Al Gore win Nobel Peace Prize

[RashanGary]

Oh, come on. This is NOT a totalitarian government. If Carter thinks Bush is a retard and wants to have discussion with other foreign leaders, that is his choice. The executive branch has all of the power that comes with the position of President. They do not have the power to control the words and actions of private citizens. Ex president or not, Carter has every right to say and do whatever the hell he pleases. If it underminds the president GOOD. That's what thsi country is all about. I will expect all of you to be equally suportive of everything Hillbilly does when he/she gets the office again. Let's see how patriotic you all are then. I'm not even a lib, but listenting to some of the hipocracy that comes out of the mouths of many conservatives makes me defend them in the name of intellectual honestly.

[the_idle_threat]

JH, you have no idea what totalitarianism is, apparently. Or what government is.

And for the record, I'm not nearly so "conservative" as you seem to think, and neither is my POV. Authoritarian might be a better word for it.

The Clintons---Bill in particular---have actually supported many of Bush's foreign policy decisions, and would presumably not support Carter's free-lancing. Bill knows exactly what Bush is up against: the fact that so many people think they know more about the world and foreign affairs than the president does just because they read the newspaper and surf the internet, while the President has staff and gets regular reports on what's going on.

Go ahead and continue believing you are smarter and better informed, JH. That belief doesn't make it so.

[RashanGary]

I never said I knew more, nor do I think I know more. Acctually, I think the threat by radical Islam is a huge threat and I also support much of Bush's foreign policy decisions.

In the same breath, Jimmy Carter can do whatever the hell he pleases and it's perfectly American.

[the_idle_threat]

If Jimmy Carter provides information---perhaps inadvertently or perhaps not---to an "enemy" foreign leader that causes harm or death to U.S. soldiers, is that "American" and his right, JH?

Not accusing Carter of this, but wondering what limits---if any---there are on your permissive thinking.

[Joemailman]

A treasonous act by Carter would be to provide aid to someone we are at war with (Al-Qaeda, Taliban, or Iraqi insurgents), or providing security secrets to any foreign leader.

[esoxx]

Jimmy Carter

Arafat deserved the Nobel Peace Prize....really.

[LL2]

My biggest beef with that article is that it says that Carter "allowed" the hostage crisis to happen. Using that logic, Bush "allowed" 9-11 to happen and on our own soil which makes him 100x worse.

About 9/11. Both Clinton and Bush misunderestimated the al quaeda threat. It's that simple. They both bear some responsibility, along with the CIA for letting the terrorists get by them. The events in Iran were far more transparent, and there were plenty of people who were writing at the time (and warning) about the nature of Khomeni and the fundamentalists who were trying to seize power in Iran.

This might be the first time I actually saw someone say that both Clinton and Bush share the responsibility of 9/11. It seems most want to blame Bush, but there were other terrorist attacks prior to 9/11 on the twin towers, plus the USS Cole, and a US Embassy in Africa. All those occured under Clintons watch, and he really didn't do anything about it.

[Joemailman]

The attempts by people like Orrin Hatch to blame Clinton for 9/11 started on about 9/14. And yet I don't recall the Clinton people trying to blame the George H.W. Bush administration for the first World Center bombing even though it happened just 5 weeks after Clinton took office. Bush, on the other hand, was in office for 8 months before 9/11, and had been briefed by the outgoing Clinton administration about the dangers posed by Bin Laden. But we now know that Bush was more interested in taking out Saddam than Bin Laden.

[MJZiggy]

He tried to bomb them, he just missed....

[RashanGary]

If Jimmy Carter provides information---perhaps inadvertently or perhaps not---to an "enemy" foreign leader that causes harm or death to U.S. soldiers, is that "American" and his right, JH?

Not accusing Carter of this, but wondering what limits---if any---there are on your permissive thinking.

There are limits. I highly doubt Jimmy Carter is doing anything other than undermining the administrations credibility, which is funny more than it is hurtfull to our home security.

President Bush is the executive branch of our government. He's not the all powerfull dictator. Private citizens and other members of government alike shoudl be encouraged to publicly express differences and force him to make decisions based on the constituents.

Boo Hoo, Carter is talkign to a socialist. Who would be so scared of socialism, besides the 1% who inherit 60% of our countries wealth and know they will never leave the safe confines of wealth under the current system.

I believe in letting competitive markets drive our economy, but I also believe in social programs that fully fund education for those who can't afford it (and are capable of excelling). I like limits on monopolization. That is NOT straight capitolism. I also like government that supports the easy transition from one class to another based on performance, not on inherited wealth.


