[besson3c]

I gotta say, without getting into what we think about Carter and what he did while in office, it seems like Carter's post presidency life has been the most inspired and influential out of any other president of my generation. I read about the Carter Center and Habitat for Humanity every once in a while, but you can also read about the full extent of his activity on his Wikipedia page:

Jimmy Carter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I was surprised to learn about the extent in which the Carter Center is involved with stuff.

The only other post presidency stuff I'm aware of is the Clinton global initiative. H.W. Bush has done comparatively very little: George H. W. Bush - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia , and W. Bush the same (although perhaps it is too soon to judge him). Reagan had Alzheimers to deal with.

This is not a left vs. right thing, obviously any president of any political persuasion can do meaningful stuff post-office. My point for this thread is to ask whether when you look at some of this stuff you view the legacy of a president a little differently? I mean, you can hate everything they did in office and that's cool, and obviously when a president is no longer in power they are far more limited in what they can do, but is the effort and drive appreciated? From the Wikipedia page:

Since leaving office, Carter's reputation has much improved. Carter's presidential approval rating, which sat at 31% just prior to the 1980 election, was polled in early 2009 at 64%.

I was not following politics in the Carter era, but the common perception seems to be that Carter was a much better man than he was a president (which is also quoted in his Wikipedia article). Do some of you people who did not support Carter in office appreciate what he is doing now on some level? How can post presidential efforts impact our feelings towards a president and his legacy? Has Carter's post presidential activities softened your overall feelings about the man, to some extent?

This all came about actually with my wondering about exactly what W. Bush has been doing. He's been awfully quiet, esp. compared to Cheney and some of the others from his admin. What does a former president like him actually do? It's gotta be a rough transition in a sense going from being the man to sitting around and watching TV

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What does a former president like him actually do?

Go to join the boys in the back room pulling the strings of the current president.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

My point for this thread is to ask whether when you look at some of this stuff you view the legacy of a president a little differently?

Why should you? Being a good person is so different than being a good president, there is almost no overlap. All presidents try to do the right thing, the reason they aren't all "good" is because it's a difficult job, not because they intentionally take a dive, and not because they blow it off so they can work on starting a band or something. Contrast this to charity work, where putting in the hours is all there is to it. IMO the only way that post-presidential efforts should affect their legacy is if it reveals something new about their previous intent: either their apparent good works as president are later revealed to be malicious and/or self-serving, or vice versa apparent maliciousness is later revealed to be altruistic. For example, if someone generally believed to be a bastard, like Nixon, dedicated his later life to charity and worked his ass off at it, I think that might affect his presidential legacy. Or maybe not maybe it would confirm the old legacy because it showed he felt remorse for it.

But I really don't think someone who hides their true intent so well would ever get to be president in the first place, so I'd answer your question with "no."

[turtle777]

I'm glad you're already thinking about the post-Obama era. It's about darn time.

-t

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

This all came about actually with my wondering about exactly what W. Bush has been doing. He's been awfully quiet, esp. compared to Cheney and some of the others from his admin. What does a former president like him actually do? It's gotta be a rough transition in a sense going from being the man to sitting around and watching TV

From George Bush in Real Life | vanityfair.com :

The former president says that his first day home in Preston Hollow, the suburb of Dallas where he and his wife moved in January, he kicked back on the couch and hollered, “Baby, free at last!” To which Laura responded, “‘Yeah, you’re free to take out the trash. Consider it your new domestic policy agenda.’”
...
“I had not gone for a walk in a neighborhood in 14 years,” Bush says, referring to his time as governor of Texas and then president. He tells of how weird it felt to be able to go outside and take his Scottish terrier, Barney, for a walk. “Barney made a deposit in the yard,” he says, adding that when he bent down to retrieve it with a plastic bag, he got to thinking, “I was dodging this stuff for eight years—now I’m picking it up!”

I think that Bush understands that he needs to take a step back for a while, work on his memoirs, and generally decompress. We won't find him in the media because he understands that he is no longer President, and that the current President deserves room to make his own decisions, on his terms, without getting second-guessed by former Presidents. There is enough second-guessing around, and a former President has a unique appreciation of that. (IMHO, the fact that Cheney is so vocal proves that he has no concept of giving others space to make their own decisions....)

