You call it an observation when you do it, but then you call it an assumption on my part. You see Doc, it can't be one or the other. Either you're assuming, and I'm observing, or vice versa.

I call myself a liberal in that yes, politically that is where I lean. To call myself conservative would be a lie. However, do I march step in step with all things liberal, or democrat? No. Do I have a brain? Yes. Do I resent being grouped, labeled, stereotyped, etc.. by those like you? Yes. Do I have the best intentions and work for the desired results in things I do? Yes. I'm altruistic by nature, as well as other things. I put the best of others before my own. And yes doc, you've called me a liberal, albeit not directly, but it's been implied none-the-less.

Have I lied? No, I haven't lied in a very long time, since late 2005/early 2006. I've quit lying and have matured beyond that. That's what all of you hear don't get. You all don't see me for who I am NOW, only who I was THEN.

And ya know what, when I go to vote, I use my head. I ask myself (to mention a few): "Which one is the best for the job? Which one is more along the lines of what I believe"

I've been trying to dump it, but frankly it's ingrained in me. I'm still trying, but i'm making slow progress.

So do you think Carter going to Hamas instead of Israel (to which Carter is biased AGAINST) was a brilliant diplomatic approach to this scenario? I'm sure Israel does *sarcasm*!

Because it's not his part and he would have cried in his peanut butter if anyone pulled this kind of unprofessional crap when he was president.

If I was president, I'd have his passport yanked and let him rot with the vermin he chooses to sleep with. Sure, Carter has the "right" to go talk to anyone he wishes, but the state department can yank a passport from anyone too, as long as they have probable cause... and a case can be easily made here that Carter is breaking a few U.S. laws.

Brilliant, no, a different route, sure. If neither are willing to approach the table, then sometimes it begs to try one or the other of the parties. I don't know what Carter's motivation is though.

Maybe, maybe not. And who's to say he can't play the part of trying to solve a crisis? By that reasoning, then no American can. That's bullshit Ted.

Sure they can, but that's harking back to the communism era as far as I am considered, If you don't agree or follow what the government wants, then you're a bad boy. Yeah, right, bull.

Brilliant in an anti semetic, love thy palistian terrorist sort of way.

No, so quit trying to put up a straw man.

Israel has been willing to approach the table for quite some time. They gave up the west bank and Gaza. Hmmm, but yet that 'peace' only lasted a short time.

SP, maybe you should go read the Hamas charter. They hate Israel and want to eradicate it from the earth.

"Hamas' charter calls for the destruction of the State of Israel and its replacement with a Palestinian Islamic state in the area that is now Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip.[5] The organization is widely described as antisemitic.[6]" WWW Link

Sounds like a people SO willing to negotiate peace with Israel, don't you think?

Israel has constantly tried for peace but it has been Hamas that continues to break it first. Israel just recently told Hamas to stop shooting rockets or else they would cut off water, supplies, etc. Hamas was not willing to comply. Israel was forced to carry out their appeal.

Maybe you don't remember the 2005 pullout of Gaza and West Bank? Yeah that worked out real well in a peace treaty, didn't it?

Israel WANTS to live in peace it is Hamas who does not (they want eradication). Carter is Pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel. That's like telling a white supremacist to talk to the KKK to stop burning crosses on black people's lawns!

It's not his place to be there. He is breaking every rule of diplomacy. He is not being a diplomat, he's beings a pawn to terrorist propaganda. No matter what he think he's accomplishing there, that is how they will use him.

From Breshnev to Arafat to today, he never met a terrorist murderer he didn't like.

Jimmy is a homebuilder. He should stick to it - he does a pretty good job of it.

His international grandstanding is disrespectful to the office he formerly held, his opinion of the current occupant notwhithstanding, and confirms that he cares more for attempts at rehabilitating his personal reputation than he does for the good of his country. While he is by all accounts a generous and kind individual on a personal level, in this he is incredibly selfish.

Ok, I confess. I assumed you were a liberal when you called yourself a super liberal. My error. I should never assume you are telling the truth.

Satisfied?



That is an assumption. You have never observed it, so we cannot state it is a fact (just using your convoluted logic). Scarecrow



I do not believe anyone who states an absolute "I have not lied since". Right. Sorry, that man died 2000 years ago for out salvation, and you are not the second coming. But I give you credit for an ego the size of New york for that whopper.

Now that you have gotten your deification qualifications out of the way, instead of proclaiming your holiness, maybe you can show what assumption I made.

Wow, haven't had so many replies in ages--makes me feel a part of the family again.

Of course "y'all" (Georgia speak), harbour negatives about Carter because he was a mediocre president. But I think you are dwelling on the past. Carter has been a great ambassador for peace since then. I accept the negatives but please prove to me that GW, Condi, Blair et al, have done anything to enhance the peace process in Palestine! I do not know whether Carter is making headway but he certainly makes sense when he he says the peace progress has regressed. I agree. Go on, tell me what an arsehole he is but remember he has insight, is trying,  and has ingress.

That was my point. No-one else has solutions to the problem but you are quick to condemn any efforts at resolving the problem.Who is better off at trying? Carter may well fail but please tell me who your new peacemaker is!

But he's not being a peacemaker, he is bolstering the image of terrorists while undermining the sitting US government. It is unprofessional, foolish, Unconstitutional and could even be illegal.

Even though I don't think much of his administration, I think he's done a lot of good in the humanitarian department... and not just swinging a hammer (although he's done well there too). But good intentions don't excuse wrong actions.

No, he's not "bolstering terrorists." It seems that most of the respondents here have forgotten that the Palestinian people elected Hamas as the majority party in the Palestinian Authority in 2006. Therefore, Hamas is a major part of the Palestinian government, and President Carter was trying to broker peace or at least get some new talks started between the Israeli government and the Palestinians. By the way, he wanted to also meet with Israeli government officials, but they refused expressly because he was meeting with Hamas. He is NOT anti-Semitic; he is pro-human.

Perhaps he didn't succeed, but what are we doing to help with the process? Carter was willing to try which is far more than our government is willing to do. Why? Because every single Palestinian hates us and Israel and wants to see us all dead? Of course that's not true. Palestinians are people, too, who desire to have a homeland. Is war, death, and destruction truly the best answer that we can aspire to in resolving global conflicts? Do none of you people here who are bashing President Carter believe that there is a role for diplomacy? I might remind you that he successfully negotiated a peace deal between Israel and Egypt in 2002; would an ineffective anti-Semite have done such a thing?

Carter is not trying to rehabilitate his personal reputation, as one poster suggested. He has a lifetime of achievements that he can be proud of. Like most of the other things he's done in his life, he is motivated simply by a desire to have a more peaceful world. Pardon me if I agree with the OP here, but has any one of the conservatives who responded to this stopped to consider the track record of the current administration when it comes to negotiations and diplomacy? To George W. Bush, diplomacy means "you do what I want because my gun is bigger than yours and it's pointed at your chest" (aka cowboy diplomacy). How many peace deals have members of his administration concluded?

Incidentally, it's neither unconstitutional nor illegal for President Carter to speak with heads of foreign governments. As a private citizen, he is free to speak with whomever he desires. Anyway, I guess it's out of vogue to want to "give peace a chance" these days.

When speaking of more than one, it is all y'all.



Whew! That lets me off! As I said, not always doing something is the best course. Sometimes doing nothing is. Until such time as Hamas accepts the basic principal of Israel's right to exist, nothing is the best course. Carter did not even get that concession.