Carter is just plain looney lately

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Pabster
Lately?

Carter has been a crackpot ever since they pulled him off the peanut farm to DC.

This is just the latest shining example of another ex-POTUS going berserk. Carter has actually argued against the US at the UN on numerous occasions. It's disgraceful, despicable, and downright shameful.

I agree, all former presidents must support current US policies, even if they are diametrically opposed to the ones you pursued while in office. When the citizens of the US elect you president, they do so with the understanding that you will stand by and applaud while your successors $hit all over the Middle East and make catastropic policy decisions that will harm our country for decades to come.

Seriously Carter, why so crazy? America needs to put forth a common front, and that common front means blindly supporting whatever bat$hit crazy idea Bush comes up with next.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I agree, all former presidents must support current US policies, even if they are diametrically opposed to the ones you pursued while in office. When the citizens of the US elect you president, they do so with the understanding that you will stand by and applaud while your successors $hit all over the Middle East and make catastropic policy decisions that will harm our country for decades to come.

Seriously Carter, why so crazy? America needs to put forth a common front, and that common front means blindly supporting whatever bat$hit crazy idea Bush comes up with next.

Your sarcasm is duly noted :laugh:

Carter, just like Clinton, needs to remember that even though they are no longer POTUS they are seen as representing the U.S. when they give their BS speeches abroad and criticize and, in many cases, undermine our efforts.

No one said he wasn't entitled to his opinion.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: tomywishbone
In his defense, bush is the greatest mass murderer of the 21st century. Please dipute that.

That is a pretty good title, considering 8% of the applicable time frame.

And you are to be commended for being able to look so far into the future.

Any stock market tips that you can also share?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Martin
Neocons have ****** up America so thoroughly that people like Ron Paul or Carter can't state simple truths without being branded 'looney' and 'extremist'. In a more rational world, the real extremists would be the loyal Bushies...

Consder Paul Krugman's comments:

Introduction: A Revolutionary Power

... [T]here's a political story that runs through much of what has happened to this country lately - the story of the rise and growing dominance of a radical political movement, right here in the U.S.A.

I'm talking, of course, about America's radical right - a movement that now effectively controls the White House, Congress, much of the judiciary, and a good slice of the media. The dominance of that movement changes everything: old rules about politics and policy no longer apply...

A political sea change

Most people have been slow to realize just how awesome a sea change has taken place in the domestic political scene. During the 2000 election, many people thought that nothing much was at stake; during the first two years of the Bush administration, many pundits insisted that the radically conservative bent of that administration was only a temporary maneuver, that Bush would tack back to the center after solidifing his base. And the public still has little sense of how radical our leading politicians really are (emphasis mine - Craig234). A striking example: in the fall of 2001, when focus groups were asked to react to Republican proposals for a retroactive corporate tax cut... members of the focus groups literally refused to believe the group leaders' descrioption of the policy.

To take the most straightforward example: In 2001, even many liberals thought that one shouldn't make too much fuss about Bush's fiscal irresponsibility. The tax cut isn't a good idea, they said, but it isn't all that important. But by 2003, we saw the unprecedented spectacle of an administration proposing huge additional tax cuts not just in the face of record deficits, but in the middle of a war. ("Nothing is more important in the face of a war than cutting taxes," delcared House majority leader Tom DeLay.)

Another example: those who suggested the Republicans would exploit September 11 for political advantage were quickly denounced for undermining national unity. Yet they did - indeed, during the 2002 election campaign Republican supported ran ads linking Democratic senator Tom Daschle with Saddam Hussein...

It seems clear to me that one should regard America's right-wing movement... as a revolutionary power... That is, a movement who leaders do not accept the legitimacy of our current political system.

Am I overstating the case? In fact, there's ample evidence that key elements of the coalition that now runs the country believe that some long-established American political and social institutions should not, in principle, exist - and do not accept the rules that the rest of us have taken for granted.

