Sorry ScottyDog, I bodged your pen name :(

Entelechy on December 7, 2006 at 5:20 PM

That’s ok I knew what you meant. I was just giving day 200 as an example of what we had to hear every night on the news because Carter was appeasing the enemy.

There also were loooong lines to fill up our tanks, sweaters versus coats, dim-your-minds lights and “malaise”. Oh, that malaise! He never realized that he contributed so much to it…

I was around too and do not forget that Carter started Ted Koppel’s career with the Nightline program ever night reminding America of day 200 of the hostage crisis in Iran ect.

Jimmy Carter was one of the biggest traitors to ever hold the office of President of the United States.

Not only did he start the Middle East crisis he gave away the Panama Canal which will bite us in the ass when China decides to use it against us.

I remember,
21% interest rates.
13% inflation.
He “invaded” Iran with 3 choppers and having final word on the invation, it was a disaster.

My pappy told me when you want advice, don’t go to a failure, go to a person with success.

I think that is still good advice.

I’d like to have seen Carter’s body language on November 4, 1980.

Bryan on December 6, 2006 at 8:04 PM

I couldn’t vote yet – but I watched in fascination all night, for the first time, ever, an American national election. Mrs. Carter’s ‘body language’ was way more precious than Mr. Carter’s.

Best was when ABC’s Frank Reynolds said “It’s a rainy night in Georgia”.

So pretty much anyone who doesn’t want to nuke Muslims out of existence is anti-American and anyone who doesn’t believe Israel should accept some resposibility for the situation in the middle east is an anti-Semite. That sounds about right.

JaHerer22 on December 7, 2006 at 10:23 AM

I’m not a middle eastern expert, but I’d like to believe that there is some middle ground between nuking the middle-east and kissing the man responsible for the intifada.

Furthermore, to my knowledge, no one on this thread has called Carter ‘anti-American’. Washed up, horrible/worst president, anti-semitic, anti-israel…..yes…..he’s been called all of those things on this thread. But, unless I missed it, no claims of anti-American.

And yes, I do believe a good argument could be made for Carter being (at least) anti-Israel. Generally, when you pal around with the leader of a group that has officially stated as it’s goal that it wants to wipe Israel off the map, the argument can be made that your anti-Israel.

As for Israel accepting some responsibility, I believe they have, consistently, accepted responsiblity. They’ve pulled out of Gaza completely. They’ve pulled out of Lebanon. They tore down settlements. They (prior to Hamas taking power) were one of the biggest contributors of aid to Palestinians. Furthermore, unlike the neighboring Arab countries (excluding Jordan), Israel does not keep the Palestinians living within it’s borders in refugee camps. All Palestinians that remained in Israel after it became a nation are considered Israeli citizens (even without the military service that all the other Israli’s must perform for citizenship).

So claiming that Carter is being vilified only because he thinks Israel deserves some of the blame rings a bit hollow.

The fact remains that if the Palestinian people stopped launching rockets, sending suicide bombers, and otherwise terrorizing the state of Israel, that in short order, the wall would come down and there would be two countries living peacefully side-by-side. While you can complain about some of the tactics that Israel uses to defend itself, you must admit that defense would cease to be necessary if the people mounting the offense would cut it out.

right, asking a president aggressive questions is just as disrespectful as calling him a racist and anti-semite? It must be tough to argue that position.

The point that you and gregh are missing is that it was the caller, not the interviewer, who made the statements regarding Cartuhs not-so-latent-antisemitism.

I’d like to have seen Carter’s body language on November 4, 1980.

Bryan on December 6, 2006 at 8:04 PM

Every TV Newscaster, every liberal trash Media outlet personnel had the most wonderful hang dog look on their faces…just priceless.
Apparently because we had not a suffered national collapse, some work was (left) undone.
Ronald Reagan was the light at the end of the tunnel and liberals were in meltdown.
I think the Gipper would have a few words for our faux Repubs now though.

He showed anxiety and sadness that his work is being construed in such a manner?

His work? You make it sound like he’s feeding the poor in India or something. He runs around certifying phony elections (Yasser Arafat, Hugo Chavez) and before Arafat went to his much deserved reward, he was Carter’s best friend in the middle east. What kind of ‘work’ is that? Thug enabler? Terrorist Boot licker? I think I’d rather push a mop on a p*rn set before I do the kind of ‘work’ Jimmy Carter does.

I would love for you ’state the obvious’, unfortunately, you failed. If the argument is about being disrespectful to the office of the President, then it doesn’t matter in what manner the disrespect is displayed – questioning, or name-calling. Disrespect, is simply disrespect. That much should be obvious to everyone.

right, asking a president aggressive questions is just as disrespectful as calling him a racist and anti-semite? It must be tough to argue that position.

What does his body language reveal about Mr. Carter? It tells me that he’s a washed up, hate filled, miserable, worthless pile of steaming horse dung (apologies to horses and to clover for the comparison) who would trade away his country’s honor for a Nobel prize, his wife’s knickers to get back at the Reaganites who dissed him in ’80, and his weight in peanuts for the good opinion of any Third World dictator who might amble by.

…hmmm…maybe I could get a gig on O’Reilly….

I think O’Reilly hired Larry Kings producer. What a (**(**&^*& segment.

I hate to state the obvious, but I think theres a difference between aggressive questioning and calling someone an anti-semite and racist…thats not even questioning its name-calling…

crr6 on December 6, 2006 at 10:12 PM

I would love for you ‘state the obvious’, unfortunately, you failed. If the argument is about being disrespectful to the office of the President, then it doesn’t matter in what manner the disrespect is displayed – questioning, or name-calling. Disrespect, is simply disrespect. That much should be obvious to everyone.

I wonder if it’s remotely possible that he “protruded his tongue” in order to lick his lips because he’s thirsty. Maybe he looks down in concerted concentration trying to hear and absorb what the caller is saying since there’s no way to make eye contact. Maybe this body-language lady is a quack sympathetic to Carter/Liberals. Who knows.

If Carter had scratched his ass and picked his nose as the caller spoke she might have called it suicidal thoughts… too bad he didn’t scratch his butt and go diggin’ for gold.

Interesting how the weasel, Terry Moran, of ABC news got a complete pass for his disrespectfulness of Bush. After all, he was just asking the tough questions on all Americans’ minds, right? It seems to depend on who the questioner is and who is being questioned.

I hate to state the obvious, but I think theres a difference between aggressive questioning and calling someone an anti-semite and racist…thats not even questioning its name-calling…