Unemployment isnt even down to the Carter
Posted By: years yet. O needs rally USA-not depress further.n on 2009-02-22
In Reply to: Feel sorry for the current administration - Crabby
nm
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Unemployment
everywhere is what is going to be our downfall. Personally I don't think the auto industry is as big a factor as the economy in general. After all, if people don't have jobs and are worried about eating and keeping a roof over their head, a new car/truck is going to be way down on their list of priorities. People are losing their jobs by the thousands each week and many, if not most, have nothing to do with the auto industry. I vote NO BAIL-OUT for anyone PERIOD. As I said at the time of the Wall Street bail-out..."who will be next?" Now I've heard rumblings that American Express "may" need a bail-out. Of course they will.
I would be in favor of helping companies in the form of loans PROVIDED they did no offshoring and certainly that their executives didn't receive obscene salaries and huge bonuses for doing what? Bonuses for running the company into the ground?
The USA, government and people, needs a huge injection of common sense.
Unemployment numbers
The unemployment numbers came out at over 6%, but the number of people working part-time who would prefer full-time would actually be 1 in 10, leading to around 11%. 10 million people are unemployed right now in US. That is a lot of people needing help and it looks like a lot more are going to need help.
on unemployment this year, which is
now over, thanks to G.Bush, I did get an extra 13 weeks, but I managed to raise 4 kids alone, thank goodness I made it.
Two weeks of unemployment once.
That's it.
The rest of my life as a single mom was spent working two (sometimes three) jobs at a time in order to support us.
Now, it's getting really difficult for me because I couldn't afford my health insurance any more, my car was repossessed, and even my phone was turned off because I can't work like I used to since becoming ill almost three years ago with pancreatitis (which was finally found to be caused by cystic fibrosis). So my pancreas is a wreck, and my lung function is getting progressively worse. I've filed a claim for Social Security disability, but I very well may have passed on by the time I receive a hearing date, since I'm getting sicker, and my disease is incurable.
Unemployment is the lowest in decades. SM
Bad correlation.
Unemployment numbers. What is 12.5 Million?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,506405,00.html
What I do not get is it states 4.4 million jobs have been lost since the recession began, but now at 12.5 million. So, about 8 million have been unemployed during, well, basically this year and last year? I guess I am in SHOCK a it is hard for me to want to believe it.
*************************
Unemployment by the Numbers: How Bad Is It Hurting?
Friday, March 06, 2009
* Print
* ShareThis
More people are unemployed in America than live in Ohio or go to church in Texas.
Unemployment statistics don't usually leap off the page, but the latest report from the Department of Labor offers some astounding figures. More than 651,000 jobs were cut in February, continuing a steep drop that has raised the unemployment rate to 8.1 percent, its highest level since 1983.
Matched up against some of the latest stats made available by the Census Bureau, those numbers really do begin to add up.
• 651,000 jobs were axed in February, a number larger than the populations of:
- Baltimore
- Seattle
- Denver
- El Paso
- Washington, D.C.
• 12.5 million people are unemployed in the U.S., which is more than the number of:
- people watching ABC's "Lost" this season
- women attending college
- male scientists and engineers
- Americans who grow herbs
- people who played tackle football in the past year.
• 12.5 million people is also a number larger than the populations of 45 states, including
- Ohio
- Pennsylvania
- Michigan
- Virginia
• 4.4 million jobs have been lost since the recession began in December 2007, which is larger than the population of the entire San Francisco Bay Area.
• 2.6 million jobs have been lost in the past four months, which is like every Presbyterian in America getting the ax in one winter, or about the number of senior citizens in Florida.
• 8.6 million people have been forced to work part-time for economic reasons, which is more than the population of New York City, or more than the number of people who try to quit smoking every year.
The roll continues, and it is a stark one: construction companies eliminated 104,000 jobs in February, factories cut 168,000 jobs, retailers sliced nearly 40,000, professional and business services got rid of 180,000, financial companies reduced payrolls by 44,000, and leisure and hospitality firms chopped 33,000 positions.
Despite all the doom and gloom in the Labor Department's numbers, at least one sector had a pretty rosy February: the government boosted its number of employees last month.
Click here to see the Labor Department report.
Yep, in Ohio here. Unemployment problem still
nm
Obama Secretly Trying To Increase Unemployment
Rep. Pete Sessions, head of the House Republican committee tasked with electing more GOP members, has a unique theory as to why unemployment continues to rise: Obama wants to wipe out capitalism.