Consider, for example, the welfare state as we know it - New Deal programs like Social Security and unemployment insurance, Great Society programs like Medicare. If you read the literature eminating from the Heritage Foundation, which drives the bush administration's economic ideology, you discover a very radical agenda: Heritage doesn't just want to scale back New Deal and Great Society programs, it regards the very existence of those programs as a violation of basic principles.

Or consider foreign policy. Since World War II the United States has built its foreign policy around international institutions, and has tried to make it clear that it is not an old-fashioned imperialist power, which uses military force as it sees fit. But if you follow the foreign policy views of the neo-conservative intellectuals who fomented the war with Iraq, you learn that they have contempt for all that - Richard Perle, chairman of a key Pentagon advisory board, dismissed the "liberal conceit of safety through international law administered by international institutions." They aren't hesitant about the use of force; one prominent thinker close to the administration, Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute, declared that "we are a warlike people and we love war." The idea that the war in Iraq is just a pilot project for a series of splendid little wars seemed, at first, a leftist fantasy - but many people close to the administration have made it clear that they regard this war as only a beginning, and a senion State Department official, John Bolton, told Israeli officials that after Iraq the United States would "deal with" Syria, Iran, and North Korea.

 

[Pabster]

The fact that Krugman actually believes the "radical right" control a "good slice" of the media is enough to quit reading.

 

[Lemon law]

What are the opening words of the Shivetya thread---but give the prize to "Frankly its distressing". And whom is Carter criticizing? None other than GWB.

So up to debate is the contention that frankly GWB is distressing.

And we see Shivetya turning that argument against its self by the use of fallacious logic----Saying Carter as a former President should not criticize a sitting President, that only democrats are bizarre and vile, that Carter is a "belligerent turd", and that his peace prize is bogus.---quite a set of rather dubious contentions Shivetya wants us to believe as unquestionably true.

I can well understand its distressing to see anyone you support being criticized. And by attacking the messenger, maybe Shivetya is now self convinced that the contention is false, but I just point out the the Shivetya logic is one thing in this thread that is distressing, bogus, and vile.

Regardless who says something---that contention should logically be taken at face value as true, untrue, or partially true. And unlike Shivetya, Carter expresses it as his personal opinion and without the use of gutter language. And also includes the us because he fears what amounts to an adverse impact on this nation---and impact that we do not yet know the full extent of.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: Shivetya
"I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history," Carter told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette in a story that appeared in the newspaper's Saturday editions. "The overt reversal of America's basic values as expressed by previous administrations, including those of George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon and others, has been the most disturbing to me."

Frankly its distressing for a former President to speak against a sitting President like this, but the vileness of the Democrat hatred towards Bush has been so extreme its turned bizarre. I mean, really, Bush does some things to drive us all mad, only Carter is off his meds.

So now speaking the truth means you've gone out of your mind? Wow, you Repubs have completely lost your marbles.

I'm curious...

When did the truth become beholden to only speaking it when it is convienent? It seems that this "No former president should criticize a sitting president" BS is the same as "cops don't testify against cops" or the recent poll where > 65% in the military said they wouldn't turn in another soldier for murdering a civilian mentality.

When wrong is done, the braver and more honorable thing to do is to speak up. If that means that some asshat like Bush gets his feelings hurt or some cop goes to jail because he was on the take or using excessive force or a fellow soldier gets sent to the brig....so be it.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Pabster
The fact that Krugman actually believes the "radical right" control a "good slice" of the media is enough to quit reading.

For you, because you are guided by a blind ideology rather than the facts.

