| Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
| Open Forums for ExChristian.Net > Rants and Replies > Jimmy Carter |
| Posted by: Rhodacat Dec 27 2004, 02:40 PM |
| During the past few years I have pretty much said "later" to anyone who identifys themself as a Christian. Yet from what I have read by and about Jimmy Carter and wittnessed from his life, I have nothing but admiration for the human being. To add, Mr. Carter seems to have the respect and admiration of people worldwide and despite what he said about president Bush at the democratic Convention, even my Fundie Grandmother admires him. Recently I read "Christmas in Plains" and watched a documentary on PBS that details his love and work for civil rights in America. Has anyone ever come across a reason why Mr. Carter shouldn't receive my respect?? What are your thoughts about him? |
| Posted by: nivek Dec 27 2004, 04:10 PM |
| Dave: Other than his policies on economics (while in Feral Office), the old guy seems to publicly be what an xtian should be... Involved in things that most men of the "expensive three-piece suit" would consider far far below their "station in life" Jimmy does what most only talk about... Man served the uS in Rickover's Nuke Navy, that in itself is a harsh thing to endure and pass through. If Mr. Carter was inclined to take a fishing trip with Fatman, he'd be so welcome to do so...  n |
| Posted by: ChefRanden Dec 27 2004, 04:30 PM |
| I was a Royalist for awhile. I wanted Carter for King. He's too old now, so I have moved on to anarchy. |
| Posted by: Reach Dec 28 2004, 05:24 AM |
| I just spent the last ten years living in Georgia, not far from Jimmy Carter, and the gentleman seems to be the real thing, very compassionate and absolutely hands-on in his involvement with his favorite charity, http://www.habitat.org/, which builds homes for the poor and sells them at no profit, as all the labor is volunteer and much of the materials are donated, as well. While some shortcomings and weaknesses in leadership were evident during his stint in the Oval Office he seems to be generously equipped to handle the affairs of the elder statesman. He is passionate about helping people and still wields a hammer when it comes to building those homes. |
| Posted by: atheist_ewtcoma Dec 28 2004, 06:29 AM |
| He was a pussy during his term. |
| Posted by: atheist_ewtcoma Dec 28 2004, 06:35 AM |
| I may have went to far to say that but with all the crap that happend in Iran and the hostages and all,l everything interconnects with what is going on in the middle east today. Nice guys do not finnish first. |
| Posted by: Lokmer Dec 28 2004, 07:09 AM |
| It is an unfortunate reality that a good man is often not a good politician. Carter was not a good politician, but certainly seems to exemplify what is best in men in many ways. Over the last several years as I have watched his activities I have grown a great deal of respect for him - as a Christian he was one of my models for how it should be done. Now as an apostate he is still an exemplary model for effective charity and compassion - the kind that builds up the recipients rather than reducing them to dependency and victimhood. And that is deeply laudable! -Lokmer |
| Posted by: pitchu Dec 28 2004, 09:27 AM |
| I'm not sure how one is supposed to balance these things, but along with all the unquestionably decent acts of the man, there's that little thing about Carter's allowing, on his presidential watch, Suharto of Indonesia to perpetrate a genocide on East Timor, slaughtering about one third of the Timorese population. Given, the go-ahead for Suharto's invasion seems to have been delivered during a visit to Indonesia by then-President Ford and that amiable ole alleged international criminal, himself, Kissinger. Then, in recent years, with East Timor finally gaining its independence, Carter joined the hypocritical chorus of world leaders tsk-tsk-ing about that brutal dictator, Suharto. I don't know if Carter's selective obliviousness could be seen as quite on a par with Clinton's later blatant act, in 1995, of inviting Suharto to the White House as an honored guest. Many U.S. administrations genuflected to this butcher because of his liberal support of U.S. business interests in Indonesia. Someone in Clinton's administration explained the red carpet treatment given Suharto with the phrase, "He's our kind of guy." (Go figure why any leader is to be labeled good or bad.) ****Btw, if the above is too political, then could someone please direct me to how I try to find and get into whatever that political forum is? |
| Posted by: ChefRanden Dec 28 2004, 10:50 AM | ||
Not so! With Iran he had the courage of his convictions; that is to solve international disputes through the world court, rather than war. For that reason he is my hero president. He did tell Iran that if they physically or mentally harmed a hostage he would respond with military force. No hostage was mistreated, except for their confinement and one was released because of ill health. Carter had a lot of pressure to respond militarily, to which he caved momentarily and launched that special op to rescue the hostages. He has said that was his biggest mistake concerning the crises. The issue was settled in the World Court near the end of Carter's term. The Iranians delayed the release for Reagan’s bunch, probably because they thought they could manipulate Reagan more easily, which proved to be the case. Reagan ignored the World Court and Congress in Central America, funding his shenanigans on behalf of United Fruit with illegal arms sales to ----- Iran. You call him a pussy for having the courage to avoid war -- not easy to do in this country. I call him a hero for the same. Chef |
| Posted by: Reach Dec 28 2004, 10:52 AM |
