check this out. I'd like you to sift one of these, but I understand you have more inviting stuff

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/28/jimmy-carter-speaks-out-w_n_99105.html

While this may be true, I'd like to nominate Jimmy Carter for being the biggest failure of a human being as well as a president and ex-president and ambassador ever.

Your points are fair and valid, I was only poking fun at you for the little passive aggressive "p.s." at the end which was essentially saying "you people probably beat your wives because you don't agree with conservative viewpoints".

No, that wasn't my intent or message. Sarcasm noted BTW.

As far as the last bits I left below this comment, replace the word Liberal with Conservative and you have pretty much the same argument.

I can't agree with that assessment because conservatism factors in something liberalism doesn't: facts. For example, it's been fairly well proven that every time the minimum wage is raised, prices go up and businesses hire fewer workers and still fewer inexperienced workers, such as teens entering the job market. But the genius of liberalism is people are emotional animals. What graph or chart is as colorful or loud as one "activist" screaming about hungry children, even if it has nothing to do with the issue at hand? So, the minimum wage goes up, prices go up, and once again, the media can blame higher prices and unemployment on...well...whatever's handy at the moment.

Republicans have failed to properly emotionalize their arguments, and even if they did, they'll always have a harder battle to fight, because there are no solutions, only trade-offs. Liberals don't believe that because they're selling what they believe to be permanent solutions.

Look, I was raised in a Republican household and I am still a registered Republican despite having moved left of center over the past 4 or 5 years. I've learned that someones morals and viewpoints are subjective and vary wildly based on where and how they were raised and by whom. Some peoples emotions and thought processes run differently and they see things differently. Sometimes they evolve over time when they engage in free-thought and tune out what everyone else says or thinks for a while. That's fine.

We are entitled to our own opinions but not our own facts. You're young yet and will have to find your own answers, of course. Being raised in a Republican household might very well have been a handicap, because the family unit is communistic by nature and now you're out there, seeking knowledge for yourself as you make your way through life. Conservatism and other -isms are being cross-examined by you, put through your tests and yes, through the filters of your experience.

Personally, the acts of the Bush administration have left me in utter disbelief and ashamed of what the Republican party has become, but of course a great many Americans disagree and feel the bogeyman is real and we have to assert our might lest our stature in the world degrade any more than it already has. Giving up is for sissies even if staying the course leads to economic and social ruin.

I'm not a fan of Bush myself, and could probably match your laundry list of what's wrong with him. It's all ebb and flow, and there are going to be low points, for the party and the nation. Research what America was like during Jimmy Carter's presidency.

If the R's want to survive, they'll find a way to get back to what matters. Or they'll die out. It may take people like you leaving for greener pastures for them to wake up. Hell, maybe you won't come back. I believe that things balance out, eventually. The Soviet Union, as bad is it was, fell because it was beneath human dignity to live like that. Hopefully China will also lose the Red.

Oh well, what I have ultimately learned is that after a certain age, opinions are pretty firmly cemented not withstanding a severe paradigm shift (like what if irrefutable proof came out that 9/11 was orchestrated a la Crassus and Spartacus or the Reichstag Fire in order to further a political goal; how then would you feel about this country and government? Just a hypothetical of course).

If it could be proven 9-11 was an inside job, my first reaction would be to find out how the conspirators managed to keep the silence and complicity of thousands of people, many of them government workers that can't even deliver the mail (a line from Maher). The problem with conspiracy theories is that when there's no evidence, the theorists say, "That just proves how good the conspirators really are."

For the sake of fun, let's say it was a conspiracy. If so, it backfired in several ways. If Bush was seeking to become a tyrant, his perceived inability to protect New York was not an asset. People like me, already pissed-off at the size and power of pre-9-11 government didn't suddenly relax now that there was going to be more bureaucracy to protect us.

Second, if Bush was seeking the tyrannical power that the left claims he has now, he failed to go far enough. There was no mass censorship or government seizure of media and Homeland Security did not suddenly have thousands of stormtroopers at its disposal. The message was, "Live your life like always, in spite of the attacks."

