Obama Makes Jimmy Carter Look Good

[imaginatium]

There is a whole world of Jimmy Carter compassion generosity and service, that would be opened to you if you choose to explore it.

Compassion, generosity and service are not in the job description. They are liberal constructs of government.

The idea that compassion trumps liberty is the problem!
The idea that generosity trumps liberty is the problem!
The idea that service trumps liberty is the problem!

The idea that one can take his internal compassion, generosity and dedication to service and impose that upon others IS THE PROBLEM!

Anyway, back on topic. Many people are very nice and very inept at the same time. Not sure that saying Carter is nice says much of anything.

I agree the that to impose ANYTHING upon others IS THE PROBLEM, but also

The idea that liberty can exist without compassion is the problem!
The idea that liberty can exist without generosity is the problem!
The idea that liberty can exist without service is the problem!

And in any country where true liberty exists, compassion, generosity and service ARE in the job description. the point I was making in my original post is that is that character is more important than policy , and being a great human being is far better than being a great politician. To malign someones character because you don't like his policies, shows true moral bankruptcy.

When it comes to policy, none of us see's the big picture well enough to really know what the real outcome is in the long term. Intelligent and well meaning liberals and conservatives draw different conclusions from the same data, the truly wise among them, admit that they are fallible. Jimmy Carter possesses such wisdom. Anyone who is arrogant enough to believe that they know better than everyone who disagrees with them, is delusional. Many people who post in forums and write blogs posses that kind of delusion.

[seedload]

I agree the that to impose ANYTHING upon others IS THE PROBLEM

I don't really believe that you think that, especially the "ANYTHING" part. Re-distributive policies do just that. Heck, I don't even believe the "ANYTHING" part.

The idea that liberty can exist without compassion is the problem!
The idea that liberty can exist without generosity is the problem!
The idea that liberty can exist without service is the problem!

Well that is the basic ideological difference, isn't it. The switch in priority in your post results in policies that legislate compassion/generosity/service. But if you legislate these things then they don't resemble themselves anymore because they have lost the element of free will. I never said that liberty can exist without compassion, generosity and service. In fact, I strongly believe that these things are natural byproducts of liberty. They are spawned from liberty and from a willful desire to use ones freedom to do good.

the point I was making in my original post is that is that character is more important than policy , and being a great human being is far better than being a great politician.

Pretty sure the topic was about how good a President Carter was, not how good a politician. I do not believe that being a great human being is more important than being a great leader for a President. Again, I know a lot of really really nice human beings who would be crappy leaders/Presidents.

To malign someones character because you don't like his policies, shows true moral bankruptcy.

Well, the thread really didn't deal with Carter much and when it did, I think the worst that was said was that he was stupid - which to me is pretty tame. Moral bankruptcy for calling Carter stupid - that's a pretty strong conclusion. After your post, the Carter bashing heated up a bit for sure.

Anyone who is arrogant enough to believe that they know better than everyone who disagrees with them, is delusional.

Obama!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Jccarlton]

There is a whole world of Jimmy Carter compassion generosity and service, that would be opened to you if you choose to explore it.

Compassion, generosity and service are not in the job description. They are liberal constructs of government.

The idea that compassion trumps liberty is the problem!
The idea that generosity trumps liberty is the problem!
The idea that service trumps liberty is the problem!

The idea that one can take his internal compassion, generosity and dedication to service and impose that upon others IS THE PROBLEM!

Anyway, back on topic. Many people are very nice and very inept at the same time. Not sure that saying Carter is nice says much of anything.

I agree the that to impose ANYTHING upon others IS THE PROBLEM, but also

The idea that liberty can exist without compassion is the problem!
The idea that liberty can exist without generosity is the problem!
The idea that liberty can exist without service is the problem!

And in any country where true liberty exists, compassion, generosity and service ARE in the job description. the point I was making in my original post is that is that character is more important than policy , and being a great human being is far better than being a great politician. To malign someones character because you don't like his policies, shows true moral bankruptcy.

