Hmmm...Let's see. A former president, Nobel Peace Prize winner, and global diplomat of much renown---even if you disagree with President Carter his opinion does carry weight. Why are you guys so touchy about people who disagree with you??? Perhaps Carter is wrong but why the incessant need to impugn folks who have a different opinion?
I could care less about President Carter's Nobel Peace Prize, and I don't know what "global diplomat of much renown" means. His opinion does carry weight as a former president, which is why it was linked here. If we are talking about people who are touchy, I nominate the anonymous commenter who overreacted to a link with no commentary besides "If anyone cares."
Now comes the part where you can overreact: President Carter's comments are furhter proof of why he is one of the worst ex-presidents we have ever had. It is precisely because his opinoin matters that he should not be bring Michael Moore to the Democratic National Convention and giving our enemies in Iraq hope that they can convince the American people that the war is not the right thing to do. I wholeheartedly impugn such blind foolishness from someone who should know better.
I think this is called "reaction", not "overreaction". The anonymous poster is not off-base in catching the tone of a posting title that implies that not only does no one care, but that they really shouldn't. To deny that this is commentary and to attack people who correctly point out its implicit comment is childish, like lobbing a baseball at someone's head and then pretending you were looking the other way, protesting, "But I wasn't aiming at anything."
Just because you post things on your site does not mean you endorse them, obviously, but if you're going to be snarky about the other side's positions, expect the other side to point that out, and the other side is perfectly within its rights to object.
Pardon me Maple Sugar? Read my comment again before you start name calling and using silly analogies.
I did not deny that Stephen made commentary. I said that the commentary was not worth the reaction--i.e. calling us "touchy" and saying we have an "incessant need to impugn"--hence "overreacted."
Funny thing, really, ours is a site that is primarily conservative, but only two of our five members are actually Republicans. We link to articles all over the web and from sources all over the political spectrum--including the Nation, New Republic, New York Times, etc.--something that does not happen at many websites. We have lauded the various efforts of people such as Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Joseph Lieberman, and Tony Blair. Yet when someone gets themselves all in a twist because one of our members implies, in a snarky way, that President Carter should not be listened to when he says stupid things, all of a sudden we are the unbending ideologues. Ha!
There is a reason that one side (not the one Canadians so adore) is doing better in American national politics right now, and the overeactions to this post are a pretty good indication why.
Perhaps they're confused about the purpose of linking to someone you think shouldn't be listened to, unless it's simply to have the opportunity to be snarky about it.
Not to mention being snarky towards the people who try to hold discussions on your site. But hey, it's your sandbox; I'm willing to play by your rules.
Since it was my tagline, I should explain myself. What I meant was, "Here is Carter being Carter again, if anyone cares." It is a notable comment because of who Carter is (and was) but I am a bit Steven Hayward fan, if you know what I mean.
I guess he's going for worst president AND ex-president of the century. These comments from a man who blamed the American people for his administration's problems and whose solution to the energy crisis was more sweaters and lower thermostats. Not surprisingly, the hostages were released THE DAY of Reagan's inauguration. Good advice for future international affairs majors: study every Carter move from 1977 to 1981 and do the EXACT OPPOSITE.
Yeah, conservation. What a dumb idea. Carter should have responded to the energy crisis by demanding to suck out three years worth of oil from Alaska. As for blaming the country for his administration’s problems, why not just do what Mr. Bush has done so well? Blame the media.
1. Conservation has its limitations. 2. Third-rate potentates making the American economy suffer because of shortages; another good idea. 3. As far as I know, that oil is still sitting there under an ice sheet, not being utilized. 4. Provide a quote of a Bush administration official blaming the media for any problems...I'm waiting. 5. We could be discussing dangling participles and liberals would somehow work a Bush bash into it. The discussion was about the Carter administration's failings. If you can't defend him, don't attack another administration.
Almost forgot. Steven Hayward is a historian who thinks Carter is just about America's worst President and worst ex-President. I don't know if I agree with all of Hayward's conclusions about Carter, but he knows more about the Carter administration than anyone reading this message board.
