Carter is just plain looney lately

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson
So, one more time: Carter is not "looney". He's right. The United States are ruled by an idiot whom history will judge harshly and without political bias.

And who are you to speculate how history will judge GWB?

Do you have a crystal ball we don't know about?

Erm, Iraq?

 

[AnitaPeterson]

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson
So, one more time: Carter is not "looney". He's right. The United States are ruled by an idiot whom history will judge harshly and without political bias.

And who are you to speculate how history will judge GWB?

Do you have a crystal ball we don't know about?

Erm, Iraq?

that cannot possibly be a serious question... no matter how blinded one is....

 

[Elias824]

I would agree that carter steped out of line, I think its a little dis-respectfully to criticize a sitting president espically calling him the worst president in history. If you dems think that calling names and being angry is ok because you dont agree with bush then it just shows how mature you all are. I would like to see what would happen if bush were to criticize carter, he would still be attacked and people would be even angrier at him, yet carter is applauded for it? Seems like hating bush is a trend. Everyone thinks he is evil and a mass murderer but really I believe he is just doing what he believes is best for the county weather that be right or wrong I don't think that makes him evil even if you do disagree with him. On the whole Iraq thing I just have to link one story that I think never really came out in the media
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html
America is supposed to be full of tolerance but we call others, murders and evil because we do not agree with them

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Elias824
Seems like hating bush is a trend.

Hating incompetence is truly an American tradition, especially when it has dire results like Bushes Presidency.

 

[MadRat]

Carter didn't call him the worst president in history, as it was previously pointed out, he compared him to Nixon as worse. He said Bush's impact was the worst in history. Difference.

And bravo to Carter for criticizing Bush for recycling many of the same failed policies. Last time oil prices were majorly out of control who was the president? I remember the sky was faling in Carter's time. Personally I think all of the presidents have stunk. We need to neuter the office and separate the cabinet posts into elected position within the executive branch. The job is too big for one man and one vote. We need the bozoes in the driver's seats of this country to be held accountable. Making cabinet positions two year elected offices is a good start.

 

[topslop1]

Bush is a joke it's too bad that he'll probably end up our dictator.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: tomywishbone

Originally posted by: JD50

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

I don't really like Bush, but you are a total moonbat.

True, but I ain't killed 50,000 people. Let's review... Moonbat v. Killer of 50,000.
Verdict; I win.

Edit: I like the word Moonbat...nicely done.🙂

the Iraqu civilian casualty is more accurately at ~150,000. besides, 21st century is only 7 years old right now. Hard to dispute Bush is indeed the greatest mass murderer of this century. Hussein did all his killing before then. I'm not sure if one person is predominantly responsible for Darfur (thank the crappiness of our media and lack of attention), but Bush pretty much has the title to his own right now.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

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

Hitler... 6 million Jews, top that.

EDIT- ahhh 21st century... which is all over 7 years old.... ummm nice way to frame the issue. But I think Rwanda and Dufar top Iraq.

Rwanda: 1993 or thereabouts. still 20th century. I'm not sure if "one" person is responsible for Darfur--if so, then I'd agree.

Besides, Hitler's got nothing on Stalin when it comes to Mass Murder. Why do people just think Hitler when ever crazed mass murderers are brought up? Stalin killed at least 3x more innocent people than Hitler.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Heh. Notice that Shivetya didn't say that Carter was wrong, or why he thinks so, just that he hates Jimmy and all Dems rather desperately...

Empty raving and sputtering seem to be the best that the rightwing has to offer recently...

Carter was wrong... happy? 🙂

I am not sure that Carter should be talking with the mess he left us. Other than Egypt-Israeli peace Carter was a total foreign policy nightmare.

Carter: brokered peace in the middle east, rest of the world "chipper"
Bush: everyone ****** hates us. period

yeah, good try PJ.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: zinfamous


Besides, Hitler's got nothing on Stalin when it comes to Mass Murder. Why do people just think Hitler when ever crazed mass murderers are brought up? Stalin killed at least 3x more innocent people than Hitler.

Are you including the casualties of WWII in that figure? They're higher than Stalin's killings.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: BoomerD
If you compare Jimmy Carter to your Commander-in-Chimp, Former President Carter comes out as a genius, and expert statesman...PLUS, he can say nuk-u-ler...
Was he a great president? No...but we were in the brief depression following the Nixon/Ford years, and after Vietnam...unemployment was pretty high, (between 5.8 and 7.1%) and interest rates were thru the roof...However, since those on the right say Clinton can't lay claim to the prosperity of the 90's, Carter sure can't be blamed for what he inherited in the 70's...
Carter TRIED...god help him, he TRIED...he was a GOOD man in a sh*tty job, during a tough time...The Iranian Hostage Crisis sure didn't help his public image either. IIRC, there was one failed attempt to go in and rescue the hostages...and it fell apart almost before it got started...
MAYBE that should be proof that a truly religious man should never be President...too much conflict of interest...