Lastly, Bush united an opposition that, if they agreed upon nothing else, could blame Bush for everything. He was still in trouble with leftists before the attacks due to the 'stolen' election, and he couldn't placate the left fast enough spending OUR money.

That having been said, going into a place where a majority of folks disagree with you politically and essentially poking the lions is generally a wasteful gesture. Nobody is going to suddenly think Olbermann is wrong and O'Reilly has it all right, or that Obama is the anti-christ and McCain will save this country from the failed policies of the Bush administration.

True on all counts. Thus my new policy. There's enough going on at VS not to bother with it anymore.

Ultimately, history is the best educator and can truly open ones eyes to the way the world works because in all honesty not much has changed in the last 2000 years as far as how men control other men and how power asserts itself. I highly recommend delving into the history of the Roman Empire, particularly the way Crassus used the gladiator revolt and paved the way for the Triumverate and God-Emperors of Rome, and the way the Nazis used the Reichstag Fire, a staged act of 'terrorism', to increase their power and further their agendas. There are many precedents throughout history for governments creating enemies or events in order to tighten their grip on a population, solidify power, engage in wars, and strip away freedoms.

The American form of government is unique in world history and remains one-of-a-kind today. The 3 branches make it extremely difficult for any one individual or group to consolidate too much power, too quickly. It "survived" Bush and if Obama gets in, democracy will hobble his efforts at trying to change things overnight.

The creation of an "Other" for government to consolidate power is a given throughout history. However, when there are not imagined barbarians at the gate, there are real ones.

Our opinions differ on the war. I happen to think history will show taking out Saddam was the right thing to do, but no, I can't "prove" it any more than scientitians now can prove with climate models that global warming is man-made.

I get the subtext of your message.

We all like to believe that the people who disagree with us are unread, inexperienced, missing obvious truths, buying into lies, etc. It's simply not so. There exist people on every side of the issues that are intelligent, well-read, etc. But being human, we will be biased toward one side: ours.

It all goes back to Patrick Moynihan's timeless saying: Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts.

Ancora Imparo.

"I've spent so much time with spiritual advisors, so much money on crystals and weird drugs. To think Cthulhu had been living in Hollywood Hills this whole time. He's saved my career."
--W. Axl Rose











In reply to this comment by uhohzombies:
Your points are fair and valid, I was only poking fun at you for the little passive aggressive "p.s." at the end which was essentially saying "you people probably beat your wives because you don't agree with conservative viewpoints".

As far as the last bits I left below this comment, replace the word Liberal with Conservative and you have pretty much the same argument. Look, I was raised in a Republican household and I am still a registered Republican despite having moved left of center over the past 4 or 5 years. I've learned that someones morals and viewpoints are subjective and vary wildly based on where and how they were raised and by whom. Some peoples emotions and thought processes run differently and they see things differently. Sometimes they evolve over time when they engage in free-thought and tune out what everyone else says or thinks for a while. That's fine. Personally, the acts of the Bush administration have left me in utter disbelief and ashamed of what the Republican party has become, but of course a great many Americans disagree and feel the bogeyman is real and we have to assert our might lest our stature in the world degrade any more than it already has. Giving up is for sissies even if staying the course leads to economic and social ruin.

Oh well, what I have ultimately learned is that after a certain age, opinions are pretty firmly cemented not withstanding a severe paradigm shift (like what if irrefutable proof came out that 9/11 was orchestrated a la Crassus and Spartacus or the Reichstag Fire in order to further a political goal; how then would you feel about this country and government? Just a hypothetical of course). Most political arguments are just that... heated arguments which lead to nothing. True debate is almost nonexistent because usually one person or both are just completely incapable of objectively examining someone else's viewpoints. That having been said, going into a place where a majority of folks disagree with you politically and essentially poking the lions is generally a wasteful gesture. Nobody is going to suddenly think Olbermann is wrong and O'Reilly has it all right, or that Obama is the anti-christ and McCain will save this country from the failed policies of the Bush administration.

