showed up on my SIL's TV set as we came in. Weird movie for Christmas Eve, but...who knows with teenagers. Anyway, I thought during that part of the show that if today's reporters were allowed to show the action in Iraq as the 'Nam reporters showed the action back then, we'd already be out of Iraq.
But, hey, the media is biased. We can't ALLOW them to show real action that results in real deaths and maiming because then...oh, right. Because then parents and brothers and sisters and wives and children might insist on better reasons for the bloodshed.
Merry Christmas all.
And for the nitwit who thinks I wouldn't have supported Roosevelt's actions in WWII, learn something about people, life and the English language.
Mark--show some cites for some of your claims, and while you're doing that, understand that being great and being perfect are two very, very different things.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm

you?
as all

the AP

verbatim
fact
on
slant
I was

ATTENTION
2004 it

other
and
make me

raging at

much
least
agree
Iraq and

bizarre
#1 I

phenomenon. Get

realize
Americans
invade
homes."
story
more
we
teenagers.
reporters
the
that
then
on
actions
that,
different
-
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Interesting. According to their rankings, Fox News with Brit Hume is closer to center than any of the major networks' nightly newscasts. And the CBS Evening News gets the same score as the New York Times. In commening on whether or not there exists a liberal bias in major media outlets, the study says: "Our results show a strong liberal bias. All of the news outlets except Fox News' Special Report and the Washington Times received a score to the left of the average member of Congress. And a few outlets, including the New York Times and CBS Evening News, were closer to the average Democrat in Congress than the center."
todd
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
todd said:

But do take note that they excluded all "Editorial" type reporting. Like Maureen Dowd and Bill O-Reilly. I'd like to see a comparison of THOSE two. Well... maybe not.
Greg G.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Probably not. I'd like to see Annie Coullter compared to...something human? That is one vile woman.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Charles Self wrote:

All those big words she uses are confusing?
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Sure are, Timmy boy. Her statements like, "It might be fun to nuke Iran" contain a major number of big words.
Any person in the public eye who makes that kind of statement consistently is just going for shock value. She should get together with your buddy, Howard Stern, maybe? Between the three of you, come up with a sensible way of ruling the world.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 08:49:53 GMT, "Charles Self"

Simple: Make me king. The first thing I'd do is stop the OT crap that ruins otherwise sensible newsgroups, and then move on to stop other kinds of abuse.
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.