Jimmy Carter on Obama's Legacy: "a Cruel and Unusual Record"

[Dibbun]

Carter was a complete garbage president and he needs to stick to building houses and shut the f*ck up about what he thinks the United States should do.

[BigBallinStalin]

i'm going to have to disagree with you guys here. in most cases it is okay (or at least somewhat acceptable) to vote a terrible person into office, if the other viable candidates are far worse. it's not the ideal course of action (which is usually voting for a third party candidate) but the net result is almost always positive.

honestly though, i don't know whether obama or romney is a bigger scumbag. and they are so much worse than some third-party candidates that i'd feel dirty voting for either of them. probably gonna stick with third-party.

Riddle me this, batjohn:

How do you know that "the net result is almost always positive" at the time of voting?

Also, why do you think that either mainstream party (or president) has provided a "net result [which is] almost always positive"?


Finally, I strongly support your decision to vote for a third party.

[BigBallinStalin]

Saxitoxin, I wish to be serious with you for a moment.

I noticed something at the end of the article:

Under [Obama's] watch, Osama bin Laden has been killed and much of the top echelons of al-Qa'ida have been gutted.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/jimmy-carter-attacks-barack-obama-over-assassinations-and-drone-attacks-7888925.html


Now, assuming that this decapitation policy is effective in eradicating the threat of terrorism against the US, then do the benefits offset the costs?

If you disagree with the assumption, please state why.


(Note: for the moment, I will play the role of the official spokesman for the US Empire).

Well people, individually or corporatively, have a right to defend themselves. But Anwar al-Awlaki wasn't killed as part of the winds of war. He was specifically identified and executed.

People who voted for Obama in 2008 are covered by deniable ignorance. But anyone who votes for Obama in 2012 assumes full guilt as an accessory for every death similar to al-Awlaki; the same guilt a Mafia don who has never fired a gun has for the deaths he's sponsored.

I feel safe in saying that the average 40-something soccer mom in Middleton, Ohio who votes for Obama in 2012 will, at the moment she punches the ballot, have instantly become a moral accessory in the deaths of more people than the most battle-hardened non-voter 95-Bravo. And, in the non-voting soldier's case, the statistical likelihood is those deaths were morally justifiable as warfighting instead of calculated executions.* The voting soccer mom, however, enjoys no reprieve from the Scales of Karma.

* in fact, IIRC, I read somewhere that even al-Awlaki's executioner was an Obama civilian attorney

Anwar al-Awlaki was obviously advocating for violent resistance against the United States. If you support the overthrow of the US government, then you are no true American. If you side with al-Awlaki, then it is obvious that you support such treasonous statements. The Constitution provides convenient clauses against those who advocate for the upheaval of the democratically elected and constitutionally upheld government.

Saxi, this is a benefits-cost analysis. Sure, collateral damage occurs; however, the current actions by the USG has mitigated the risk of future attacks against innocent American civilians. What would have us do? Nothing?! The USG must act on behalf of the People of the United States of America, so that their future well-being can be made sustainable.

[PLAYER57832]

Oh, but player, surely, you are aware of the consequences of your decision, are you not?

Of course. The goal in a presidential election, for the populace, is to select the least harmful candidate. Only idiots have the illusion of being able to change the fundamental basis of our system by voting for a president. That change comes from the bottom, not the top, and it comes very slowly until a majority is already achieved.

Also, why didn't you mention voting for a 3rd party candidate? That's probably the only morally correct choice for the US presidential election.

I did. Wheter you decline to vote or vote for a third party in the presidential race yields the same result.. you do nothing to counter the majority view. In smaller elections, it is different. That is where the "act locally, think globally" bit comes into play.

I take a more optimistic view. I walk on the side of righteousness, and I do not compromise my moral integrity when faced with the option of voting for "the lesser of two evils." Why? Because either vote for a mainstream party is most certainly evil.[/quote]
Then you are completely outside the system, but don't confuse that with any kind of power or real statement. Those who take themselves outside the system serve it just as well as those who simply capitulate to what the powerful want.

