BS: Lucky to have Jimmy Carter

Subject: RE: BS: Lucky to have Jimmy Carter
From: Sawzaw
Date: 31 Jan 09 - 10:37 PM

Observers Rush to Judgment
Jimmy Carter gets rolled--first by Fidel Castro, now by Hugo Chávez.

by MARY ANASTASIA O'GRADY
Saturday, August 21, 2004 12:01 A.M. EDT

When Jimmy Carter went to Cuba in 2002, Fidel Castro reveled in the photo-ops with a former U.S. president. Mr. Carter seemed to think he was heroically "engaging" the Cuban despot. But in the documentary "Dissident," celluloid captures something most Americans didn't see: Castro giggling sardonically as Mr. Carter lectures the Cuban politburo on democracy. That foreshadowed what happened when the media splash ended and the former president went home: Dissidents he went to "help" today languish in gulag punishment cells.

I was reminded this week of how Castro so artfully used Mr. Carter when Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez took a page from his Cuban mentor's playbook. On Monday, the Carter Center along with the head of the monumentally meaningless Organization of American States, Cesar Gaviria, endorsed Chávez's claims of victory in the Venezuelan recall referendum, rather too hastily it now seems.

The problem was that the "observers" hadn't actually observed the election results. Messrs. Carter and Gaviria were only allowed to make a "quick count"--that is, look at the tally sheets spat out by a sample of voting machines. They were not allowed to check this against ballots the machines issued to voters as confirmation that their votes were properly registered.

If there was fraud, as many Venezuelans now suspect, it could have been discovered if the ballots didn't match the computer tallies. The tallies alone were meaningless. The problem was clear by Tuesday but it didn't stop the State Department spokesman Adam Ereli from chiming in. "The people of Venezuela have spoken," he proclaimed.

Mr. Carter marveled at the huge turnout on Sunday. Venezuelans, who have been voting 2-to-1 against Chávez in opinion polls, waited in absurdly long lines to cast more meaningful votes on electronic machines. But did the machine really record the vote as registered on the paper ballot?

According to experts, it is relatively simple to tamper with encryption codes in electronic voting machines. American Enterprise Institute resident scholar John Lott says, "You can easily write a program that tells the voting machine to record something different in its memory than what it prints out on the receipt that is to be dropped in the ballot box."

To rely on the tally sheets alone, as Messrs. Carter and Gaviria did, is to abdicate the heavy responsibility an observer accepts when overseeing an election. A Venezuelan who is a former U.N. deputy high commissioner of human rights wrote of his suspicions in Wednesday's International Herald Tribune (right beside a pro-Chávez New York Times editorial, by the way). Enrique ter Horst cited as cause for concern the fact that "the papers the new machines produced . . . were not added up and compared with the final numbers these machines produce at the end of the voting process, as the voting-machine manufacturer had suggested."

An exit poll done by the prominent U.S. polling firm of Penn, Schoen & Berland Associates showed 59% of voters opposed to Chávez and only 41% in favor. (Messrs. Penn and Schoen both worked for Bill Clinton in his 1996 re-election bid.) Raj Kumar, a principal at the polling firm, told me Thursday that the firm has gone back to try to explain the 34-point spread between the PSB poll and the results announced by the government. "While there are certainly biases that can impact any exit poll, we do not see any factor that could account for such a significant difference," he said.

Subject: RE: BS: Lucky to have Jimmy Carter
From: Sawzaw
Date: 31 Jan 09 - 10:36 PM

The Chavez-Carter Connection

With Hugo Chavez romping around New York this week, plugging Noam Chomsky and sniffing out sulfur, let's not forget the man who in his own humble way did so much to make this visit possible — Jimmy Carter.