Ultimately, history is the best educator and can truly open ones eyes to the way the world works because in all honesty not much has changed in the last 2000 years as far as how men control other men and how power asserts itself. I highly recommend delving into the history of the Roman Empire, particularly the way Crassus used the gladiator revolt and paved the way for the Triumverate and God-Emperors of Rome, and the way the Nazis used the Reichstag Fire, a staged act of 'terrorism', to increase their power and further their agendas. There are many precedents throughout history for governments creating enemies or events in order to tighten their grip on a population, solidify power, engage in wars, and strip away freedoms.

In reply to this comment by quantumushroom:

I'm thinking about the psychological makeup of the submitter. Let's go inside their head: they've just posted yet another lopsided fake newsman like Colbert or Maher or the despicable Keef Overbite, bashing Bush or criticizing the war in unproductive fashion. The same 5-10 kudos arrive and everyone's in agreement.


Liberals take their worldview very, very seriously, to the point there are no other valid points of view. So, I says to myself, I says, even if you're trying to "educate" among the fun-poking, none of these people signed up to hear from you. And so I says to myself, "Self, you're right."

And that's where we are today. I don't expect anyone after these few comments to even bother. Another month and no one will know I was there. There's enough music and tech and stuff not to bother with election '08 and beyond.

I'm still around and my views remain the same. But just as I wouldn't walk around Target or the (hated) Wal-mart telling strangers what I think of Bush or Colbert, now it has its place. That's all.

>> ^furrycloud:
I wish I was old enough to remember a time when the President of the United States was a respected position...


Clinton wasn't so bad. But if you're older than 8, that means you're not into Bush or Clinton. If you don't like Bush you probably don't like his dad or Reagan. Then maybe Jimmy Carter was the last respectable president? If he's not good enough for you, then you probably don't like Ford, Nixon, or LBJ. Kennedy was a big war hawk like Bush, with the bay of pigs fiasco and other attempts to set up puppet governments in foreign countries. And kennedy escalated the vietnam war. Eisenhower raped Iran and replaced its growing democracy with the Shah because of the red scare. Truman bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. So.... Maybe you think FDR was the last respectable president?

I personally think Clinton was OK. At least his hawkish foreign policy worked and didn't get us into any long-term quagmires. He made some mistakes:
1. Failure to veto COPA
2. Failure to veto DoMA
3. Falure to veto DMCA
4. The welfare-to-work bill.

First of all the joke's on me for trying to deprogram Hopebots. But even if the kid in the parable that screamed, "The Emperor wears no clothes!" was drowned out by the mob, he still tried.

Obama's spell is powerful. I cant imagine any other candidate saying he adores his spiritual leader "except for those times when he spouted bigoted remarks and victimhood. I wasn't there for those."

It's not that other candidates don't align themselves with kooks for their own ends, but this is different, as O-bam has indicated this church and his values are in complete alignment. As a pandering politician, it's a brilliant maneuver. O-bam needs the Black victimhood vote as well as the guilty White liberal vote. Here he gets both.

What's the real message here? The world owes you something, especially if you're Black. Since life is a lottery, the only way you're going to "get yours" is if we Big Government Heroes take that money from the undeserving wealthy and spread it about.

For 40 years the "White Man" has bent over backwards to accommodate approx 37 million out of 300 million Americans to the tune of over a trillion dollars. There is NOTHING to feel bad or guilty about. Why is O-bam playing the race card? He aligned himself with this "church" and was called on it.

Like all race baiting povery pimps, O-bam is the one reopening "old racial wounds" like a bum opening a found wallet to see if there's anything of value in there.

This phony savior has promised you nothing except the idea of "change" without form or consequence. He's offered to meet with the Iranian punk I'm-A-Dinner-Jacket. O-bam thinks he can "reason" with a tyrant who denies the Holocaust happened and wants Israel "wiped off the map."

I hate spoiling others' "good vibes" but if I saw you were about to jump off a tall building because you thought you could fly, I have a moral obligation to stop you, especially if your leaping blindly causes others to fall, including me.

"President Obama" will make things worse than they are now. The few solid positions he's taken--appeasement and raising taxes--have been proven historically unworkable. Wiki Jimmy Carter.

Ask yourself what 'change' you're really after. If you're expecting 'change' in fundamental human nature, including greed and hypocrisy, forget it. Accept it's a part of life, but like suffering, is manageable.

