Well, now apparently even Jimmy Carter doesn't agree with himself!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OV5ZN6Ishw8

Will the real Jimmy Carter please stand up?

As for the rest of his apologists on this thread, you should have known better than to try and defend the indefensible.

Have fun under the bus!

Please extend a thank you to all of those in your family who served in the United States military. Many Americans sadly have no appreciation for the sacrifice that is involved.

And, especially for your boyfriend, please tell him that we Americans deeply honor and appreciate everything he did on our behalf, and on behalf of the Iraqi people. I personally believe the situation in the Middle East is immeasurably better today than it would be if Hussein had not been removed from power, though I know many disagree.

Obviously, your boyfriend was a volunteer, too, which to me speaks volumes about him as a person.

So, this former Army Spec-5 salutes him. I served in the military during another conflict that became very unpopular over time. I was drafted, which of course made me very unhappy back then. But today, I look back and realize how much that service contributed to my education, my perspective and my life.

Bill Press is your answer? Pathetic!

If Bill Press is the answer, then the question must have been,

"Quick . . . name someone in the media who will have something baseless, nasty, biased and downright stupid to say, regardless of the topic!"

I notice that none of you "12 percenters" have an answer for the poll.

macasey, below is a key portion of your statement, above, when you were talking about the "extreme" Right::

"This is the scary group that President Carter is talking about, a scary group of people that justify their horrible actions in the name of God and country."

And here is the key portion of what Jimmy Carter actually said to Brian Williams, as quoted from this post above:

"I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man," Carter said. "I live in the South, and I've seen the South come a long way, and I've seen the rest of the country that share the South's attitude toward minority groups at that time, particularly African Americans."

In other words, you are wrong in trying to now minimize what Carter was saying.

Jimmy Carter said that the "overwhelming portion" of animosity to Barack Obama's policies is racist. And Jimmy Carter is just plain wrong. Many of you agreed with him in your comments, posted above, including the prime poster, Delilah Starling.

The vast majority of those of us who oppose many of the policies of Barack Obama will simply not sit still for Carter, or Delilah Starling or you, macasey, trying to get away with calling us racists. That is why we have called you all out on this post. As I pointed out with the cite to the recent Rasmussen poll, above, the American people reject that ugly characterization as well.

Your opinions, are your opinions. Cling to them, if you wish! But you are wrong.

to: cloud9devine, above

RE: "President Obama has good intensions."

To quote the obvious -- "Hell is full of good intentions or desires." Saint Bernard of Clairvaux (1091-1153).

As for the troop issue -- gee, you must feel a bit betrayed, no? Remember when Obama was demanding that we completely withdraw from Iraq by March of 2008? He even put in a bill in the United States Senate that would have required it!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDqNcOT1MTA

Now, I want the troops home as much as the next guy, but when he introduced that bill, he wanted thereby to ensure our complete defeat!

And, remember when he wanted to talk one-on-one with Ahmadinejad? Well, yesterday, the United States joined with 11 nations in walking out on Ahmadinejad's vicious anti-semitic speech at the UN. The time for his vicious talk is over.

My, my, how calculated and empty rhetoric during a campaign can turn into the opposite when the reality of actually governing occurs!

And, what some people won't say or do to get elected!

If your brother lost his job and had medical coverage, that coverage could have been continued through "cobra" under existing law.

Coverage cannot just be "cut off" if you lose a job.

No one argues that the system cannot be improved. It can be. For example, opening up the market to allow plans to be sold across state lines would significantly improve the availability of healthcare coverage. So would real tort reform.

But we do not need to destroy the healthcare system to improve it either by implementing single payer system, or a trojan horse plan intended to give us a single payer system over time.

Delilah,

Above, you said, in a comment directed at Redhanded101:

"I suspect that you have several alter-egos on Allvoices that allows you to make your attacks and insulting remarks under a different name and identity."

Are you now getting a little paranoid? What baseless drivel that is!

What you seem incapable of understanding is that we live in a democratic society (thankfully, as opposed to a Democrat society), where people freely express their views. Just because several of us share some of the same views of the trashy accusations you have posted here, does not make us the same person!

Your belief, as expressed here and in your prior post, is that vitrtually anyone who opposes Barack Obama's policies is a racist! You and Jimmy Carter made that despicable accusation. What makes you think we would let you get away with that without responding?

