Jimmy Carter
They gave us LBJ Then Jimmy. Along came “Slick Willie.” Ah, good ole Jimmy. It’s probably a good thing they gave him a hammer instead of a nail gun or he'd shoot himself in the foot about once a month. I hear those things hurt!
Wonder who the Dim-o-crats will offer up next? Is it too late for Rosie or Michael Moore to get in?
I’m scared, no matter!
This letter has not been edited.
You left out nixon ford reagan, daddy and baby bush. I see that you don't have anything good to say about them.
Posted by mike h on May 24, 2007 02:45 PMYou forgot to mention the worst one of all they gave us: The anti-Constitution, anti-capitalist,anti-Japanese-American, Stalinist, Mr. Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Posted by John II on May 24, 2007 03:01 PM
lots of keen insight in this letter
Posted by not on May 24, 2007 03:03 PMJimmy? Slick Willie? Dim-o-crats?
Yeah, name-calling does wonders for an argument (sarcasm).
Oh, and things have just been going swimmingly under the Republican leadership, haven't they? (more sarcasm; I've probably used my allotment for the day).
Posted by Jeff on May 24, 2007 03:51 PMWhat I find interesting about all the recent Carter complaints is the dubious notion that EVERYTHING that went wrong during the late '70s was directly his fault, and yet NOTHING that has gone wrong during this decade can be blamed on poor maligned George Wonderful Bush.
I actually miss the '70s, but I don't think I'm going to miss this crummy decade very much.
I also truly hope Ed Dean is as purposeful in his nineties as Jimmy Carter is. (I don't hold out much hope for Bush.)
Posted by Hans Christian Brando on May 24, 2007 06:31 PMPresident Carter is probably the most truly Christian man ever to hold the office.
The fact that psudo-Christians have screwed up our country beyond repair since Ray-gun and Bush 41 orchestrated the original "October surprise" that effectively, stole the election, does not diminish that one bit.
There's a special place in hell for Cons who use Jesus' name to further their own evil agenda.
I strongly suspect that Mr. Falwell is finding that out as we speak.
"'They' gave us..."
They? Who are...? Ohh, I get it. I imagine life can be pretty rough when you know that half the world is against you.
Posted by anderson on May 24, 2007 08:45 PM
President Carter commissioned me as an officer in the USN under affirmative action (AA). Despite his lies, he also promoted Colin Powell to full-bird colonel (AA). Carter supported me while I performed my duties. During my 3 deployments to Vietnam, I needed Prez Boy-George, but he cut and ran for Barbara's dress-tails. A leopard doesn't change his spots. On 9/11, Boy-George cut and ran again. America was being attacked in the east, he opted to fly Air Force 1 north -westerly.
Posted by JJ Tarheel on May 24, 2007 08:45 PMEver seen Bush hold a hammer? He holds it like a girl.
He's never had to hold a real job either, and no matter how many photo-ops you have, it still shows.
The Dixie Chicks had it right...he's an embarassment to Texans and to REAL Americans everywhere.
I'm sure his Daddies business partners, the Bin-Ladens could help out an ol' friend, when he's done with his present gig.
DMZ
once again
you may be demilitarized but you are zoning out.
Carter had to deal with the aftermath of Vietnam. The economy got hit with runaway inflation as a result of having to pay for the war. The simpletons in the Republican Party are like armchair quarterbacks who give credit and blame to the quarterback when the situation is much more complex. What really torques the Republicans is that Carter gives honest assessments when he is asked questions. In this era of Alberto Gonzales and the perpetual liars in the White House an honest opinion is considered profane. Carter got it right on our bullying foreign policy and he got it right on Israel and their Apartheid policies toward the Palestinians. The problem with Republicans is that they can't handle the truth about their beloved boy king and what a miserable cowardly failure he is in leading our entire nation and not just the Republican Party.
Posted by Wes on May 25, 2007 06:38 AMCan you say NOBLE PEACE PRIZE They don't just give that to anyone. Now what can of awards will King George get? The dumbest!!!!
Posted by larrymc on May 25, 2007 07:09 AMYea, They do give out the Nobel Peace prize to just about anyone in recent times.
Jimmy Carter was and still is, a blight on the United States.
Posted by Boomhauer on May 25, 2007 07:16 AMlarrymc,
"Can you say NOBLE PEACE PRIZE They don't just give that to anyone. Now what can of awards will King George get? The dumbest!!!!"
