Jimmy Carter strikes again

[j2k4]

I find it hilarious that people like yourself find it comforting to defend the man ..

I'm sure it will come as no surprise to anyone to learn that I have never defended Carter, but don't let the truth stand in the way of a cheap shot.

You have problems with those who have problems with Carter.

Close enough to defending Carter for me, considering you haven't read the book either, and must rely on lib-news sites and rhetoric to engage others on a subject you know absolutely nothing about.

You are part of the discussion owing to your anti-Bush penchant, nothing more.

Fact.

What I find amusing is the way you've had to resort to attacking Carter in order to avoid having to defend Bush.

If I haven't defended Bush, it is because I choose not to.

Besides, you were the one who started the "worse president ever" thread, in which I mentioned (with emphasis) Carter in order to relieve you of your ignorance.

I even corrected your spelling, so frankly I don't know what more I can do for you.

[Ava Estelle]

You have problems with those who have problems with Carter.

Close enough to defending Carter for me, considering you haven't read the book either, and must rely on lib-news sites and rhetoric to engage others on a subject you know absolutely nothing about.

I haven't read the book so I haven't defended it, I haven't defended him as a president either. You, on the other hand, started a thread attacking a book one of your neocon buddies told you was lies and misrepresentation, and you believed him. You needed no proof, you didn't feel the need to find out for yourself, you just followed the party line, like the sheep you are ... baaaa!

[j2k4]

You have problems with those who have problems with Carter.

Close enough to defending Carter for me, considering you haven't read the book either, and must rely on lib-news sites and rhetoric to engage others on a subject you know absolutely nothing about.

I haven't read the book so I haven't defended it, I haven't defended him as a president either. You, on the other hand, started a thread attacking a book

Wrong.

one of your neocon buddies told you was lies and misrepresentation, and you believed him.

Wrong again.

You needed no proof, you didn't feel the need to find out for yourself,

And yet again.

you just followed the party line, like the sheep you are ... baaaa!

Now, that's funny, since it is, by and large, the democrat party line.

[Ava Estelle]

.. you just followed the party line, like the sheep you are ... baaaa!

Now, that's funny, since it is, by and large, the democrat party line.

The Democrat party line? To attack anything from a Democrat without finding out for oneself? I think not.

[j2k4]

Now, that's funny, since it is, by and large, the democrat party line.

The Democrat party line? To attack anything from a Democrat without finding out for oneself? I think not.

No, you twit - the irony is that I find myself siding with Stein and Ross, who are both democrats, and whom, I might add, have found out for themselves.

Baaaa, yourself.

[Ava Estelle]

The Democrat party line? To attack anything from a Democrat without finding out for oneself? I think not.

No, you twit - the irony is that I find myself siding with Stein and Ross, who are both democrats, and whom, I might add, have found out for themselves.

Baaaa, yourself.

Oh I see, you mean you have no opinion of your own so you found a couple of people whose opinions you can live with. Fair enough.

[Ava Estelle]

This is an article from the LA Times from someone who HAS read the book, Jimmy Carter ...

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...opinion-center

[j2k4]

This is an article from the LA Times from someone who HAS read the book, Jimmy Carter ...

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...opinion-center

This is hilarious.

You attempt to vouchsafe a book and it's bone fides by quoting a self-serving puff-piece written by it's author.

That we live in a world where this can be contemplated with any presumption of legitimacy by anyone, anywhere is surely a sign of the apocalypse.

Mr. Carter may have written the book; perhaps he should have read it as well, eh?

[Ava Estelle]

Blah, blah, blah ... all rhetoric and no substance, as usual.

I'm attempting to vouchsafe nothing, as I said before, I refuse to comment on a book I haven't read just because I have a prior opinion of the author, I'll leave that sort of thing to you.

I posted the link so people can read Carter's own words, nothing more.

[j2k4]

Blah, blah, blah ... all rhetoric and no substance, as usual.

I'm attempting to vouchsafe nothing, as I said before, I refuse to comment on a book I haven't read just because I have a prior opinion of the author, I'll leave that sort of thing to you.

I posted the link so people can read Carter's own words, nothing more.

As you say, you have no knowledge of the book, yet you fail to mention you have no knowledge of Mr. Carter, either.

You have not the competency to comment, one way or the other, but that's fine; no one ever said free speech had to be accurate or coherent.