I watched a special on Christopher Comumbus the other night. He had a vision that would allow him to reach the east by travelling west, and there for discover and conquer lands with the goal of spreading christianity and gaining wealth. Columbus did find a new world, that was loaded with recouces and valuable metals. Instead of being rewarded, he died with very little and left nothing for his kids. He spent the last years of his life trying to gather deeds and rights to the land that he discovered, but instead the royal family took everything, grew their wealth and left him with nothing. That is human nature. The brilliant, forward thinker will come up with the idea, help the company and the company will use the employee, take all of the wealth that comes with the ideas and the employee will be left with very little. Wealth brings power and with power comes oppression.

Now, a doctor who busts his ass, creates a clinic and becomes a millionaire deserved everything he got. He earned it. Bill Gates earned his. Many earn it, but there are people who were born into wealth and will never lose it because it will be passed from family to family similar to the royal families of Europe. It has little to do with what they acctually accomplish, and a lot to do with greed and power. It fosters oppression and a strict, hard to budge class system. I'm all for capitalism and I'm all about transfering government control to control of the people, but I"m also a big supporter of a system that rewards ideas and brilliance, rather than a system that promotes aristocratic type power.

There is a balance. Straight capitalism sounds great. The best will rise, but it doesn't end up that way. The best rise, pass it down to their kids and then greed and security allow it to steam roll based on inheritance, not on acctual decisions and ability. Our system is pretty good. I would support less money given to the lazy and more given to those who want to pursue higher education or open buisnesses. Instead of taking from the rich and giving to the poor, they should take from the rich and give to the ambitious. This would allow the cream to rise to the top rather than having the top set in stone for the most part. It would make the old wealth seem less secure, but the American dream would be more achievable. It's not bad right now. It could be better though. The fears of certain levels of socialism are exaggerated. The uselessness of government is not, but some ideas of socialism are good if implimented correctly.

[the_idle_threat]

Good God, it's like talking to a child. I give up.

[Deputy Nutz]

If Liberals could just stop supporting abortion, I'll bet it would be a long time before we see another republican president. People who support abortion probably vote on other issues. Those who oppose abortion make it a point to vote for those who agree. I thought Kerry's downfall last year was his stance on abortion.

If Rudy gets the Republican nomination, I would think it's highly probably that Hillary is our president. Rudy would lose a lot of the social conservative vote and without them, the republicans just don't have enough support to win an election.

I really don't understand this point, what does abortion have to do with anything? Liberal supporting abortion? What the fuck?

Bush Jr. next to our last few presidents takes a pretty pro-life view point to abortion and not a thing has been done to change the laws. I think it is a stupid view for a president to express and should really have no impact on the election but I would have to say it is at least a top 10 reason why people will vote a certain way.

I am pro-choice but I voted for Bush because of his gun control policies.
How about that.

Back on subject, I don't think Bush is going to win a Nobel Peace Prize anytime soon, maybe a Crackerjack prize if he can figure out how to open up the box.

[Kiwon]

Good God, it's like talking to a child. I give up.

Idle, you have to come down to their level.

You start with colors first and then work your way up to numbers and the alphabet.

[MJZiggy]

If Liberals could just stop supporting abortion, I'll bet it would be a long time before we see another republican president. People who support abortion probably vote on other issues. Those who oppose abortion make it a point to vote for those who agree. I thought Kerry's downfall last year was his stance on abortion.

If Rudy gets the Republican nomination, I would think it's highly probably that Hillary is our president. Rudy would lose a lot of the social conservative vote and without them, the republicans just don't have enough support to win an election.

I really don't understand this point, what does abortion have to do with anything? Liberal supporting abortion? What the fuck?

Bush Jr. next to our last few presidents takes a pretty pro-life view point to abortion and not a thing has been done to change the laws. I think it is a stupid view for a president to express and should really have no impact on the election but I would have to say it is at least a top 10 reason why people will vote a certain way.

I am pro-choice but I voted for Bush because of his gun control policies.
How about that.

Back on subject, I don't think Bush is going to win a Nobel Peace Prize anytime soon, maybe a Crackerjack prize if he can figure out how to open up the box.

The deal with abortion and presidential politics is that the president appoints the Supreme Court justices, so if they keep electing pro-life presidents, the hope is that the Court becomes more conservative as far as abortion is concerned and they can get Roe v. Wade overturned. They feel that their vote on the abortion issue alone will have a specific outcome, never mind that the candidate is a complete turd. The Court might vote differently.

Why they care what the Senatorial and Gubernatorial candidate think on the issue is beyond me.

[Joemailman]

If Roe is overturned, the decision on whether to have abortion legal will likely return to the states. It is anticipated that a Supreme Court ruling reversing Roe would not outlaw abortion, but allow state governments to decide if abortion will be legal in their state. Therefore, a governors view on abortion will be crucial if Roe is overturned.