Deep into a New York Times item Monday about rising jobless numbers comes a theory that the Times gently refers to as an "argument" that "may indeed face an uphill fight."
Sessions told the Times that Obama's plan is to "diminish employment and diminish stock prices." By doing so, Obama "intended to inflict damage and hardship on the free enterprise system, if not to kill it" as part of a "divide and conquer" strategy to consolidate power.
The Times then follows with another understated gem: "Polls offer little evidence that Americans are prepared to accept those arguments."
So is Obama part of some communist sleeper cell intent on destroying America? For Sessions, it's nothing new to think of politics in terrorist terms -- only in the past Sessions has argued that the Republican Party ought to emulate terrorists, not that Obama already does.
The GOP, Sessions famously argued in February, ought to model its "insurgency" after the Taliban. "Insurgency, we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban," he said.
"And that is that they went about systematically understanding how to disrupt and change a person's entire processes. And these Taliban -- I'm not trying to say the Republican Party is the Taliban. No, that's not what we're saying. I'm saying an example of how you go about is to change a person from their messaging to their operations to their frontline message.
And we need to understand that insurgency may be required when the other side, the House leadership, does not follow the same commands, which we entered the game with."
Asked to clarify if he was indeed suggesting House Republicans model themselves after the Taliban, he said: "I simply said one can see that there's a model out there for insurgency."
A Sessions spokesman didn't immediately return a call. An NRCC spokesman stood by the remark:
"The Chairman was simply reiterating what many members of the Democratic Party have echoed over the past several weeks, which is that one-party dominance in Washington has further damaged our economy and undercut our country's free enterprise system."
I am hearing the exact opposite about unemployment
I think what you have posted is absolute rubbish, scare tactics once again. I am hearing not just on the local news but national news about the work situation picking up. I think most repubs are literally cringing inside seeing just what a good job Obama is doing. I just heard from my husband yesterday his job has posting on the board his company is buying 2 additional companies which means more employees, heard about a company in the state building new plant that will hire about 600 people. Like I said, rubbish.
she isnt the OP, I am
and how do you know that it is a lie? Besides that article did not say that he IS just like Hitler. The man was comparing some of Os ideas to that of some of Hitlers programs that he started up upon gaining power. And there is NO lie in that. It is just like the bailout, these are socialists principles, the gov buying stock in banks and owning some of our major corporations, is this a lie too?
Except unemployment is far from our ONLY economic problem, the WORLD economy is tanking....sm
starting with the stock market crash in the USA, we are a global economy now, like it or now. There are so many other indicators, such as the national debt and defict, the fall of the gross national product and gross domestic product, what we have now is pretty much unprecedented since the Great Depression in its economic scope. Never seen so many bankruptcies by long-established businesses, total collapse of so many lenders, our auto industry on the brink.....it goes on and on, yet people would rather doom EVERYTHING that the President would do. They say the definition of insanity is doing the same things over and over again and expecting a different outcome, so how about we all work together with the adminiistration to stop banging out heads on the old, worn out, atrocious economic system and try to build a new, stronger, wiser economy? Less credit, more productivity, the end of GENERATIONAL WELFARE as a lifestyle, employ caseworkers to search out all these families that have made Welfare a cottage industry in their homes, that way we are employing skilled social workers, and also cutting out social waste and parasites? Just a start...........
Someone is looking ridiculous and it isnt me
Face to face? What is this a threat, LOL? Sweetie, I would tell you face to face any day what my ideology is, what my priorities are and whatever else you deem is necessary to discuss with me. You wouldnt **let** me call you sweetie face to face? I think you truly need to step back and take a deep breath..You are looking ridiculous.
The Carter Doctrine.....
hmmmm. Very, very interesting article. I'm not sure I agree with some of the broad unsubstantiated statements but all in all, a very interesting article. Thanks for posting!
Isnt that just nauseating? SM
These people who support McCAin and his whacko side show Palin just make me so ill. Its like they just crawled out of their backwoods society to make an appearance because for once in their life they have something brought to the table that you dont even need smarts to talk about... Racism. It doesn't take a genius to be a racist.... These people are so shallow and closed minded. Racism to me is nauseating. It is something I just cannot even stomach.... In the same way I cannot stomach Hitler.
And the whole issue of patriotism.... America is all about multiculture. Americans come in all shapes, sizes, colors, and ethnicity... YOu want to talk patriotism.... Then maybe you should support your "Native Americans." If you want patriotism, then look no further than the purebreed americans..... I mean if you are going to take it back to its roots. Otherwise, get used to the fact that we are not all the same and get off your high horse, you stupid old white folk!!!!