I am not a racist -- I never have been. And I never will be. How dare you and Jimmy Carter allege that I am! Take your stupid racism accusation and hurl it at someone else. Not at me . . . and not at the millions and millions of good Americans who are recognizing more and more each day that the policies of this President seriously threaten the future financial well-being of our nation.

We Americans had to run Jimmy Carter out of office back in 1980, before he financially ruined the country then. You obviously do not remember the "triple-misery" index! Nor do you remember his disasterous foreign policy. But I do, as so many others.

firesisle,

Unfortunately, you will never get a straight answer out of them. Barack Obama used to insist there were 45 million uninsured in America. Most recently he said there were only 30 million uninsured Americans. That was because he had quietly taken the illegal immigrants out of the mix -- but only for the moment! That is because using the lower number allowed him to say publicly that illegal immigrants would not get health insurance coverage under his bill. But he also later reiterated his full support for amnesty -- which would mean no more "illegal immigrants," and therefore, those who are illegally here in the United States would be covered by the Obamacare initiative.

Obama's health insurance initiative is now suffering from over-exposure, but he keeps blabbing. We Americans now get the joke. We do not want the bankrupting of our country, and for those of us -- the vast majority -- who have health insurance, we do not want the government destroying what we currently have.

That is why the Gallup Poll is now reporting that the vast majority of Americans (80%) are satisfied with the quality of healthcare in the United States, and even 61% are satisfied with the cost their current coverage.

From the poll:

"Overall, 80% are satisfied with the quality of medical care available to them, including 39% who are very satisfied. Sixty-one percent are satisfied with the cost of their medical care, including 20% who are very satisfied."

Americans do not want a radical overhaul of the healthcare system because they know it will threaten what coverage and quality of care they currently enjoy. Democrats do not get this. They want to turn the whole system upside-down.

As for Jerry's silly answer, above, Bill Moyers is not an expert on anything, except for sowing left-wing propaganda. He used to be the most polemical person on television -- that is until Keith Olberman and Chris Matthews hit the scene. Moyers is probably just trying for a come-back with his rubbish about single payer!

If the Democrat party thinks that single payer is such a great idea, please, let them run united in promoting the idea in 2010! Please!

Single payer is absurd. We did not vote for a socialist society, and a majority of Americans outright reject that.

If you want a single payer system, then convince the Democrat party to openly run a political campaign promoting single payer. How about the 2010 congressional races? Democrats should come out for single payer, instead of trying to sneak it in the back door like the Obama Administration and the Congressional Democrat leadership are trying to do now.

So, in other words, you condone plagiarism. Shame on you! Macasey should be thrown off the site for her plagiarism and copyright infringement.

Are you serious?

There have been many Presidents who were quite humorous.

For example, Abraham Lincoln was well known during his lifetime and since for his wonderful sense of humor and story-telling prowess. And that was without having a teleprompter to feed him the punch line -- or, as Lincoln was fond of calling it, the "nub" of the story. Lincoln was a great story teller, even as a very young man. Several books have been written about Lincoln's sense of humor. Just for starters, look up, "'Lincoln's Humor' and other essays," By Benjamin Platt Thomas, Michael Burlingame.

In more recent times, Ronald Reagan was also quite well known for his great gift of humor. Bill Adler even wrote a book entitled, "The Reagan Wit: The Humor of the American President."

George Bush has a terrific sense of humor as well, as does his father. You have to appreciate a guy who can laugh at himself, which he has always been willing to do.

But I personally believe probably the wittiest comment any President ever uttered, was a quip reportedly made by President Calvin Coolidge -- and old "Silent Cal" was known as a man of few words, at least when it came to casual conversation!

Once, at a dinner function he was attending at the White House, a woman (some say it was Dorothy Parker) who had been seated next to him, tried to challenge his reputation for reticence. She turned to and said to the President, loudly enough for other guests to hear:

"I've made a bet with a friend that I can get you to say at least three words this evening. What do you say to that?"

Coolidge turned to her, smiled, and said, "You lose."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvin_Coolidge

Obama quote from your post, above:

"[F]irst of all, I think it’s important to realize that I was actually black before the election."

Well, that one comment from Obama once again certainly gives the lie to your prior post, the one where you agreed with Jimmy Carter and his nasty and untrue claim that growing public opposition to Obama's policies is really based on racism.