Go try a book like "What Liberal Media?" by Eric Alterman sometime when you can handle the facts. An excerpt from the introduction:

But while some conservatives actually believe their own grumbles, the smart ones
don?t. They know mau-mauing the other side is a just a good way to get their ideas
across?or perhaps to prevent the other side from getting a fair hearing for theirs. On
occasion, honest conservatives admit this. Rich Bond, then the chair of the
Republican Party, complained during the 1992 election, ?I think we know who the
media want to win this election?and I don?t think it?s George Bush.?8 The very same
Rich Bond also noted during the very same election, however, ?There is some strategy
to it [bashing the ?liberal? media] . . . . If you watch any great coach, what they try
to do is ?work the refs.? Maybe the ref will cut you a little slack on the next one.?9

Bond is hardly alone. That the SCLM were biased against the administration of Ronald
Reagan is an article of faith among Republicans. Yet James Baker, perhaps the most
media-savvy of them, owned up to the fact that any such complaint was decidedly
misplaced. ?There were days and times and events we might have had some complaints
[but] on balance I don?t think we had anything to complain about,? he
explained to one writer.10 Patrick Buchanan, among the most conservative pundits and
presidential candidates in the republic?s history, found that he could not identify any
allegedly liberal bias against him during his presidential candidacies. ?I?ve gotten balanced
coverage, and broad coverage?all we could have asked. For heaven sakes, we
kid about the ?liberal media,? but every Republican on earth does that,?11 the aspiring
American ayatollah cheerfully confessed during the 1996 campaign. And even
William Kristol, without a doubt the most influential Republican/neoconservative
publicist in America, has come clean on this issue. ?I admit it,? he told a reporter.
?The liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as
an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures.?12 Nevertheless Kristol apparently
feels no compunction about exploiting and reinforcing ignorant prejudices of his own
constituency. In a 2001 subscription pitch to conservative potential subscribers of his Rupert Murdoch?funded magazine, the Weekly Standard, Kristol complained, ?The
trouble with politics and political coverage today is that there?s too much liberal
bias. . . . There?s too much tilt toward the left-wing agenda. Too much apology for liberal
policy failures. Too much pandering to liberal candidates and causes.?13 (It?s a
wonder he left out ?Too much hypocrisy.?)

In recent times, the right has ginned up its ?liberal media? propaganda machine.
Books by both Ann Coulter, a blond bombshell pundette, and Bernard Goldberg,
former CBS News producer, have topped the best-seller lists, stringing together such
a series of charges that, well, it?s amazing neither one thought to accuse ?liberals? of
using the blood of conservative children for extra flavor in their soy-milk decaf lattes.

While extremely popular with the media they attack, both books are so shoddily written
and ?researched? that they pretty much refute themselves. Their danger derives
less from the authors? respective allegations than the ?where there?s smoke, there?s fire?
impression they inspire. In fact, barely any of the major allegations in either book
stands up to more than a moment?s scrutiny. The entire case is a lie, and, yes, in many
instances, a slander. Although I abhor the methods of both authors, I do not feel they
can go unanswered. Ideas, particularly bad ones, have consequences. The myth of the
?liberal media? empowers conservatives to control debate in the United States to the
point where liberals cannot even hope for a fair shake anymore. However immodest
my goal, I aim to change that...

Given the success of Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Times, New
York Post, American Spectator, Weekly Standard, New York Sun, National Review,
Commentary, and so on, no sensible person can dispute the existence of a ?conservative
media.? The reader might be surprised to learn that neither do I quarrel with the
notion of a ?liberal media.? It is tiny and profoundly underfunded compared to its
conservative counterpart, but it does exist. As a columnist for the Nation and an independent
Weblogger for MSNBC.com, I work in the middle of it, and so do many of
my friends. And guess what? It?s filled with right-wingers.