Not to mention Iran's deal to release the hostages only after the election--if Reagan were to win. Well-publicized example of a foreign nation willingly, and effectively influencing a US presidential election.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
We have precedence in our country where former Presidents do not speak ill of those who follow them. Did you notice that Bush 41 never spoke ill of Clinton and Clinton never speaks ill of Bush 43, Clinton seems to go out of his way to be diplomatic about what he disagrees with.
Carter has thrown that precedence to the side and launched a rather harsh attack on the current President. Besides ignoring tons of history this has a very negative affect on how the world views us. It is one thing for people such as the posters on here to run around and attack Bush; it is another for a former President to do the same. As a former President Carter has a duty to uphold and respect the President, even when he doesn?t agree with him.

You are ignorant if you don?t think our enemies will by using these words against the US in the future. I am sure even now the terrorists are planning on ways to use these words to rally more to their sides. And I am sure crazies like the Iranian President will do the same, telling their people how Bush is the worse President in history and the like.

There is nothing positive that can come out of Carter?s statements. Except to make a few of the ?hate Bush? crowd happy.

most of what you say here is true. however, the partisanship and hatemongering has grown so much in this country over the last 7 years that something needed to be said, from someone that has universal respect and appeal ("universal" means the rest of the world, not Ohio and Florida for you ignorant nutjobs), showing that this psychopath in power does not represent the core values of Americans, in any way, shape or form.

Nearly every country has come to loath our foreign policy and our country in general, and many feel that Bush is well supported in the US. It was necessary for Carter to say this, perhaps, and completely relevant. This is probably the first step in healing this country before the colonic is applied on the white house in 08 to sweep out the filth and scum that has plagued us for 8 years.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: zinfamous


Besides, Hitler's got nothing on Stalin when it comes to Mass Murder. Why do people just think Hitler when ever crazed mass murderers are brought up? Stalin killed at least 3x more innocent people than Hitler.

Are you including the casualties of WWII in that figure? They're higher than Stalin's killings.

The Red army is responsible for ~70% of the entire German army casualties. No matter how much we in the west will dispute it, the Russians alone were truly responsible for defeating the Germans.

That aside, there is mention in this thread about not calling the military murderers. Well, people cite Hitler b/c of the 6 million he murdered (yes, murdered--not casualties of war) in labor and death camps. Stalin mudered ~50 million in the same fashion. These are the numbers I'm using. 😉

 

[m1ldslide1]

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...

 

[db]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
...They can't allow themselves to see what a disaster Bush is and what their votes have done to the nation. They compound their stupidity with the hubris of denial.

Nobody likes to admit (first to themselves) that they were wrong, mistaken, or taken advantage of.
But it's happened to all of us at one time or another.

It takes guts to admit you were wrong/mistaken/mislead.
The point now is to move forward and do the right thing.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: zinfamous


Besides, Hitler's got nothing on Stalin when it comes to Mass Murder. Why do people just think Hitler when ever crazed mass murderers are brought up? Stalin killed at least 3x more innocent people than Hitler.

Are you including the casualties of WWII in that figure? They're higher than Stalin's killings.

The Red army is responsible for ~70% of the entire German army casualties. No matter how much we in the west will dispute it, the Russians alone were truly responsible for defeating the Germans.

That aside, there is mention in this thread about not calling the military murderers. Well, people cite Hitler b/c of the 6 million he murdered (yes, murdered--not casualties of war) in labor and death camps. Stalin mudered ~50 million in the same fashion. These are the numbers I'm using. 😉

You said innocent. I did not include the German military in that number, though you could make *some* argument along those lines.

But just consider the tens of millions of WWII civilian victims, allied or axis, who can be attributed to Hitler's choice to go to war.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: zinfamous
The Red army is responsible for ~70% of the entire German army casualties. No matter how much we in the west will dispute it, the Russians alone were truly responsible for defeating the Germans.

That is quite possibly the most asinine thing ever uttered here.

When Hitler took his own life, did he say "The Russians are coming!" ... No.

The Red Army was certainly a factor in the defeat of the Third Reich but to claim they did it alone is ludicrous.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: zinfamous
The Red army is responsible for ~70% of the entire German army casualties. No matter how much we in the west will dispute it, the Russians alone were truly responsible for defeating the Germans.

That is quite possibly the most asinine thing ever uttered here.

When Hitler took his own life, did he say "The Russians are coming!" ... No.

The Red Army was certainly a factor in the defeat of the Third Reich but to claim they did it alone is ludicrous.

Zin is right with the numbers, might not have been 70%, but they killed far more than we did.
They chewed up the German army while we were building up our forces and working our way up Italy.

However, had we not opened a second front the war could have had a very different ending.
Russia was approaching a breaking point and if our invasion had been a failure it was possible that Stalin might have looked for a way to end the war.

These aren?t my word and ideas as much as they are the ideas of Stephen Ambrose and others who studied and wrote about D-day.
We complain today about politicians today getting in the way of the generals, but nearly every big choice about D-day had political implications. From the date, place to who would lead.
The only thing Eisenhower was allowed to do was pick the specific location.
There were also many times in which Eisenhower threatened to resign if he didn?t get his way.

 

[ProfJohn]

On Stalin and Hitler?.