We have made a habit of electing young Presidents the last few times around, especially Democrats. Carter and Clinton were both in their mid-50's when they left office. Dubya was the baby of the last few Republicans, leaving office in his early 60's. Poppy Bush was just shy of 70 (He and Carter were both born in 1924, I think my math is a little off but work with me here), and Reagan was pushing 80 when he left office.

Simply put, a younger ex-President has more time to do positive things in his post-Presidential life. Although it hasn't been the norm lately, there is precedent for former Presidents to go back in active political life: William Howard Taft was the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court after he was President, and Andrew Johnson was elected to the Senate after being President. But I think contemporary ex-Presidents understand that they would probably be able to do more by using their influence while outside the political sphere.

(I always thought that Clinton would have made a kick-ass UN Secretary-General, but Bush never would have nominated him, and I don't think they even put Americans in that post....)

If Doofy and turtle get their wish, Obama will be an ex-President in his early 50's. Even if he serves another term, he will be as young as Clinton and Carter were when they left. He will have a long career of being an ex-President. Maybe he'll try to win some more Nobel Prizes, or maybe he'll go back to the land of his birth and be President there.

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I gotta say, without getting into what we think about Carter and what he did while in office . . .

Absolutely NOTHING can make up for the damage Carter did while in office.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

Absolutely NOTHING can make up for the damage Carter did while in office.

QFT. He invented FAIL in politics.

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

QFT. He invented FAIL in politics.

-t

I think we must have a wildly different idea of what trolling is about. You seem to think it's creating threads about stuff that you don't care about or exploring topics that seem inane to you, while I think it's intentionally pressing buttons and provoking people with subject matter that is well known to stir up emotions and strong feelings. Exhibit A is right here, your first sentence was all that was necessary to convey your point.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I think we must have a wildly different idea of what trolling is about. You seem to think it's creating threads about stuff that you don't care about or exploring topics that seem inane to you, while I think it's intentionally pressing buttons and provoking people with subject matter that is well known to stir up emotions and strong feelings. Exhibit A is right here, your first sentence was all that was necessary to convey your point.

WTF are you talking about ?

Carter's presidency is widely considered a FAIL. Many rank him the worst president of all times. Just because you happen to be a fan of him (how telling) doesn't negate his track record.

And also, I don't think that all the FAIL can be made up with a post-presidency record. Those people cheered because he was (for once) not screwing anything up, but doing harmless things (like Habitat for Humanity).

-t

[stupendousman]

Carter was a horrible President, but I think a lot of what he's don post-Presidency is to be commended. Most of what I hear about in regard to efforts like Habitat for Humanity are extremely good deeds.

I also applaud Carter on his apparent recent introspection on what seems like several decades of anti-Semitism on his part. His apology to the Jewish people shows that he doesn't totally have a tin ear and probably is a decent guy deep down.

The question will remain if all the good things he's done atones for the bad.

Does helping needy people get homes erase the mangling of the economy he did? Does apologizing to the Jewish people erase all the years of irrational opposition he's shown toward them? Does his efforts at bringing people together in peace equalize his butting into matters which aren't any of his business in order to campaign for a Nobel Peace Prize?

Carter is a mixed bag, to be sure, but you can't fault him for trying as hard as he can at whatever he does. I give him an A for effort.

[besson3c]

I'm not sure how you got to the notion that I'm a fan of his presidency, but whatever... You completely missed my point about trolling, and you have zeroed in on a subset of my original message.

If you *really* can't get past Carter's presidency, substitute him for any other president. My questions are pretty general using Carter as an example, as they often are. Let me phrase things for you differently: what if Clinton/Bush I or II/Reagan did what Carter is doing now, how does this impact their legacy and your feelings about them overall? Don't give me a breakdown of how this affects each of them independently, be general.

Abstract questions are really not your thing, are they? That being said, I apologize if I wasn't clear that I'm not particularly interested in making this all about Carter's presidency or Carter specifically. I'm just using his post presidency as a launch point for discussion, since he's the best example of an active post presidency in our lifetime.

[besson3c]

Dork., your points about age are very well received. If you finished up your presidency at the age of 1970, while you might be too old to fly around the world and do stuff, couldn't you get involved with various charities and stuff like that? I'm not saying that every president has an obligation to do this sort of stuff, but for those that do, does it/should it impact their legacy and how we think about them?

