Wow! 100 years old! That might be his best accomplishment!
As is often the case when a president or long serving politician passes, praise is heaped upon them as if there was nothing significant to criticize. Case in point, Dan Trabue's elementary school worship of the guy (http://throughthesewoods.blogspot.com/2024/12/jimmy-carter-best-man-to-ever-be.html). It's really sickening. But then, Dan's a moron and not honorable enough to give an objective analysis and assessment of the guy. "Best man to ever be president"? Hardly. Part of being the "best" is being effective and doing more good than ill. That's wasn't Jimma.
I offer two essays which present facts overlooked by the left especially, and even by some on the right who look to the Camp David Accords as a great accomplishment. To some degree it ain't bad, but it ain't perfect either.
The first is from Peter Barry Chowka, who had many up close encounters with the guy:
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/12/jimmy_carter_his_image_vs_the_reality_i_experienced_covering_his_1976_campaign.html
The second is from the great Andrea Widburg, who claims Carter as the first dude for whom she voted for president in her life, and is happy it didn't help him win
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/12/former_president_jimmy_carter_dead_at_100.html
To put it in basic terms, Carter was a clusterf**k. He did far more harm than good, and our current troubles with islamic extremists has his peanut fingers all over them. As to those Camp David Accords, he had little to do with a process that was already in progress. The two parties, Anwar Sadat and Menachem Begin, invited him to oversee the negotiations, and Carter tried to force Israeli concessions because he was an anti-Semite. And in the end, what happened? Well, no more wars between Egypt and Israel, but the Egyptian people still hated Israel and anyone who gave them aid. Sadat was murdered for his troubles.
So, as idiots pretend Carter was something special, let's look at Dan's Carter quotations in order:
1. I don't necessarily disagree with this, but Dan does. I once submitted that a good man is a dangerous man, and Carter seems to echo that reality in this quote. But he himself wasn't a strong man and our nation was not regarded as strong during his presidency anymore than it has been during Biden's...another clusterf**k Dan praises as a "good and decent" man. Trump, for example, is accused of bluster, but he whacked a couple of truly evil dudes and our foreign adversaries are cowed by his winning the election. "Bluster" alone is worthless if not backed up by serious action. Nothing about Carter, Biden or even Obama was serious.
2. This one Dan could have said and thus it's really stupid. War is not "evil". Assholes starting a war to exert dominance is. Fighting wars against those assholes is not. Civilians die and get hurt in wars and unfortunately, except for Carter's and Dan's pals...the so-called "palestinians"...most nations don't target children.
3. The problem with this quote is the failure to acknowledge those who founded the nation by respecting human rights, particularly those in the Bill of Rights. Like all moronic lefties, Carter perverted that notion, as we saw by his dedication to islamic thugs.
4. This is a problem, because we're supposed to be that melting pot we seemingly no longer are. The concept recognizes the assimilation by people from anywhere to the American experiment and its principles. What Carter is saying subordinates that to "diversity", which has no tangible benefits to our nation, unless it's diversity of thoughts and ideas, which can be discussed, debated and, if necessary, rejected as the crap they may be.
5. Failure is just failure if it doesn't lead to improvement and efficiency. I really don't know what he's trying to say here. It's not "better" to fail while striving for anything if the result is simply more failure because nothing is learned by the failures.
6. This is typical lefty marxism, wherein the onus for people to acquire decent housing is on others, not those seeking to acquire it. But I do encourage governments to stop over taxing and over regulating and over spending which results in a crappy economy wherein fewer have the capability to afford decent housing. And of course, keep in mind that home-ownership isn't for everybody.
I get leftist praise for Carter. But there is little which is truly praiseworthy on a world-wide or national scale. The guy was a dipshit who did a few good things (Habitat for Humanity, for example), but overall was a clusterf**k.
199 comments:
Carter was a typical “Christian” Leftist. In his earlier days he went with the crowd and seemed orthodox. But as society shifted, so did Carter: Pro-child murder, pro-pervert, anti-authority of scripture, etc. His defining characteristic was being worldly. Oh, and he was inept politically. Sad.