If you compare the number of people they ?murdered? I think Hitler wins the title of greatest murder in history.
Six million Jews and at least as many non-Jews.

Stalin is certainly guilty of killing vast numbers, but I think the majority of the people who died under him were due to starvation and other reasons. There is some debate as to whether the famine was intentional or a side effect of Soviet policies.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
On Stalin and Hitler?.

If you compare the number of people they ?murdered? I think Hitler wins the title of greatest murder in history.
Six million Jews and at least as many non-Jews.

Stalin is certainly guilty of killing vast numbers, but I think the majority of the people who died under him were due to starvation and other reasons. There is some debate as to whether the famine was intentional or a side effect of Soviet policies.

Most historians put Stalin's "grand total" between 10 million and upwards of 50 million. Several sources choose to include certain stats while others do not, (such as the intentional famine and the ~5 million deaths as a result of it). Apparently, the most agreed upon number hovers around 15 million.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: zinfamous
The Red army is responsible for ~70% of the entire German army casualties. No matter how much we in the west will dispute it, the Russians alone were truly responsible for defeating the Germans.

That is quite possibly the most asinine thing ever uttered here.

When Hitler took his own life, did he say "The Russians are coming!" ... No.

The Red Army was certainly a factor in the defeat of the Third Reich but to claim they did it alone is ludicrous.

yeah, I shouldn't have included "alone." That was over-reaching. I should have said they were the number one factor in defeating the Germans. This seems to be the most recent, and historically acceptable view, anyways. No nation suffered greater losses both military and civilian than the Russians. Likewise, no one exacted as great (in terms of casualties) a victory over the Germans as the Russians did at Stalingrad.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: piasabird
How many terrorists has Carter ever Caught or killed?

How many terrorist has Bush ever Caught or killed?

Carter was a failure of a president who let Iran take his embassy staff hostage and did absolutely nothing to get them back. Any History teacher will tell you that Carter was the worst president we ever had. He was a coward.

As opposed to Reagan, who arranged for weapons sales to the terrorists that kidnapped the embassy staff and made sure they weren't released until after the election.

No, only liberals appease terrorists... right? Kind of funny how the biggest modern hero of many conservatives was a failure in the face of terrorists himself. There are many things I liked about Regan, but he wasn't the hero many make him out to be.

 

[Pens1566]

To those saying ex-presidents never criticize sitting presidents:

Linky

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: zinfamous
The Red army is responsible for ~70% of the entire German army casualties. No matter how much we in the west will dispute it, the Russians alone were truly responsible for defeating the Germans.

That is quite possibly the most asinine thing ever uttered here.

When Hitler took his own life, did he say "The Russians are coming!" ... No.

The Red Army was certainly a factor in the defeat of the Third Reich but to claim they did it alone is ludicrous.

yeah, I shouldn't have included "alone." That was over-reaching. I should have said they were the number one factor in defeating the Germans. This seems to be the most recent, and historically acceptable view, anyways. No nation suffered greater losses both military and civilian than the Russians. Likewise, no one exacted as great (in terms of casualties) a victory over the Germans as the Russians did at Stalingrad.

Don't backtrack Zinfamous... you're right.

The Russians would have won regardless of US involvement. The German failure to capture Moscow in '41 doomed them right then and there. (had they taken it they might have disrupted/destroyed enough of the Soviet rail and communications network to make moving equipment and supplies impossible for the Russians... as all roads back then truly did go through Moscow) Had the US decided to take on the Germans without the Russians chewing up almost their entire army it would have been a process of a decade or more... if at all. Fact of the matter is the Soviets didn't need our help to beat the Germans, it is not at all sure that we didn't need theirs.

The Germans sent their best divisions and reinforcements to fight the Russians, while we (with the exception of the Battle of the Bulge) fought their rear guard. Simply put they were far far more afraid of the Russians taking things over then they were of us, so they acted accordingly with their army deployments.

Oh, and actually when Hitler killed himself he was pretty much saying "The Russians are coming". He repeatedly mentioned that he did not want to be made a spectacle of, and considering that his choice to commit suicide exactly coincided with the Russian capture of Berlin makes it a fair bet to surmise that it was exactly the Russians he was thinking about.

It was a smart thing for us to get involved, and I'm glad we did. Not only did we cause the war to end significantly sooner then it would have otherwise, Stalin would have just taken the rest of Europe... but that is a different argument altogether.

PS: Damn you Pens 1566, I was about to post that same thing. Saying that former presidents don't criticize current ones because of some sort of informal agreement is a lie.

 

[Thump553]

Pens1566: Thanks for the link a few posts above. I'll say one thing-Harry Truman wasn't one to mince words-here's what he said about Tricky Dick:
"He can lie out of both sides of his mouth at the same time, and if he ever caught himself telling the truth, he'd lie just to keep his hand in."
--Harry Truman, on Richard Nixon

Truman's quote on Ike is mighty rough, too.

Or one of the true gentlemen, and sterling intellectuals to occupy the White House, Woodrow Wilson, on Warren G. Harding:

"Harding is incapable of thought, because he has nothing to think with.?

At least our public officials don't duel with pistols anymore.