Not that the little peanut every had it to began with.
on Jimmy Carter: "He's 81 years old, and he's lost it"
On the October 18 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Bill O'Reilly
http://mediamatters.org/items/200610200016
baselessly claimed that former President Jimmy Carter "sympathiz[es] with Iran," and concluded of Carter: "He's 81 years old, and he's lost it." O'Reilly was referring to a recent statement by Carter in which he advocated that governments try to negotiate with their adversaries, arguing that "the best way to drive them toward more nuclear programs is to threaten them militarily." Carter then concluded from their point of view, Iran may have pursued a nuclear weapons program "to prevent the United States from taking military action" against them.
Yada, yada, yada, Sometimes BO overstates the known truth, I voted for this "Man" because I along with many others was sickened by Watergate.
just goes to prove that everbody mucks-up at least once.
http://livingroomcandidate.movingima..._subaction=104
Last edited by AFE7FATMAN; 10-21-2006 at 03:50 AM.
Sounds like a pretty sharp 81 YO dude. That statement is 100% true. The funny thing about Carter is most Fundamentalists hate him, but he IS the Christian that they play on TV."the best way to drive them toward more nuclear programs is to threaten them militarily."
That seems to be the most legit statement i have heard on the issue i quite some time, I suppose to the less informed among us it would make little sense, but exactly how far have military threats and disengagement gotten the US with regard to North Korea and Iran?
quoting a supercilious rabble rouser like BO? GMAFB
Not that the little peanut every had it to began with.
on Jimmy Carter: "He's 81 years old, and he's lost it"
On the October 18 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Bill O'Reilly
http://mediamatters.org/items/200610200016
baselessly claimed that former President Jimmy Carter "sympathiz[es] with Iran," and concluded of Carter: "He's 81 years old, and he's lost it." O'Reilly was referring to a recent statement by Carter in which he advocated that governments try to negotiate with their adversaries, arguing that "the best way to drive them toward more nuclear programs is to threaten them militarily." Carter then concluded from their point of view, Iran may have pursued a nuclear weapons program "to prevent the United States from taking military action" against them.
Yada, yada, yada, Sometimes BO overstates the known truth, I voted for this "Man" because I along with many others was sickened by Watergate.
just goes to prove that everbody mucks-up at least once.
http://livingroomcandidate.movingima..._subaction=104
JC lost what? The respect of BO, good riddance.
BO is a sellout. Before his interview with Bush, he said he would not be asking any questions about the past, only the present.
Whats next BO? Are you going to interview O.J. about football?
Damn, Jimmy is 81 years old!
What millitary Threats?
You didn't hear? Apparently just after Bush was elected we began threatening NK and they made the decision that they MUST have nuclear weapons to stop us!
The "every option is on the table" rhetoric. Where have you guys been the past five years?
Jimmy Carter was the dry dock commander in charge of the first US nuclear submarine.
His job as a nuclear technician was to oversee, from the military's standpoint, the construction.
Say what you want about him, but I would be willing to hazard a guess that he is still sharper at 81 than W is, or will be.
Carter is also 100% correct about his assessment that US belicosity is driving Iran to think it needs nukular weapons to defend itself.
Bill O'Rielly is a total sickle for saying that Carter "sympathizes" with Iran, though. There is a huge difference between understanding something and sympathy, a subtlety that Bill seems not to be familiar with.
bo stinks n should be in prison
If anyone thinks, us being nicer to IRAN or NK, and just talking and be cool with them, will turn these wackos into overnight nice guys, they are most likely drinking their own bath water.
What laws has he violated?bo stinks n should be in prison
No one is harboring any illusions about these governments, but Bush wants to talk with NK, he just wants the other countries at the table at the same time. Is Bush drinking his own bath water?
I don't see what that has to do with being "sympathetic" to Iran, who has stated over and over it wants to destroy us and Israel.
North Korea who now has said "South Korea will pay for siding against us"
I mean, yeah, lets totally kiss these guy's ass.
What does that mean? Sympathetic. I just need something concrete.I don't see what that has to do with being "sympathetic" to IranYou know I've never really heard the current government say they want to destroy us -- Israel yes, but that's pretty standard rhetoric. I'll stand corrected if someone kicks up any quotes.who has stated over and over it wants to destroy us and Israel.So you are against Bush's six party talks?North Korea who now has said "South Korea will pay for siding against us"
I mean, yeah, lets totally kiss these guy's ass.
So you are against Bush's six party talks?
Why do I feel anything I say is wrong here..
Good lord.
Do I agree with em? Yes.
Give it a shot.
If he further acts like anut, wich more than likely will happen, then switch to plan B.
Nope.
Iran's government is dispised by its people. It uses the US as an excuse for its failures, just as Castro does, and using the USA as a scapegoat has kept him in power for longer than any other leader in modern history.
You want to really topple the Iranian government? Bend over backwards to be nice to the Iranian people, and show the f***ers for the liars and corrupt people they are.
Think outside the box, 'cause the current policies are failing and show no signs of becoming magically more effective in the next 50 years than they have for the last 50.
We ought to start carpet bombing them with big bags of rice labled "USA."
Let the dear leader explain THAT.
I'm just trying to get a line on what you really think. I personally think that not talking to NK plays into their paranoia and may make them more inclined to do things like accelerate their nuke program. I mean the last time we were able to inspect their nuke plants after negotiating with them they had frogs living in their cooling tank. That obviously changed after we completely cut them off.
Thats exactly what I say and Glenn Beck.Nope.
Iran's government is dispised by its people. It uses the US as an excuse for its failures, just as Castro does, and using the USA as a scapegoat has kept him in power for longer than any other leader in modern history.
You want to really topple the Iranian government? Bend over backwards to be nice to the Iranian people, and show the f***ers for the liars and corrupt people they are.
Think outside the box, 'cause the current policies are failing and show no signs of becoming magically more effective in the next 50 years than they have for the last 50.
Appeal to the Iran people. Send em Ipods and other western stuff wich they LOVE.
But, dont appeal to them and they willfinally say it, President Tom (cant spell his name him I aint gonna try) might be right, down with the infidels.
I agree also with the NK deal, drop em bags of Lays and Rice that say in Korean compliments of your white black other asian, screw it, its from america overthrow four eyes.
I personally think that talking to a wacko dictator bent on world destruction like this guy, does no good.I personally think that not talking to NK plays into their paranoia and may make them more inclined to do things like accelerate their nuke program
Do you really think he's bent on world destruction? I think he's bent on preserving his own power and at the very most maybe taking over the south. It's impossible for him to do the latter and near impossible to do the former.
As for Iran, they certainly want regional hegemony, and I think they would want that no matter who is in charge. That goes back to their rather glorious ancient past in the Persian empire. There is no doubt that many Iranians love America, but at the same time we have a history of screwing around with their internal affairs including overthrowing a democratically elected government (a flawed one, but still) and establishing a dictatorship there that helped to bring about the Islamic revolution in the 70s with all the dangers that has brought about.
Any whacky dictator with nukes is a bad one, yeah World destruction, him and Huge the asshole.Do you really think he's bent on world destruction? I think he's bent on preserving his own power and at the very most maybe taking over the south.
His power is starving his nation and he continues to threaten the lives of the south koreans.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