When it comes to policy, none of us see's the big picture well enough to really know what the real outcome is in the long term. Intelligent and well meaning liberals and conservatives draw different conclusions from the same data, the truly wise among them, admit that they are fallible. Jimmy Carter possesses such wisdom. Anyone who is arrogant enough to believe that they know better than everyone who disagrees with them, is delusional. Many people who post in forums and write blogs posses that kind of delusion.

You know, in all the years that Jimmy Carter has been on the stage, I have never heard him publicly say that his policies were a mistake. Now maybe he said that he made grave errors, but from everything I have seen he hasn't made the kind of changes that would indicate that he has changed his beliefs on how policy works.
Actually this thread was about inflation, something that Mr. Carter should know a lot about. And the kind of disasters that inflation creates.

[Diogenes]

The presidency of George W Bush, has already resulted in MEGADEATHS, by his command, not just as a indirect consequence.

Even if that is so, the argument "He Did it too!" is not just childish, it's a fallacy.


I'm not even sure what you mean that George Bush caused MEGADEATHS. What MEGADEATHS?

I know that millions have died as a result of the Iran/Iraq war, (Which would not have happened if we had kept our puppet dictator in Iran) and millions more will die if Iran gets a Nuke.

MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) will only work on those people who don't want to die. It will not work on people for whom dying is the ultimate act of religious piety.

Carter's ricochet is still rebounding.

[Diogenes]

The presidency of George W Bush, has already resulted in MEGADEATHS, by his command, not just as a indirect consequence.

As did the Presidential direct commands of many Presidents, many of whom are universally considered great! Lincoln for example!

Not saying that Bush was great, just saying that giving commands that result in many deaths are often necessary and right.

Say for example, that an evil dictator is killing and torturing his people at an exceedingly fast clip and that all indications are that this trend is not going to stop, continuing even into succession, then overthrowing said dictator might not be that bad a thing even if the direct order results in deaths.

Okay, if we are going to use decimals, then Lincoln could be said to be responsible for 0.6 MEGADEATHS.

Carter has managed better than Unity gain.

[Diogenes]

When it comes to policy, none of us see's the big picture well enough to really know what the real outcome is in the long term. Intelligent and well meaning liberals and conservatives draw different conclusions from the same data, the truly wise among them, admit that they are fallible. Jimmy Carter possesses such wisdom.

If only he had been wise enough to see that he was more fallible than anyone else they possibly could have gotten. Had he done NOTHING during his Presidency, it would have been an improvement.

[MSimon]

But if you really think that the president is guilty of treason, then I have a challenge for you. <challenge omitted>

Again, this kind of talk is worthy of being moderated by a moderator. The moderator should moderate.

regards

OK. Here is my opinion:

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/201 ... -news.html

[MSimon]

Well just to get things fired up again.

Bush DID put an end to Iraq's nuclear weapons program.

(can't wait to see this one explode - again)

[seedload]

But if you really think that the president is guilty of treason, then I have a challenge for you. <challenge omitted>

Again, this kind of talk is worthy of being moderated by a moderator. The moderator should moderate.

regards

OK. Here is my opinion:

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/201 ... -news.html

I was talking specifically about the challenge to kill a specific person and the prior implication that someone wanted to have said specific person killed both of which were an unjustified escalation of the conversation.

Personally, I don't think that suggesting violence or accusing someone of wanting violence against anyone, especially such a high ranking person, should be tolerated on this forum. I really WAS asking for someone to moderate, not for an opinion.

[D Tibbets]

Well just to get things fired up again.

Bush DID put an end to Iraq's nuclear weapons program.

(can't wait to see this one explode - again)

Not quite accurate. The senior Bush, with the continuation by Clinton and Jr Bush prior to 9-11 demolished and smothered Iraq's nuclear program. The 2nd Iraq war just changed tactics (which were based on lies), and in retrospect, at the cost of many thousands of lives and much money.

Several points that I find appalling, includes the complicity of Congress and the press, and especially that the war against the true offenders was placed on the back burner while the adventure in Iraq was undertaken.

Dan Tibbets

[ladajo]

Let's not forget what is really going on here.

The Birthers' chatter, and the other attacks on Barack Obama, are not some sort of active discussion among concerned citizens.

Instead, it is all part of a Republican dis-information campaign.