Unlike most of the publications
named above, liberals, for some reason, feel compelled to include the views of
the other guy on a regular basis in just the fashion that conservatives abhor.
Take a tour from a native: New York magazine, in the heart of liberal country, chose
as its sole national correspondent the right-wing talk-show host Tucker Carlson.
During the 1990s, the New Yorker?the bible of sophisticated urban liberalism?chose
as its Washington correspondents the Clinton/Gore hater Michael Kelly and the soft,
DLC neo-conservative Joe Klein. At least half of the ?liberal New Republic? is actually
a rabidly neoconservative magazine (see chapter 3) and has been edited in recent years
by the very same Michael Kelly, as well as the conservative liberal hater Andrew
Sullivan. Its rival on the ?left,? the Nation, happily published the free-floating liberal
hater Christopher Hitchens until he chose to resign, and also invites Alexander
Cockburn to attack liberals with morbid predictability. The Atlantic Monthly?a mainstay
of Boston liberalism?even chose the apoplectic Kelly as its editor, who then proceeded
to add a bunch of Weekly Standard writers plus Christopher Hitchens to
Atlantic?s anti-liberal stable. What is the hysterically funny but decidedly reactionary
P. J. O?Rourke doing in both the Atlantic and the liberal Rolling Stone? Why does liberal
Vanity Fair choose to publish a hagiographic Annie Liebowitz portfolio of Bush
administration officials designed, apparently, to invoke notions of Greek and Roman
gods? Why does the liberal New York Observer alternate National Review?s Richard
Brookheiser with the Joe McCarthy-admiring columnist, Nicholas von Hoffman?
both of whom appear alongside editorials that occasionally mimic the same positions
taken downtown by the editors of the Wall Street Journal. On the Web, the tabloidstyle
liberal Web site Salon gives free reign to the McCarthyite impulses of both
Andrew Sullivan and David Horowitz. The neoliberal Slate also regularly publishes
both Sullivan and Christopher Caldwell of the Weekly Standard and has even opened
its pixels to such conservative evildoers as Charles Murray and Elliott Abrams. (The
reader should know I am not objecting to the inclusion of conservatives in the genuinely
liberal component of the media. In fact, I welcome them. I?d just like to see
some reciprocity on the other side.)

Move over to the mainstream publications and broadcasts often labeled ?liberal?
and you see how ridiculous the notion of liberal dominance becomes. The liberal
New York Times op-ed page features the work of the unreconstructed Nixonite
William Safire and for years accompanied him with the firebreathing-if-difficult-tounderstand
neocon A. M. Rosenthal. Current denizen Bill Keller also writes regularly
from a soft, DLC neoconservative perspective. Why was then-editorial page editor,
now executive editor, Howell Raines one of Bill Clinton?s most vocal adversaries during
his entire presidency?51 Why is this alleged bastion of liberalism, on the very
morning I wrote these words, offering words of praise and encouragement to George
W. Bush and John Ashcroft for invoking the hated Taft-Hartley legislation on behalf
of shipping companies, following a lock-out of their West Coast workers? (Has the
Wall Street Journal editorial page ever, in its entire history, taken the side of American
workers in a labor dispute?) It would later endorse for re-election the state?s
Republican/Conservative governor, George Pataki, over his capable, if unexciting, liberal
Democratic African-American opponent, Carl McCall. The Washington Post editorial
page, which is considered less liberal than the Times but liberal nevertheless, is
just swarming with conservatives, from Mr. Kelly to George Will to Robert Novak to
Charles Krauthammer, among many more. On the morning before I finally let go of
the draft manuscript of this book, the paper?s lead editorial is endorsing the president?s
plan for a ?pre-emptive? war against Iraq.53 The op-ed page was hardly less
abashed in its hawkishness. A careful study by Michael Massing published in the
Nation found, ?Collectively, its editorials, columns and Op-Eds have served mainly
to reinforce, amplify and promote the Administration?s case for regime change. And,
as the house organ for America?s political class, the paper has helped push the debate
in the Administration?s favor. . . .? If you wish to include CNN on your list of liberal
media?I don?t, but many conservatives do?then you had better find a way to
explain the near ubiquitous presence of the attack dog Robert Novak, along with
those of neocon virtuecrat William Bennett, National Review?s Kate O?Beirne,
National Review?s Jonah Goldberg, the Weekly Standard?s David Brooks, and Tucker
Carlson. This is to say nothing of the fact that among CNN?s most frequent guests
are Ann Coulter and the anti-American telepreacher Pat Robertson. Care to include
ABC News? Again, I don?t but, if you wish, how do you deal with the fact that the
only ideological commentator on its Sunday interview show is the hardline conservative
George Will? Or how about the fact that its only explicitly ideological reporter is
the deeply journalistically challenged conservative crusader John Stossel? How to
explain the entire career of Cokie Roberts, who never met a liberal to whom she could
not condescend? What about Time and Newsweek? In the former, we have Mr.
Krauthammer holding forth and in the latter Mr. Will.

