Jimmy Carter accused of plagiarism

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8131907/

I think he already stopped teaching that class.

Regards,
BiR

 

In what way does he endorse Mormonism?

 

Ronald Reagan and Maggie Thatcher ended the Cold War a FAR bigger achievement than anything Carter OR Bush OR Clinton OR Bush did or have done.

Why what? What apartheid means or how it applies? Or what Carter means by it?

? Carter said we were running of fossil fuels within twenty years. It's been thirty plus.

How do you know?

Heh, then I take it that you've read the book and heard at least something he said. Now, can you make him stop trashing this country on foreign soil, too?

You like Jimmy Carter. Fine, I respect that. Actually, his book is useful for a blueprint of what not to do. And, yep, his religion contradicts his political views, but that's old news.

You're Rosalynn, aren't ya? Thought so.

I'm not a Democrat either just another Zionist. Dime a dozen.

 

What exactly did Reagan do to end the Cold War?

Why Carter thinks it applies.

Oh, I thought you were referring to the ACTUAL gas shortage during his administration, rather than all fossil fuels in the future. The fossil fuel shortage may have been mistaken in its timeline, but I don't see how that is so reprehensible as to qualify as "phoney".

I don't. I'm guessing from how your comments miss the point. Am I wrong?

I can't make anyone do anything, but I haven't heard him trashing this country (Bush is not America).

Such as?

That's one of the more fatuous things I read on this board.

 

Do you have any doubt that if we had pursued an alternative energy program during and after Carter's Presidency we would not have invaded Iraq? The world would would be a far safer place if oil weren't so precious.

 

No, it was never about "blood-for-oil". ^

For starters, he beat Jimmy Carter.

Re the term "apartheid"? I thought it was a perjorative term to be used by someone promoting "peace". Silly me.

Okay, then Carter was wrong again. Carter was wrong. Carter was wrong. THE way to shorten the replies.

I'm glad to hear that..who'd want Bush to be America? Only if Carter was the only alternative. But I do have a bone to pick with Carter since he left office. I'll walk you through it, and try to leave out Israel for brevity.

During his four years in the White House, he presided over the worst economic downturn since World War II, supported Philippine dictator Fernando Marcos, Pakistani General Zia al Huq, Saudi King Faud and many other dictators,and he had the Iran hostage crisis. Oh, and he also gave away the Panama Canal. But Jimmy Carter was a much better president than he is an ex-president.

Wost one EVAR. His post-presidential meddling in foreign affairs has cost America in spades, both in terms of international credibility and international prestige.

He defied US law by visiting Cuba, even addressing the Cuban public and handing Castro a huge propaganda victory, the lefty lovefest. He "oversaw" the elections in Haiti, against the expressed AND public wishes of the Clinton administration. A coup followed, of course.

Carter once described Yugoslav strongman Marshal Josef Tito as "a man who believes in human rights." Regarding North Korea's dearly departed Kim Il-Sung, Carter found him "vigorous, intelligent, surprisingly well-informed about the technical issues, and in charge of the decisions about this country," adding "I don't see that [North Koreans] are an outlaw nation." 'Course not.

He was similarly generous regarding Manuel Noriega, Romanian dictator Nicolai Ceaucescu and, of course, Yasser Arafat. He said of Ceausescu and himself, "Our goals are the same: to have a just system of economics and politics . . . We believe in enhancing human rights." LOL.

Virtually all of the humanitarian activities of the Carter Foundation abroad have been in direct opposition to any US foreign policy. Carter called Bush’s description of Iran, Iraq and North Korea as an "axis of evil" was "overly simplistic and counterproductive.” Then statesman Carter expounded upon that, adding "I think it will take years before we can repair the damage done by that statement." We sure don't want to be that!

Jimmy Carter went to Venezuela to 'monitor' that country's effort to recall President Hugo Chavez. In 1992, a band of army officers led by Lt. Col. Hugo Chávez Frías attempted to overthrow President Carlos Andrés Pérez. Although court-martialed and jailed, Chávez emerged a hero in Jimmuh's eyes.

When there were questions by the international community about possible vote tampering by the Chavez side, the opposition called for election monitors. Chavez agreed to let Jimmy Carter oversee the election, and the Carter Center headed for Caracas.

Hugo Chavez defeated the recall attempt by a wide margin -- reflecting almost a mirror-image of the opinion polls.