I already said focusing on the presidential election is moot. The real change happens much further down. There, a third party CAN have an impact.. and should.

[Woodruff]

Libertarian From "Cliff Notes to Progressive America"

Definition: A philosophy held by annoying bastards who happen to be right about nearly everything. Fortunately, due to the frustration that comes with being right about nearly everything, in a world wrong about those same things, there are only 19 of them, and we’re going to find the bastards soon.

That is awesome. <laughing>

I'm glad you think so. I was motivated to look through my Devil's Dictionary, but alas, "libertarian" was not mentioned.

Woodruff, let's get serious. Would you describe yourself as a libertarian? If not, why not?

Not strictly a libertarian, no. But I do favor a lot of their principles and I do take their positions very seriously. Similar in the way that I very much favor Ron Paul for President, even though I don't agree with some of his positions.

[GreecePwns]

Just so everyone knows way ahead of time, there are four candidates with enough ballot access to be able to win the Presidency

1. The neoconservative whose rhetoric matches that of neoconservatism when it's convenient, and libertarianism when it's not - of the Republican Party
2. The neoconservative whose rhetoric matches that of neoconservatism when it's convenient, and social democracy when it's not - of the Democractic Party
3. Gary Johnson - of the Libertarian Party
4. Jill Stein - of the Green Party

There are also several other candidates who do not have enough ballot access to win the Presidency. You can look them up on your own. Voting for them is key, because many states guarantee ballot access to a party that gets a certain amount of votes.

[saxitoxin]

Obama has decided to kill a few thousand Syrians next week to give him a little bit of a boost going into the election. This is the 21st century version of sacrificing a virgin on a stone slab to appease the gods for rain.

This military alert is reported Thursday by various Gulf sources, including the US military, pending a strike against Syria in two days.US forces in the Gulf are apparently on forward positions and high alert, as are Saudi Special Forces and National Guard. Israel too is reported in mobilization.

http://www.debka.com/newsupdate/1517/

Player: "They're going to stab her anyway, it can't hurt if I grab a leg to hold her down. I'm not actually putting the knife in, I'm just one of many people who are keeping her from escaping. Those other folks - the ones who refuse to participate in the sacrifice ... they're dumb idealists."

[john9blue]

Riddle me this, batjohn:

How do you know that "the net result is almost always positive" at the time of voting?

Also, why do you think that either mainstream party (or president) has provided a "net result [which is] almost always positive"?


Finally, I strongly support your decision to vote for a third party.

suppose that every third party voter decides to vote for the "lesser of two evils" instead of third-party. suppose these votes change the outcome and allow the lesser of two evils to defeat the greater of two evils. weren't their votes morally good?

[BigBallinStalin]

Oh, but player, surely, you are aware of the consequences of your decision, are you not?

Of course. The goal in a presidential election, for the populace, is to select the least harmful candidate. Only idiots have the illusion of being able to change the fundamental basis of our system by voting for a president. That change comes from the bottom, not the top, and it comes very slowly until a majority is already achieved.

Also, why didn't you mention voting for a 3rd party candidate? That's probably the only morally correct choice for the US presidential election.

I did. Wheter you decline to vote or vote for a third party in the presidential race yields the same result.. you do nothing to counter the majority view. In smaller elections, it is different. That is where the "act locally, think globally" bit comes into play.

I take a more optimistic view. I walk on the side of righteousness, and I do not compromise my moral integrity when faced with the option of voting for "the lesser of two evils." Why? Because either vote for a mainstream party is most certainly evil.

Then you are completely outside the system, but don't confuse that with any kind of power or real statement. Those who take themselves outside the system serve it just as well as those who simply capitulate to what the powerful want.

I already said focusing on the presidential election is moot. The real change happens much further down. There, a third party CAN have an impact.. and should.

Enjoy voting for evil, then.

[BigBallinStalin]

Obama has decided to kill a few thousand Syrians next week to give him a little bit of a boost going into the election. This is the 21st century version of sacrificing a virgin on a stone slab to appease the gods for rain.