You're going to vote your heart no matter what. So am I. We still need each other. Have a good rest of today and tomorrow.

>> ^BillOreilly:
>> ^dannym3141:
Did BillOReilly really just say that?

Of course I did. What's so funny? To put it in perspective, I'll give my top-5 presidents of all time.
1. George Washington
2. Abraham Lincoln
3. Herbert Hoover
4. George W Bush
5. Jimmy Carter


I sure hope you're kidding me...Hoover and Bush??? and carter shouldn't be top 5

>> ^dannym3141:
Did BillOReilly really just say that?


Of course I did. What's so funny? To put it in perspective, I'll give my top-5 presidents of all time.

1. George Washington
2. Abraham Lincoln
3. Herbert Hoover
4. George W Bush
5. Jimmy Carter

Jimmy Carter should have been re-elected, and Reagan was a demagogue.

For starters, you're misreading me and I think you're misinformed. I am not claiming to be an expert in the field, and feel free to disparage my comments, but I actually care about this issue and I'll actually read and respond to what you say so I'd suggest you don't make statements that you can't back up with solid information and/or experience, because I will.

I'm not saying Merck is the only player in the fight against river blindness (it is very much not), nor am I saying Carter is completely useless. I'm saying he's getting credit where he doesn't deserve it, as in your title of "Jimmy Carter versus River Blindness in Ethiopia". That is not representative of the situation at all.

Now, as to your specific comments:

I find it extremely unlikely that they pay for the distribution of the drug or even for the initial diagnosis of the illness among the people living all over the goddamn continent.
You're flat-out wrong. The Mectizan Donation Program oversees the creation and distribution delivery of mectizan and is jointly supported by Merck and GlaxoSmithKline, both major pharmaceutical companies. The World Health Organization, the African Programme for Onchocerciasis Control, and several other governing bodies and programs see to the actual landfall distribution, the specific programs of which are open in a large part through donations from Merck and GSK. Diagnosis is a broad issue, but that is often performed through anti-onchocerciasis groups or broader organizations like WHO or MSF, or simply through common knowledge. River blindness is not a difficult disease to diagnose at the onset of morbidity.

Merck was "providing" treatment and people were still going blind, becoming victims of these "non-western" diseases.
Wrong again, although that's such a broad statement I don't know where to begin. Please back up your statements with an epidemiological citation, or refer the paragraph above, or both.

Should we all just sit still and say, "Merck has solved the problem. Damn those stupid Africans for not availing themselves of Merck's largess"? Your posting sure sounds like that.
You misread me then. I don't believe I said anything of the sort and I'd like you to point out where I said something that you think sounded like that.

Also, I noticed that you've twice implied that my opinion is biased because you're assuming that I carry what I can only interpret as an occidental viewpoint. I would suggest you think twice about making such assumptions, especially if you're going to misinterpret my views based upon my perceived nationality.

Jimmy Carter saw that there was a disconnect and worked to get it connected. Yes, because he is who he is, he can act as a figurehead, but he decided to do it, and he got it done.
What exactly did Jimmy Carter do again? What policies did Carter specifically enact, what program did he create, what did he specifically do that others did not and/or could not? Be good now and don't peek at Google. Seriously.

Was it getting done with Merck alone?
Please point out where I said that, and then please note the part where I said "put money into the research and public health organizations that actually matter". Then please tell me the part where "pharmaceutical company" factors into that equation.

Finally, I saved the best for last:
Jimmy Carter got those people a clinic.
A CLINIC? Are you serious? A clinic? A doctor, a translator, a box of food, and a box of drugs are a clinic, lol @ that being Jimmy Carter's contribution to the fight against river blindness. I don't think you have a clue of the scale of this disease, the general number cited is 37 million people infected worldwide. You're giving Carter far less credit than I'm giving him by noting his contribution as "getting those people a clinic", you're doing him a disservice in fact. Wacky indeed.

My, your statement seems pretty wacky to me. Merck provides treatment. That's good: I would never say otherwise. I find it extremely unlikely that they pay for the distribution of the drug or even for the initial diagnosis of the illness among the people living all over the goddamn continent. Jimmy Carter got those people a clinic. Without the clinic, the chance they would get the wonderful medicine is pretty small.