To be clear, what I am saying is that Carter was the best human... the most overtly moral, decent, gracious, kind, Godly, saintly, giving, wise Christ-like man who's ever held the office of president.
It's kind of a hard point to argue with, given his (and his wife's) lifetime poured out in graciously giving to and supporting others, beginning with the poor and marginalized.
That is, unless you consider "moral" as merely bowing down to and agreeing with conservative ideology and human traditions.
Dan
Marshal...
"Part of being the "best" is being effective and doing more good than ill. "
Jimmy Carter personally helped build over 4000 homes. In his free time.
How effective have you been at building houses for the poor?
That ONE statistic by itself shows how good a man Carter was and how effective he was.
Not to mention the thousands he inspired by his words and actions to help house the poor.
Why are you such a bitter and graceless, hateful man...? Why are you such an anti-JC?
Dan
Neil,
You're spot on . His was a facade. It was marketing. That's not to say he didn't do a few good things. But as with most lefties like Dan, it's the overt acts of goodness on which he is judged by lefties, and not the whole of his life and the consequences of his actions, which were disastrous. His policies and proposals were not all that moral. The Camp David Accords, which he merely played host to the two people actively hashing out the details, was something he appropriated as his work. But as so many articles describe, he came really close to blowing the whole thing up in his demand for pallie statehood. The result, while ending wars between Israel and Egypt, was a cold war between the Jew hating Egyptian population and Israel. It's what led to Sadat's murder.
His interference with Iran and the Shah brought us the ubiquitous islamic terrorism.
Dumbasses like Dan cling to the superficial in order to come to the conclusions about the man to which he came.
I do indeed "bow down", in a sense, to conservative ideology...which is far superior and thus far more beneficial for more people than any feel good fantasy of a Dan Trabue marxist. Thinking people dig deeper to gauge the true merit and cut of the jib of political leaders. But then, Dan's a political and theological moron, so...
And I also "bow down" to the Will of God as commonly understood by honest advocates of the Christian faith. Why it would be regarded as a negative in any way to "bow down" to truth and what works best is curious, to say the least. But again, Dan's a moron.
Until Obama and Biden came along, Carter was our worst President ever. Just a couple things off the top of my head:
1. He killed the B-1 Bomber, leaving the Air Force with a plane that was very old and obsolete--the B-52. At least the USAF was able to update the B-52 with more power and modern avionics and such, but Reagan put the B-1 into production and that plane has served very well.
2. He gave the teachers' unions a gift of the Department of Eduction, a department that has done a whole lot of harm to our education system and is still causing much harm. It's a cabinet office which was never needed and has cost taxpayers trillions of dollars wasted.
Although he hated the military, at least he wasn't as bad as Obama/Biden, who have virtually destroyed it.
Another good summary of the faux “good man” bit — https://x.com/CynicalPublius/status/1873793972193144953
Also, happy new year!
Again, Dan. You pretend that doing good deeds makes one good, yet you again do so without regard for the harm this man and his policies caused. Neither of us know the extent of his efforts in "helping" to build any homes. I'm not dismissing whatever efforts he exerted. But unlike you, I don't judge people by only the good things they do, especially when so much harm resulted from other things they do. Building homes doesn't mitigate his anti-Semitism. Looking at a person's life objectively doesn't make me "a bitter and graceless, hateful man". It makes me honest in assessing that life.
In the meantime, you'll focus only on that which you find objectionable about Trump and conversely ignoring all the good he has done, both privately and politically. That's because you're a liar and truly anti-JC.
But let's say Carter was the wonderful saint you tell yourself he was. What good is that when in a position of power and nothing done was truly beneficial? A "moral" person in power who is stupid is not worthy of the praise you heap upon him.
Here's another link-filled article about the idiot you praise:
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/12/jimmy_carters_lifelong_pursuit_of_a_palestinian_state.html
Only a Jeff St moron would regard this guy as a moral stalwart. His actions were disastrous and we're still feeling the effects today.