I could go on almost indefinitely here, but the point is clear. Conservatives are
extremely well represented in every facet of the media. The correlative point here is
that even the genuine liberal media is not so liberal. And it is no match?either in
size, ferocity, or commitment?for the massive conservative media structure that,
more than ever, determines the shape and scope of our political agenda.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Pabster


Your sarcasm is duly noted :laugh:

Carter, just like Clinton, needs to remember that even though they are no longer POTUS they are seen as representing the U.S. when they give their BS speeches abroad and criticize and, in many cases, undermine our efforts.

No one said he wasn't entitled to his opinion.

I don't know why. I'm in a weird mood this morning. Seriously though, he believes that what we are doing in the middle east is hurting the US. (as do I to be honest) It is his obligation to stand against it. When your friend is about to marry a thai prostitute (true story! What can I say, I was in the navy), it's your obligation to call him an idiot.

All this talk about how people shouldn't criticize the president, this person shouldn't speak out, that person should stay quiet... is against everything we stand for. We need MORE dissent, we need MORE debate, and we need greater competition in the marketplace of ideas. To blindly stand behind our government just because its our government does us all harm.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
As a former President Carter has a duty to uphold and respect the President, even when he doesn?t agree with him.

Is this written somewhere?

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Gaard
Is this written somewhere?

No, it was always a gentlemen's agreement, that is, until Carter...And Clinton.

Then again, there was a time that the Oval Office was so revered the POTUS wouldn't dare set foot inside without wearing a suit.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Gaard
Is this written somewhere?

No, it was always a gentlemen's agreement, that is, until Carter...And Clinton.

Then again, there was a time that the Oval Office was so revered the POTUS wouldn't dare set foot inside without wearing a suit.

So there isn't really a duty. Right?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Pabster
The fact that Krugman actually believes the "radical right" control a "good slice" of the media is enough to quit reading.

< cough >... Rupert Murdoch...< cough >... Faux News... < cough >... News Corp.... < cough >... DirecTV... < cough >... The London Times... < cough >... The New York Post... < cough >... Attempt to buy Dow Jones and the Wall Street Journal...

Keith Rupert Murdoch AC, KCSG (born 11 March 1931) is an Australian-American global media executive and is the controlling shareholder, chairman and managing director of News Corporation, based in New York. Beginning with newspapers, magazines and television stations in his native Australia, Murdoch expanded into British and American media, and in recent years has become a powerful force in satellite television, the film industry, the Internet, and other forms of media.
.
.
Recent activities

In late 2003, Murdoch acquired a 34 percent stake in Hughes Electronics, operator of the largest American satellite TV system, DirecTV, from General Motors for $6 billion (USD). Among his properties around the world are UK's The Times and the New York Post.
.
.
On July 20, 2005, News Corp. bought Intermix Media Inc., which held MySpace.com and other popular social networking-themed websites for $580 million USD. On September 11, 2005, News Corp announced that it would buy IGN Entertainment for $650 million (USD).
.
.
On May 1st, 2007, Dow Jones & Company confirmed receiving an unsolicited takeover offer by Murdoch´s News Corp estimated around $5 Billion.

Looks like you've already quit reading. :roll:

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Gaard
So there isn't really a duty. Right?

Nope, and there never has been.

 

[BoomerD]

And now this response from the ***** House...I mean WHITE House...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070520/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_carter_2

White House hits back at Carter
remarks By BEN FELLER, Associated Press Writer

CRAWFORD, Texas - In a biting rebuke, the White House on Sunday dismissed former President Jimmy Carter as "increasingly irrelevant" after his harsh criticism of President Bush.

