Cynical Nation

"After reading how he's portrayed in the media, I guess I had a mental image of some toothless, goat-raping redneck. Anyone else ever heard/seen him in action?" (Barry)



Small wonder when more than 80% of our adle brained "media elites" support open borders, or at least no real change to our current immigration policies (open borders).

They are clearly on the wrong side of the issue, as over 70% of Americans want stricter controls on immigration.

No one else makes as much sense as Tancredo on the immigration issue.

I had a similar reaction to hearing Rick Santorum interviewed on Don Imus' show just prior to the election.

I didn't realize that Imus actually supported and personally liked Santorum, noting before the interview Santorum's standing up for better care for wounded GIs and for funding dealing with autism (a pet program of Imus').

At any rate, Santorum made a very credible case for opposing gay marriage and gay adoption quoting easily checked documentation of a decline in the number of marriages in europe after gay marriage was put on an equal footing with traditional marriage and a corresponding rise in illigitimacy.

I accept myself as an ideological Conservative, so when I hear people in the media bashing Conservatives (yes, even when they occasionally have a point), my primary reaction is that "they're not my kind" (the media folks), they are the "ideological opposition.

I am not open to that ideology.

I don't want to hear even the good points that some Liberals make...OK, I do want to hear them, but I come into that with an acepted (on my part) and undeniable ideological bias and seek to listen ONLY to find flaws in their overall argument.

Hey! That's what about 90% of those in the media do every day - they look at Conservative views from a decidedly oppositional POV that comes from an accepted (by them) and undeniable ideological bias on their parts.

That's 2 Jimmy Carter-oriented postings in a matter of weeks, Barry! I think you secretly like him! BTW, did you happen to catch the C-SPAN broadcast last weekend of the 30th anniversary symposium of Carter's inauguration (aka severe revisionist history)?

I missed it, I'm sorry to say.

I am tired of the attaks on Carter. As I posted previously here , I disagree with many things in his book, but I dont think the book is that bad. It is amazing that many people go around calling Carter "antisemetic" without ver having read his book.

Jimmy Carter is a good man and he wants peace. He was always a friend of Israel and continues to be so. Implying that he is anti-Israel and/or antisemetic is is beyond ridiculous. He is the one and only US president that was able to broker a peace between Israel and Arab country (Egypt).

> Implying that he is anti-Israel and/or antisemetic is is beyond ridiculous.

I'm not getting into the question of anti-Semitism, but there's nothing ridiculous about suggesting Carter is anti-Israel. Indeed, it's hard to imagine how Carter could have made his book have more biased against Israel if he had tried.

You keep citing the peace deal that Carter brokered as somehow dispositive, but if you read the book you see that Carter hated Begin throughout the process, and even blamed Begin for his loss to Ronald Reagan in 1980. Now that is "beyond ridiculous."

"but there's nothing ridiculous about suggesting Carter is anti-Israel. Indeed, it's hard to imagine how Carter could have made his book have more biased against Israel if he had tried.

As I wrote before, I disagree with Carter on this issue. But he is by no means "anti-Israel". There is no question that he is beeing overly (and unfairly) critical to the Israelis in many parts of his book. But I did not get at any point a hint of antisemitism in his book. He makes clear repeatedly that he cares about the security of Israel and peace in the region. He may be wrong on many issues but he is not antisemitic or anti-Israel.

What irritates me is that there are many right-wingers who came out attacking Carter as anti-semitic, when no one serious who read the book said that. Even Dershowitz who has been the most open critic of Carter's book made clear that there is nothing in the book that he found to be antisemitic.

In summary, I believe that Carter is wrong on the issue, but he is not anti-Israel or antisemitic. His motives are not malicious. He only cares about peace in the region. Unfortunately, in his efforts to be "objective", he went the wrong way.

I don't know who came up with the title (I've read that authors don't always have control of that, but I can't imagine that's the case for non-fiction and certainly not in Carter's), but putting Apartheid in the title? Probably not such a good idea. I can only imagine that no one thought it would spark the outrage it did. But really, what were they thinking?

Seen him in action? I have a video of him raping a goat. The lighting is awful but you can tell it's him. Keeps yelling, "Goddamn Mexican goat!" He follows it up with a stint in the hottub with Paris Hilton, but even HIS standards aren't low enough to screw her.

man, that was truly a weak-ass apology, and a stupid quote in his book. He really needs to get a f@#%in' clue. That kind of error isn't a mistake, it is a major malfunction.

"That kind of error isn't a mistake, it is a major malfunction.

At least Carter apologized for his error. He is a man with honor and integrity. In contrast to some other ones, who still insist they are right and continue a war for no reason and no cause. And I am sure you guessed who am I talking about.

http://www.teamtancredo.org/petition.php