Recall that just a few years ago, Chavez was on the ropes in Venezuela. Elected president in 1998, he embarked on a despotic course that sparked enormous opposition. Ousted briefly in 2002 by a military coup, his return to power was met with nationwide strikes and protest. Jimmy Carter, with his Carter Center, got involved; and in August, 2004, Venezuela held a referendum on whether Chavez should remain in power. Amid serious signs of vote fraud, Chavez announced victory. Dismissing huge evidence of a stolen election, including such stuff as bizarre statistical discrepances, a failure of secure auditing procedures at the central tallying center, and more votes cast in some districts than there were voters, Carter went to bat for Chavez, certifying him as the victor.

Now we have this Carter-certified winner doing weapons deals with Russia, doing business and swapping avowals of brotherly love with Iran's Ahmadinejad, and running for a seat on the UN Security Council.

Scratch almost any current threat to the U.S., and behind it — radiating mediation and appeasement — is a Jimmy Carter moment. It was during his presidency that the Soviet Union was emboldened to invade Afghanistan, creating the cauldron whence ultimately emerged Al Qaeda. It was during his presidency that Iran had its totalitarian Islamic revolution. It was Jimmy Carter who in 1994 went to North Korea and conceived the "Agreed Framework" nuclear freeze deal, which helped sustain and consolidate the cheating Pyongyang regime now testing missiles and presumed to have a stash of nuclear bombs. I could go on, but the news of the hour is the Hugo Chavez show — in which Carter, for his supporting role, deserves to take a bow.

Subject: RE: BS: Lucky to have Jimmy Carter
From: Riginslinger
Date: 31 Jan 09 - 02:49 PM

Of course, some commentators are more disagreeable than others.

Subject: RE: BS: Lucky to have Jimmy Carter
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Jan 09 - 02:17 PM

Let's take a moment to reflect on how lucky we all are to have....each other! (to disagree with on these political threads) ;-)

It keeps our minds occupied.

Subject: RE: BS: Lucky to have Jimmy Carter
From: Riginslinger
Date: 31 Jan 09 - 09:16 AM

The jury is still out on the Superbowl, but the die has been cast for Reagan and Carter.

Subject: RE: BS: Lucky to have Jimmy Carter
From: DougR
Date: 31 Jan 09 - 09:08 AM

Gee, Riginslinger, you must have great forecasting powers!

Who's going to win the Superbowl tomorrow?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Lucky to have Jimmy Carter
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Jan 09 - 06:50 AM

Actually I think free-range threads can be quite good for you.

Subject: RE: BS: Lucky to have Jimmy Carter
From: Ebbie
Date: 31 Jan 09 - 03:26 AM

"How on earth did a thread about Jimmy Carter drift this far?" McGrath 5:33

Subject: RE: BS: Lucky to have Jimmy Carter
From: Riginslinger
Date: 31 Jan 09 - 12:36 AM

"?"

Subject: RE: BS: Lucky to have Jimmy Carter
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Jan 09 - 10:00 PM

My fault, Kevin. Sorry.

Subject: RE: BS: Lucky to have Jimmy Carter
From: Riginslinger
Date: 30 Jan 09 - 09:52 PM

"That's what happens when the masts break and the engine fails..."


                      Jimmy Carter is a submariner, masts don't concern him, and engine failures only cause him to surface...

Subject: RE: BS: Lucky to have Jimmy Carter
From: frogprince
Date: 30 Jan 09 - 06:03 PM

Crimeny; it must bother someone like that no end to know that the race can't reproduce without that nasty stuff that comes out of males. I've known any number of outspoken feminists by now. Out of all of them, a couple had issues with fear & distrust of men. I've probably known more women who weren't avowed feminists who had similar issues. I've never heard any of them, or even any lesbian that I've known, come on with a line like Bindel's. So who gets the headlines, and gives Pat Robertson and idiots of that ilk fuel for burning all feminists.

Subject: RE: BS: Lucky to have Jimmy Carter
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Jan 09 - 05:46 PM

That's what happens when the masts break and the engine fails...

