Jimmy Carter Ailing with cancer

[Easy Bakes 253]

Ailing Jimmy Carter ‘at Ease With Whatever Comes’

 

      http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/21/us/jimmy-carter-cancer-health.html?_r=0

Too bad it's an election year and  every one just takes shot at the man

he deserves a lot better treatment then that.

Do you have to take shots at a dying  92 year old who's done nothing but good work since leaving office and made the lives of countless people better thru  habitat for humanity?

 

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/christie-cruz-take-shots-at-jimmy-carter-121633.html

^ these 2 Idiots have 0 chance to be half the Human being Jimmy Carter is.

 

 

 

 

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

"The evil that men do lives after them.
"The good is oft interred with the bones."
       Marc Antony in Julius Caesar Act II (Wm. Shakespeare)

Mr. Carter is a great statesman.  Taking shots at him only denigrates the shooter.

[blade2k5 1,523]

Great statesman?  What planet are you living on?  Carter is considered the 2nd worst president in history, surpassed by the hack we have in office now.

[MushyMushy 3,618]

I was saddened when I saw the news about this, he's done so much for people over the years - a truly great man.

I suppose the person above me got these "stats" that Carter was the "2nd worst president ever" and that President Obama is the "worst president ever" from some site or radio show that worships Reagan as the greatest thing that's ever happened to this country.

  Edited September 7, 2015 by MushyMushy  

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Great statesman?  What planet are you living on?  Carter is considered the 2nd worst president in history, surpassed by the hack we have in office now.

I wasn't considering his rather useless time in the Oval Office, but his later activities as a real statesman.  The Oval Office is only the hearth in which good men get warmed up.  Being subjected to the forge of world politics comes after that.

[Sabretooth78 808]

Too bad, but he's in his 90s, what do you expect.

As for worst presidents, I wouldn't call him "bad".  Weak, perhaps, but not bad.  At least as a human being, he's certainly accomplished more good in the time since than all his successors combined.

As much as I think 43-44 George W Obama stinks (for political purposes I do not recognize them as separate men), I still place him above both Johnsons (L.B. and Andrew).  In terms of erosion of liberty, he's more comparable to the likes of Nixon, Wilson and FDR.  If anything, in a truly all-encompassing survey Carter would probably be middling.  Just like his presidency - forgettable; lost in the commotion.

  Edited September 9, 2015 by Sabretooth78  
Meant to say "successors", not "predecessors"

[blade2k5 1,523]

I was saddened when I saw the news about this, he's done so much for people over the years - a truly great man.

I suppose the person above me got these "stats" that Carter was the "2nd worst president ever" and that President Obama is the "worst president ever" from some site or radio show that worships Reagan as the greatest thing that's ever happened to this country.

No, I got those views by living through his time as President.  Nice try assuming though.

[Linoa06 1,374]

I can only wonder what exactly makes you feel that way though.

[blade2k5 1,523]

I can only wonder what exactly makes you feel that way though.

Are you referring to me or someone else?  Quoting would help.

[Linoa06 1,374]

Yeah, you, lol. I'm just genuinely wondering.

[blade2k5 1,523]

Because I had the unfortunate experience of living through his ineptness as President and his failures as Commander in Chief.  That and he sat on his duff while Iran held our countrymen hostage for 444 days and did nothing about it but ok a failed rescue mission that was poorly planned.  It took a President with a backbone to get them back after Reagan slaughtered Carter in the 1980 election.  All of Carter's humanitarian efforts post 1980 is nothing more than a ploy to cover up his failed presidency.

[Meg 368]

Because I had the unfortunate experience of living through his ineptness as President and his failures as Commander in Chief.  That and he sat on his duff while Iran held our countrymen hostage for 444 days and did nothing about it but ok a failed rescue mission that was poorly planned.  It took a President with a backbone to get them back after Reagan slaughtered Carter in the 1980 election.  All of Carter's humanitarian efforts post 1980 is nothing more than a ploy to cover up his failed presidency.

Those 444 days were bad, no doubt about that.  It got ridiculous seeing that number get larger each day on the news.  If I recall correctly, the remaining hostages were released the day Reagan was inaugurated.   I'm not sure he did anything except not be Carter.  My impression was they were thinking "oh, good, we have an excuse to let them go".

Even if Carter's humanitarian efforts were a ploy to cover up his failed presidency, I don't see how they were "nothing more than" a ploy.   People did benefit from what he was doing.

