This I'm willing to consider, and agree with your throughts about analytical thinking versus emotional thinking. But, the caveat here is, for me, I feel I have analyzed my feelings and the evidence that have lead to my gut feeling about Bush. I honestly don't think I'm wrong. I feel that nothing has surfaced to make me question my initial reaction to him.

 

I'm certain there are some who will say the same applies to Carter. However, as evidenced below, there are those who obviously are letting emotion rule, in response to their personal feelings of what is expected of Carter, and what was expected of Carter. To say the man has embarassed this country more than any other former president is really subjective, don't you think? That's not an objective statement, yet, the poster chooses to state it as fact.

 

The sword is double-edged. I'm not here to compare Carter to Bush. But, in the overall scheme of things, if you asked me to judge each man's character on his life to this point, and not include their actions during their respective presidencies, then I'd put Carter ahead of Bush on character alone.

Interesting that you label my posts as emotional. Very interesting. I am much more accustomed to being attacked for being insensitive or lacking empathy in political matters. This is a first for me. I think I am going to cry. :lol:

 

Carter is undermining the foreign policy of the current administration, who the American people elected to manage our foreign policy. To label Bush as a criminal, which you have done, is nothing but emotions talking. The case that I have made concerning Carter allegedly violating the Logan Act, whether you agree with my conclusions or not, is based on nothing but facts. I will admit, my calls for Carter to be jailed or exhiled rather than fined may involve my feelings toward the scoundral.

Interesting that you label my posts as emotional. Very interesting. I am much more accustomed to being attacked for being insensitive or lacking empathy in political matters. This is a first for me. I think I am going to cry. :lol:

 

Carter is undermining the foreign policy of the current administration, who the American people elected to manage our foreign policy. To label Bush as a criminal, which you have done, is nothing but emotions talking. The case that I have made concerning Carter allegedly violating the Logan Act, whether you agree with my conclusions or not, is based on nothing but facts. I will admit, my calls for Carter to be jailed or exhiled rather than fined may involve my feelings toward the scoundral.

 

 

I said that Bush's actions were criminal, not that he was a criminal. I firmly believe he mislead not just the American people, but the world in the reasons he wanted to go into Iraq. That, in my mind is criminal. He, himself, could only be criminal if he were tried and convicted of such.

Curious to know what you think is flawed with Bush's character?

 

 

In a simple nutshell, I don't think he's honest. That's the very simplest of ways for me to explain it.

I said that Bush's actions were criminal, not that he was a criminal. I firmly believe he mislead not just the American people, but the world in the reasons he wanted to go into Iraq. That, in my mind is criminal. He, himself, could only be criminal if he were tried and convicted of such.

If one's actions are criminal, one is a criminal whether the prosecutors elect to exercise their discretion or not. You may feel that Bush's actions are criminal but you are in no position to state that his actions are criminal as a matter of fact. Such a conclusion is equally as ill founded as my half-serious suggestion that Carter be barred from reentering the country without the benefit of a trial.

 

I believe that Jimmy Carter's actions are criminal but all I am seriously advocating is that the Bush administration show some backbone and make it clear that freelance diplomacy is unacceptable and anybody engaging in it will be held accountable for their actions. All I am asking for is that the law be enforced. Carter's defenders are asking that he be granted a free pass because the American people were once foolish enough to elect him president.

In a simple nutshell, I don't think he's honest. That's the very simplest of ways for me to explain it.

 

Based on what proof?

Based on what proof?

 

Based primarily on the fact that there's evidence that he ignored credible reports regarding WMD's in Iraq, and that he chose to use that line of reasoning to sell the necessity of war to the American public, and to our allies. Then, after we begin the offensive, he shifted the goal to removing Sadaam because he was a tyrant to his own people. I could have swallowed that one better if it had been Bush's first reason, and not the "fallback" reason. It leads me to believe his reasons were less anything to do with National Security, as they were about building a legacy for himself.

If one's actions are criminal, one is a criminal whether the prosecutors elect to exercise their discretion or not. You may feel that Bush's actions are criminal but you are in no position to state that his actions are criminal as a matter of fact. Such a conclusion is equally as ill founded as my half-serious suggestion that Carter be barred from reentering the country without the benefit of a trial.

If you can believe Carter's actions are criminal, then I guess my feelings about Bush are just as valid. Tit for tat, I suppose.

 

I believe that Jimmy Carter's actions are criminal but all I am seriously advocating is that the Bush administration show some backbone and make it clear that freelance diplomacy is unacceptable and anybody engaging in it will be held accountable for their actions. All I am asking for is that the law be enforced. Carter's defenders are asking that he be granted a free pass because the American people were once foolish enough to elect him president.

 

If Carter is truely outside the law, I'm certain he'll be held accountable. I suspect, though, that Carter's actions, while apparently quite annoying, haven't been deemed as treasonous, though.

 

It would be an interesting situation to observe, though.

Based on what proof?

 

Surely you jest.

What the heck, Bush can't get any more unpopular so I wish he'd go ahead and pull Carter's passport. Probably would send his stock soaring with the conservatives.

I sometimes wonder if the United States could have survived a second Jimmy Carter term. What a buffoon!

Former President Jimmy Carter has an interesting way of saying more than he intends. He lusts in his heart. He turns to his 13-year-old daughter for foreign policy wisdom. He titles a book, "Palestine Peace Not Apartheid." What Mr. Carter means to say is that he is a flesh-and-blood human being, a caring father, a missionary for peace. What he actually communicates is that he is weirdly libidinal, scarily naive and obsessively hostile to Israel.

 

Now the 2002 Nobel laureate is in reprise mode. "In a democracy, I realize you don't need to talk to the top leader to know how the country feels," he said over the weekend, responding to a question from an Israeli journalist who noted that Mr. Carter had been snubbed by most of Israel's top leadership and reprimanded by its president, Shimon Peres. "When I go to a dictatorship, I only have to talk to one person and that's the dictator, because he speaks for all the people." - Jimmy's World

Good ole Jimmy. Never met a Terrorist or Dictator that he didn't like.

What the heck, Bush can't get any more unpopular so I wish he'd go ahead and pull Carter's passport. Probably would send his stock soaring with the conservatives.

That is all they had to do is pull his passport.

 

Heck to the yeah, he has lost his peanuts.

Sounds like he is trying to save his legacy, but you would've thought his shrink would've told him that this would make it worse!?!?

If you can believe Carter's actions are criminal, then I guess my feelings about Bush are just as valid. Tit for tat, I suppose.

 

 

 

If Carter is truely outside the law, I'm certain he'll be held accountable. I suspect, though, that Carter's actions, while apparently quite annoying, haven't been deemed as treasonous, though.

 

It would be an interesting situation to observe, though.

I don't think they will do anything about it. All they had to do was pull his passport and been done with it all.

I sometimes wonder if the United States could have survived a second Jimmy Carter term. What a buffoon!

 

You don't want to me to reply with my 365 days of "Bush-isms" do you? :sssh:

You don't want to me to reply with my 365 days of "Bush-isms" do you? :sssh:

 

If I had time to post nothing but Bush's idiocies, I would more than triple gametime's post total.