Subject: RE: BS: Lucky to have Jimmy Carter
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Jan 09 - 05:33 PM

Today the concept of choice in the matter of homosexuality has its adherents.

For example Julie Bindel writing in today's Guardian ,arguing that it can be a matter of choice - a choice she recommends for all feminists :"Come on sisters, you know it makes sense. Stop pretending you think lesbianism is an exclusive members' club, and join the ranks. I promise that you will not regret it."

Lots of online letters dashed off in response - generally not too enthusiastic about the notion...

It seems pretty obvious that, as with all human activities, there is an element of choice in this context, but that that is only part of the picture. As with Morris Dancing.

How on earth did a thread about Jimmy Carter drift this far?

Subject: RE: BS: Lucky to have Jimmy Carter
From: bankley
Date: 30 Jan 09 - 03:15 PM

it has already in Iceland

Subject: RE: BS: Lucky to have Jimmy Carter
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Jan 09 - 02:39 PM

A serious segue here- the thought just occurred to me that each 'age' has its blind spots.

Back in the day, the concept of slavery had its adherents. Today we would not take seriously anybody who advocated it.

Today the concept of choice in the matter of homosexuality has its adherents. Tomorrow (?) that opinion will have become ludicrous.

Subject: RE: BS: Lucky to have Jimmy Carter
From: Riginslinger
Date: 30 Jan 09 - 02:32 PM

Jimmy Carter, however, will be vindicated in this ongoing economic crisis, while Ronald Reagan will be excoriated. This time next year will see Carter way up in these polls and Reagan's fortunes will suffer.

Subject: RE: BS: Lucky to have Jimmy Carter
From: Sawzaw
Date: 30 Jan 09 - 02:08 PM

2/16/07 US News and World Report

A Survey of Major Polls:

U.S. News examined five polls and determines the 13 lowest scoring presidents

1. James Buchanan (1857-1861)
He refused to challenge either the spread of slavery or the growing bloc of states that became the Confederacy.


2. Warren G. Harding (1921-1923)
He was an ineffectual and indecisive leader who played poker while his friends plundered the U.S. treasury.

3. Andrew Johnson (1865-1869)
He survived impeachment after opposing Reconstruction initiatives including the 14th amendment.


4. Franklin Pierce (1853-1857)
His fervor for expanding the borders--thereby adding several slave states--helped set the stage for the Civil War.

5. Millard Fillmore (1850-1853)
He backed the Compromise of 1850 that delayed the Southern secession by allowing slavery to spread.

6. John Tyler (1841-1845)
He was a stalwart defender of slavery who abandoned his party's platform once he was president.
William Harrison

7. Ulysses S. Grant (1869-1877)
Serving right after Johnson, he presided over an outbreak of graft and corruption, but had good intentions.
Herbert Hoover

8. William Harrison (1841)
He was president for all of 30 days after contracting pneumonia during his interminable inaugural.

9. (tie) Herbert Hoover (1929-1933)
He was known as a poor communicator who fueled trade wars and exacerbated the Depression.
Zachary Taylor

9. (tie) Richard Nixon (1969-1974)
Though politically gifted, he will forever be associated with the Watergate scandal and his resignation.

10. Zachary Taylor (1849-1850)
A political novice, the war hero is entirely forgettable as president.

11. Jimmy Carter

12. Calvin Coolidge
        
13. (tie) James Garfield                 

13. (tie) Chester Arthur

Subject: RE: BS: Lucky to have Jimmy Carter
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 Jan 09 - 09:11 PM

Well, I wasn't around for Warren G. Harding or U.S. Grant, but as far as I'm concerned Ronald Reagan was way worse than Nixon or G.W. Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: Lucky to have Jimmy Carter
From: kendall
Date: 29 Jan 09 - 08:08 PM

When it comes to the worst presidents, it's hard to beat good old Useless s Grant republican
Warren G Harding republican
Richard Nixon republican
George W Bush republican