Gee, Delilah, did you forget to mention that in this post? Or, did you want to avoid contradicting both yourself -- and Jimmy Carter?

p.s. Did you get a chance to report the plagiarism -- and copyright infringement -- by that commenter on your prior post? You'll remember, the one who copied the work of Maureen Dowd and others and presented it in her comments as if it was her work?

Macasey,

Pointing out and confronting a plagiarist is not being anal. It is an obligation writers owe one another. Somehow, you now seek to make me the bad guy for calling you out on it and posted the proof of it above.

For example, I noticed you didn't re-post the first two grafs I quoted from your prior comment, just above! That is because you copied and stole those words from Maureen Dowd.

Where do you get your nerve calling me names?

You present yourself as a "professional" commentator on the Seattle Examiner! The most unprofessional thing a writer can do is intentionally steal the work of others. Sometimes it may happen that a writer inadvertently and accidentally mix a sentence or two of someone else's work in with their work -- or, that is the excuse they use.

But you took several entire sentences, word-for-word, from others and posted them here, as if it was your work! That is stealing. And you won't just own up to it and admit it, but seek to turn it around on me.

Why would anyone ever believe anything you said, including your latest polemical and twisted views about what I have written? You haven't answered any of what I've written, including the idiotic and false accusation made by Jimmy Carter about the so-called one million intentionally disenfranchised voters in the 2000 election. Jimmy Carter wouldn't know the truth if he fell over it. And with his segregationist past, he has a lot of nerve accusing others!

You, meanwhile, have lost any credibility you ever had by swiping the work of others in order to try (and fail) to make your case here.

Here is an example, from PBS, of how Doris Kearns Goodwin explained the situation, and how she dealt with it when she got caught having, in a few instances, published passages that someone else had written.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/jan-june02/history_1-28.html

MARGARET WARNER of PBS chronicled Goodwin's response to the situation when she got caught and had to reach a monetary settlement with Lynne McTaggart when:

"the Weekly Standard found 'dozens' of passages strikingly similar to those in three other books, including Lynne McTaggert's 'Kathleen Kennedy.'"

Goodwin's response to the PBS questioning:

"DORIS KEARNS GOODWIN: I absolutely believe professional standards for historians need never be sacrificed in popular history. I love footnotes. I think they are actually a pointer to historians of the future, and it's critical to credit the people who have plowed the fields before.

What happened in my case was, 15 years ago, in my first big work of history-which covered 900 pages, 3,500 footnotes, everything longhand-- my technique of citation proved not to be foolproof in the end. I used to take notes on the books in longhand, mark passages for quotes, and also write my running commentary on the story line along with them, use those notes to write the draft, and at the very end would recheck every one of those 300 books to make sure the quotes were accurate and make sure the citation was right.

Somehow, in that process, a few of those 300 books did not fully get rechecked. There are citations all along the way, but some of the phrases should have been in quotes rather than simply cited.

MARGARET WARNER: Goodwin explained why she paid one author, and insisted on confidentiality.

DORIS KEARNS GOODWIN: When I was told by one of the authors, McTaggert, that some of the phrases of hers had appeared in my work, I just felt so bad about it. I was more than willing to authorize the publishers to settle with her on a monetary basis and keep it confidential so it wouldn't have to be before the world that I had made this mistake, and somehow 15 years later it has now come back."

In other words, Goodwin was contrite and quite ashamed of what she had done. And, she insisted that it was an accident, not intentional such as your offenses, above!

As I posted before on another mindless encomium to this, the worst of our modern presidents, anyone believing that Jimmy Carter has somehow been some sort of paragon of virtue on the subject of race, I commend to you the following piece entitled "Jimmy Carter's Race Problem," just posted Friday on NRO's The Corner by Hans von Spakovsky.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTViNzM0ZmUxOTdhMzU3MDYyZmIzNTdlNWFkMWVkOTc=

It begins:

"When former president Jimmy Carter accuses the opponents of Barrack Obama’s policy of nationalizing broad aspects of our economy and spending us into bankruptcy of being 'racists,' perhaps he should look in the mirror. In his 1982 book, Keeping Faith, Carter disingenuously said he 'was not directly involved in the early struggles to end racial discrimination.' No kidding — in fact, he directly and unambiguously supported segregation. When Carter returned to Plains, Georgia, to become a peanut farmer after serving in the Navy, he became a member of the Sumter County School Board, which did not implement the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision handed down by the Supreme Court. Instead, the board continued to segregate school children on the streets of Carter’s hometown."

