Comments on: Civil Discourse

by: erinyes

Fri, 01 Dec 2006 02:45:55 +0000

Most people don’t realize that it was Jimmy Carter NOT Ronald Reagan who caused the collapse of the Soviet Union. Carter funded the Muhajedeen in Afghanistan who killed the Soviet Army and crippled the pro communist Northern Alliance. In a cruel twist, the Mujahadeen morphed ( after being ignored by Regan and following administrations) into the Taliban, and Bush 43 decided to
align with the Northern Alliance years later to defeat the Taliban. History will tell that this adventure was motivated by far more than the “war On Terror”. Think narcotics and petro chemicals, big money, easily hidden.

by: Ian

Thu, 30 Nov 2006 17:01:46 +0000

“nobel peace prize for literature”

Um. You do realize that there’s no such thing as a Nobel Peace Prize for Literature, right? RIGHT??? There’s a Nobel Peace Price and there’s a Nobel Literature Prize … no combo deals.

And if what you’re actually talking about is the Nobel Literature Prize, then the winner’s political statements, homicidal or otherwise, have absolutely no bearing on whether or not they write purty.

In other words, what is your actual point?

-me

by: maha

Thu, 30 Nov 2006 16:43:55 +0000

Look, Jimmy Carter was a failure as a President,

Not half as big a failure as The Creature occupying the office now. As Craig Crawford said, if we’d listened to Jimmy Carter on oil we’d be in a lot better place today.

and a very uncouth ex-president. I mean he and St. Clinton were the first ones to ever break the unwritten code of not-trashing a sitting President.

Nonsense. Harry Truman badmouthed Eisenhower fairly robustly, as I recall. I’m sure I could find other examples if I cared to look for them. This “unwritten code” is mostly rightie myth.

Not to mention, where you say that people should have respect for any elderly, let alone an ex-POTUS, why is it that this is an issue when it comes to Carter, but it’s no problem for people to trash a sitting President? It seems like something of a conflict here.

I don’t consider George W. Bush to be elderly. He’s about my age, actually, and I sure as hell am not elderly. I am in my PRIME, sir.

Also, as for the Nobel Laureate thing, that’s not….really a big deal anymore

Yeah, right. Go away, son, and don’t bother me.

by: Bonnie

Thu, 30 Nov 2006 16:38:36 +0000

It’s easy to trash a sitting president when said president trashes all Americans who disagree with him calling them traitors. The sitting President is a liar, fraud, corrupt, and classless. Carter is a remarkable man doing what is best for the country, which is more than can be said for the present administration.

by: Mike Slag

Thu, 30 Nov 2006 14:45:44 +0000

Look, Jimmy Carter was a failure as a President, and a very uncouth ex-president. I mean he and St. Clinton were the first ones to ever break the unwritten code of not-trashing a sitting President. Not to mention, where you say that people should have respect for any elderly, let alone an ex-POTUS, why is it that this is an issue when it comes to Carter, but it’s no problem for people to trash a sitting President? It seems like something of a conflict here.

Also, as for the Nobel Laureate thing, that’s not….really a big deal anymore, they gave the nobel peace prize for literature last year (I think, possibly year before) to a woman who said that President Bush should be killed. The Nobel PEACE prize.

The Nobel prize, when not given to scientists who have done something worthwhile, but the ones given to people for literature or humanitarian works or other such things, really comes out to be no great achievement but instead just as some sort of lifetime achievement award equatable to something someone would earn at the Oscars or the MTV movie awards (chewbacca won one year).

I don’t know, yes I’m a righty, and so I’ll preface by saying people will probably say I’m biased reading this, but it just seems as though this is another case of double standard.

by: Thud

Thu, 30 Nov 2006 09:29:23 +0000

Just a nit-pick: Isn’t Ford the longest living former President? He’s still around at 93.

by: Thudfactor » Soy un perdidor

Thu, 30 Nov 2006 09:23:01 +0000

[…] I see Maha is a bit upset that Ed Rogers called Carter a loser on Harball. I take it she finds Rogers tone of voice irritating. […]

by: Zeus

Thu, 30 Nov 2006 06:28:12 +0000

I saw that Hardball segment and wanted to go through the screen and strangle the little puke. He apparently thinks that everyone was just dying to hear the pearls of wisdom that he spewed from his pie-hole. It reminded me of an expression I heard many years ago: “he thinks he’s hot shit in a martini glass but he’s just cold diarreah in a dixie cup’.

I agree with Bonnie, Carter is proving to be a better ex-president than president. He’s stirring up a hornet’s nest by saying everything that’s on his mind, but more importantly he speaks the truth. He’s earned the right - he talks the talk and walks the walk.
The truth hurts and that’s why ‘toads’ like Rogers will take a page out of the Rove playbook by doing the old smear job.

But all that aside, you’re right maha, the least the guy could do is show a little respect.

by: ellenbrenna

Thu, 30 Nov 2006 06:04:39 +0000

Well the next time anyone talks up the first Bush Administration, how classy and high minded they were, please remind them who their political operatives were, people like Rogers.

They have always been this way Poppy just had a better vocabulary to gloss over the utter contempt he had for most of the opposition.

by: lafrance

Thu, 30 Nov 2006 03:58:49 +0000

All the dems have to do to counter the righties smear of Carter is say “like Bush is any great shakes? huh?” Slam them with thier president , Chimpy.
Rogers is a prissy little snot. I saw him and he also tried to emphasize Obama’s middle name, Hussien. So, they won’t smear on race this time, but, try to make him a terrorist.
This was after he got snitty because Trippi tripped him up with his come back on something.
The whole segment was Rogers being a priss in a snit.