And if I have to hear one more time about how Obama is going to be "Taxing us" I could just scream. He wont be taxing me. I for sure do not make over 250K a year. And for people who are concerned about "businesses" being taxed and not able to hire people..... When was the last time you encountered a company that cared about their employees anyway... They have been taking advantage of their employees for years.... Cutting benefits, not keeping up with pay increases, outsources rather than hire you anyway.
Well enought ranting for me.... All I can say is God Bless Obama!!!!! And if he doesn't win, we are all in for some deep doo-doo.
It isnt that simple. What you do is the same as
nm
too bad HE isnt president!
Why can't we see that this stimulus is going to bring us down?
Isnt the fall just great?
Isnt this time of the year great? My favorite holiday is Halloween. Cant wait! It has been in the 40's overnight this past week, so nice. Now if we just could have some rain.
Yes, but they are and it's the left that's doing it. Jimmy Carter even said so. nm
.
Carter and Clinton snooped on you too
I bet you weren't screaming about this..
Drudgereport.com
CLINTON ADMINISTRATION SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS -- WITHOUT COURT ORDER
CARTER EXECUTIVE ORDER: 'ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE' WITHOUT COURT ORDER
Bill Clinton Signed Executive Order that allowed Attorney General to do searches without court approval
Clinton, February 9, 1995: The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order
Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order.
WASH POST, July 15, 1994: Extend not only to searches of the homes of U.S. citizens but also -- in the delicate words of a Justice Department official -- to places where you wouldn't find or would be unlikely to find information involving a U.S. citizen... would allow the government to use classified electronic surveillance techniques, such as infrared sensors to observe people inside their homes, without a court order.
Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, the Clinton administration believes the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes.
Secret searches and wiretaps of Aldrich Ames's office and home in June and October 1993, both without a federal warrant.
Does anyone know what happened to Jimmy Carter's eye?
I'm just wondering, I'm watching the democratic convention and it looks really bad! Is it an infection or something??
Sad, isnt it? America did not become successful
nm
can you not read? My name isnt Chele
lets get it straight here before you start droning on and on.
Isnt he terrible? I tried watching too and he comes
nm
karma is a b___h, isnt it, Bush?
My parents were wise people and totally non predjudiced, non bigoted..They screwed up in many ways, but they did not pass judgment on the color of someones skin or how rich or poor someone was..and they taught me what goes around comes around..you put good into the world, you will get good back, you put bad, it will come back to you..I honesty have to say, at times it has been hard believing that cause it takes so darn long, IMO, for retribution to take place, for right to come around, however, in my life I have always seen the **bad ones** get theirs, over time it happens..karma works..I am now seeing karma once again. Bush for five and one half years has torn our country down, has divided it's people, has pushed away the world and in turn we have lost respect throughout the world, has waged a war on innocent people..he is getting his now, his karma has come..I sit back and watch it all and am thankful to the powers that be..
Oh geez..isnt that called *Heaven* ?
Oh geez, me neither, Libby, me neither..but probably not in my life time.
Clinton & Carter DID NOT ORDER any such things.
Do you lie on purpose to emulate your God Bush or are you just so lacking in common sense and intelligence that you unquestioning believe everything ANY neocon says?
Either way, YOU'RE SPREADING LIES. In case you haven't noticed lately, AMERICANS ARE GETTING FED UP WITH LIARS....especially UNDEREDUCATED, ILLITERATE, HATEFUL, JUDGMENTAL liars.
CLINTON DID NOT ORDER WARRANTLESS SEARCHES OF AMERICAN CITIZENS
Here's what Clinton signed:
Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.
You don't have to be a lawyer to understand that Clinton allowed warrantless searches if and only if the AG followed section 302(a)(1). What does section 1822(a) require?
- the physical search is solely directed at premises, information, material, or property used exclusively by, or under the open and exclusive control of, a foreign power or powers. Translation: You can't search American citizens.
- and there is no substantial likelihood that the physical search will involve the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person. Translation: You can't search American citizens.
- Moreover, Clinton's warrant waiver consistent with FISA refers only to physical searches. Physical searches, as defined by 1821(5), exclude electronic surveillance.
CARTER DID NOT AUTHORIZE WARRANTLESS SEARCHES OF AMERICAN CITIZENS
And now, Carter's turn:
1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.
