News-Record.com

I found it ironic that Jimmy Carter, who brought us double digit inflation, turning down the thermostat & sitting in the dark with a sweater, hostages in Iran with one feeble attempt to save them. He is the worst president in modern history IMO (of course followed by the greatest president in modern history).

If he were president during 9/11 he would have invited Al-Queda over to the White House for cookies and tea to discuss why America is so evil and deserved such an attack. Your kind of president Darryl, a pacifist.

I wish he would do what he does best, build houses for low income families, which I admire. Otherwise I wish he would keep his ignorant mouth shut.

Dan, don't forget to add that Carter gave away US control of the Panama Canal zone. His biggest failure though was turning his back on the Shah of Iran in favor of Ayatollah Khomeini. This event was the beginning of the Modern Islamic fundamentalist movement on a regional scale and gave the USSR the greenlight to invade Afghanistan which in turn created the Taliban and leadership of al Qaeda.

I find it interesting that Barry takes on only the fact that Carter "corrects" our President, and not any of the ideas Carter presents.

Typical myopia.

I agree with Dan. Carter should stick to building houses. He's great at that.

I've always liked Carter. He ran as an outsider (which caused him problems once elected) and has always spoken his mind. He made unpopular choices as a president but I felt he always had conviction when making those choices. I admire that. Don't agree with many of them and I doubt I'll be buying his book. But I admired him nonetheless.

I do think that it shows a lack of class for a former president to attack a sitting President. If Carter felt he could have done it better, perhaps he should have ran in the last election. Clinton has been pretty good at not doing that considering his love for the camera and the spotlight.

Hey Denzien - I'm a rookie in this board, and you and I went back and forth a little yesterday. You seem like a pretty smart person, and I think it is a testament to Barry's letter that all you could come up with is your post above.

I promise I'm not taking a shot at you, I'm just wondering if there is a list of Carter's ideas out there that I've missed. Can you post some of these ideas here?

If this says anything I think that Clinton was a 10 times better President than Carter, and it really hurts me to say that. Any thoughts?

First, Dan, thanks for remembering my pacifism. I can only imagine my popularity since I am thought of when I have not even posted to a specific blog nor written the letter to which a blog posting is written.

And yes, President Jimmy Carter has more principles in line with my pacifism than the current person sitting in the People's house!

I have yet to read "Our Endangered Values," so I cannot comment on it. However, I can comment on President Jimmy Carter. The main points are; 1) He was TOO GOOD of a man to be president, and 2) He was TOO HONEST of a man to be president!

I find it so ironic that people continaully criticize him and his presidency. Sure it was not good, however it would seem that some 29-25 years afterward, people would be over it. I say this esepcially if thing got so much better with twelve years of failed Reaganomics and now Bushonomics! Why bring up those bad times? I never recall that happening with President Herbert Hoover! And things were pretty much in as sad a shape then as they are now!

And lastly, Dan, if you have a problem with my pacifism, why not have the fortitude to contact me directly and discuss it rather than whine about it here in a public venue. My email address is accessible via the connection beneath ANY posting I make, unlike that of your own! Who appears to be the more willing recipient of personal and direct private criticism in that case?

Shalom

"In response to former president Jimmy Carter's book, "Our Endangered Values," I believe it is he who is out of touch with mainstream America."

That may very well be. But if "mainstream America" is all for attacking practically defenseless countries using flimsy, manufactured justifications, defending torture of captives and removing help from those most in need... perhaps the mainsteam needs to re-think its "values."

It would seem that nemo and shalom (irrepective of his pascivity) are out of touch as well. To call Iraq and Sadaam "practically defenseless" would be hillarious if it were not so intellectually irresponsible. This is not only absurd, but flies in the face of facts. Removing help from those in need? Ridiculous. Now, not only are free elections held; but women have their right places of equality and dignity. In response to shalom; I will agree that then, not now, Mr. Carter's motive were noble- however, his decisions were irresponsible and simply put: bad. Insofar as the condition of our economy; maybe you should stop paroting the doomsayers and peruse the facts. Look at some national stats from the Dept. of Labor:
Unemployment rate: 5% unemplyment for December 2005, unlike the 9.7 % of 1982 the second year of Mr. Carter's term.
For those who claim today's average wage is barely above minimum, $16.17 is the avaerage hourly wage.
Increasing taxation and regulation under Carter stifled the economy. Reagan's 1981 budget (the only one not to be declared "Dead on Arrival" by House Democrats) contained across-the-board, supply-side tax cuts that allowed entrepreneurs to invest and increase productivity. Reagan also slashed regulations, unshackling the entrepreneurial spirit of American business.
If you make "out of the mainstream claims" at least honor reality by searching for "fact." Though it be a four-letter-word, it is a good practice.

It seems to me that when one nation attacks another, and the attacked nation is unable to even slow the attack, one could rightly say it was defenseless.

Also... you are aware that the official "unemployment" rate is hardly an accurate reflection of the number of people who don't have jobs, aren't you? And how do you think the "average wage of $16 an hour is computed? How many Wal Mart employees do you think make that rate, for instance?

One last thing... since you didn't respond to the point about Americans engaging in torture of captives, can we assume you're in favor of that?

