Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In reality, what Carter has said is the complete opposite of irrelevant. I can find no definition of the word irrelevant that would cause it to be considered for use in describing Carter's comments, unless the person choosing to use the word was not thinking clearly.
In reality, what Carter has said is the complete opposite of irrelevant. I can find no definition of the word irrelevant that would cause it to be considered for use in describing Carter's comments, unless the person choosing to use the word was not thinking clearly.
I have to agree the following is more appropriate:
Entry Word: meaningless
Function: adjective
Text: having no meaning <this is an utterly meaningless bit of nonsense>
You wrote: “It is better to make the wrong decision than no decision at all.”
I want to believe that you aren’t serious, or that you just didn’t want to take the time to clarify this with at least some qualifications.
Inaction leads to worse events, the worlds responce to Germany at first, result WWII.
The following is an excerpt from an interview about Carter:
[SIZE=3]FP:[/SIZE][SIZE=3] Why don’t we start with Carter's general record. Give us a brief laundry list of his failures.
Hayward: He was a disaster on the economy, blaming high inflation, for example, on the character of the American people. But by far his worst failing was in foreign policy. His human rights policy led to human rights disasters in Iran and Nicaragua, and emboldened the Soviet Union to extend its reach further into the third world. The fruits of the Iran disaster are still very much with us today. The fall of Iran set in motion the advance of radical Islam and the rise of terrorism that culminated in September 11. If we had stuck by the Shah or his successors, the history of the last 25 years in the Middle East would have been very different (and the Iranian people would have been better off, too). For starters, the Soviet Union would have hesitated greatly over invading Afghanistan[/SIZE][SIZE=3] in 1979.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]FP: Yes, Carter facilitated the coming to power of Marxists in Nicaragua and Islamist despots in Iran, Both of the new tyrannies by far surpassed the brutality of their predecessors. Meanwhile, by letting the Soviets know he wouldn’t lift a finger if they invaded Afghanistan, Carter spawned a war that ultimately saw one million dead Afghans, five million displaced, and a situation of evil that nurtured the Islamic hatred and militancy that ultimately turned on the West and gave us 9/11. How is it that a man who fertilized the soil in which so much evil grew remains completely unchastened?[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]Hayward: Carter is a mixture of neo-Kantianism—that is, the philosophical view that your good intentions outweigh the practical consequences of your actions and words—and left-wing Christian pacifism that believes the use of force is always wrong. Although Carter, like most liberals, says that the use of force is always to be available as "the last resort," in practice Carter would never reach "the last resort." There is always one more negotiation to be held, one more appeal to the United Nations, etc. In one sentence, you might say that while Ronald Reagan believed in "peace through strength," Carter and other liberals like Kerry believe in "peace through talk." You'd think they'd have learned from history by now, but no.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]
[SIZE=3] [SIZE=3]FP:[/SIZE][SIZE=3] Let us suppose that you were invited to a political history conference in which the top scholars were asked to rate Carter as a President from a scale of 1-10 (10 being a superb president, 0 being an absolute disaster) and then to give a short verdict on his presidency and legacy, what would you say?
[/SIZE][SIZE=3]Hayward: He would get a zero. He has already been identified as such. Nathan Miller, author of The Star-Spangled Men: America's Ten Worst Presidents, ranks Carter number one among the worst. Miller wrote that “Electing Jimmy Carter president was as close as the American people have ever come to picking a name out of the phone book and giving him the job.” I concur. Everyone old enough recalls the high inflation under Carter, and his foreign record was just as bad. Henry Kissinger summarized it this way: “The Carter administration has managed the extraordinary feat of having, at one and the same time, the worst relations with our allies, the worst relations with our adversaries, and the most serious upheavals in the developing world since the end of the Second World War."[/SIZE][/SIZE] [/SIZE][SIZE=3]
Quite obviously he isn’t meaningless, otherwise you wouldn’t be so vehemently opposed to various and sundry things you have adopted from the writings of others regarding their view of his actions. And, of course, if those opinions are true, then he would be the opposite of meaningless.
As he is not meaningless, then as synonyms, these also would also not describe him: empty, inane, pointless, senseless.