Subject: RE: BS: Lucky to have Jimmy Carter
From: Sawzaw
Date: 29 Jan 09 - 08:01 PM

Jimmy Carter's highest rating was 75 percent, and his lowest was 28 percent. Ronald Reagan's highest rating was 68 percent, and his lowest was 35 percent. President George H.W. Bush got a high rating of 89 percent, though his lowest rating was 29 percent. Bill Clinton topped out at 73 percent, and his lowest rating was 37 percent. Our 43rd President, George W. Bush, achieved the highest approval rating of all, at 90 percent, but also received one of the lowest at 29 percent.

But Sawzaw, you mean GWB is ranked higher than Mr Pean.. er.. Carter? Ouch!

Subject: RE: BS: Lucky to have Jimmy Carter
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 Jan 09 - 07:47 PM

"His tax cutting, budget slashing, laissez-faire strategy known as “Reaganomicsâ€쳌 became extremely popular as the US economy recovered."


                Calling what Reagan did to the economy a recovery is nothing short of laughable, but it certainly caused the depression we find ourselves in now.

                And the term "budget slashing" in no way applys to Reagan. It was his totally unhinged buget proposal that dropped the country into the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression. I think a lot of people are just getting wise to him now.

                And that's what will make Jimmy Carter's image shine.

Subject: RE: BS: Lucky to have Jimmy Carter
From: Sawzaw
Date: 29 Jan 09 - 07:31 PM

32. Jimmy Carter

1977-81 (Democratic)

Our panel only just left him out of the bottom ten, making him their 11th worst President.

---

8. Ronald Reagan

1981-89 (Republican)

Feted by many of the panel and implicated in the current financial crisis by others, Reagan's controversial reputation remains but his revolutionary zeal forced him into the top ten.

He was elected with a clear mandate for radical economic policy to tackle high inflation and unemployment rates. His tax cutting, budget slashing, laissez-faire strategy known as “Reaganomicsâ€쳌 became extremely popular as the US economy recovered.

The former actor’s foreign policy was more divisive and his administration was attacked for perceived bellicosity as well as embarrassments including the Iran-Contra affair. But even though he was seen as a hawk when he took office, Reagan managed to grasp the historic opportunity brought about by Mikhail Gorbachev's rise to power in the Soviet Union to help bring an end to the Cold War.

"Revived American self-confidence at its lowest ebb." Gerard Baker.
Prevented a possible Third World War by containing the Soviet Union." Camilla Cavendish.

---

7. Harry Truman

1945-53 (Democratic)

Truman entered the White House after just 82 days as Roosevelt’s Vice President and with very little foreign experience. He was soon called upon to make some of the most significant international policy decisions in American history.

He sanctioned the use of atomic weapons over Japan, signed up to the United Nations and NATO as well as formulating the Truman Doctrine, which shaped America’s anti-Communist policy for decades to come. Industrial disputes, scandals and the alleged harbouring of Soviet agents diminished Truman’s reputation at home leaving him with a 22 per cent approval rating.

Subject: RE: BS: Lucky to have Jimmy Carter
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 Jan 09 - 07:18 PM

Doug - If you think Jimmy Carter was bad, you must have been out of the country when Ronald Reagan was in office.

Subject: RE: BS: Lucky to have Jimmy Carter
From: Ebbie
Date: 29 Jan 09 - 06:52 PM

Doug, you may notice that your question was answered earlier.

Subject: RE: BS: Lucky to have Jimmy Carter
From: DougR
Date: 29 Jan 09 - 06:34 PM

Riginslinger, do you live in the U.S? If you do not, and were I to have the power, I would trade you Jimmy Carter for one very slim dime. He is the worst president the U.S. has ever had.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Lucky to have Jimmy Carter
From: Sawzaw
Date: 29 Jan 09 - 06:24 PM

Sawzall - I watched the video. Do you think it relates to Jimmy Carter in some way?