This military alert is reported Thursday by various Gulf sources, including the US military, pending a strike against Syria in two days.US forces in the Gulf are apparently on forward positions and high alert, as are Saudi Special Forces and National Guard. Israel too is reported in mobilization.

http://www.debka.com/newsupdate/1517/

Player: "They're going to stab her anyway, it can't hurt if I grab a leg to hold her down. I'm not actually putting the knife in, I'm just one of many people who are keeping her from escaping. Those other folks - the ones who refuse to participate in the sacrifice ... they're dumb idealists."

That article stated that their information doesn't come from any official source, so it could just be fear-mongering.

However Turkey is flirting with the idea of NATO intervention into Syria. According to Stratfor, they're beefing up their borders and have declared that all Syrian military targets will be attacked if they come to close to that imaginary line in the mountains and sands.

[PLAYER57832]

Player: "They're going to stab her anyway, it can't hurt if I grab a leg to hold her down. I'm not actually putting the knife in, I'm just one of many people who are keeping her from escaping. Those other folks - the ones who refuse to participate in the sacrifice ... they're dumb idealists."

Nice try, but no. The real argument is that when she is already surrounded and on the sacrafice table, attempting to single-handedly defeat the group is not going to be effective (unless, of course, you happen to be Conan the Barbarian). However, you might be able to sneak out a couple of those waiting for their time while the group is distracted.. and , in the long term, begin working towards convincing the populace that such actions are just wrong.

But go ahead and keep pretending that the only votes, the only action with effect is the presidential election.

[BigBallinStalin]

Oh, so since there's other more important elections, then that excuses player for her immoral act of voting for a mainstream party president. I see.

[Army of GOD]

Yea, I'm sorry, but voting for Obama just because you're more afraid of Romney is terrible reasoning.

[Frigidus]

Yup. Obama has done very little to differentiate himself from Bush to that extent. I'd be happy if both him and Bush were tried as war criminals, although it will obviously never occur.

[GreecePwns]

Player: "They're going to stab her anyway, it can't hurt if I grab a leg to hold her down. I'm not actually putting the knife in, I'm just one of many people who are keeping her from escaping. Those other folks - the ones who refuse to participate in the sacrifice ... they're dumb idealists."

Nice try, but no. The real argument is that when she is already surrounded and on the sacrafice table, attempting to single-handedly defeat the group is not going to be effective (unless, of course, you happen to be Conan the Barbarian). However, you might be able to sneak out a couple of those waiting for their time while the group is distracted.. and , in the long term, begin working towards convincing the populace that such actions are just wrong.

But go ahead and keep pretending that the only votes, the only action with effect is the presidential election.

Slowly? Like trying to guarantee a party ballot access? Which requires a party get a certain amount of votes in the first place?

I'll give an example: In New York, a party is guaranteed ballot access by getting 50,000 votes in a gubernatorial election. I voted Green Party, and now they have automatic ballot access in the 2012 presidential election. Now I have a chance to vote for them in the presidential election, I should vote Obama because he's the "lesser of two evils?" No, of course not. I will vote for the Green Party.

[Woodruff]

There are also several other candidates who do not have enough ballot access to win the Presidency. You can look them up on your own. Voting for them is key, because many states guarantee ballot access to a party that gets a certain amount of votes.

This is the primary reason why I disagree with PLAYER's and john9blue's point regarding not voting for one of the two major parties.

[saxitoxin]

Player: "They're going to stab her anyway, it can't hurt if I grab a leg to hold her down. I'm not actually putting the knife in, I'm just one of many people who are keeping her from escaping. Those other folks - the ones who refuse to participate in the sacrifice ... they're dumb idealists."

Nice try, but no. The real argument is that when she is already surrounded and on the sacrafice table, attempting to single-handedly defeat the group is not going to be effective

Once again, you have more than two options. You have a choice other than Democrat/Republican. You have a choice other than Kill/Be Killed.