While two out of three Venzuelans polled before the election wanted Chavez out, when the ballots were counted, Chavez was declared the winner by an almost exact opposite margin. "About 58 percent said 'no' to a recall, while 42 percent said 'yes,'" wrote the Washington Post.

Carter ignored a press release from the polling firm Penn, Schoen & Berland Assoc. that reported, "Exit Poll Results Show Major Defeat for Chavez." The release, dated 7:30 p.m. on election day, said, "With Venezuela's voting set to end at 8 p.m. EST according to election officials, final exit poll results from Penn, Schoen & Berland Associates, an independent New York-based polling firm, show a major victory for the 'Yes' movement, defeating Chavez in the Venezuela presidential recall referendum."

Statistically, exit polls should mirror the actual vote, within a relatively thin margin of error.

The margin of error between Carter's certified fair-and-square ballots and the independent exit poll results constituted a swing of almost forty points -- a statistical impossibility. Chavez counted on Carter leaning his way and was correct. Carter's history of promoting anti-American dictators is at least consistent, after all.

"Fatous" enought for you, Ros?

 

So he got the credit for something that would've happened any way? Odd argument for lauding Reagan.

Silly indeed, if that is what you truly think and sillier still if you're saying it without believing it. Apparently, you really have no clue why he used that particular term, but if he used it, it must be wrong, eh?

Wrong, but "phoney" which implies fraud? I think not.

Omigosh, that is so sweet of you!

Wow, that's ironic to use plaigarized material to criticize Carter in a thread that accuses him of plaigarism. Ironic and shameful. :laugh:

Word for word (linkie) the uncredited source.

The word is "fatuous", Jack, and you bet'cha!

 

Yo, Daisy, I've got to go, but if you want, I'll answer it later.

That's not where I got that post, it was from an email I didn't want to quote because it had my REAL address on it. It does sound real close to that site, it came from but I REALLY gtg, the mail had no link.

It wasn't meant to be ironic. Or the typo. But Carter did do all that, so.

Have a nice weekend, I've got a party to go to. I don't think Jimmy Carter will be there, but if he is, I'll say HI for ya!

 

I'll leave that up to you.

So you plaigarized it second-hand; that doesn't make it ok. As for your REAL address, most people would simply edit that part out while noting that an edit had been made (elipses, snips, []s, etc).

The link wasn't hard to find, but that isn't really the problem as you could have said, "source unknown".

The real problem is that you posted the article as though it were your own words, from your own research and actual knowledge. That you offered to "walk [me] through it" as though you understood the implications and the history of the accusations and that you claimed that you had left off Israel for "brevity" (it was not included in the original) indicates that your intention was to pass this off as your own. You even changed

"In fact, Jimmy Carter holds the hands-down record for being the worst ex-president the United States has ever known. His post-presidential meddling in foreign affairs has cost America dearly, both in terms of international credibility and international prestige."
​

to

"Wost one EVAR. His post-presidential meddling in foreign affairs has cost America in spades, both in terms of international credibility and international prestige."
​

and

"He defied US law by visiting Cuba, even addressing the Cuban public and handing Castro a huge propaganda victory. He oversaw the elections in Haiti, against the expressed wishes of the Clinton administration. A coup followed."
​

to

"He defied US law by visiting Cuba, even addressing the Cuban public and handing Castro a huge propaganda victory, the lefty lovefest. He "oversaw" the elections in Haiti, against the expressed AND public wishes of the Clinton administration. A coup followed, of course."
​

plus additions such as "in Jimmuh's eyes" and "LOL" (which are consistent with your phrasing on this board, so either you and your email buddy write alike or these edits are your own - I'm assuming the latter).

This board has a policy against plaigarism that you ought to be aware of.

I got that and that is what made the irony delicious.

I don't get why you chose to put it in quotation marks.

1) Prove it. 2)If Carter jumped off a cliff, would you do it, too?

Enjoy your party.

 

Thanks for the repost and the link.

There's a real book at the bottom of the page:

http://www.vcrisis.com/index.php?content=letters/200408310659

No, it was on the address bar, like a yahoo one. I couldn't get rid of it.

The source? It was a book review, not from the person who had the website.

No, the real problem is I'm talking to a brick wall.

No, the real problem is, I'm talking to a brick wall. We both know there's nothing anyone could say or do that would change your mind. You'd seen the same thing at the original site obviously.

I was changing an email.

​

I didn't want to cut-and-paste from a friend without permission.

Then report it. Or keep beating the dead horse.

No, your selective moral outrage is what's delicious. And the fact that you keep quoting statements that make your precious Jimmy Carter look bad and don't bother to dispuite them. You can't.