I, for one, think that regardless of what you feel about Carter's presidency, what he's doing now seems to be very noble and worthy of praise.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Abstract questions are really not your thing, are they? That being said, I apologize if I wasn't clear that I'm not particularly interested in making this all about Carter's presidency or Carter specifically. I'm just using his post presidency as a launch point for discussion, since he's the best example of an active post presidency in our lifetime.

Ok, so from that perspective, Carter shows that there's always hope that bad presidents later in life will realize and learn from their mistakes. How exactly it will turn out for Clinton, Bush et. al., who knows, too much speculation, I don't own a crystal ball.

-t

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

Maybe he'll try to win some more Nobel Prizes, or maybe he'll go back to the land of his birth and be President there.

Muahahaha

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Ok, so from that perspective, Carter shows that there's always hope that bad presidents later in life will realize and learn from their mistakes. How exactly it will turn out for Clinton, Bush et. al., who knows, too much speculation, I don't own a crystal ball.

-t

How does helping fight disease and building homes a demonstration of what he has learned from his mistakes as a US president?

It sounds like you are unable to separate your feelings about his as president from his post presidency.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

How does helping fight disease and building homes a demonstration of what he has learned from his mistakes as a US president?

Of course it does. It shows that he can think ahead and figure out if the consequences would be beneficial or not, and then execute what's beneficial, rather than doing things that backfire later because it has not been thought through.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It sounds like you are unable to separate your feelings about his as president from his post presidency.

It sounds like you need to stop second-guessing me.

-t

[besson3c]

That's a bit of a stretch, isn't it? How does helping fight disease and building homes ever have a negative consequence? It may not be carried out efficiently, but you are still devoting resources in areas where they didn't exist prior. If half a village gets a vaccine it is better than nobody getting that vaccine.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

That's a bit of a stretch, isn't it? How does helping fight disease and building homes ever have a negative consequence? It may not be carried out efficiently, but you are still devoting resources in areas where they didn't exist prior. If half a village gets a vaccine it is better than nobody getting that vaccine.

I'm not saying it could have negative consequences.

I'm saying that he acted considerably smarter by engaging in things that can't go wrong.
Let's put it real simple: if you don't know what you're doing, do something that by default can't have adverse effects.

Because before (in his presidency), he was involved in things that could go wrong, and indeed, went wrong.

-t

[Big Mac]

What Carter has done domestically with his house building has been laudable. What he has done internationally, as a purchased tool of Saudi Arabia, has contributed to hatred, bloodshed and war rather than peace.

I will note, however, that his recent apology to Jews is a decent start at correcting some of the problems he has created for the world by his long record of demonizing Israel, but it's just a start.

[SpaceMonkey]

So besson, why don't you hate Carter so much?

[besson3c]

Jimmy Carter or Vince Carter?

[ebuddy]

The issue with Carter is that he's probably been among the most active post-Presidencies we've had, but this must also include the patently moronic things he's done since leaving office. Things such as the N. Korean nuke "agreement" that as it turns out was a complete joke and dragging the very real debate regarding our current Administration's domestic policy into the gutters of racism as two quick examples.

In other words, much like his Presidency; a mixed bag of well-intentioned, but woefully naive activity that has me hoping the homes these volunteers have built through Habitat for Humanity remain both affordable and intact, which as I understand is not necessarily the case. He gets a C- IMO.

[Orion27]

Carter = Fail. His apology = fake, fake fake.

There is an old Hasidic tale which illustrates the effect of what Jimmy Carter has spent a generation doing, on the Jewish people.

A man went about the community telling malicious lies about the rabbi. Later, he realized the wrong he had done, and began to feel remorse. He went to the rabbi and begged his forgiveness, saying he would do anything he could to make amends. The rabbi told the man, "Take a feather pillow, cut it open, and scatter the feathers to the winds." The man thought this was a strange request, but it was a simple enough task, and he did it gladly. When he returned to tell the rabbi that he had scattered the feathers, the rabbi said, "Now, go and gather the feathers. Because you can no more make amends for the damage your words have done than you can recollect the feathers."

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Jimmy Carter or Vince Carter?

Jack Carter.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The issue with Carter is that he's probably been among the most active post-Presidencies we've had, but this must also include the patently moronic things he's done since leaving office. Things such as the N. Korean nuke "agreement" that as it turns out was a complete joke and dragging the very real debate regarding our current Administration's domestic policy into the gutters of racism as two quick examples.