The dis-information campaign is what got him elected. What I and others are doing is putting out the CORRECT information.


While we're on the subject, More information has come out that demonstrates Obama isn't even an American Citizen. Jack Cashill recently wrote an article regarding Obama's Connecticut social security number. Turn out that it's real. Obama DOES have a social security number from Connecticut. The question is WHY?

The answer is that his credentials are SO bad, that he couldn't even get a REAL social security number, and relied on his friend Bill Ayers (Who forged countless identity documents during his Weather Underground terrorism days.) to cobble him together American identification.

Here's the article in case anyone wants to read it.

So now that the actual Birth Certificate is out, where does the argument stand? Is someone going to run down the "but his father was British, so he is British" lane? Or are we going to question who his father actually is and that the Obama entry was a cover up?
On a side note, I am wondering about age of consent in HI during 1961, and if that was part of the hide the certificate reason. A lot of hubbub for a seemingly simple thing.
Trump did do it. Gotta admit that he placed the proverbial straw on the camel.

[TDPerk]

Res ipsa loquitur.

[hanelyp]

Serious questions have been raised about the authenticity of the newly released birth certificate:
http://www.nkyvoice.com/2011/04/long-fo ... icate.html
http://thesophic.wordpress.com/birth-ce ... te-layers/
Apparently not just a forgery, but a sloppy forgery.

In addition, allowing that the occupier of the white house was born in Hawaii, I side with those who say that isn't enough to satisfy the natural born citizen clause. Having a non US citizen father disqualifies him. Being raised outside US influence compounds the disqualification.

All of which risks being a distraction from the disastrous rule of the regime.

[ladajo]

I have to disagree with the Natural Born part. Given that his mother was a citizen, and had lived in the US, I think it is enough. Take a look at my argument on this back around page 5. I looked it all up and chained it together. The Constitution, framers, 1st Congress and follow ons, as well as the Supreme Court all think he is natural born.

Believe me, I am not an Obama fan, but I think his citizenship is not in question. Many other things yes, but not that.

That said, I will take a look at the links above for the "faked" certificate.

[ladajo]

Ok, as I try to understand my own circumstances better:

From US Code Title 8, Section 1401:

Quote:
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years:


Which means that by US Law I am a Citizen "At Birth".

And, From the 14th Amendment:
Quote:
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


and

Quote:
Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.


and from Article 1, Section 8:
Quote:
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.


And via further research:
Rogers v Bellei, 401 US 815 (1971)

Section IV:

Quote:
The statutes culminating in § 301 merit review:

1. The very first Congress, at its Second Session, proceeded to implement its power, under the Constitution's Art. I, § 8, cl. 4, to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" by producing the Act of March 26, 1790, 1 Stat. 103. That statute, among other things, stated,

"And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States. . . ."

2. A like provision, with only minor changes in phrasing and with the same emphasis on paternal residence, was continuously in effect through three succeeding naturalization Acts. Act of January 29, 1795, § 3, 1 Stat. 415; Act of April 14, 1802, § 4, 2 Stat. 155; Act of February 10, 1855, c. 71, 1, 10 Stat. 604. The only significant difference is that the 1790, 1795, and 1802 Acts read retrospectively, while the 1855 Act reads prospectively as well. See Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 U. S. 657, 274 U. S. 664 (1927), and Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U. S. 308, 366 U. S. 311 (1961).

3. Section 1 of the 1855 Act, with changes unimportant here, was embodied as § 1993 of the Revised Statutes of 1874. [Footnote 3]


So, it would seem that through the Constitutionaly derived power, upheld by the Supreme Court, and maintained through a long history of Legislation, Congress defines me as a "Natural Born Citizen", based on "Citizenship at Birth".

Ironically, in the case I cited, due to it being the most recent applicable decision I could find, the Court ruled against Citizenship rights for Mr. Bellei. however, the pertinant part for me was the argument, and the Court clarification to its interpretation of the Constitution, Legislative Rights of Congress, and rightful power of the Statutes in question.

I have learned. Hmmm.

Edit: Added US Constitution Article 8 Sect. 5, and Article 1, Sect 8 cites.