Here, Carter refers to electronic surveillance, rather than physical searches like Clinton. But again, Carter limits the warrantless surveillance to the requirements of Section 1802(a). That section requires:
- the electronic surveillance is solely directed at communications exclusively between or among foreign powers. Translation: You can't spy on American citizens.
- there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party. Translation: You can't spy on American citizens.
Section 1803(a)(2) requires that the Attorney General report to Congress (specifically, the House and Senate Intelligence Committees) about whether any American citizens were involved, what minimization procedures were undertaken to avoid it and protect their identities, and whether his actions comply with the law.
It's called check and balance!
Falling for O's promises, just like Jimmy Carter
nm
At least she isnt fighting the court by refusing
nm
No "witchhunt", just truth. Disturbing, isnt it?
nm
Ever heard what Jimmy Carter has to say on this issue -
Obama has not said much of anything in light of this recent development. Looks like he may be keeping an open mind and may be exercising alternative options once he takes office.
Jimmy Carter tries to rewrite history...
December 1, 2006 by Lee Green
Jimmy Carter Distorts Facts, Demonizes Israel in New Book
Former President Jimmy Carter has written an egregiously biased book called Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid and is currently doing numerous interviews to sell the book and its ideas. Carter is attempting to rewrite history, and in his alternate universe, Arabs parties are blameless and Israel is at fault for almost all the conflicts in the world. One gets the feeling after reading just a few pages that if he could have blamed Hurricane Katrina on Israel, he would have. His main messages are that Israel is badly mistreating the Palestinians and that the cause of the conflict is Israel's refusal to return to what he calls its "legal borders" (sic), the pre-67 armistice lines.
Because the Palestinian Arabs have been offered a viable state of their own numerous times, including with the same borders that Carter desires, but turned it down since it meant recognizing Israel's legitimacy and permanence and ending the conflict, Carter either ignores or mischaracterizes the offers. He never lets the facts get in the way of his "must blame Israel" theories. In Carter's twisted universe, it is the Arabs who have always been eager for peace, with Israel opposing it at every turn.
Almost every page of Carter's book contains errors, distortions or glaring omissions. The following list is just a small portion of the many problems in the book:
• Carter claims Israel has been the primary obstacle to peace, that Arab leaders have long sought peace while Israel preferred holding on to "Palestinian land" over peace, and that if only Israel would "[withdraw] to the 1967 border as specified in the U.N. Resolution 242...", there would be peace.
Aside from his obviously questionable opinions, Carter is factually wrong when he asserts that U.N. Resolution 242 requires Israel to withdraw to the 1949 armistice line that was in place until 1967. He has repeated this serious falsehood in many interviews, such as on the November 28 PBS NewsHour:
"The demand is for them to give back all the land. The United Nations resolutions that apply, the agreements that have been made at Camp David under me and later at Oslo for which the Israeli leaders received the Nobel Peace Prizes, was [sic] based on Israel's withdrawal from occupied territories."
He mischaracterizes UN resolutions and apparently has forgotten what he himself signed as a witness to the 1978 Camp David Accords between Israel and Egypt, which states in Section A1c: "The negotiations [concerning the West Bank and Gaza] shall be based on all the provisions and principles of UN Security Council Resolution 242. The negotiations will resolve, among other matters, the location of the boundaries and the nature of the security arrangements."
To claim now that the very agreement he witnessed and signed specifies withdrawal to the 1949 armistice lines is outrageous. [While the 1979 Camp David document again mentions UN Resolution 242, it makes no further mention of the West Bank or Gaza Strip. It instead deals with Israeli-Egyptian relations, and includes a map of the Israel-Egypt International Boundary (Annex II). Tellingly, no maps demarcating any boundary between Israel and the Palestinians are appended to the Camp David documents, Resolution 242, the Oslo Accords, or the "road map".]
UN Resolution 242 does not require Israel to withdraw from all the land to the "1967 border", since there is no such border. The "green line" is merely the 1949 armistice line and the drafters of 242 explicitly stated that this line was not a "secure border" -- which 242 calls for.
The British UN Ambassador at the time, Lord Caradon, who introduced the resolution to the Council, has stated that, "It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of June 4, 1967, because those positions were undesirable and artificial."
The American UN Ambassador at the time, former Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg, has stated that, "The notable omissions - which were not accidental - in regard to withdrawal are the words 'the' or 'all' and the 'June 5, 1967 lines' ... the resolution speaks of withdrawal from occupied territories without defining the extent of withdrawal." This would encompass "less than a complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from occupied territory, inasmuch as Israel's prior frontiers had proved to be notably insecure."