Yeah, This is what Mr Peanut wants to make peace with.

Subject: RE: BS: Lucky to have Jimmy Carter
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 Jan 09 - 08:16 AM

I'm not very far north, Southern part of Oregon. On a map it looks like it lines up with Detroit and the Massachusetts - New Hampshire state border.

Subject: RE: BS: Lucky to have Jimmy Carter
From: frogprince
Date: 29 Jan 09 - 12:18 AM

How far north are you, Riginslinger?

Subject: RE: BS: Lucky to have Jimmy Carter
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Jan 09 - 09:21 PM

I also agree with you, McGrath, we might as well do whatever we can to lessen the problem, regardless of what is the primary factor that's causing it.

Subject: RE: BS: Lucky to have Jimmy Carter
From: Riginslinger
Date: 28 Jan 09 - 08:53 PM

McGrath and kendall - I agree with both of you. It just makes good sense to try and contain the possibility of making things worse. And I've noticed things here in Oregon that indicate to me that things are warming up, at least around here.
         20 years ago people would move here from California, and plant the same yard plants the planted down south. The plants would always die. Now those plants live and native plants like huge Douglas Fir trees are dying from too much heat and not enough water.

Subject: RE: BS: Lucky to have Jimmy Carter
From: kendall
Date: 28 Jan 09 - 08:47 PM

I trust what I see with my own eyes. Satellite views of the North Pole and the obviously shrinking ice sheet. Polar bears drifting around on ice cakes miles from land.
An ice floe the size of Rhode Island that broke off from Antarctica.
In my own yard, Cardinals, the state bird of north Carolina, never seen in Maine until recently. Possums, unheard of in Maine! Buzzards, another southern bird. The last 10 years are the hottest on record according to NOAA, National Oceanic atmospheric administration, not some chicken little scare monger.

Subject: RE: BS: Lucky to have Jimmy Carter
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Jan 09 - 08:25 PM

As in the case of the notion that smoking cigarettes can cause cancer, and that Aids is spread by unprotected sex, I'd be inclined to go with the mass of scientists who believe human activity is a significant factor contributing to a general global warning, rather than with the occasional exception who thinks those ideas are all nonsense.

It's too important to gamble on the possibility they are all wrong.

If there are natural causes making for global warming, which is of course quite possible, that doesn't make it any less important to do what we can to avoid making things still worse.

Subject: RE: BS: Lucky to have Jimmy Carter
From: Riginslinger
Date: 28 Jan 09 - 07:57 PM

Yeah, I feel pretty much the same way about it. The economic model that's been adopted by the industrialized nations is probably more of a threat to the planet than anything else, in my opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Lucky to have Jimmy Carter
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Jan 09 - 07:29 PM

Oh, and if I were a politician, I would still back measures to reduce carbon emissions and get off being dependent on fossil fuels anyway....regardless...so my opinion about global warming being primarily a natural cyclical phenomenon (assuming my opinion had any effect on public policy...which it doesn't), my opinion would be no threat to the primary objectives of those who support the current global warming theories which are most popular lately (those being Al Gore's view of it).

Subject: RE: BS: Lucky to have Jimmy Carter
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Jan 09 - 07:22 PM

Rig, regarding global warming...

My impression is that we have been experiencing an overall warming phase, yes....but I am skeptical that the human contribution to it is a major factor. I do think it is a partial factor, so I have no objection to efforts to, for instance, reduce carbon emissions, but I doubt it's the main factor.

There was a major global cooling phase in the mid-1940s. Human industry was increasing rapidly during that period, due to war production...but the planet cooled during the same period.

There was another notable cooling phase in the 1970s, despit the steady continuance of our industrial civilization, and there were scary articles being written then about the danger of a new ice age. After awhile that stopped and we went into another warming phase. I don't think you can tie any of those past phases to man-based carbon emissions, I think they were cyclical in nature, not human-caused, and I think that may well be true of the present warming phase.