Carter was quoted Saturday as saying "I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history."

The Georgia Democrat said Bush had overseen an "overt reversal of America's basic values" as expressed by previous administrations, including that of his own farther, former President George H.W. Bush.

"I think it's sad that President Carter's reckless personal criticism is out there," White House spokesman Tony Fratto responded Sunday from Crawford, where Bush spent the weekend.

"I think it's unfortunate," Fratto said. "And I think he is proving to be increasingly irrelevant with these kinds of comments."

Carter made the comments to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette in a story that appeared in the newspaper's Saturday editions.

Carter spokeswoman Deanna Congileo confirmed his comments to The Associated Press on Saturday and declined to elaborate.


I can see NO reason why a former President would be restricted from commenting on the biggest cluster-fvck in US history...Carter was a man who cared about the US PEOPLE, while the current administration only cares about CORPORATE MONEY...

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I agree, all former presidents must support current US policies, even if they are diametrically opposed to the ones you pursued while in office. When the citizens of the US elect you president, they do so with the understanding that you will stand by and applaud while your successors $hit all over the Middle East and make catastropic policy decisions that will harm our country for decades to come.

Seriously Carter, why so crazy? America needs to put forth a common front, and that common front means blindly supporting whatever bat$hit crazy idea Bush comes up with next.

Your sarcasm is duly noted :laugh:

Carter, just like Clinton, needs to remember that even though they are no longer POTUS they are seen as representing the U.S. when they give their BS speeches abroad and criticize and, in many cases, undermine our efforts.

No one said he wasn't entitled to his opinion.

Undermine our efforts????? The vast majority of nations abroad agree with Carter.

The only nation on earth, including the US, where a majority of the population supports the Bush/Neocon administration's policies is Israel.

Why is that?

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: BoomerD
I can see NO reason why a former President would be restricted from commenting on the biggest cluster-fvck in US history...Carter was a man who cared about the US PEOPLE, while the current administration only cares about CORPORATE MONEY...

Carter was responsible for one of the biggest "cluster-fvcks" in history. He's the last person we should be taking advice from with regards to any current or future issues, particularly those dealing with foreign affairs.

 

[THUGSROOK]

you are comparing Carter to Bush?

get real, Bush deserves no respect as a president or even as a person.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Pabster
Carter was responsible for one of the biggest "cluster-fvcks" in history. He's the last person we should be taking advice from with regards to any current or future issues, particularly those dealing with foreign affairs.

Carter didn't start an elective war based entirely on LIES, that, to date, have left 3422 American troops dead, tens of thousands more wounded, scarred and disabled for life, hundreds of thousands of dead innocent Iraqi civilians dead, wounded and displaced and over a trillion dollars of debt our great grandchildren will still be paying long after we're gone from this planet.

Nothing Carter did was anywhere near that insanely and horrifically criminal and catastrophic. Until you can show that he did, you're blowing smoke out of your ass. :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown:

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: tomywishbone
In his defense, bush is the greatest mass murderer of the 21st century. Please dipute that.

Murder = the intent to kill innocent people.

Bush doesn't fall under that category.

 

[Jhhnn]

Heh. If Carter really were irrelevant, then the BushCo mouthpieces wouldn't find it necessary to comment...

Even the Pros can do little more than the OP- sputter denials and invective...

Tell us all about the great things Bush has done to restore honor and dignity to the Whitehouse... create that smaller govt... exercise a stay at home foreign policy... impose fiscal integrity...

Wait a sec... he hasn't actually done any of that stuff... what he's done is exactly the opposite, come to think of it...

His re-election probably convinced the ROTW that we really are a nation of dolts who've cracked their skulls falling off the turnip truck...

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: THUGSROOK
you are comparing Carter to Bush?

get real, Bush deserves no respect as a president or even as a person.

I think your signature pretty much gives you away.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: ntdz
Murder = the intent to kill innocent people.

Bush doesn't fall under that category.