Guess who else won the prize? Yasser Arafat.
Posted by John II on May 25, 2007 08:03 AMIt's NOBEL Prize to begin with; but don't let that interfere with anything. Oh, yes! Should we forget Henry Kissinger, Nixon's point man in apologizing and excusing our extending the Nam mess into Cambodia an elsewhere? He won too. Remember?
Posted by Old Grouch on May 25, 2007 08:22 AMYou guys can bad mouth Jimmy all you want but we are now dealing with the worst Pres. in history. And if you can see it I feel sorry for you.
Posted by larrymc on May 25, 2007 08:25 AMYes. The worst president in history calls the current president the worst in history and the dumbest poster in history believes it. Brilliant. Hooray for public education!
Posted by John II on May 25, 2007 08:36 AMJohn II,
"You forgot to mention the worst one of all they gave us: The anti-Constitution, anti-capitalist,anti-Japanese-American, Stalinist, Mr. Franklin D. Roosevelt."
Ahh yes, spoken like a Robber Baron of old. Remember people, John II forms his opinions based soley on his desire for personal material wealth and security. John II would likely choose to pick up a quarter on the street rather than save a child wandering out into traffic.
He is the most abhorrent of creatures: selfish, gluttinous, slavish to his own enrichment, and devoid of emotional responses to any suffering not his own. Sounds just like Bush no?
Just keep that in mind if you bother to read his anachronistic and outdated "ideas".
Posted by Charles B on May 25, 2007 09:10 AMCharles B.,
What do you base your elaborate accusations and insults on? Selfish? Glutinous? Slavish to his own enrichment? Values a quarter over a child's life?
I really don't mind the breezy accusations but I'm just curious how you came to those conclusions.
Posted by John II on May 25, 2007 09:41 AMJohn II:
Taking away the argument on the wars can you come up with anything Bush has done for this country? With 6 years of a republican congress how about social sesurity, a health care crisis, gas prices just to name a few. What I expect for a responce anytime you question this administration is 911. Or how bad Clinton and Carter was. We're talking about Bush right now.
He's probably read your postings John II.
Posted by Old Grouch on May 25, 2007 10:09 AMGod save the Yachting industry for John 2!!
Posted by Todd on May 25, 2007 10:09 AMlarrymc,
"Taking away the argument on the wars can you come up with anything Bush has done for this country?"
Tax cuts and a booming economy.
Two conservative Supreme Court judges
Taliban removed from power
A lot of dead radical Muslims
S. Hussein is dead.
Low gas prices during a time of war in Middle East
Patriot Act
No terrorist attacks since 9/11
Health Savings Accounts
John II
Sorry I forgot my contacts again!
Did Charles B. say "the anti-constipation capsule that a Japanese American installed in him was quite frankly a ruse?"
Did he say"an old robber took his shellfish out on the street an picked up a quarter for his own personal wealth?"
Did he say" his hemorrhoids caused emotional suffering and were gelatinous?"
Also did Charles B ask you" not to bother reading his chronic anal ideas?"
Just wondering John II you can clairify if you wish.
Posted by A on May 25, 2007 10:38 AMIn my opinion, where John II is coming from is that his various posts indicate that he is a fringe extremist libertarian who is not too far removed from an anarchist.
As I understand John II, and he can correct me if I misunderstand, he thinks that our taxes should only be used to support the military and to build roads and bridges. Thus, he seems to be opposed to using tax money to support the education of our children and our future, or to fund any social or health programs, and to using tax money for any of the following programs:
Regulation of the food we eat and the medicine we take in order to insure that they are not dangerous to us.
Regulation of how old a child must be for different kinds of employment, and regulation of the conditions under which children can be employed.
Regulation of the securities industry to prevent those in it from defrauding the public.
Regulation of advertising to prevent those in that industry from defrauding the public.
Regulation of the environment to prevent people from polluting it too much and creating a health hazard for the American people.
Regulation of working conditions to prevent death and injuries from unsafe conditions.
Regulation of the banking system.
Regulation of the interest rates that are charged to prevent those in that industry from taking advantage of the poor and the poorly educated and the desperate.
John II apparently is also opposed to such programs as Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security and of course any programs that might be considered welfare programs such as those designed to support children in need.