The reasoning of the United States and its allies at the time was clear: Any resolution which, in the face of the aggressive war launched in 1967 against Israel, required complete Israeli withdrawal, would have been seen as a reward for aggression and an invitation to future aggression. This is assuredly not what the UN voted for, or had in mind, when it passed Resolution 242.
For more details on the meaning of 242, click here.
- Many media outlets have corrected erroneous characterizations of 242 (prompted by CAMERA), including the New York Times and Wall Street Journal. The corrections clarify that 242 does not require Israel to give all the land acquired in the 67 War to the Palestinians. For example:
Correction (New York Times, 9/8/00): An article on Wednesday about the Middle East peace talks referred incorrectly to United Nations resolutions on the Arab-Israeli conflict. While Security Council Resolution 242, passed after the 1967 Middle East War, calls for Israel's armed forces to withdraw "from territories occupied in the recent conflict," no resolution calls for Israeli withdrawal from all territory, including East Jerusalem, occupied in the war.
Correction (Wall Street Journal, 5/11/04): United Nations Security Council resolution 242 calls on Israel to withdraw "from territories occupied" in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, but doesn't specify that the withdrawal should be from all such territories. An International page article Friday incorrectly stated that Security Council resolutions call for Israel to withdraw from all land captured in the 1967 war.
• Similarly, Carter repeatedly errs when he asserts that the West Bank is "Palestinian land," rather than disputed land whose (likely) division and designation will be decided through negotiations (as per Resolution 242).
For example, Carter said on the Nov 28 Newshour:
"And I chose this title very carefully. It's Palestine, first of all. This is the Palestinians' territory, not Israel."
• In his book, Carter almost always presents Israeli leaders in a negative light, and they are frequently described as trying to impede the peace process. In contrast, Carter describes despotic Arab leaders in glowing terms, quotes them at length, without any comments about the accuracy of their statements. He writes, for instance,
"When I met with Yasir Arafat in 1990, he stated 'The PLO has never advocated the annihilation of Israel.' "
Carter fails to note that Arafat and the PLO have frequently called for the destruction of Israel and that the destruction of Israel is a key part of the PLO Charter (most explicitly in Articles 15 and 22):
"Since the liberation of Palestine will destroy the Zionist and imperialist presence..." (from Article 22).
Arafat regularly called for violence against Israel. In a speech to Palestinian Arab leaders from Hebron, broadcast on official PA Television on January 26, 2002, Arafat urged:
"Jihad, jihad, jihad, jihad!"
Carter follows up the absurd quotation from Arafat by describing the PLO in admiring language, without mentioning the terror so central to their agenda.
• Carter spends much of the book conveying Arab grievances against Israel, while rarely providing any context from the Israeli perspective. When he does, it is perfunctory and brief. While terror against Israel is mentioned, it is rare and sharply minimized.
• The vicious incitement against Israel and Jews by the Arabs is treated as a trivial complaint rather than as the fuel that keeps the flame of bigotry and violence alive. The only time Carter mentions incitement is to complain that the Israelis insisted on cessation of incitement against Israel, "but the Roadmap cannot state that Israel must cease violence and incitement against the Palestinians."
Since there is no state-sponsored anti-Arab incitement in Israel, and incitement against Arabs is actually a crime in Israel, it would have been misleading to include a proscription against it in the Roadmap. That would have made it seem that incitement in Israel was comparable to the massive, systemic incitement in Palestinian society.
As for his reference to "Israel must cease violence...against the Palestinians," he appears to morally equate Israeli counter-terror measures with Palestinian terror against Israeli civilians.
• In describing what led to the conflicts this year between Israel and the Palestinians and Israel and Hezbollah, Carter continues his pattern of minimizing Arab violence, thereby placing Israel's military responses into question due to the lack of context. Carter mentions the abduction of the Israeli soldiers, but fails to inform his readers about the rockets from Gaza that were being fired daily at Israeli civilians in southwest Israel and omits that Hezbollah did much more than abduct 2 soldiers; before the abduction, they fired missiles at Israeli communities in northern Israel.
• Carter obfuscates important aspects of history. Here's how he describes the British giving almost all of Mandate Palestine—78 percent—to Emir Abdullah after World War I to create Transjordan (later renamed Jordan): "Another throne was needed, so an emirate called Transjordan was created out of some remote desert regions of the Palestine Mandate ..." [emphasis added]
• He writes of various Arab leaders accepting the two-state solution, and sometimes mentions that they also require the so-called right of return (of the millions of descendants of Palestinian refugees to Israel, as opposed to the future state of Palestine). But Carter doesn't explain that due to the high Arab birthrate, the so-called right of return would quickly turn Israel into another Arab state, transforming the two-state (Arab and Jewish) solution into a two-Arab states solution. While he writes of the many items he feels are unreasonable deal-breakers demanded by Israel, he never addresses the Arab demands that are deal-breakers for Israel.