In other words, much like his Presidency; a mixed bag of well-intentioned, but woefully naive activity that has me hoping the homes these volunteers have built through Habitat for Humanity remain both affordable and intact, which as I understand is not necessarily the case. He gets a C- IMO.

So, sharing an opinion about racism in this country and an agreement that couldn't survive under W. Bush nullifies all of the stuff he has done for disease prevention, Habitat, etc.?

All of this stuff is bad?

In 1982, he established The Carter Center in Atlanta, Georgia, to advance human rights and alleviate unnecessary human suffering. The non-profit, nongovernmental Center promotes democracy, mediates and prevents conflicts, and monitors the electoral process in support of free and fair elections. It also works to improve global health through the control and eradication of diseases such as Guinea worm disease, river blindness, malaria, trachoma, lymphatic filariasis, and schistosomiasis.[citation needed] It also works to diminish the stigma against mental illnesses and improve nutrition through increased crop production in Africa.[citation needed] A major accomplishment of The Carter Center has been the elimination of more than 99% of cases of Guinea worm disease, a debilitating parasite that has existed since ancient times, from an estimated 3.5 million cases in 1986 to fewer than 10,000 cases in 2007.[61] The Carter Center has monitored 70 elections in 28 countries since 1989.[62] It has worked to resolve conflicts in Haiti, Bosnia, Ethiopia, North Korea, Sudan and other countries.[citation needed] Carter and the Center actively support human rights defenders around the world and have intervened with heads of state on their behalf.[citation needed]

It is incredible how blinded some people are by their rigid political ideology.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

It's interesting to see how spin is packaged, then bought by those it was intended for.

Much of that is spin on some of the disastrous foreign policy meddling and being a complete and total useful idiot for tinhorns and dictators that Carter has allowed himself to be. Does it mean he hasn't done anything good? No. But spraying some perfume on the pile of dung that is a lot of his track record of being a bought and paid for tool doesn't make it anything other than a pile of dung.

[besson3c]

Oh yeah, the Wikipedia page I quoted is spinning information about the Carter Center big time... I keep on forgetting about how it is a big liberal rag.

[Dork.]

A more balanced perspective....

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

A more balanced perspective....

Finally! The balance that we need! An article with no mention of the Carter Center, and this highly relevant quote from John McCain in regards to the oh-so-monumental remarks from Carter about racism:

John McCain responded to Carter's remarks, "I'm deeply disturbed by those accusations because it's an unfair and untrue commentary on the American people, and them exercising their God-given rights to disagree with the administration. It seems to me that President Carter has earned his place as, if not the worst president in history, certainly the worst in the 20th century." [10]

They were even so nice as to bold the negative parts!

We make a good team, Dork...

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

An article with no mention of the Carter Center

Reading FAIL. It did mention it. Twice.

Professor Kenneth Stein resigned from the Carter Center because of its depiction of Israel through three decades of diplomatic and military dealings with the Palestinians.
[...]
As the book's title suggests, Carter compares Israel with the white supremacist regime of old South Africa. Fourteen members of the Carter Center's advisory board have resigned over the book.

-t

[besson3c]

So, I guess the score, for those of you keeping tracking at home... According to Conservatives:

- There is nothing or at least very, very little laudable about anything Obama has said or done
- There is nothing or at least very, very little laudable about anything Clinton has said or done
- There is nothing or at least very, very little laudable about anything Kerry has said or done
- Al Gore is masterminding an international hoax in collaboration with some "scientists". It's not that he has a different opinion, he is literally developing a hoax to manipulate people into buying carbon credits
- Bush was a disappointment, but not nearly as much of one as anybody above
- Reagan was a God of Conservative politics
- Carter was the worst president we've ever had, and even 20 years into the future one cannot say something positive about anything he has done

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Reading FAIL. It did mention it. Twice.

Whooo... in passing. Not a section on it, just mentioned in passing. This *completely* nullifies what I just wrote.

[besson3c]

Seriously guys, why is it so incredibly painful for you to say "yes, Carter has been doing some positive things in his post presidency that he deserves credit for", and without some sort of obligatory qualification about how he was still the worst president evar? Is it really this difficult?

How is it not painfully obvious that yes, fighting diseases is a good thing? We haven't even gotten to my original post yet since having to deal with the obligatory knee jerk reactions about putting Carter and some sort of positive implication into the same sentence.