Spakovsky goes on to fill in the blanks on the great hypocrite, who I personally believe is now apparently attempting to assuage his own personal sense of guilt by falsely lashing out at others today . . . those who oppose the current President's alarming policies and radical appointments.

He concludes:

"The idea that opposition to Obama’s policies reflects 'racism' is absurd; even the White House has rejected it. All of this raises a larger issue about Carter’s remarks. When he makes such a claim, is he projecting his own inner racial beliefs? Is he so guilt-ridden over his past racist behavior that he wants to make amends to the race-baiters that today populate the Left? Or is he just cynically helping them score political points?"

Based on his history of unwarranted and outrageous race-baiting comments I would conclude that in the long run, he is scoring points only with the extreme and mindless haters on the left -- preaching to the choir, as they say!

Carter seems intent on recovering his firm grip on the title of least credible nationwide public figure. Even Joe Biden rejects his rubbish.

And the latest Rasmussen poll firmly backs that up -- only 12 percent of Americans say that he is right!

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/12_say_most_opponents_of_obama_health_care_plan_are_racist

While the poll indicates there are also some who say they are unsure, fully two-thirds of Americans reject Carter's stupid and venal claim of racism.

macasey,

You said above,

"I have not read Maureen Dowd's article. And you have obviously not read what I said above."

You may not have read the whole thing, but you had no hesitancy to copy what she published, and present it here as if YOU wrote it!

Here is the entire comment you posted above, three days ago:

"Joe Wilson belonged to the Sons of Confederate Veterans, led a 2000 campaign to keep the Confederate flag waving above South Carolina’s state Capitol and denounced the true claim of a black woman that was the daughter of Strom Thurmond, the segregationist.

Wilson clearly did not like being lectured and even rebuked by the brainy black president presiding over the chamber.

Wilson is a racist. Do you think he would have called Hillary Clinton a liar? By the way, it's the same health care plan she wanted.

Wilson is the liar! He was never an immigration attorney. He has never been anything but a real-estate attorney."

As I clearly established above, large portions of this comment, posted by you, were lifted word-for-word from Maureen Dowd's column.

Deflect the topic, Changez? Hardly! Plagiarism is a serious matter, no matter what you say. It has to be confronted.

And expressing silly views on a subject that you know nothing about can only make you look foolish.

You obviously know little or nothing about Jimmy Carter, or his history. Please go back and read what I wrote before about his making utterly false accusations about disenfranchising minority voters in 2000. It was a vicious lie, intended to stir up racial discord. It is exactly what he is trying to do again. Read about his insistent and idiotic support of Robert Mugabe. Those are facts. You did not have to live through the Carter Presidency. We did! He had no clue what to do, and at one point he even began suggesting that it was OUR fault!

And now, please read about his personal record in Georgia on the subject of race, as laid out by Hans von Spakovsky at the link I posted here and in a comment below. It will open your eyes.

Here:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTViNzM0ZmUxOTdhMzU3MDYyZmIzNTdlNWFkMWVkOTc=

For those who may foolishly continue to believe that Jimmy Carter has somehow been some sort of paragon of virtue on the subject of race, I commend to you the following piece entitled "Jimmy Carter's Race Problem," and just posted Friday on NRO's The Corner by Hans von Spakovsky.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTViNzM0ZmUxOTdhMzU3MDYyZmIzNTdlNWFkMWVkOTc=

It begins:

"When former president Jimmy Carter accuses the opponents of Barrack Obama’s policy of nationalizing broad aspects of our economy and spending us into bankruptcy of being 'racists,' perhaps he should look in the mirror. In his 1982 book, Keeping Faith, Carter disingenuously said he 'was not directly involved in the early struggles to end racial discrimination.' No kidding — in fact, he directly and unambiguously supported segregation. When Carter returned to Plains, Georgia, to become a peanut farmer after serving in the Navy, he became a member of the Sumter County School Board, which did not implement the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision handed down by the Supreme Court. Instead, the board continued to segregate school children on the streets of Carter’s hometown."

It goes on to fill in the blanks on Carter's personal pockmarked record on the subject, and lends an important perspective to understanding his current overstatements and accusations on the subject. Please read the whole thing. It contains valuable insights into why this worst of our modern Presidents insists now on so broadly and falsely accusing others of racism.