Walk away. Don't participate in holding down a woman to have her heart ripped out of her chest just because you can't free her.

The Muslims have a good analogy to describe a person with your particular lack of ethics/morality -

“The sins that you do in private kills the heart more than the sins that you do in public, because it means that you value the eyes of the people more than you value the sight of Allah. You are more worried about people catching you sinning than Allah seeing you.”

[john9blue]

a better analogy would be that we have three choices:

- allow the woman to be sacrificed (voting for obama)
- suggest that they only cut off her arm or leg instead of killing her altogether (voting for romney, assuming that romney is a better choice than obama. although still a terrible choice, the sacrificers are more likely to accept your proposal)
- suggest that they let the woman go (voting for a good third-party candidate. the sacrificers are very unlikely to accept this proposal and will likely kill her anyway)

[PLAYER57832]

There are also several other candidates who do not have enough ballot access to win the Presidency. You can look them up on your own. Voting for them is key, because many states guarantee ballot access to a party that gets a certain amount of votes.

This is the primary reason why I disagree with PLAYER's and john9blue's point regarding not voting for one of the two major parties.

No, the arguments I voice are why the Green Party has not actually run a candidate in the past couple of elections. They recognize that they don't h ave enough support... yet and therefore votes for their candidate really amount to votes against the next-most-likely candidate.

BUT... you miss the key point. This applies in the big national elections most particularly the presidency (not necessarily to the Senate and House elections, even). I absolutely advocate voting third party in many other cases. AND, I advocate participating in ways other than elections, ranging from signing petitions when appropriate to writing letters on occasion to lodging various other protests. (mostly those "other protests" tend to be far more effective than either of the other 2 options today).

The other point is that infusion from within is exactly how the Christian Right took over the Republican Party. You can have whatever beliefs you wish, but the other tactics are just not working at all. They are part of why the Democrats are no longer really the party of even moderate liberals, nor Republicans the party of the moderate right.

[GreecePwns]

The Green Party has run a candidate every election since 1996, so that blows your theory out of the water. You might be confused because the Democratic party has actively worked to get the Greens off the ballot since the days of Nader's campaigns.

[Woodruff]

There are also several other candidates who do not have enough ballot access to win the Presidency. You can look them up on your own. Voting for them is key, because many states guarantee ballot access to a party that gets a certain amount of votes.

This is the primary reason why I disagree with PLAYER's and john9blue's point regarding not voting for one of the two major parties.

No, the arguments I voice are why the Green Party has not actually run a candidate in the past couple of elections.

I don't think that's true, unless you're speaking of local elections.

[saxitoxin]

In 1939 Poland was invaded from the west by Nazi Germany and from the east by the Soviet Union. If Player were a Pole in 1939 Poland what would she have done?

(a) collaborated with the Nazis because, it's not ideal, but they're better than the Soviets
(b) collaborated with the Soviets because, it's not ideal, but they're better than the Nazis
(c) assisted the unfunded, lost cause of the Polish resistance which has zero hope

[saxitoxin]

Obama to Carter: "DROP DEAD!"

A clip from Carter’s upcoming Meet the Press interview reveals that President Obama is the first president since Carter left office not to solicit the Southern Democrat’s advice.

Carter explained, “President Clinton did and President George W. Bush and H.W. Bush and even Ronald Reagan used to call on us to go into sensitive areas.” They all asked Carter to deal with “unsavory characters,” but Obama hasn’t reached out to Carter for similar consulting.

Carter admitted he couldn’t answer with “complete candor,” only saying that it was the result of a dispute between the administration and the Carter Center on Middle East policy, a “sensitive area in which the president didn’t want to be involved.”

http://www.mediaite.com/online/jimmy-ca ... or-advice/

(IOW, Obama didn't want to hear Carter saying anything bad about the White House's paymasters in Tel Aviv.)

[thegreekdog]

I'm not sure if it's bad that the president doesn't take advice from President Carter.

[2dimes]

I would like more pictures in this thread.