"Fatuous", word reeks of pretentiousness.

It's so cute when you people act morally outraged.​

 

That's not an answer.....

BiR

 

You're certainly welcome, but what repost? Do you mean where I compared altered passages with the original?

The bottom of the page you just linked to which I provided you with? I don't see any book. If there were, what would be the significance of it? There are real books all over the place.

Um, you don't have to link to your email; you merely say, "This is from an email" and put it your cut & paste job in quotes.

Are you saying that Jack Kinsella stole from an anonymous book review or are you saying that an anonymous book reviewer stole from Kinsella? What's the book that was being reviewed?

You were not talking to me, you were cutting & pasting an article while pretending that it was your own.

Actually, it seems that you're the one with the made-up mind and with precious little knowledge of the man you love to disparage.

The stuff you cited is made of half-truths and bad interpretations, imo. I haven't bothered to dispute the points since you didn't make them, someone else did.

But you did and changing a few words and phrases here and there to cover it up makes it worse.

I just assumed you were unaware of the policy as I didn't think you'd blithely violate it on purpose. I haven't noticed any remorse or embarrassment on your part, just annoyance at getting busted.

I expressed amusement at the irony of your own plaigarism in a plaigarism thread, not moral outrage. I'm a bit surprised that you've responded with belligerence rather than shame. It's telling but does not rise to the level of an outrage.

It takes a lot of time to sort out a flood of half-truths and distortions which you didn't even come up with on your own. If you were open and if you cared about the truth, you'd've checked the facts to begin with. That you haven't bothered to even find out what Carter meant by "apartheid" in his book leads me to believe that explaining point by point would fall on deaf ears.

If I'm mistaken and there is any particular point you'd care to discuss, bring it up, but don't expect me to dissect someone else's article.

I think it's a useful, simple word but if you don't like it, substitute "asinine."

Me people are amused at your attempt at diverting the argument.

 

I undertand it was no real reply to the Carter apologist, BiR, it's off topic.

I'm going to tell you what you want to hear, then you can go search the internet and see if I "plagarized" again, m'kay? No, on second thought:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/25/tyrrell.carter/index.html

Tht's CNN, for God's sake. But we're done here, brick wall.

 

I beg to differ. GW Bush is the worst President in U.S. history and the biggest liar.

 

Apparently, I know what I want to hear better than you do.

You plaigarized, not "plaigarized", m'kay?

Oh, blaphemy and name-calling, too! Lovely.

CNN? It's a syndicated opinion piece by Chicken McMenken, infamous right-wing hacket man, not a disinterested reported article. You'd be more convincing if you knew something real about the man you love to hate.

Btw, did you enjoy your party? I hope you're having a fine a weekend as I.

 

Too early for "worst", maybe not "biggest liar", unless he already did that in the first six years in office.

History's in the making. But you went off-topic, we don't want THAT!

??? Are you compalining about a typo again? Meh, bureaucrats.

Two typos? C'mon....

And you just name-called yourself. Methinks somebody needs a tax cut!!!

Or ANOTHER link:

Just another rewrite: http://www.therazor.org/oldroot/Fall02/JimmysPrize.htm

I sure am, and I'm off to another one tonight and tomorrow night, too. And Monday night.

I'm usually not a social butterfly to this degree. I'm happy to hear that you're having a good weekend and wish you a happy and proseperous New Year. God Bless.

 

Deliberate plaigarism isn't a typo.

I have no idea what you are claiming is another typo.

I haven't called you any names.

I don't know what you're trying to prove with your links other than the right wing has no shortage of political hatchet men and hack writers.

Bless you and yours.

 

Neither was that. "Deliberate plaigarism" [sic] is:

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/016123.php

The word is spelled correctly in the title.

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=122106D

 

You pretended it was your own when it was not. That really is plagiarism.

Huh? In that correctly quoted and attributed letter, Stein did not accuse Carter of plagiarism, so what are you talking about?

You don't seem to understand the meaning of the word (linkie).

Yeah, we both have been spelling it wrong (you: "plagarize") so you're looking a bit pottish pointing that out. That said, misspelling isn't a typo.

Are you saying that bit of clowning was plagiarized?

Try reading something by Carter himself. Then feel free to rip into him - using your own words and ideas.

 

You're trying to derail the thread. That really is a waste of your time.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2006/12/jimmy_carter_worse_tha_plagiar.html

You're trying to derail the thread. That really is a waste of your time.