Another case for Jimmy Carter

Bfgrn

New member
An outstanding human being...

"America did not invent human rights. In a very real sense human rights invented America".
Jimmy Carter



Jimmy Carter's Fight Against Guinea Worm Approaches Victory

Last year, only 3,190 cases were reported

sourceAP.gif


2008-04-jimmy-carter-ghana-children-guinea-worm-disease.jpg

Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter addresses Ghanaian children outside Savelugu Hospital: Jimmy Carter addresses Ghanaian children outside Savelugu Hospital, asking "Who here has had Guinea worm disease?" President Carter visited the parched community of Savelugu to meet with dozens of Guinea worm disease victims.

This fight against the guinea worm is a battle former U.S. President Jimmy Carter has waged for more than two decades in some of the poorest countries on earth. It is a battle he's almost won.

In the 1950s the 3-foot-long guinea worm ravaged the bodies of an estimated 50 million people, forcing victims through months of pain while the worm exited through a swollen blister on the leg, making it impossible for them to tend to cows or harvest crops. By 1986, the number dropped to 3.5 million. Last year only 3,190 cases were reported.

Today the worm is even closer to being wiped out. Fewer than 1,700 cases have been found this year in only four countries — Ethiopia, Ghana, Mali and Sudan, where more than 95 percent of the cases are. The worm's near-eradication is thanks in large part to the efforts of Carter and his foundation.

The Carter Center has battled the worm for 24 years through education and the distribution of strainers that purify drinking water. It has helped erase guinea worm in more than 20 countries, and it believes the worm will follow smallpox — which was wiped out in the late 1970s — as the next disease to be eradicated from the human population.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40807770/ns/health/

Guinea_1.PNG

header.jpg
 
Outstanding human being, sure. Great President? Nope, sorry. Being a great humanitarian doesn't make his presidency look any less shitty. Same applies to W.

http://www.clintonbushhaitifund.org/

A pretty sad commentary of the state of this nation. Great presidents have to be great humanitarians, or they are merely despots. To conservatives that never measure anything in human terms, I understand; Carter was not despotic.

W is not a humanitarian. A brat born into entitlement that blows up frogs for kicks and grows up to be a war criminal is not a humanitarian.


Our nation is somewhat sad, but we’re angry. There’s a certain level of blood lust, but we won’t let it drive our reaction. We’re steady, clear-eyed and patient, but pretty soon we’ll have to start displaying scalps.
George W. Bush
 
Last edited:
Given the choice between a selfish asshole who cuts spending and follows the Constitution, or a great humanitarian who fucks up everything he touches, I'd gladly take my chances with the former. I don't care if my President is a humanitarian or not. I just want him or her to keep spending/taxes low and stay the hell out of my life.

That said, it's a fact that conservatives are more generous with their time/money than liberals, despite making less on average.

http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=2682730
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html
 
Given the choice between a selfish asshole who cuts spending and follows the Constitution, or a great humanitarian who fucks up everything he touches, I'd gladly take my chances with the former. I don't care if my President is a humanitarian or not. I just want him or her to keep spending/taxes low and stay the hell out of my life.

That said, it's a fact that conservatives are more generous with their time/money than liberals, despite making less on average.

http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=2682730
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html


When the right says that Bush was impotent and fiscal policy was controlled by Alan Greenspan, it is apparently a truism. However when it is stated that Paul Volcker, who was appointed by Carter and retained by Reagan, deliberately initiated a recession, it is Carter that takes the rap for it. How do you explain that?
 
When the right says that Bush was impotent and fiscal policy was controlled by Alan Greenspan, it is apparently a truism. However when it is stated that Paul Volcker, who was appointed by Carter and retained by Reagan, deliberately initiated a recession, it is Carter that takes the rap for it. How do you explain that?
Volcker was never accused of deliberately starting a recession in the world I live in...but maybe its different in your parallel universe of lala land....
Most of us actually have only praise for Paul Volcker....
 
Given the choice between a selfish asshole who cuts spending and follows the Constitution, or a great humanitarian who fucks up everything he touches, I'd gladly take my chances with the former. I don't care if my President is a humanitarian or not. I just want him or her to keep spending/taxes low and stay the hell out of my life.

That said, it's a fact that conservatives are more generous with their time/money than liberals, despite making less on average.

http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=2682730
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html

Ah, THE Arthur Brooks study

Arthur Brooks writes: "When it comes to giving or not giving, conservatives and liberals look a lot alike. Conservative people are a percentage point or two more likely to give money each year than liberal people, but a percentage point or so less likely to volunteer [citing the 2002 General Social Survey (GSS) and the 2000 Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey (SCCBS)]". (pp. 21-22)

So, according to THE Arthur Brooks study: conservatives believe in the giving of mammon (money) and liberals believe in the giving of themselves.


Luke 16:13-15

13 “No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and mammon (money).”

14 The Pharisees, who loved money, heard all this and were sneering at Jesus.

15 He said to them, “You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of man, but God knows your hearts. What is highly valuable in the eyes of man is detestable in God’s sight.