I think that what we are experiencing is more likely a natural event that has a great deal more to do with cyclical changes in the sun's output of energy than with man's industrial activities on this planet. In a period of heightened sun activity, this planet warms. In a period of lowered sun activity, it cools.

I will further add this: I don't KNOW for sure. I'm not in a position to. I'm merely making the best speculative guess on the matter than I can, given all the stuff I've read about it so far. I may be entirely wrong. And that goes for anyone else here too, despite their level of enthusiasm and their utter certainty that they are right.

(As I said, most people are a lot more scared of being proven wrong about something...anything...that they espouse or believe in than they are of global warming. That's what makes them so darned intolerant when they argue with others about it.)

Subject: RE: BS: Lucky to have Jimmy Carter
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Jan 09 - 06:38 PM

Helps to say stuff that make sense, which Jimmy Carter seems to do more often than not.

Subject: RE: BS: Lucky to have Jimmy Carter
From: Riginslinger
Date: 28 Jan 09 - 06:34 PM

Well, I suppose they are, but the media pays more attention to some people than it does to others.

Subject: RE: BS: Lucky to have Jimmy Carter
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Jan 09 - 06:09 PM

Aren't all Americans spokespeople for the United States in their different ways?

Subject: RE: BS: Lucky to have Jimmy Carter
From: Riginslinger
Date: 28 Jan 09 - 04:07 PM

Jimmy Carter speaks for himself. Why would he want to speak for America?

Subject: RE: BS: Lucky to have Jimmy Carter
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Jan 09 - 03:44 PM

Rigenslinger: I do not know your home country, perhaps you are even an American, but if I had the power, and you do live in a country other than America, I would trade you Jimmy Carter for a thin dime.

Who in the world made Jimmy Carter spokesperson for the United States? I'll bet that's news to President Obama.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Lucky to have Jimmy Carter
From: Ebbie
Date: 28 Jan 09 - 10:49 AM

Well, it do beat all. Everything I have read focusses on ice thickness, rather than extent, as being the salient point.

But hey. I'm no scientist.

Subject: RE: BS: Lucky to have Jimmy Carter
From: pdq
Date: 28 Jan 09 - 10:15 AM

Blog: Science

Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979

Michael Asher (Blog) - January 1, 2009 11:31 AM

Rapid growth spurt leaves amount of ice at levels seen 29 years ago.

"Thanks to a rapid rebound in recent months, global sea ice levels now equal those seen 29 years ago, when the year 1979 also drew to a close.

Ice levels had been tracking lower throughout much of 2008, but rapidly recovered in the last quarter. In fact, the rate of increase from September onward is the fastest rate of change on record, either upwards or downwards.

The data is being reported by the University of Illinois's Arctic Climate Research Center, and is derived from satellite observations of the Northern and Southern hemisphere polar regions.

Each year, millions of square kilometers of sea ice melt and refreeze. However, the mean ice anomaly -- defined as the seasonally-adjusted difference between the current value and the average from 1979-2000, varies much more slowly. That anomaly now stands at just under zero, a value identical to one recorded at the end of 1979, the year satellite record-keeping began.

Sea ice is floating and, unlike the massive ice sheets anchored to bedrock in Greenland and Antarctica, doesn't affect ocean levels. However, due to its transient nature, sea ice responds much faster to changes in temperature or precipitation and is therefore a useful barometer of changing conditions.

Earlier this year, predictions were rife that the North Pole could melt entirely in 2008. Instead, the Arctic ice saw a substantial recovery. Bill Chapman, a researcher with the UIUC's Arctic Center, tells DailyTech this was due in part to colder temperatures in the region. Chapman says wind patterns have also been weaker this year. Strong winds can slow ice formation as well as forcing ice into warmer waters where it will melt.