• In his conclusion, Carter accuses the American government of being "submissive," claiming that due to "powerful political, economic, and religious forces in the United States, Israeli government decisions are rarely questioned or condemned, voices from Israel dominate in our media ..."
Carter's claim that "voices from Israel dominate in our media" is especially ironic at a time when Carter himself is all over the media spreading his anti-Israel message. And since Carter is prone to demonizing Israel, it likely never occurred to him that perhaps our politicians don't frequently criticize Israeli government decisions because Israel shares our values of democracy, pluralism and the sanctity of life, and its decisions are, on the whole, fair and just.
• Apparently admiringly, Carter writes: "At the same time, political leaders and news media in Europe are highly critical of Israeli policies, affecting public attitudes. Americans were surprised and angered by an opinion poll, published by the International Herald Tribune in October 2003, of 7500 citizens in fifteen European nations, indicating that Israel was considered to be the top threat to world peace, ahead of North Korea, Iran, or Afghanistan." That Carter apparently feels this is a more realistic, helpful worldview is revealing.
In general, Carter holds Israel to an unreasonably high standard of almost pacifist behavior, while holding the Arabs to no standard at all. In his world, the terror against Israel has been minimal, hardly worth mentioning and certainly not important enough for Israelis to respond to or for the world community to condemn. The Arabs should suffer no consequences for continuing to attack and terrorize Israel, for continuing to indoctrinate their population to see Jews as sub-humans who deserve to be murdered. Carter advocates having the Arabs' maximalist demands rewarded. It is Israel who must make all the concessions and sacrifices. The Arabs' bigotry and supremacist attitudes regarding non-Muslims and the west - attitudes central to the conflict -- are entirely ignored by Carter.
Since Carter is a former president, and because he is well known for his work on Habitat for Humanity, interviewers are for the most part being entirely deferential to him, while rarely pointing out that his book and statements are filled with inaccuracies and distortions. But Carter should not be allowed to rewrite history and erase decades of Arab bigotry, rejectionism and terror, while inventing Israeli intransigence and opposition to peace.
No, I think Carter was the worst president in history.
nm
Carter = worst president ever...yes, I agree with you.
Nixon = Carter; Bush = Obama
It looks as though both of these democrats were handed a huge bag of flaming s*it that they were/are expected to clean up in a nanosecond. No, I'm not a democrat, either. But I am fed up with the label "liberal" being used like an expletive. Liberal means "free thinking," and I am honored to be a liberal. I don't need to walk in lockstep so others can do my thinking for me. I want our country to prosper and survive and I'm placing my trust in Obama's hands. I pray he succeeds.
Yeah and #2 is Jimmy Carter and #3 Michael Moore. So what? SM
Wow, you are easily amused.
Isnt it pitiful? Talk about stolen election!. I am in
nm
the moral majority spoke in CA but that isnt good enough
They banned it, voted against it. The state of CA spoke but the gays are not happy with that and have to march. They will push and push till they get their way. Whether it is against God or not. what a shame. 
Lee Green did not monitor the elections, Jimmy Carter did.
Lee Green is the director of CAMERA (Committee for Accuracy on Middle East Reporting) which is a Pro-Israeli American Media Monitor. I prefer to read a book and make up my own mind and certainly am not surprised that Zionist critics would hate Carter and the truths he exposed in his book. They can protest to their heart's content, but they can't turn lies into truth.
Good question.-and it ISNT fair. Notice how Obama
nm
Not the worst...Jimmy Carter holds that dubious honor....
Mr. Democat Jimmy Carter. Check out the economy while he was in office...and what Obama is doing will make that look like a walk in the park. Oh, but the rest of the world will love us....LOL. Ya kill me. LOL.
What about Roger Clinton, Bill's drug addict brother. Or Billy Bob Carter, sm
Jimmy's alcoholic brother. Man, we could do this all day. You know you posted that article to make the Bush's look bad. If you judge people by their families, that says a lot about you.
When Bill Clinton was in office, OHHH you better believe Bill and Carter have had..sm
their day of mudslinging matches, at the pleasure of a many conservatives. So, no there's not a double standard here.
|