It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others: or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own.
Thomas Jefferson
 
Last edited:
So, according to THE Arthur Brooks study: conservatives believe in the giving of mammon (money) and liberals believe in the giving of themselves.


Is that why liberal women spend so much time on their back? I knew I liked them.
 
So, according to THE Arthur Brooks study: conservatives believe in the giving of mammon (money) and liberals believe in the giving of themselves.

Yet, Brooks also notes that conservatives are 18 percent more likely than liberals to donate their own blood. From the ABC link:

"And he (Brooks) says the differences in giving goes beyond money, pointing out that conservatives are 18 percent more likely to donate blood. He says this difference is not about politics, but about the different way conservatives and liberals view government."

So, according to THE Arthur Brooks study (tongue-in-cheek): liberals don't care about sick people in hospitals. See, two can play that game.

My point wasn't that liberals are incapable of acts of kindness, but rather that conservatives aren't the heartless assholes you make them out to be. Whether liberal, conservative, or somewhere in between, we're Americans who love our country and desire what is best. We simply disagree on how to achieve that.

If you cannot agree with the above statement, then we have nothing further to discuss.
 
Yet, Brooks also notes that conservatives are 18 percent more likely than liberals to donate their own blood. From the ABC link:

"And he (Brooks) says the differences in giving goes beyond money, pointing out that conservatives are 18 percent more likely to donate blood. He says this difference is not about politics, but about the different way conservatives and liberals view government."

So, according to THE Arthur Brooks study (tongue-in-cheek): liberals don't care about sick people in hospitals. See, two can play that game.

My point wasn't that liberals are incapable of acts of kindness, but rather that conservatives aren't the heartless assholes you make them out to be. Whether liberal, conservative, or somewhere in between, we're Americans who love our country and desire what is best. We simply disagree on how to achieve that.

If you cannot agree with the above statement, then we have nothing further to discuss.

I'd really like to believe that conservatives aren't the heartless assholes I make them out to be. But from talking to conservatives, THEY make that case every single day.

Conservatives continually forward some form of punishment as the only social mechanism we should employ and anything else is either coddling or creating dependency.

Even your Thomas Jefferson quote deleted the most important human consideration to skew the meaning into a form of punishment.

Have you ever heard of a bleeding heart Republican?
Paul Craig Roberts - the father of Reaganomics
 
Ah, THE Arthur Brooks study

Arthur Brooks writes: "When it comes to giving or not giving, conservatives and liberals look a lot alike. Conservative people are a percentage point or two more likely to give money each year than liberal people, but a percentage point or so less likely to volunteer [citing the 2002 General Social Survey (GSS) and the 2000 Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey (SCCBS)]". (pp. 21-22)

So, according to THE Arthur Brooks study: conservatives believe in the giving of mammon (money) and liberals believe in the giving of themselves.


Luke 16:13-15

13 “No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and mammon (money).”

14 The Pharisees, who loved money, heard all this and were sneering at Jesus.

15 He said to them, “You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of man, but God knows your hearts. What is highly valuable in the eyes of man is detestable in God’s sight.


It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others: or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own.
Thomas Jefferson
Enough of the fundamentalist bullshit already....tomorrow you'll be the pinhead calling them the far-right Christian crazies....
 
Enough of the fundamentalist bullshit already....tomorrow you'll be the pinhead calling them the far-right Christian crazies....

Yea, that's right, you Glenn Beck fascists hate when people prove Jesus preached social justice.
 

Originally Posted by bravo
Volcker was never accused of deliberately starting a recession in the world I live in...but maybe its different in your parallel universe of lala land....
Most of us actually have only praise for Paul Volcker....



The pertinent word is deliberately...


Mr Volcker did what needed to be done to control inflation, I see the recession as an unintended side effect....
 
Last edited:
Yea, that's right, you Glenn Beck fascists hate when people prove Jesus preached social justice.
Sure sonny....its very clear....
You assholes will bring up Jesus, Mohammad, Confucius, Allah, Beelzebub, Peter and Paul and Obama when you think you can make some partisan political point...
If Beck, or any Conservative brings us Jesus, he's immediately label a Fundamentalist nutjob pushing a theocracy....
Thats makes you a hypocrite of the worst kind.

Personally, I don't give two shits what Jesus had to say 2000 years ago....or any of the rest .....:fu:
 
Originally Posted by bravo
Volcker was never accused of deliberately starting a recession in the world I live in...but maybe its different in your parallel universe of lala land....
Most of us actually have only praise for Paul Volcker....



The pertinent word is deliberately...


Mr Volcker did what needed to be done to control inflation, I see the recession as an unintended side effect....

Volcker came up with the idea of an intentional recession to combat stagflation which Carter inherited from previous admins, he did that by deliberately restricting money supply knowing full well what the result would be. Reagan reaped the benefit, those are facts that you cannot refute.
 
Back
Top