[Dork.]

You want people to think critically, then? You must be new here in the Pol Lounge....

[besson3c]

I just wish I could shake you guys up a little bit so that we could try something new for a change. I mean, the response to my latest posts is just painfully predictable: you'll find some way to blow off everything I've said on the grounds that I'm a hypocrite invalidating this entire thread, or you'll acknowledge a wee bit and then immediately shine the light back just how poor a president Carter was, or you'll create a big distraction somehow.

The subject matter I wanted to discuss is in my original post.

[Dork.]

You should have picked Nixon. I'm too young to remember Watergate directly, but he had a much better post-Presidency than a lot of people thought he would have. He, um, left the Presidency in his early 60's, and managed to do a few notable things afterwards, in spite of the conditions of his departure....

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So, I guess the score, for those of you keeping tracking at home... According to Conservatives:

- There is nothing or at least very, very little laudable about anything Obama has said or done
- There is nothing or at least very, very little laudable about anything Clinton has said or done
- There is nothing or at least very, very little laudable about anything Kerry has said or done
- Al Gore is masterminding an international hoax in collaboration with some "scientists". It's not that he has a different opinion, he is literally developing a hoax to manipulate people into buying carbon credits
- Bush was a disappointment, but not nearly as much of one as anybody above
- Reagan was a God of Conservative politics
- Carter was the worst president we've ever had, and even 20 years into the future one cannot say something positive about anything he has done

So according to Besson
-Jimmy Carter is worthy of praise regarding his accomplishments.



Which looks more plausible to you?

[besson3c]

Unless you think that fighting disease is a bad thing that people shouldn't be doing, yeah, he's worthy of praise, as would anybody be.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So, I guess the score, for those of you keeping tracking at home... According to Conservatives:

... be sure to include; Conservatives as so-labeled by besson who started off mentioning that it is not about left or right, but is frustrated that there are few to circle jerk with him. He wanted to know if post-Presidential careers can make up for a sour Presidential legacy and while it was explained in several different ways by several different people, besson picks up on left and right proving that it was in fact about left and right the entire time.

So... your crusade to have others think like you isn't working, time to label? C'mon.

- There is nothing or at least very, very little laudable about anything Obama has said or done

He has done nothing that he hasn't already been showered with adulation for. He is the first partially African-American President of the US. I've given him a few props. I just wish he didn't have to be dragged kicking and screaming to the right answers.

- There is nothing or at least very, very little laudable about anything Clinton has said or done

I could only dream of having Clinton back in office.

- There is nothing or at least very, very little laudable about anything Kerry has said or done

Kerry? What the? What does he have to do with post-Presidency? If it's not about left and right, why are you derailing your own thread by bringing up anyone from the left you can think of?

- Al Gore is masterminding an international hoax in collaboration with some "scientists". It's not that he has a different opinion, he is literally developing a hoax to manipulate people into buying carbon credits

Al Gore is masterminding nothing. He seized a very small window of opportunity and has now exhausted it. He is now a net-loss to the science and to anyone truly concerned about climate change. He's lost his relevance and is no longer taken seriously on this issue.

- Bush was a disappointment, but not nearly as much of one as anybody above

There's nothing to say of Bush at this point as Dork pointed out. He's giving the new President breathing room (regardless of how frequently his name is invoked in trying to explain the failures of the Obama Administration) and as low as his approval ratings were upon leaving office, now enjoys almost half the country wishing he was back in office.

- Reagan was a God of Conservative politics

I acknowledge Reagan's mortality. You're too emotionally connected to a political party besson.

- Carter was the worst president we've ever had, and even 20 years into the future one cannot say something positive about anything he has done

I gave the man a C-. What do you want? You want a bunch of automatons who agree whole-heartedly with you in showering adulation on what I've already established is a mixed bag of good and bad?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

You should have picked Nixon. I'm too young to remember Watergate directly, but he had a much better post-Presidency than a lot of people thought he would have. He, um, left the Presidency in his early 60's, and managed to do a few notable things afterwards, in spite of the conditions of his departure....

This would be a departure from besson's usual crusade of shilling for the Democratic party. You know it's coming when he starts off; it's not about left or right. That way, all besson has to do is say something highly debatable regarding his favorite Democratic figure or issue of the hour and when someone speaks up against it, he can label and mock them for responding.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So, sharing an opinion about racism in this country and an agreement that couldn't survive under W. Bush nullifies all of the stuff he has done for disease prevention, Habitat, etc.?

