Jimmy Carter accused of plagiarism

Carter wasn't a very successful president. But Iran was lost long before he became president.

Whether or not Dubya turns out the worst depends on the how badly and permanently the Constitution has been damaged, and how Iraq turns out.

But obviously, Carter's success in the Middle East becomes more impressive as time goes on.

 

Well, at least you admit that much. :smilewinkgrin:

 

He may have used unattributed maps. The ideas were his and he writes his own books - they are not ghosted.

Because you can't accept that someone you have taken a dislike to has had solid accomplishments? I don't know really why you are crossed-eyed with fury but it seems an overreaction to me.

The effects of OPEC's price gauging didn't peak until 1981. But you didn't answer the question - why do you think the gas shortage was phoney?

It's a book about Palestine and citizens' rights and how Israel punitively controls Palestinian land and passage in and out of the territories and how that interfers with the peace process. The book is meant to promote discussion. What do you think the title means?

 

Such as?

They probably will think I don't care for Carter, that's the idea I get from your posts about Bush.

The ideas. The plagarism is just plagarism of ideas that will destroy Israel. Carter's non-plagarism will destroy Israel, also.

Someone else said that any response not criticism of Carter would cause that reaction.

History's too recent to really weigh in on the Carter presidency, Bush's isn't even over.

An ex-President should sound like an ex-President, not like a Hamas leader.

Ah, 1981, the great Ronald Reagan's day.

Carter said we'd run out within twenty years, and it's been thirty now.

Okay, the title suggests that in Israel there's a system of apartheid already, simply untrue. "Peace or apartheid" is a false choice, Carter knows that. The only way to acheive peace to Palestenians is to obliterate Israel, which you know better as the "outlaw Zionist state".

 

You have an odd obsession with Carter and Israel. Considering that Carter greatly enhanced the security of Israel, by brokering the deal made peace with Israel's strongest enemy, I'd say your fury was misplaced.

Not that a rational weighing of such factors has much to do with your mindset, but it might be good to think about.

 

Carter Wimps Out on Debate

It is interesting that Mr. Carter wanted his book to stir up debate but then he refuses to debate:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061215/ap_on_re_us/carter_book_1

 

Yep ^, he won't debate even debate Alan Dershowitz. See, Carter's above that:

But Carter knows. He knows all.

LOL. Let me help the translation here:

"odd obsession" = responding on topic
"Carter greatly" = n/a
"security of Israel" = sold out by Carter

Sorry I'm not as rational as a Palestenian terrorist.

 

Carter was at least as good as Reagan was as president. But, I will admit that neither of them are near the top of the list.

 

That's like saying "A dollar bill is at least as valuable as a hundred dollar bill". :smilewinkgrin:

 

.............better judgement

 

Reagan severely damaged US prestige in the world by bungling Iran/Contra. (most likely because he did not exercise oversight on what his people were doing) On the other hand, swift retribution against Libya for terrorism seems to have had the long-term effect of taking that nation out of the list of terrorist states.

We are still paying for the damage he did to the economy. The Reagan debt continues to be a drag on investment (to be fair, Bush has since exacerbated the problem) On the other hand, his Keynsian approach to getting the economy going worked well. (he just didn't realize you can't go on borrowing forever) His enthusiasm for shipping jobs overseas (in his term the commerce department actually started promoting the process) probably made the adjustment to a global economy more painful than it had to be.

He, like Carter, had some great successes, and some humiliating failures. But he was a leader, and Carter was not. He had the good fortune to look presidential, and had an actor's sense of how to play it to the hilt. He was likable and I believe he meant well, even if he often trusted those who did not mean well.

His illness, which dogged him throughout his administration, became very noticable in his second term.

In the end, Reagan is a cut above Carter. But not much.

 

One needs to remember the fact that if Ronald Reagan had not rescued the economy from the almost meltdown that it suffered under Jimmy Carter(how can one forget his malaise speech?) we would have a much, much poorer country than we have today.

 

I don't quite follow what you're trying to say here.

Is that true for you?

And yet we can tell even now that Carter worked to stablize the Middle East whereas Bush has destabilized it.

Fortunately, Carter sounds not only like an ex-President but an elder statesman respected around the world (except by certain American Republicans). If you actually listened to him, you'd know that he doesn't sound in the least bit like a Hamas leader.

And why do you think the gas shortage was phoney? You haven't been very clear on that.

Do you know what apartheid is and why that doesn't apply in Palestine?

Here is a bit of a description from a Christian in Bethlehem:

No, apparently not.

I think you are aware of only one side of the story and don't really understand what the other side is. Well, propaganda is easy to understand and it makes for certainty which many people, especially young people, prefer to ambiguity.

 

At least , it may last as long as we pony up the $ 2 Billion a year we pay to Egypt to purchase this "peace".

 

Jimmuh is ze one who thinks the word "apatheid" applies, not me.

I have no interest in rehashing the Carter administration, the referendum on that was a looooooooong time ago.

Quick synopsis of his book: Israel is the problem and I plagarized to make my case. Why do I hate America?

Democrats love it, so enjoy.

 

Yes, noted. However, you have no idea why.

It seems you can't defend your saying the gas shortage was phoney, but you won't retract it. Nice.

You haven't read the book or heard anything he has said.

You're wrong that the book says that Israel is "the" problem; it is far more complex than that. A couple of maps may be unattributed and that is where the charge of plagiarism comes from - nowhere else. There is no charge of plagiarism on the text.

No, why do you insist on villifying a good and serious man?

You love the generalizations so much you muck up the details: it's a controversial book among Democrats and I'm not a Democrat.

 

Which reminds me. What do you think we're paying a year for the "peace" Bush brought to Iraq?

I think it's more than a little crazy to suppose that the Egyptian people made peace with Israel for two billion a year.

In fact, the Egyptians make far more than that on Israeli tourism.

 

Didn't hurt.

 

Thank you, Hillclimber. He's also the guy who endorses Mormonism. One can only hope that his Sunday School class in Plains fires him, after that, and this "apartheid" book.

:jesus: -- not Joseph Smith, not Islamofacists.

 

It's all academic, Bro. Curtis:

FACT: Carter negotiated a peace treaty with Begin and Sadat.
FACT: The peace has been maintained to this day.
FACT: Thus far, this is the only lasting peace brokered by any POTUS since Carter was in office.
FACT: Israel and Egypt were indeed enemies prior to signing this treaty.

You don't have to agree with Carter, you don't have to agree with his policies, politics and/or opinions. But facts are facts - and these are facts whether or not they are accepted as facts.

Hope you are doing well in Montana - have you done any skiing? It is unseasonably warm here in the Commonwealth, and was in the 70's yesterday. That is weird......

Wishing God's Blessings to you and yours,
BiR

P.S. And NO, you don't look stupid in your picture. If you were someone who didn't offer insight, I would simply ignore you. Quite the contrary, despite our political differences, I am quite fond of you!!