Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
host, the few times people have taken the time (most of us conservatives are productive members of society, aka we have jobs) to pick appart one of your lenghty cut and pastes, which often have very little to do with whatever your point is, its ignored by you, and you have another onslaught of cut and paste to throw at us.......
......For example, I think having an ex-president openly criticize our most important ally on the war on terror, and criticize them for helping us is 'bad' and you link articles about big oil and how I support traitors or something. You also linked a lot of stories which were to show me the government was bad. Vaguely or totally unrelated. Do you expect people to sit down and counter that?
There is a line between evidence and babbling.
|
These are your OP comments in the "ex-president" thread, which you refer to:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=108585
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
Most of you kids are too young to remember Carter, I'm old enough but barely.
The Hallmark of his presidency was the Iran hostage crisis, gas lines, double digit inflation, and his incompetence at dealing with just about any major issue.
Anyways no need to harp on his presidency, he did his bit and gave us 12 years of Republican presidents.
But I draw the line at this....
Quote:
|
“I haven’t seen the corrective effect of British disagreement with what the White House has proposed. It may be there, it hasn’t been evident to the public,” he said.
|
Jimmy, who was apparently out of the loop even when he was president, apparently wants to break up the US alliance with GB over the war on terror. You know there is something 'special' about the president. The office itself commands respect and if ANYONE knows how hard it is to be president it should be Carter who had such a hard time.
He even admits he has no real knowledge of what is going on when he says
So he doesn't know whats going on yet feels the need, as an ex-president, to verbally attack our strongest ally?
I think I agree with his mother ...
Sometimes, when I look at my children, I say to myself ~~"Lillian, you should have remained a virgin." -- Lillian Carter (mother of Jimmy Carter) |
Are you saying that it is OT or inappropriate in some other way, to respond to your OP comments in your "ex-president" thread, by making and supporting the points that the "ex-president" you anchored your thread as a criticism of,
was actually able, competent, and prescient in the sense that he identified the nations largest national security problem as a growing dependence on imported petroleum, and thus, drafted, passed and funded legislation to facilitate and meet the need to conserve and use that resource in the most efficient manner, the need to fund R&D and provide tax incentives for alternative energy sources, etc., and to pay for procurement and storage of stockpiles of petroleum?
I responded to your comments:
Quote:
.....The Hallmark of his presidency was the Iran hostage crisis, gas lines, double digit inflation, and his incompetence at dealing with just about any major issue.
Anyways no need to harp on his presidency, he did his bit and gave us 12 years of Republican presidents.....
|
...in a coherent, easy to follow, and well documented manner. I stated that you had everything exactly opposite of what actually happened during and after Carter's presidency, and I showed you how the presidents who followed Carter, dismantled his energy dependence solutions, and his diplomatic initiatives, selling out the priorities of most of us, to the interests of "big oil" and the defense industry lobby, using an incessant message of fear to attract votes and to justify their agenda.
I presented a persuasive and clear case that "12 years of Republican presidents", gave us accelerated dependence on imported energy, ended funding for research, startup, and tax credits for alternative energy solutions, such as solar energy technology, adopted a flawed, free market "will solve the problem" policy that replaced Carter's initiatives and benefited only "big oil", and spent us into massive treasury debt that we can never hope to repay, and put the trade imbalance, due to our now spending 10 times the amount on imported oil that we spent annually, just 25 years ago, causing our present circimstances of military involvement in Iraq, and our loss of the support of our allies that followed, in response to our foreign policy.
The final point is that, rather than criticize Carter for speaking out in criticism of the Bush administration's policies of preemptive war and twisting of the human rights protections in article III of the Geneva Conventions, which, I pointed out, is acutally what Carter was doing by voicing his criticism of Tony Blair, along with his criticism of Bush policies, you should consider how he restrained his outrage and disgust, during "12 years of Republican presidents", when his well thought out, and proven solutions....where they weren't preempted, discontinued, sold to "big oil" competitiors, to be sabotaged, or destroyed by cronyistic management appointments, as in the case of Reagan's management team at Synfuel Corp,,,,,<b>actuallu worked the way they were intended....to lessen US dependency on foreign oil.</b>
I endeavor to post in detail and support for the detail that is in proportion to the extent of the misconceptions that, IMO, eminate from the other side of an argument. If I respond to someone who, IMO, advances an opinion, most especially in an OP of a thread at the politics forum, that, IMO, is the opposite of the actual record of events....the "history" of what actually happened, and the politcal effect that resulted, I put that much more work, research, and detail, into the counter arguments which I post. Conversely, if you post an opinion that seems to me to be accurate and in synch with the reporting of the elements of your opinion, I probably won't post inresponse, at all. You projected an opinion that Carter was a "bad" president, Reagan and Bush 41 and 43 are the opposite.... so Carter has no credibility and no justification to speak out. If I am incorrect, please tell me how I misinterpreted your OP statement.
If you read my posts, you might have gleaned that they were relevant, persuasive, and informative.....as others who read them and posted replies about them, obviously did.
If you had confined your critique of an "ex-president" to his contemporary criticism of Bush or Blair, I would have confined my response to your OP, to that narrow topic. You opened the "ex-president" thread by painting Carter as a worthless incompetent whose only contribution was influencing the voters to choose "12 years of Republican presidents". When you did that, you should have expected responses similar to the ones that I posted.
Now....do you want to have a discussion that includes POV and details, other than the ones you embrace and find compelling.....or not?