Yes, he does. George W. Bush and his administration started the war in Iraq with NO justification other than an endless stream of lies and deception. Every American death is a foreseeable, direct consequense of that war.

In most American jurisdictions, Murder is also defined as death of another resulting from acting with reckless disregard of human life. For example, under Oklahoma law:

MURDER IN THE SECOND DEGREE

BY IMMINENTLY DANGEROUS CONDUCT - ELEMENTS

No person may be convicted of murder in the second degree unless the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt each element of the crime. These elements are:

First, the death of a human;

Second, caused by conduct which was imminently dangerous to another/other person(s);

Third, the conduct was that of the defendant(s);

Fourth, the conduct evinced a depraved mind in extreme disregard of human life;

Fifth, the conduct is not done with the intention of taking the life of any particular individual.

You are further instructed that a person evinces a "depraved mind" when he engages in imminently dangerous conduct with contemptuous and reckless disregard of, and in total indifference to, the life and safety of another.

You are further instructed that "imminently dangerous conduct" means conduct that creates what a reasonable person would realize as an immediate and extremely high degree of risk of death to another person.

Reckless disregard of human life is also an element of both Murder and Crimes Against Humanity under International law:

Nature of the Charges and Factual Basis
.
.
Crimes Against Humanity, (Murder, as charged in Counts 2, 4, 6, 10, and 12), require proof that (a) the conduct of the Accused caused the death of one or more persons; (b) the Accused intended to kill or to inflict serious injury in reckless disregard of human life; (c) the conduct occurred within the context of an armed conflict and was part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population; and (d) the Accused had knowledge of the wider context in which his conduct occurred.
.
.
Violations of the Laws or Customs of War, (Murder, as charged in Counts 1, 3, 5, 9 and 11), require proof that: (a) the conduct of the Accused caused the death of one or more persons; (b) the Accused intended to kill or to inflict serious injury in reckless disregard of human life; (c) the conduct occurred within the context of an armed conflict; (d) there was a nexus between the murder and the armed conflict; and (e) the victim(s) were not actively taking part in hostilities at the time of the killing.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Time to dispute the bogus Nobel peace prize thing----you may not like the fact that Carter was awarded the Nobel prize but at least it was not self awarded. And its quite genuine and also for what its worth, the Israeli Egyptian peace is still holding.

I also fail to see why the Carter foreign policy was a disaster. If anything, the Carter administration was a point at which world respect for the US was at a high point. And Carter, quite unlike Reagan and GWB, did not negotiate with or arm terrorists.

You are totally clueless Lemon. Carter was a disaster as a President in many many ways. I am guessing that you are not old enough to remember Carter as President.

BTW you claim he did not negotiate with terrorists, but he negotiated the release of the hostages, wouldn?t that be negotiating with terrorists?

 

[Thump553]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Time to dispute the bogus Nobel peace prize thing----you may not like the fact that Carter was awarded the Nobel prize but at least it was not self awarded. And its quite genuine and also for what its worth, the Israeli Egyptian peace is still holding.

I also fail to see why the Carter foreign policy was a disaster. If anything, the Carter administration was a point at which world respect for the US was at a high point. And Carter, quite unlike Reagan and GWB, did not negotiate with or arm terrorists.

You are totally clueless Lemon. Carter was a disaster as a President in many many ways. I am guessing that you are not old enough to remember Carter as President.

BTW you claim he did not negotiate with terrorists, but he negotiated the release of the hostages, wouldn?t that be negotiating with terrorists?

I am more than old enough to remember Carter as President. A great man but mostly ineffective as President, largely due to his inability to delegate and tendency to micromanage. A diaster, though? Hardly, and not even close to the magnitude of diaster that your beloved W is. Carter at least honored and followed his principles-W just gives them lip service while running this great country into the ground every way possible-financially (most irresponsible budget ever-and biggest turnaround from sound fiscal policy ever), militarily (wasting our military on a foolish and useless war, and tying up the military and future leaders for years trying to clean up after him) and politically (largest, most politically biased and reckless growth of national government.