Merck was "providing" treatment and people were still going blind, becoming victims of these "non-western" diseases. Should we all just sit still and say, "Merck has solved the problem. Damn those stupid Africans for not availing themselves of Merck's largess"? Your posting sure sounds like that. Jimmy Carter saw that there was a disconnect and worked to get it connected. Yes, because he is who he is, he can act as a figurehead, but he decided to do it, and he got it done. Could he have done what he did without Merck? No. Was it getting done with Merck alone? No.

Science and medicine work, but not when the people who need the science and medicine aren't known to need the medicine and aren't given the medicine.

An important issue, but Jimmy Carter has fuckall to do with the problem beyond acting as a figurehead to donate money to and possibly throw at useless governments.

Here's a perfect example of how drug companies can do good things: Merck provides treatment (ivermectin) for the parasites that cause river blindness for free, something they've been doing since they developed the treatment and realized that it was unprofitable. (The treatment stops the progress of the condition but doesn't kill the parasites completely, unfortunately, and no other effective cure has been developed.)

I'm close to this issue, as I grew up watching people I'm close to work on studying river blindness, developing ivermectin, distributing the drug, and attempting to adjust public health policy to fight river blindness. Guess how much Carter & co. were involved in the actual processes that mattered? Big fat fucking donut.

If people want to actually deal with the problem, they need to stop bullshitting about how much good Carter is doing and instead put money into the research and public health organizations that actually matter.

tl;dr Science and medicine work, feel-good stories don't cure parasitic infections that will destroy your eyeballs and skin.

I don't agree with those 'lies, terrible' tags. The lady is in constant scrutiny, much more so than Obama because of personality and public image. I think she did get a bit emotional from all that criticism and sheer weight of the situation. Would it kill you to give her a break and actually believe that it was real?

Besides, I did not see a single drop of tear from that woman's ice cold eyes, Just a little choked up. And yet again media over reacts and has a field day over this, because why? What's the reason?? Constant scrutiny man, constant scrutiny.

And let's just say if it really was acting? (which I don't believe, just exaggerated) Even better. She's a ruthless girl playing the dirty politics, still hanging in there, still trying to win this thing. Just because you don't like the candidate's image, you fail to see their quality as a great president. Ruthlessness, cunning, patience, and sheer tenacity to stick to it even when things get really bad. A fighter dang nammit, a fighter!

I mean, yea sure you don't like Hillary's image, but what does that have to do with running a country? People voted for George Bush because he was a more likable and 'down to earth' candidate than Al Gore. They also voted for Jimmy Carter because he was a 'good person'. Ever read about Jimmy Carter? Huh? Did ya?

Let's say you voted for Al Gore. I bet it wasn't because you were swooned over by his dynamic personality, but because of his experience in Clinton administration and his professionalism. George Bush was the opposite, and people voted for him instead because they 'liked' him better. What a great president he came out to be. And yet personalities still has a strong influence in this matter in this election.

And yet, we have yet another similar scenario. Hillary wielded a heavy hand during Clinton Administration as well and doesn't have a favorable personality just like Al Gore. And again, less experienced candidates like Obama are in larger favor because people just 'like' him better. The hell is that all about?

Hillary's been facing criticism and negative public popularity her entire campaign and yet she's still here, still trying to make it. So despite whatever your beliefs are and why you support other candidates, consider these qualities as well.

What a shallow country we live in, especially youngins. People under the mental age of 30 shouldn't be allowed to vote (aka 70% of the nation).

Another Jimmy Carter poet.

Jimmy Carter is a sincere Christian and one of the worst US Presidents.

Huckabee is a sincere Christian and tax-addicted RINO. He won't win.

RoPaul is the best case against RoPaul. The more he speaks, the more he digs his own political grave.

I saw a UFO when I was about 7. It was in the sky, and it looked like the top of a banana fattened, with tiny, spindly legs. It was the color of concrete.

Does this make me insane? I definitely saw something, although my brain may have embellished it a little. Why are we even arguing about this? Dennis Kucinich saw a UFO. So did Jimmy Carter. So did Ronald Wilson Reagan. This issue is completely irrelevant to the election.