And most of these would have gotten him removed from office: Related Words insignificant, trivial, unimportant; absurd, asinine, balmy, brainless, crazy, daffy, daft, dotty, fatuous, foolish, half-witted, harebrained, insane, jerky, kooky, loony (also looney), lunatic, mad, mindless, nonsensical, nutty, preposterous, sappy, silly, unintelligent, unwise, wacky, weak-minded, witless, zany; irrational, unreasonable; aimless, haphazard, purposeless.
Let’s say that I used all of the writings in your post and applied them to Bush The Second; would you then respond to me in similar fashion?
I’d say that both you and I regarding Carter and Bush respectively believe that said President was/is less than qualified, in our opinions and the opinions of millions of others, in many areas but especially that of foreign policy.
This is kind of unprecedented for an ex-president to criticize another president while in office.
I agree. I read that there has always been an unspoken code between presidents not to criticize each other out of respect because they understand what a difficult position it is. I guess Carter didn't get the memo. . .
But Carter seems to be lacking discretion in his golden years. Last year when his book came out and basically justified Palistian terrorist activity against Israel. He has lost credibility.
Your response to my post about your statement that “It is better to make the wrong decision than no decision at all,” is interesting reading. I’ve never studied Carter, although I voted for him, but because of this thread I may take some time and do so as I want to be able to respond properly.
But your response doesn’t address that bizarre statement you made about which I posted a reply. Take ANY of the points made by this person you’re quoting and ask yourself this:
If (insert despicable action here) is true, was Carter correct in making the wrong decision rather than no decision at all.
I feel confident that both of us within about half-a-day’s time could come up with a very long list of historical events with negative outcomes, and for which the entire world might have been much better off had the individuals or groups who caused the events decided to go back to the drawing board—as many times and for as long as it took—to come up with something much better. And maybe, as part of those “drawing board” think sessions, those at the highest levels should have ordered the elected representatives of the people to solicit the opinions of the constituencies as an aid in separating the agendas from the power players.
I know a lot more about Bush than Carter, but presidents aren’t supposed to be able to run America; if they ever get to that point we’ve indeed lost the republican mechanism for our democracy altogether. There are lots of people in government and out of government (but unfortunately tied inextricably to it) who influence policy. It takes much less effort to blame a single person. If only one person is to blame, why bother electing representatives or questioning appointments in this system of ours?
Again, I'll take some time to study Carter and maybe resurrect this thread if it's required, but I have to be honest and admit that I already doubt I'll find he alone is responsible for all the dastardly deeds specified in your post.
Again, I'll take some time to study Carter and maybe resurrect this thread if it's required, but I have to be honest and admit that I already doubt I'll find he alone is responsible for all the dastardly deeds specified in your post.
And you'll find that he alone is not responsible for all of the miserable failings of his administration. But if people are going to put Bush's name and face on every thing that has gone wrong in the last 7 years in America, then they'd better darn well not try to seperate previous presidents from the failings that took place on their watch. Can't have it both ways.
You wrote: “And you'll find that he alone is not responsible for all of the miserable failings of his administration. But if people are going to put Bush's name and face on every thing that has gone wrong in the last 7 years in America, then they'd better darn well not try to seperate previous presidents from the failings that took place on their watch. Can't have it both ways.”
That’s correct, and thus the reason behind my last 2 paragraphs in the post to which you are referring. I am very strongly opposed to the vast majority of this administration’s policies and actions, and general ideology altogether, but I have found myself defending Bush against claims that I’m confident can instead be laid at the feet of the ultra-powerful wealthy individuals and organizations (read corporate-cronyism) driving policy in so many cases in our modern US governmental structure.
Who knows but that Bush is a nice guy, and if he could have been used by a less-radical ideology, say the real Republicans, that many of the policies we're saddled with now might not be altogether horrible.
Last edited by happyappy; 05-21-2007 at 09:02 AM..
Reason: To correct diction.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,327 posts, read 54,350,985 times
Reputation: 40731
Quote:
Originally Posted by tnbound2day
And you'll find that he alone is not responsible for all of the miserable failings of his administration. But if people are going to put Bush's name and face on every thing that has gone wrong in the last 7 years in America, then they'd better darn well not try to seperate previous presidents from the failings that took place on their watch. Can't have it both ways.
On everything? No. But........................Bush's name and face are indelibly stamped on the biggest shamozzle that America has been involved in since 01/20/01.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No I am not...
Diametric to meaningless!
I guess Carter didn't get the memo. . . 
