Carter: "What has happened to the United States of America?"

dang, we agree on something.

 

You are ignorant.

The question begs if you care or not.

 

who negitiated the 1994 agreement with north korea? what is NK's nuclear posture today?

 

Carter did not solve the NK nuclear problem. Neither has Bush.

Go read what Carter has been up to since leaving office here. When you are done reading, we can talk.

 

I perfectly agree with you. I feel the government doesn't need a right in hetro or homo. I am so against homo marriage because hetro is so screwed up enough already ... there is absolutely no need to make it worse. We should be fighting to break the hetros from the government, not trying in add homos.

 

I've had serious issues with Carter in the past, but he's spot on here.

I expect that Bush's admin may have been one of the best gifts for the Democrats.

 

Unfortunately, a screwed up country is not a gift to anyone except our enemies.

 

Your analogy is extremely poor. As Batman already pointed out so I wont go any further.

Of course you blame him for the economy of today. That part of toeing your party's line. You just did what you said you hated the Dems for doing. So welcome to hypocracy.

As for the Poor being poor. Unless you havent kept up with the news, youd know that under Bush, we have:

-More americans without Health Care
-More americans living in poverty
-Was the only president SINCE THE DEPRESSION of 1929 to sit on a job loss in his first term


I hope your once every 3 or so years 300 dollar tax break was worth it, cause since Bush is busy letting his Oil Buddies reap RECORD profits, you have seen gas prices probably almost triple in his term at some point. While he is busy giving his ol buds jobs like the Head of Fema, that same person may of cost us millions in mistakes as tax payers. Not to mention a health care system that has skyrocketed.

 

It may be unfortunate that Yassir Arafat won the Nobel peace prize, but you failed to mention Martin Luther King Jr, Mother Teresa, and Nelson Mandela.

Why is founding an organization that oversees foreign elections, and campaigns for human rights disgraceful?

 

Try making a coherent argument. I still don't understand your argument. Although to answer what I think you're saying, the failure of the government to recognize means that gays and lesbians are denied basic rights like tax benefits, visitation rights at hospitals, etc.. This isn't a question of symbolic recognition of homosexual unions. It's a question of basic rights and guarantees that are given to heterosexual unions that should be extended to homosexual unions.

Try actually having some warrants. Carter is responsible for today's problems? Yes there were major hyperinflation problems with him in charge but much of that can be attributed to the Arab Oil Embargo of 1973 and various other oil shocks on an economy that was even more dependent on foreign oil than today. Overinflation was caused by oil stagflation and ridiculous price controls of the 70s that were initiated by Nixon. Carter didn't exactly solve all of this but by no means is he the sole cause of 70s inflation. Most of that was solved by action by the Federal Reserve action by Paul Volcker and less by Reagan.

As for todays problems, Carter has virtually nothing to do with that. In case you didn't notice, under the Bush administration there has been a widening of the income gap, a decline in health care services and access, massive deficits, and pretty soon massive cuts in valuable social programs will happen while defense spending on some rather questionable programs will expand. This administration's fiscal policy makes Carter's policies look brilliant.

 

Kudos, excellent post. We need some major reform in this country, and I don't see it happening any time soon.

 

Let's not bring Richard M. Nixon into this

 

as Bush himself pointed out in his speech, certain types of of criticism, or debate, are entirely legitimate. others are merely political expedient. the the combinationof the latter, when americans are in harm's way, the i object to, and is, once again as Bush mentioned Friday, deeply irresponsible.

 

What is deeply irresponsible is sending those troops into harms way when it isn't necessary and then trying to intimidate and disparage anyone who points that out.

What is deeply irresponsible is actions that remove the U.S. from a position of moral leadership in the world. Carter is correct for wanting that position back, and shame on those disparage him for writing about it.

 

This is an arbitrary dichotomy and one that challenges the very nature of public participation and accountability of government. Look this dichotomy of legitimate and illegitimate criticism is a joke. Conservatives were chirping left and right about how intervening in Somalia and other African nations was wrong and a waste of American troops. Also, they argued that US troops shouldn't be exposed to harm and troops must be withdrawn. Now withdrawal in this case would probably be much more catastrophic and probably a serious mistake but you get the idea. We criticized troops then without restraint but in this instance criticism is unacceptable. I understand your logic but to shut down all criticism in the face of a policy that has substantial public objection seems really irresponsible. Even you have to admit that the Bush administration messed up in many ways when it came to Iraq and none of this may have come out if we decided not to say a word. Public criticism is fundamental to holding government accountable and forcing it to correct mistakes. It's the foundation of democracy. But to hand full unaccountable authority to part of the government is simply irresponsible.

 

The sad part is...you're both right.

 

right now there are a lot of republicans in the left.

the right has gone so right it's turned the country around into going the wrong direction

 

You mean like working on stamping out the disease caused by the parasitic guinea worm, bringing clean water and housing to poor around the world, monitoring elections to make sure they are fair and mediating peace deals?

Yes all very disgraceful indeed. Its total disgrace that people might never be plagued by paingul guinea worms or that there are clean elections.

 

I think he was talking about Clinton, not Carter.

 

Thats the point. There is no arguement. A vast majority of adults and statistics agree that 21 is the ideal age. 50 years ago, a vast majority (and still a slight majority currently) are against homo marriage. Limiting age is a discrimination, especially when the government feels they are old enough to die for their country and elect their leaders. I knew plenty of highschoolers who would be responsible with alcohol in their hands. But this does not justify to allow them to start drinking nor do i support it. Once again, the arguement is about the discrimination of A G E , not the topic of alcohol and minors.

Secondly, as i stated, the government has no business in marriage. If a couple want to share health care benefits, then leave it up to the employers or insurance company to determine it. If you want hospital rights, then get a POA or whatever. There should not be any tax benefits in the first place... besides, thats discrimination against ugly people who can't get married. Throw in modest 3% of the population is homo and then only 25% of them would even consider marriage that leaves less than 1% of who would be affected. Don't we have better things to fight about? Starving children, AIDs, Cancer, poverty ect .. ect ...