It would seem to follow that John II also opposes use of tax money to control the border or to regulate the hiring of illegal immigrants. And as well the use of tax money to finance police and fire departments. In other words, the use of tax money for any use other than supporting the military and building roads and bridges.
That is why I think I correctly view John II as being very close to being an anarchist.
Although I urge John II to correct any misimpressions I might have about his views, he is not likely to respond. I think I know why. He would dearly like for people to think he is a conservative, which he emphatically is not. For example, several of his posts seem to call for a revolution. Even the most extreme conservatives reject that kind of extremism; indeed, it sounds more like a Marxist approach than a conservative one.
Posted by on May 25, 2007 10:45 AM10:45,
"As I understand John II, and he can correct me if I misunderstand, he thinks that our taxes should only be used to support the military and to build roads and bridges."
Hmm, where would I ever get such an idea? Perhaps, maybe, possibly, could it be... The Constitution? Nah, that's too wacky. Anarchists have no need for the Constitution. Besides, no one follows those old rules anyway.
As far as all those federal programs you listed, I oppose using federal tax dollars for them. The States should determine how best to govern and tax themselves. Again, it's all there in the Constitution.
Isn't it ironic that I preach the obedience to our Constitution and I'm labeled an extreme libertarian or an anarchist? And those who accuse me of anarchy are the very ones who have no problem ignoring the Constitution.
Posted by John II on May 25, 2007 10:56 AMJohn II:
You mean Ignor the constitution like the patriot act. Take that one off your list.
larrymc must be angry about the fbi eavesdropping on all those calls he makes to his terrorist friends overseas. The nerve of those gmen trying to protect the citizens of the USA.
Just remember larrymc, even if it goes against your constitutional rights it's a-ok as long as it helps protect the public, right? At least that's the line I get fed everytime they pass more unconstitutional gun laws.
But I'm sure you're a-ok with those laws, aren't you?
Posted by KW on May 25, 2007 01:14 PMI love how these limp liberals make wild accusations and then run away as fast as they can.
Good luck in the presidential elections, libs. Great set of pansy-ass, prissy, demagogues you've got running for the nomination. Please, please, oh pretty please, give us a Clinton/Edwards ticket.
Posted by John II on May 25, 2007 01:54 PMI don't think John II is worthy to tie Jim Carters shoelaces. Talk about a worthless person criticizing a true Christian. Jim Carter walks the the walk folks when it comes to practicing Christian values. I would take Jim Carter's faith over George Bush's any day.
Posted by wes on May 25, 2007 04:40 PMwes,
I wouldn't tie Mr. Carter's shoelaces at gunpoint.
Why do you praise his Christian values and what does that have to do with his performance as president? They seem like separate issues to me.
Posted by John II on May 25, 2007 06:01 PMJohn II thinks that our federal tax money can only be used to support the military and to build roads and bridges. Nothing else. He does not want to live in America; rather, he wants to live in a country that does not exist, never has, and never will. I feel sorry for him.
Just as the guy standing on the street corner with the sign that reads "The world ends tomorrow" thinks that he is the only one who knows the truth, so John II thinks he is the only person in the United States who knows what the Constitution means. Imagine having to live in a country that has absolutely no regard for your views, that is almost the antithesis of what you think it should be. To give you an idea of the tortured mind of this man, John II has suggested a number of times that revolution may be the only answer. It must be tough to think that your only option may be treason. I hope that somehow, some where, he can get some help. It seems that his only source of relief is to keep saying, I am right and everybody else is wrong. I feel sorry for him.
Posted by Truth on May 26, 2007 07:37 AM10:45 poster.
If all the Federal programs you listed were run by the 50 states, can you just imagine the mess we would have?
It might sound good in theory to let the states decide such things as working conditions, pure food and drugs, etc, but all I see are caravans of people moving state to state for better living conditions.
Good for the real estate market and for companys that mis-treat workers, but what a God awful nightmare that would be.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 26, 2007 09:46 PMThe problem here seems to be centered around the question of, "Just what is the Consitution?"
On the one hand, we have those for whom it is nothing more than "another piece of paper" - with some historical, and possibly sentimental - value; but of no particular consequence today.