Sharing his destructive opinion on matters to attempt to influence a very real political debate is among the many things Carter has been doing in his post-Presidency. I thought we were talking about post-presidential stuff in the spirit of "it's not about left or right"; so you're going to compare his post-Presidential performance with someone on the right's Presidential performance?

- Bush gets a D for Presidential performance.
- Carter gets an F for Presidential performance.
- Carter gets a C- for his post-presidential performance.
- Bush gets an Incomplete for his post-presidential performance.

All of this stuff is bad?

All this stuff is good?

• Generally, former presidents do not criticize the incumbent President, particularly on foreign policy. As of mid-2009, Only Jimmy Carter, Herbert Hoover, and Bill Clinton had broken that law during the previous 100 years. No former president had actively sabotaged the foreign policy of a sitting President before Jimmy Carter.
• Before Operation Desert Storm was launched in January 91, Carter wrote a letter to the United Nations' Security Council members, asking them to oppose the war. Five days before military operations were to begin, Carter again wrote to Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt: "I urge you to call publicly for a delay in the use of force while Arab leaders seek a peaceful solution to the crisis."
• while Clinton was trying to convince the North Korean government in Pyongyang that all options (including a U.S. military response) were on the table, Carter promised that we wouldn't even be imposing economic sanctions. When asked about this discrepancy, President Clinton told reporters, "None of us have talked directly with President Carter. We don't know what he said." Carter's behavior in North Korea led a Clinton administration Cabinet member to call him a "treasonous prick."
• Carter worked out an agreement to give Pyongyang 500,000 metric tons of oil, many tons of grain, and a light-water nuclear reactor; meanwhile, he pressed the Clinton administration to consent to an even weaker agreement. The unverifiable deal that Carter designed eventually allowed North Korea to develop, undetected, as many as half-a-dozen nuclear weapons.
• In 1990 he counseled with Yasser Arafat regarding a speech that Arafat was scheduled to deliver before the United Nations Security Council. To maximize the international appeal of the PLO, Carter advised Arafat to present Palestinians as blameless victims of Israeli oppression.
• In 2002 Carter having visited Fidel Castro's Cuba; opposing the American embargo of Cuba, Carter extolled "the benefits of Cuba's superior services in education and health." At this time, then-Undersecretary of State John Bolton stated that Castro was developing some form of biological weapons research, an allegation dating back to the Clinton administration. From overseas, Carter called Bolton a liar and reported that he (Carter) had seen no evidence of such programs during his tour. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice quickly responded, "That's not how biotech weapons work. And they're actually very easy to conceal."
• In 2004 Carter certified the dubious election of pro-Castro strongman Hugo Chavez in Venezuela.
• I won't even get into how hard he lobbied for the Nobel Peace Prize in an attempt to reconcile his failed Presidency.

It is incredible how blinded some people are by their rigid political ideology.

I couldn't have said it better myself. What a Clinton Administration cabinet member refers to as a "treasonous prick", you shower with adulation then indict the "right" for hatred.

If you mow my lawn, I am most appreciative. If you set the mower too low and it burns out my grass by the end of the summer, you've been a net-loss and I am no longer thankful to you. I'm sorry besson. This is how it works not only on the right, but on the left as well. Your shameless attempt to shill for your Democratic man of the hour did not work.

Not all are in lock-step with you besson. Not on the left and not on the right. You're the only one. I'm sorry. Maybe pick it up later with Kerry or another (D) and try again.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

This would be a departure from besson's usual crusade of shilling for the Democratic party. You know it's coming when he starts off; it's not about left or right. That way, all besson has to do is say something highly debatable regarding his favorite Democratic figure or issue of the hour and when someone speaks up against it, he can label and mock them for responding.

Or, I don't know much about Nixon's post presidency... Shocking, I know.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You know it's coming when he starts off; it's not about left or right. That way, all besson has to do is say something highly debatable regarding his favorite Democratic figure or issue of the hour and when someone speaks up against it, he can label and mock them for responding.

What other forums would call trolling.