| Dang, Pitchu! I had nearly forgotten much of that regarding former president Carter. Georgia media, while not necessarily completely gratuitous in their treatment of him, regards him as a "favored son," and chooses to reflect on his accomplishments during the last ten years, skimming over the major failure of his past, specifically what Chef referred to, the failed rescue operation. There is frequent mention of his aging and one gets the impression that the media forces are waiting until after his death to reveal the truth about their opinion on him, as a whole. The Political Forum was only here for a brief time (a month or so). Dave saw fit to close it down as it was turning into something of a breeding ground for too much dissension on the site and it did not serve the purpose of "encouraging ex-Christians." |
| Posted by: ChefRanden Dec 28 2004, 10:55 AM | ||
I don't know what Carter has to say about this. Now i shall have to find out. Crap, can't I have once decent President to like? |
| Posted by: bob Dec 28 2004, 11:04 AM |
| I was a conservative christian fundie in the military during Carters term. I didn't care to much for him, even though, during his term one year the military received an 11% pay raise. What is it usually...2-4%. I now think he was a good guy. |
| Posted by: pitchu Dec 28 2004, 03:30 PM |
| All in all, I think he was/is a good guy, too, Chef and Bob, and I'd like to know if he's had anything to say, recently, about East Timor. He did inherit the mess, after all, and it's never been easy for any president to undo the horrors instituted by his predecessor. Thanks, Reach, for the info on that forum. "Dissension" among us Ex-C's?! Hard to imagine! (So I'm hoping maybe my tone here is cool-headed enough...? I'm sure someone will let me know if it ain't.) |
| Posted by: AggieNostic Dec 28 2004, 03:51 PM |
| Jimmy Carter is the anti-Fundy. While Jerry Falwell is preaching the (hellbound) message that God is pro-war (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36859), Carter has been trying to advance peace. He hasn't always been successful, but I give Carter kudos for at least trying to leave up to the "peace on earth, goodwill towards man" message of modern (non-fundy) xtianity. |
| Posted by: Merlinfmct87 Dec 28 2004, 04:22 PM |
| I don't really know enough about him to say, but I haven't heard nice things about him. Merlin |
| Posted by: Rhodacat Dec 28 2004, 05:19 PM |
| WOW What a response! Thank you all for your well thought out posts. I would like to respond to the comment about his leadership. We all would agree that Mr. Carter is a nice and decent man. We know that he would always try his utmost to react reasonably when it comes to those who would oppose him, his policies or the United States (Iran 1979) Yet being a diplomatic gentleman doesn't seem to be desired by this generation of U.S. Citizens when it comes to politics. I think the majority of current U.S. citizens feel that they would rather have a man like George Bush who would outright lie, cheat, steel to acheive his goals. Does this make Mr. Carter a bad leader? In the long run I do not think so. In the long run I think George is going to take it in the ass. Also I think history will be much more gracious to Jimmy then to George. What are your thoughts? |
| Posted by: Merlinfmct87 Dec 28 2004, 06:33 PM |
| Again, my history is not the best, so I could easily be wrong... But from what I'm aware of Jimmy carter was indeed a "pussy" as atheist_ewtcoma said. It's no secret to me that the large majority of the board has no love(and even some hate) for the current president and the battle he is leading, but I think it's a needed action and in the long run will save lives. Leaving American Citizens literally held hostage in another country is in my book unforgivable. Everybody here can agree that war is the last thing anybody(and I mean ANYBODY) wants to see, but sometimes it's the only way to stop further bloodshed. Think about it: If President Clinton had pulled the trigger on Bin Laden, where would we be? Then of course we breach the subject that the terrorists were ready to release the hostages but the next president--Ronald Reagan? Another guy I have no love for--negotiated with them and told them to hold them until the election was over. So Jimmy aided and abetted the enemy out of cowardice, whereas Ron aided and abetted them out of simple greed. Either one could have turned left and stopped the fundamentalists in the islamic states from growing and becoming more powerful. So I can't say either party is a shining light of truth, honesty and fairness. Each sell themselves to various groups for the right price.  Then he gets kicked out of office and decides to become a peace broker. His deal with North Korea gave them exactly what they wanted for nothing. The President of N. Korea(Don't ask me to spell it this late) lied to his(Jim carter) face and knew he could get away with it. North Korea gets a sweetheart deal and we are feeling the results now. And there's the fact that George W. Bush has several policies I can't abide by(Environment, civil rights)... and some I agree with(the war). However, most of the crap he's taken responsibility for(the economy, 9/11, N. Korea) are the legacies of other presidents who would not step up to the plate and deal with them. I'm NOT the Bush's spokesman, if I could talk to him I'd rip him a new one on some of his policies, and I'm not trying to paint him in a glowing light or revise history. I'm telling history the way I was taught it. So where does that put me? Misinformed teenager? Arrogant son of a bitch? Or just a crazy wizard that can't be allowed to vote™? Be well, and I mean no offense to anyone or anything, (I like you guys too much!) Merlin |