Typical of today's liberal to assume something from silence. I was not granting approval of torture as properly defined, I was focusing on one of the many issues presented. By the way, it is also typical for liberal parrots to attack Wal Mart lately; because today's liberal/socialist despises those who use business smarts to remain a step above the competition.
In the matter of torture one must not confuse the fact of rights of an American citizen applying to criminal, with foreign combatants. This is what liberal media has been doing. Should torture occur against enemy combatants/terrorists in order to maintain safety for our nation? Keep in mind as you ponder this: terrorist do not follow moral guidelines. We do, because, like it or not, we are a nation of (for the large part) morality. Whatever measure it takes to keep the barbarism of terrorists from killing innocent people: so be it.

In addition to my previous rebuttal; as you criticize some lower paying jobs- not everyone CHOOSES to prepare for, or even desire a job with the additional responsibilies of that of the higher paying jobs. Not everyone is qualified. Without the Wal Marts, as you basically put it; those who did not obtain higher education; would be unemployed. A lower paying job, that one can perform, certainly beats being sidelined because no suitable job exists. I may not reply anymore today- I have a job to attend to.

"Unemployment rate: 5% unemplyment for December 2005, unlike the 9.7 % of 1982 the second year of Mr. Carter's term"

Carter's 2nd year was 1977. Reagan was Pres. in 1982.

Barry, before I can trust the validity of the comments made, I suggest that one re-read the first post made. The inaccurracies there are enough to not trust one's comments.

Shalom

Darryl: "And lastly, Dan, if you have a problem with my pacifism, why not have the fortitude to contact me directly and discuss it rather than whine about it here in a public venue."

Cool, I got a pacifist riled!! Darryl, consider it a compliment that I referenced you. You are a good man although misguided IMO. Sorry I don't post my email address, I get enough junk in my email, so I consider this an appropriate forum.

Darryl: "I find it so ironic that people continaully criticize him and his presidency."

Ummm Darryl, the subject of the LTE is Jimmay Carter. If Jimmay had faded into the woodwork and just built houses, this letter never would have been written. But no, what does Jimmay do, he travels to foreign countries attacking a sitting president, our country, and even writes a book about it. If he is going to engage in these activities, then he is opening himself up to criticism. Makes sense no?

Let's just imagine a president Hillary in office and former prez GWB running around the world speaking and writing books about how incompetent she is. Think the New York Times would remain silent?

What is the deal with a sitting president being attacked (verbally)? I do it, others do it; what is the problem who the person is that is raising the questions? Does it matter? I think not! To think like that would mean that we are placing other people to higher standards and ethics than we place our own selves. Jimmy Carter is a human being, just as I. He is not better or worse. He gets up each day and puts his pants on the same way as I; one leg at a time!

As for taking the pacifist comment as a compliment, not in the manner it was noted. Had something positive been written regarding Jimmy Carter, then I may have taken it as such. However, when the basic premise of the post was to hackle Jimmy Carter, then that put me in the same "camp" as he. Therefore, I consider the statement to only ridicule one who believes that war is abominable!

Shalom

Just another thought Dan, regarding emails; just because you do not have your's accessible, does not address my point. As noted, if there is a question (problem) with my pacifism, then contact me directly. I would rather you do that then to make note of me in your posts. I also ask here, in a WORLD WIDE PUBLIC venue to refrain from doing so.

Shalom

Darryl, if you post on this blog and tell the world you are a pacifist then what is the problem with me reiterating that fact? I don't have a problem with your being a pacifist. I think the ideal is noble, but it totally ignores reality.

As for attacking a sitting president, it is done all the time, but not from former presidents on the scale it is now. Did you see Bush 41 out calling Clinton a sexual predator? No he kept his mouth shut. Again, if Carter wants to harp on Bush, that's his right, but that opens him up to criticism of what a lousy prez he was himself.

Do I need your permission next time I mention your name?

As for President Jimmy Carter criticizing a sitting president, I find no problem. And from the words posted, neither do you. If that is the case, why is there such an uproar about it?

Regarding my pacificism, that is for me to note, no one else. As stated, I find the manner in which it was to be extremely in poor taste. I do not make comments that are derogatory regarding the belief streams of another and only ask the same in return. Is that too much to ask?

While we disagree on this matter, pacificism is not out of touch with reality. It fits perfectly in the process of the teachings of Jesus the Christ. He came to reconcile ALL THINGS. What are pacifists seeking to reconcile without violence. War is violence/violent. Therefore, most, if not all pacifists are of this specific stream of thinking.

I would hope that I would not have to offter this in a public venue. Or, are some afraid to enter into a private dialogue?

I hope this gives some further clarity.

Shalom

Hi Darryl, hope you had a good weekend. I'm amazed that you mention in nearly every post that you are a pacifist, sometimes directly, other times with statements like "war is never the answer", but then you say your pacifism is for you to note no one else. By the way I said nothing derogatory about pacifism, just that it ignores reality. Reality meaning that evil exists, always has, and needs to be dealt with. It always will short of divine intervention.

Maybe I made a false assumption that Jimmy C is your type of prez. Since he attempted a military action in Iran perhaps he is not your type of guy.

I don't see why you have a problem discussing pacifism in a public venue, as you do it almost daily.