Subscribe"A philosophy or system of government that is marked by stringent social and economic control, a strong, centralized government usually headed by a dictator, and often a policy of belligerent nationalism." (From The American Heritage Dictionary)Oh... and "dictator?"
...Ring any bells? Now can I use it?
S: (n) dictator, potentate (a ruler who is unconstrained by law)
S: (n) authoritarian, dictator (a person who behaves in an tyrannical manner)" (from WordNet)
The hell? I didn't think there was anyone who hated Jimmy Carter.This guy does. He doesn't go into much detail about why, but boy-o-boy, does he hate Jimmy Carter.
The anarchic character of the International system forces Carter, following hlstorical conventlon, to contemplate physical violence, even nuclear war, as the ultimate factor in the settlement of international issues. Yet the irrationality of such violence makes him shrlnk from the use even of conventional violence lest it might escalate into nuclear war. Thus in an international crisis the presldent acts with utmost caution--if he acts at all--and he compensates for the lack of provocative action with bellicose talk.
The issue is not whether the presldent ought to pursue the national interest regardless of the possibility of nuclear war, but where to cross the line between concern for the natlonal interest and fear of nuclear war. The problem is whether Carter, in hls anxiety to avoid the apocalyptic abyss, has not chosen inaction as the easier alternative. The president seems paralyzed before the face of the future.
Jimmy Carter was a horrible president. He might be a decent guy, but he doesn't deserve the fawning coverage that the MSM lavishes upon him. He's not a freakin' saint.davidmsc, I really would like to know why you feel this way. What did Carter do as president that was so horrible? Obviously, you and others feel strongly about this, but (perhaps due to MSM fawning) most of us don't know why.
The British Government is reported to have looked with “horror” at the recent American vote in favor of an anti-Israel U.N. resolution and its subsequent disavowal by President Carter. The French Government pursues a foreign policy without regard for American preferences. It in fact pursues its “special relationship” with Moscow on occasion, being the first to host the European visit of Andrei Gromyko. West German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt’s lack of respect for President Carter is notorious. The Soviet Union makes Its moves on the international scene without regard for American reactions. The Iranian Government continues to humiliate the United States every day. The Government of Pakistan refused to accept proffered American aid. The Government of Israel pursues its settlements policy on the West Bank and in Gaza in spite of Carter’s Washington April lectures to Menachem Begin. Jordan’s King Hussein vacillates on the president’s invitation to visit Washington.Of course, it could be argued that Reagan, although eventually successful, made the opposite mistake: --he took senseless risks early in his first administration that could've spiralled out of hand.
What has happened that has so drastically diminished, if not the material power of the U.S., at least its prestige and influence among the world’s nations? It would be tedious to enumerate all the instances of incomprehension, blunders, inconsistencies, and ambiguities which the public record of the three-year-old Carter administration reveals.
For much of the Carter presidency, the line of some in the press (and, as I know well, in the academy) was that he was a religious nut. I followed him in the 1976 race and heard a reporter ask Carter why he constantly brought up religion. He replied that he had made a determination never to bring up religion in the campaign. But the reporters kept asking him about it, and he had to answer them or be criticized for dodging the issue.
His attendance at church was not announced; we reporters had to ferret that out by ourselves. Carter is an old-fashioned Baptist, the kind that follows the lead of the great Baptist Roger Williams—that is, he is the firmest of believers in the separation of church and state. Unlike most if not all modern presidents, he never had a prayer service in the White House. His problem, back then, was not that he paraded his belief but that he believed. All this can seem quaint now when professing religion is practically a political necessity, whether one believes or not.
10487. This is the stupidist f'ing thing ever Impeach Chimpy
« Older Joseph Cornell was enamored with ballerinas and st... | The Sheep Market -- 10,000 she... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by EarBucket at 4:07 AM on May 24, 2006