From wiki:

a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response

-t

[besson3c]

All this stuff is good?
Generally, former presidents do not criticize the incumbent President, particularly on foreign policy. As of mid-2009, Only Jimmy Carter, Herbert Hoover, and Bill Clinton had broken that law during the previous 100 years. No former president had actively sabotaged the foreign policy of a sitting President before Jimmy Carter.
Before Operation Desert Storm was launched in January 91, Carter wrote a letter to the United Nations' Security Council members, asking them to oppose the war. Five days before military operations were to begin, Carter again wrote to Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt: "I urge you to call publicly for a delay in the use of force while Arab leaders seek a peaceful solution to the crisis."
while Clinton was trying to convince the North Korean government in Pyongyang that all options (including a U.S. military response) were on the table, Carter promised that we wouldn't even be imposing economic sanctions. When asked about this discrepancy, President Clinton told reporters, "None of us have talked directly with President Carter. We don't know what he said." Carter's behavior in North Korea led a Clinton administration Cabinet member to call him a "treasonous prick."
Carter worked out an agreement to give Pyongyang 500,000 metric tons of oil, many tons of grain, and a light-water nuclear reactor; meanwhile, he pressed the Clinton administration to consent to an even weaker agreement. The unverifiable deal that Carter designed eventually allowed North Korea to develop, undetected, as many as half-a-dozen nuclear weapons.
In 1990 he counseled with Yasser Arafat regarding a speech that Arafat was scheduled to deliver before the United Nations Security Council. To maximize the international appeal of the PLO, Carter advised Arafat to present Palestinians as blameless victims of Israeli oppression.
In 2002 Carter having visited Fidel Castro's Cuba; opposing the American embargo of Cuba, Carter extolled "the benefits of Cuba's superior services in education and health." At this time, then-Undersecretary of State John Bolton stated that Castro was developing some form of biological weapons research, an allegation dating back to the Clinton administration. From overseas, Carter called Bolton a liar and reported that he (Carter) had seen no evidence of such programs during his tour. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice quickly responded, "That's not how biotech weapons work. And they're actually very easy to conceal."
In 2004 Carter certified the dubious election of pro-Castro strongman Hugo Chavez in Venezuela.
I won't even get into how hard he lobbied for the Nobel Peace Prize in an attempt to reconcile his failed Presidency.

Okay, what is your source for all of this?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

What other forums would call trolling.

From wiki:



-t

From here on out, your cries of trolling carry really no meaning to me, turtle. You *constantly* troll with your constant digs, your pointed accusations, inflammatory language, and basic confrontational style. Not to mention, you glazed over ebuddy arguably trolling himself this *very post*.

So, just letting you know that this particular line of debate doesn't carry very much weight with me.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

From here on out, your cries of trolling carry really no meaning to me, turtle. You *constantly* troll with your constant digs, your pointed accusations, inflammatory language, and basic confrontational style. Not to mention, you glazed over ebuddy arguably trolling himself this *very post*.

Here is the difference between you and Abe, and everyone else: yes, we all occasionally troll with POSTS, but you and Abe troll with entire new threads, which often (not always) have no other purpose than that.

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I just wish I could shake you guys up a little bit so that we could try something new for a change. I mean, the response to my latest posts is just painfully predictable: you'll find some way to blow off everything I've said on the grounds that I'm a hypocrite invalidating this entire thread, or you'll acknowledge a wee bit and then immediately shine the light back just how poor a president Carter was, or you'll create a big distraction somehow.

Two more classic tactics:

- quoting of random Googled, unquoted conservative voice in opposition
- dissection of post point by point without addressing the overall meaning and point

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Here is the difference between you and Abe, and everyone else: yes, we all occasionally troll with POSTS, but you and Abe troll with entire new threads, which often (not always) have no other purpose than that.

-t

Another classic tactic to add to my list:

- If somebody is doing something wrong, it makes it okay to do something wrong yourself, since you know what they say about two wrongs


Mind you, only in your strange little uptight world are my threads for trolling purposes. Why would I do this? I loathe serious counterproductive threads. I guess you'd say I'm trolling about trolling now or something?

[turtle777]

So you admit that you are trolling ?

-t

[besson3c]

Well, I could pull a turtle and lay down a reading comprehension retort having just answered that in my last post, but all interest I had in this discussion has been sapped out of me, so I shall take a rain check on this.

Lesson re-re-re-re-re-re-re-relearned: don't post in the PWL, it sucks for anything outside of the predictable status quo.