 

 

[blade2k5 1,523]

Because I had the unfortunate experience of living through his ineptness as President and his failures as Commander in Chief.  That and he sat on his duff while Iran held our countrymen hostage for 444 days and did nothing about it but ok a failed rescue mission that was poorly planned.  It took a President with a backbone to get them back after Reagan slaughtered Carter in the 1980 election.  All of Carter's humanitarian efforts post 1980 is nothing more than a ploy to cover up his failed presidency.

 

Those 444 days were bad, no doubt about that.  It got ridiculous seeing that number get larger each day on the news.  If I recall correctly, the remaining hostages were released the day Reagan was inaugurated.   I'm not sure he did anything except not be Carter.  My impression was they were thinking "oh, good, we have an excuse to let them go".

Even if Carter's humanitarian efforts were a ploy to cover up his failed presidency, I don't see how they were "nothing more than" a ploy.   People did benefit from what he was doing.

 

 

That is true, thanks for reminding me of that.  Anyhow, Iran was terrified of Reagan because they knew he wasn't going to pu**y foot around and they'd get slapped hard if they didn't let our countrymen/women go.  Everyone before the election in '80 kept yammering on about Reagan being a war monger when instead he had backbone most Presidents don't have.  I'm sure those Iranian fools were well aware of that and didn't want to deal with Reagan, they'd rather deal with push-over Carter.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

^ If they'd seen some of Reagan’s western films, they were probably afraid he'd lead the cavalry charge.  I was working at the University of Waterloo at the time of his election and the feature film playing in the Student Pub that night was Bedtime for Bonzo.  I think they ran it every night for at least a week.  Undergrads can be very irreverent.

Mr. Reagan would have made a good long-term king, but your system doesn't work that way.  Anybody who weathered the Joe McCarthy era was bound to be good.

[hym 358]

 I'm not sure he did anything except not be Carter.  My impression was they were thinking "oh, good, we have an excuse to let them go".

It has always been my understanding that the reason the hostages were released was largely because Iran was warned that if they were not released unharmed, the first action of Reagan's administration would be full-scale war against Iran, and the Iranian government believed the American threat was real.  Towards that end, it appears that the threat was real, as a Navy commander said "We were at the highest level of alert without being at war.  As Reagan was being sworn in, we were expecting the call to begin operations against Iran at any minute."

[Meg 368]

My recollection is they waited until Reagan was elected to avoid giving Carter a "win".

Yes, there was a lot of talk during the Presidential campaign but "full scale war"?  In 1981?   How was he going to do that?  

The military was severely depleted by the years of endless churning around in Southeast Asia.   The draft (aka conscription) had ended a few years earlier.    The population as a whole was totally war weary.     To many, the Vietnam war killed a lot of people for no particular reason.  Tens of thousands of people were dying and no one could explain what the bleep they were doing or why.

I am sure that we could have put together more than a few Seal teams or such but "full scale war", however you define it, was not going to happen.  There literally would have been more riots over it.

It's possible, perhaps likely, that the Iranians believed the talk about full scale war.   and I have no doubt that what military was left at that point would have gone in full force.    But full scale war was not going to happen.

[Sabretooth78 808]

Not having been old enough to remember it, that's basically how I had been taught/understood it - it was more of a move to spite Carter than anything.  Yeah, I'm sure an impromptu war would have done great for Ronnie's "Get Government Off Our Backs (and into the bedroom by launching the contemporary neoconservative movement that we are only now just beginning to get rid of)" campaign rhetoric.

Americans tend to overstate their influence, though.  While I appreciate some of the things Ronnie did, I don't think this really belongs in his "win" column.  If anything, it was more like a last minute "garbage score" in a loss that had been clinched back in 1953.  Oh, and Gorby did more to dismantle the USSR (however inadvertently).  Note to Washington:  When a bad regime tries to reform itself, quite often it collapses.  History also tends to repeat.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

<snip>

  History also tends to repeat.

True.  Usually when it is ignored.

The whole idea of a "full scale war" implies no holds barred.  Remember the doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD).  It still applies.  Adding Iran to the nuclear club will just be a small blip in the frightfulness quota.

[Beren Erchamion 12]

Great statesman?  What planet are you living on?  Carter is considered the 2nd worst president in history

Only if you assume a President's greatness is measured by his body count.  Which is not what civilized people do.

, surpassed by the hack we have in office now.

That is a joke, right?

 

[blade2k5 1,523]

Great statesman?  What planet are you living on?  Carter is considered the 2nd worst president in history

Only if you assume a President's greatness is measured by his body count.  Which is not what civilized people do.

, surpassed by the hack we have in office now.

That is a joke, right?

 

Nope.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Now, now.  Everyone considers Mr. Lincoln a great president but his body count is beyond anyone else.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Happy Birthday Mr Carter 91years old!