Then we have those for whom the Constitution is nothing more than a form of "Tablets of the Law", fixed in stone at the end of the 18th Century; and providing only a token effort to achieve a Federal Government - one that would, in time, extend from coast to coast. Here, everything depends on "States Rights": everthing not specifically written concerning Federal Government belonging to the States, regardless of the passage of time, the effects of any and all socio-economic development and change, and/or any other developments, both in the country and elsewhere in the world.
We, then, also have the position that the Constitution provides a fundamental set of guarantees of individual rights, while also being a sound foundation and framework upon which to build a governmental system which actually responds to the continuous, and continuing, movement of time, as well as to all the developments and changes attendant thereto.
This latter position takes into consideration the fact that the Constitution itself provides for its own amending, or self-correcting and expanding. It also recognizes that this process has provided for a significant number of Amendments - beyond the first ten, known as the Bill of Rights - which Amendments have recognized the basic reality of changes in many areas - which changes make the matter of "States Rights" less and less of an important force, or concern - while at the same time developing that Federal Government that has made a collection of disparate States into what is recognized as an important, and dominant, world power today.
Today, there are those who would have us adopt the position of a "government by TV, or movie, personality" - or some such equivalent - with the laws of both Federal and State Governments dependent upon nothing more than the whimsy of the individual holding Office. This group seems to run rampant in one of today's major political parties. And, regardless of consequences, at home or abroad, it seeks to dominate the political scene.
Then there are those who - for whatever reason, or reasons - would prefer to make the clock run backwards; and force the return of 18th Century life - and all the limitations thereof - on the Federal Government of today's 21st Century; again, regardless of consequences at home or abroad.
And of course, there are those who recognize the reality of all the problems and difficulties that would result from either of the two foregoing positions becoming entrenched in America. For them, the living, and changing, aspects of politics - both at home and abroad - have consequences. And these consequences can be dealt with through recognizing the power, strength, and force inherent in the Constitutional process as it has developed, by test and trial, throughout the Centuries up to today.
All positions have the right to speak, and to be heard. And that, in and of itself, is illustrative of the wisdom - as well as the stability and balance - inherent in the third position.
Posted by Old Grouch on May 27, 2007 09:22 AMBeautifully written Old Grouch.
I think you covered the duality of views on the Constitution.
Another way to look at this is: one group wants to use the Constitution to solve civilizations evolving circumstances, while the other side uses the Constitution to keep the status-quo, especially if that benefits them.
You might call this "Constitutional Theory".
Again John II, thank you for the links to Ann Coulter info.
Who gives a tinkers dam about Edwards and his hair? If we had videos of the candidates getting made-up for tv that would have us rolling on the floor, I am sure.
So, watch your little videos and feel smug because no one had cought your manly men getting face powder.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 27, 2007 10:40 AM
We need to look at government programs pragmatically. Although I am far from well-informed enough to know which ones, I don't doubt that there are a number of federal programs which we would be better off doing without, or doing with less of. And I also don't doubt that many of the programs that we do have could be run a lot better and less expensively, again a pragmatic approach But people like John II don't look at them pragmatically, they don't seem to be concerned with how much good or bad the programs do. Rather, to them it seems to be a matter of principal. Then, they make up reasons for criticizing particular programs. And they end up here: NO GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS PERIOD.
For example, can you imagine what it might be like if the federal government had no interest in the food we eat and the drugs we take?
I wonder if there is anyone besides John II who thinks we should do away with such a program, who believes, as John II does, that the Constitution doesn't allow the federal government to be concerned about the food we eat and the medicine we take.
As well, it really strains one's credulity and common sense when someone claims that something like this should be left to the states, so that how safe your food and medicine is depends on what state you live in. I can imagine how the conservative food and drug industries would view such a nightmare.
The anomaly is that people like John II on the one hand decry what they sometimes refer to a nanny government, that is, a government which looks after its people. On the other hand, some of them such as John II, contradict themselves by saying that it is the state governments, rather than the federal government, which should be the nanny government. Sloppy "thinking".
John II has often tried to characterize his positions as conservative. In my opinion, in doing so he is simply not being honest. While conservatives would certainly want to do away with more programs than liberals, and would want to reduce funding in ways liberals would not, simply doing away with all of the programs as a matter of principal is clearly not a conservative objective. He will not even admit that he is a libertarian. In my opinion, he is simply failing to be frank and above board.
Posted by Truth on May 27, 2007 12:27 PMTruth, Sharon B., Old Grouch,
What a triumphant trifecta of treason from the three stooges of The Rocky! Bravo!