Why were predictions so wrong? Researchers had expected the newer sea ice, which is thinner, to be less resilient and melt easier. Instead, the thinner ice had less snow cover to insulate it from the bitterly cold air, and therefore grew much faster than expected, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

In May, concerns over disappearing sea ice led the U.S. to officially list the polar bear a threatened species, over objections from experts who claimed the animal's numbers were increasing."

Subject: RE: BS: Lucky to have Jimmy Carter
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Jan 09 - 10:03 AM

Well, seems that one thing is fir certain... With Reagan and Bush, Jr. the USA was hit hard by terrorists... Remember the marine barracks that were hit during Reagan's administration??? And, of course, 9/11 occured during Bush, Jr's...

Now back to Jimmy Carter... Yeah, he was consumed with saving 50 some American diplomats who were held hostage for the last half of his administration and because of his tireless negotiations was able to get them released hours after Reagan was sworn in... I think these two chapters of history speak volumes about the difference between Jimmy Carter and Reagan/Bush-Jr....

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Lucky to have Jimmy Carter
From: Riginslinger
Date: 28 Jan 09 - 09:08 AM

LH - Is your position that you aren't sure whether or not the earth's surface is getting warmer. Or that you think it's getting warmer, but you're not sure man kind has anything to do with it?

Subject: RE: BS: Lucky to have Jimmy Carter
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Jan 09 - 01:53 AM

As usual, people's view of the past is colored almost entirely by their partisan phobias and prejudices...they have already decided who "the bad guys" are both here and elsewhere and it's written in stone inside their brains.

That's why these discussions always elicit the same repetitive behaviour and automatic reaction/response/attack/counter-reaction/counterattack from the same people. Only our various respective deaths (whenever they come) will ever end it, I'm afraid.

Meanwhile, it's fun to vent and once again be "right". We all do it because we just can't resist doing it. Some can resist better than others, mind you, but it's a pretty universal disease of the human mind.

****

I've heard and read so much crap about global warming by now (both pro and con) that I don't know what to believe about it anymore...but I'm somewhat skeptical of the present most popular theories that are being touted in the general media. I'm not saying I know for sure. I don't know for sure. And I am happy to admit that I don't know for sure. How could I???? I'm not in a position to. All I have to go on is the conflicting words and opinions of thousands of opinionated people both qualified and unqualified, who all seem VERY sure they are right! Funny they can't agree then, isn't it?

The one thing none of them can possibly imagine, it seems, is this: they might be wrong and someone else might therefore be right! ;-) That possibility scares them quite a bit more than the global warming does. To even think it would be sacrilege!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Lucky to have Jimmy Carter
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Jan 09 - 01:26 AM

Jimmy Carter being interviewed on NPR...

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99875313

Subject: RE: BS: Lucky to have Jimmy Carter
From: Ebbie
Date: 28 Jan 09 - 01:05 AM

"There was a scientific article just a few months back that showed the Polar Ice Caps to be back to the exact same level they were in 1979."

I don't know what scientific article pdq refers to but I would request that he point us to it.

Just now I researched the question and I found so many articles and links to 1979 that I decided not to bother posting them.

Suffice it to say that in EVERY case they refer to 1979 as diametrically opposed to pdq's statement.

Subject: RE: BS: Lucky to have Jimmy Carter
From: Riginslinger
Date: 27 Jan 09 - 09:38 PM

Reagan's whole life was a lie. Whoever was running Ronald Reagan was the best director in history--at least to date.

Subject: RE: BS: Lucky to have Jimmy Carter
From: kendall
Date: 27 Jan 09 - 08:58 PM

Carter was probably the most intelligent president we have ever had. He made the mistake of trying to micro manage the government, an impossible task.

Of course people wanted to hear what Reagan had to say, he was an actor? He and his one liners that other people wrote were very popular.

He promised to balance the budget. In 8 years he never even submitted a balanced budget. He lied about Iran Contra, he lied about arms for hostages. Some of us have long memories.