13 comments:
Hmmm...Let's see. A former president, Nobel Peace Prize winner, and global diplomat of much renown---even if you disagree with President Carter his opinion does carry weight. Why are you guys so touchy about people who disagree with you??? Perhaps Carter is wrong but why the incessant need to impugn folks who have a different opinion?
I could care less about President Carter's Nobel Peace Prize, and I don't know what "global diplomat of much renown" means. His opinion does carry weight as a former president, which is why it was linked here. If we are talking about people who are touchy, I nominate the anonymous commenter who overreacted to a link with no commentary besides "If anyone cares."
Now comes the part where you can overreact: President Carter's comments are furhter proof of why he is one of the worst ex-presidents we have ever had. It is precisely because his opinoin matters that he should not be bring Michael Moore to the Democratic National Convention and giving our enemies in Iraq hope that they can convince the American people that the war is not the right thing to do. I wholeheartedly impugn such blind foolishness from someone who should know better.
I think this is called "reaction", not "overreaction". The anonymous poster is not off-base in catching the tone of a posting title that implies that not only does no one care, but that they really shouldn't. To deny that this is commentary and to attack people who correctly point out its implicit comment is childish, like lobbing a baseball at someone's head and then pretending you were looking the other way, protesting, "But I wasn't aiming at anything."
Just because you post things on your site does not mean you endorse them, obviously, but if you're going to be snarky about the other side's positions, expect the other side to point that out, and the other side is perfectly within its rights to object.
Pardon me Maple Sugar? Read my comment again before you start name calling and using silly analogies.
I did not deny that Stephen made commentary. I said that the commentary was not worth the reaction--i.e. calling us "touchy" and saying we have an "incessant need to impugn"--hence "overreacted."
Funny thing, really, ours is a site that is primarily conservative, but only two of our five members are actually Republicans. We link to articles all over the web and from sources all over the political spectrum--including the Nation, New Republic, New York Times, etc.--something that does not happen at many websites. We have lauded the various efforts of people such as Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Joseph Lieberman, and Tony Blair. Yet when someone gets themselves all in a twist because one of our members implies, in a snarky way, that President Carter should not be listened to when he says stupid things, all of a sudden we are the unbending ideologues. Ha!
There is a reason that one side (not the one Canadians so adore) is doing better in American national politics right now, and the overeactions to this post are a pretty good indication why.
Perhaps they're confused about the purpose of linking to someone you think shouldn't be listened to, unless it's simply to have the opportunity to be snarky about it.
Not to mention being snarky towards the people who try to hold discussions on your site. But hey, it's your sandbox; I'm willing to play by your rules.
Since it was my tagline, I should explain myself. What I meant was, "Here is Carter being Carter again, if anyone cares." It is a notable comment because of who Carter is (and was) but I am a bit Steven Hayward fan, if you know what I mean.
I am a bit Steven Hayward fan, if you know what I mean.
Nope. But I'm willing to be educated. :)
I guess he's going for worst president AND ex-president of the century. These comments from a man who blamed the American people for his administration's problems and whose solution to the energy crisis was more sweaters and lower thermostats. Not surprisingly, the hostages were released THE DAY of Reagan's inauguration. Good advice for future international affairs majors: study every Carter move from 1977 to 1981 and do the EXACT OPPOSITE.
Yeah, conservation. What a dumb idea. Carter should have responded to the energy crisis by demanding to suck out three years worth of oil from Alaska. As for blaming the country for his administration’s problems, why not just do what Mr. Bush has done so well? Blame the media.
1. Conservation has its limitations.
2. Third-rate potentates making the American economy suffer because of shortages; another good idea.
3. As far as I know, that oil is still sitting there under an ice sheet, not being utilized.
4. Provide a quote of a Bush administration official blaming the media for any problems...I'm waiting.
5. We could be discussing dangling participles and liberals would somehow work a Bush bash into it. The discussion was about the Carter administration's failings. If you can't defend him, don't attack another administration.
Could you anonymous guys get some fake names or something so that we can keep you straight?
Almost forgot. Steven Hayward is a historian who thinks Carter is just about America's worst President and worst ex-President. I don't know if I agree with all of Hayward's conclusions about Carter, but he knows more about the Carter administration than anyone reading this message board.
Thanks, Stephen. I'd be interested in reading a summary of Hayward's arguments, if you have a link.
Post a Comment