Lame. Oh, by the way you forgot to explain stealing Maureen Dowd's recent column!

Oh please, macasey, no wonder you specialize here in plagiarizing other peoples' work!

When you try to branch out on your own, you immediately demonstrate you can't even get simple numbers right! You have deceitfully lumped together those who say "Yes" and those who say "Not Sure." That is intellectually dishonest.

And, you did not cite the poll itself. You cited from an article in the "Washington Independent" cherry-picking left-wing findings from an otherwise interesting a poll that was done by Public Policy Polling.

The poll itself indicates a number of very strange beliefs on the part of SOME likely New Jersey voters, across the board. For example, fully 21% of voters across the board either believe (9%) that Obama is the "anti-Christ," or are not sure. Even among Democrats, 13%, as per your formulation of the numbers "think Obama might be the anti-Christ." Again, you cited your combination of those who say "Yes" and those who say "Not Sure."

Demographically, the largest percentage of those holding that strange belief is among those who identify themselves as Hispanic. For example, 24% of those in that poll say "Yes" Obama is the anti-Christ, and 19% say "Not Sure."

And, here is another interesting finding in the poll. Among Democrats, 32% are believing "truthers" and 19% say "Not Sure," for a combined total of 51%. I’m sure you will explain that insane belief to us. It’s the "Van Jones" Crazy Brigade! Fully one third of New Jersey Democrats believe President Bush had "advance knowledge" of the 9/11 attack. And another 19% of Democrats say they are not sure.

So, explain those numbers! And tell us, Miss Plagiarizer -- do you count yourself among those harboring such an obviously crazy belief?

You cited the poll through an article about the poll by an organization that claims to be "A Center for Independent Media" – called "The Washington Independent." Independent? It is anything but independent! It is a left-wing rag. A quick check of their "funders" shows they include George Soros "Open Society Institute" –and that other well-known bastion of "independent" thinking, the Streisand Foundation. Ha ha! Wait! Let’s not also forget Teresa Heinz Kerry’s own favorite leftie moneybags group, the "Tides Foundation!" Or, Ted Turner’s "Better World Fund."

Yep! Real "independent" thinking there! And check out their blog roll – if they had a softball team, they would have 25 volunteers to play far left field, and no one willing to play anywhere near right.

Where do you get your nerve, asking if I may have "borrowed" someone else's work?

You have been caught red-handed taking copyrighted work from others, and presenting it here on this thread as if you wrote it!

Did you write to Maureen Dowd to apologize for copying from her column yet? How about the book review of Carter’s book by Wesley L. Janssen? And, did you send your regrets to the folks who did the website at the Academy of Achievement? Did you apologize to them? No?

Now, I said before, there was MORE that you lifted from others and posted on this thread.

Here, macasey, read this sentence:

"Ask yourself: If the nation was really under threat of an imminent attack, would U.S. officials be concerned with developing a marketing plan for getting people behind the war effort?"

It was written by Jacob G. Hornberger and posted on the website of the Future of Freedom Foundation, in a piece that was published on October 23, 2006.

Now, you should read this following sentence:

"Ask yourself: If the nation was really under threat of an imminent attack, would U.S. officials be concerned with developing a marketing plan for getting people behind the war effort?"

You posted that sentence here, in a comment above in response to CookieCutter.

Sound familiar? It should! The two are absolutely identical. Either you recently changed your name from "Jacob G. Hornberger" to "Marie Casey," or you copied and pasted it in this thread, and pretended you wrote it.

By the way, that comment even prompted Delilah, who posted this "story" to write a comment thereafter and say to you:

"Macasey, You are absolutely right and a very welcome voice of reason to this comment thread."

Looks like she should have written that compliment to Jacob, but you posted it as your own, and thereby stole the credit.

What does that make you feel like?

More material from the sentences in that post are very similar to sentences written by him and by others, but I won't waste your time with the details -- YOU KNOW where you lifted them from!

So, as I asked you once before, do you have ANY original thoughts? Do you have any original ways of expressing your thoughts?

And, Delilah, are you going to take back the compliment, and send substituted notes over to Jacob, Maureen, Wesley, and the Academy of Achievement?

Or, are you going to continue to engage in the lie that it is okay to steal others' work and present it, as long as the person doing it is supporting YOUR argument?