All your posts were well stated. Unfortunately, they were all wrong.
Let me correct that; your posts were wrong if you consider yourselves Americans as defined by the Constitution.
What all three of you managed to do was build a case against our Constitution. Was that your intention?
"It might sound good in theory to let the states decide such things as working conditions, pure food and drugs, etc, but all I see are caravans of people moving state to state for better living conditions."
Sharon, Sharon, Sharon. The entire point of our Constitution was to let each State govern itself as it wishes as long as it follows the stated federal rules in the Constitution. This is a good thing. People leave a state, just like whites are flooding from California today, to find a State that suits them the best. Each State competes for citizens. California has disappointed many of it's citizens so they emigrated to other states. This is not a bad thing.
"...and providing only a token effort to achieve a Federal Government - one that would, in time, extend from coast to coast. Here, everything depends on "States Rights": everthing not specifically written concerning Federal Government belonging to the States, regardless of the passage of time, the effects of any and all socio-economic development and change, and/or any other developments, both in the country and elsewhere in the world."
Old Grouch, like Sharon B., you seem to understand what the purpose of the Constitution is; you just disagree with it. The Founding Fathers did not want the federal government to become too powerful. That is why they created the laws they did. The whole point was to empower the states. That concept that you and Sharon disagree with is the essence of our Constitution. I understand there are times when it makes sense to do something federally instead of leaving it to the states. That's what amendments are for. The Constitution allows for adding amendments as our national needs evolve.
"But people like John II don't look at them pragmatically, they don't seem to be concerned with how much good or bad the programs do. Rather, to them it seems to be a matter of principal. Then, they make up reasons for criticizing particular programs. And they end up here: NO GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS PERIOD."
Truth, I have a special keyboard that I purchased a few weeks ago. It allows me to program certain keys with macros so I don't have to waste time typing the same thing over and over again.
I have a special key programmed just for you. It writes: I never said that. Pretty cool, huh?
I never said there should be no government programs. Of the three stooges of The Rocky, you are the least informed when it comes to our Constitution.
When you say government, you need to distinguish between federal, state and local. If something is worthy of a federal law, it needs to be included in the Constitution as an amendment. If you want a federal law that inspects the food of the entire nation, pass an amendment. Otherwise, let each state decide how it should it's food.
"...so that how safe your food and medicine is depends on what state you live in."
The mayor of New York City passed (or proposed) a law that bans trans-fats from restaurants. That is an extreme version of governmental food control. Other local governments are not as concerned with trans-fats. That's their choice. So, there is already a disparity between food regulations.
Truth wastes so much time trying to label me something other than a conservative, as if that's enough to counter my arguments. Let's say I am the most extreme libertarian you ever met. How does that change my arguments? How does that change what is written in the Constitution for all to read? These last three posts were not an argument against me but an argument against the very Constitution that binds the Union together.
Posted by John II on May 27, 2007 09:36 PM-John II, It appears we are having a discussion on the Constitution and how people view it. To have a differing view, one which is not new or original, is not treason.
Those powers left to the states have been taken over by the Federal government, probably because the states failed. They certainly failed civil rights, to name one. And I am sure the other two stooges can think of other examples.
I think you were called an anarchist because you talked about a Colorado millitia in other forums on illegals. The ones where folks talked about "taking to the streets". You know where I asked if John II would walk or ride his Jeep.
Taking to the street is pretty dificult if everyone drives, but I would like to see it.
There may be state differences, especially in health regards, but only in foo-foo details, not in the basic regulations that should be country wide.
since we can add amendments, then our arguement is on what should remain states rights and Federal rights, or obligations.
If we are the only three people with these opinions, then wow are we special. We are not.
This discussion is centurys old.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 28, 2007 12:25 AMJohn II,
Thank you for naming me as being among "the perfect trifecta of treason". Coming from you, sir, that is a high compliment.
Posted by Old Grouch on May 28, 2007 08:46 AMHey trifecta,
Hugo just shut down the only privately owned t.v. station in Venezuela, good news to socialists everywhere, huh!
"When you see these things begin to happen, lift up your heads and rejoice, because your redemption draws near."
Luke 21: 28
Skeptical, please define near. Near in time or near in space?
Chavez in ca ca. So what?
Posted by Sharon B. on May 28, 2007 05:02 PM