Here's yet another:
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2006/11/the_world_according_to_jimmy_c.html
This article indicates either a liar or an incredibly stupid person. The consequences of his actions overwhelms the building of homes, for which he gave one week per year. This is significant info, as there's no way he was involved with the building of 4K+ homes with only one week per year set aside for the purpose. One week per year...if we assume he began his contribution at age 25, the best one can say is that he "helped" build or renovate 75 homes. How many of those homes were begun and completed within that one week's time? That's not to dismiss the charitable contribution of time and effort put in by the Carters. But to purposely inflate his contribution to having "helped" (I put the word in parentheses because it's an undefined term) build or renovate over 4,000 homes is deceitful. However, it's just the kind of self-marketing some insist was common to Carter. And it's certainly the kind of hero worship those like a Dan Trabue perpetuate in order to pretend he was better a man than he was, just as Dan does all he can to demonize Trump as a far worse man that he might be.
More good contributions on the topic of St. Jimmah by both Glenn and Neil. I have more as well:
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/12/ask_the_venezuelans_how_great_an_ex_president_jimmy_carter_was.html
Be sure to click on and read the Lewis Amselem link within the link above. Much like Neil's offering, it provides insight into the man's truer character not exposed by worshiping lefties and hoodwinked right-wingers.
When one considers that, aside from our own US of A, Carter was a direct cause of great human suffering in Iran, Venezuela and Israel (not to mention the falsely self-identified "palestinians"). He was basically a horror show and even if he personally built 4K+ homes for the poor all by his lonesome, that hardly mitigates the great damage he caused since his failed presidency.
Again..."Best man" to be president? Only a lying, moronic Louisville fake Christian could say so. Give Biden's dementia, I'd say Carter retains the crown of worst president in my lifetime.
Here's an excellent article demonstrating what a disaster Jimmy Carter was as President. And my flag will not be flown at half staff for a President who was traitorous in many of his politics.
https://www.e-polis.cz/clanek/american-presidency-recalling-the-failures-of-jimmy-carter.html
Neil,
I just finished reading the article you linked to. AWESOME!! Just more evidence of how horrid Carter was as a President, let alone as a so-called Christian.
Sadly, you and yours appear to have a broken moral compass. YES, those who daily/regularly/yearly do good for others ARE good people. By definition. Just because you disagree with their policies on some topics does not make them immoral by virtue of disagreeing with your personal policy preferences. Just as you disagreeing with my (or Carter's) policy choices makes you an immoral person. You see, the great thing about Carter and people like him, we believe in Grace and extending grace, even to those with whom we have political differences.
Jimmy Carter, Sunday School teacher, peace broker, healthcare promoter, home builder, faithful parent and spouse, public servant, all-around good guy IS a saintly, moral man.
I'd advise you to look at what Jesus and others in the Bible have to say... BY THEIR ACTIONS, we can know if someone is a good follower of Jesus or not. The Carters are modern day heroes of morality and decency, by definition, by observation.
Daring to disagree with the Pharisees or with modern conservative religious types does not make one a bad person.
Joking about sexual assault and actually assaulting/molesting women and children... THAT makes one a bad person. Using one's life to merely accumulate more and more and more, boasting about that wealth, using that wealth to avoid paying contractors and workers... THESE are the fruits that tell us a person is a bad person.
Your collective partisanship has broken your moral compass.
If not for the truth, one would think people like you would at least choose to be quiet at the death of a saintly man. To see modern conservatives grovel at the feet and defend the "honor" of your pervert king while attacking an overtly good, decent, Godly man... You'd think you all would at least recognize how deviant and perverted you all are presenting yourselves as and choose to be silent and thought a fool rather than opening up your mouths and proving it.
But you all just don't see it, do you? You are insipidly incapable of recognizing, on the face of it, that this Sunday School teaching, lifelong Christian, loving and faithful parent and husband... one who's dedicated his life to public service and especially working for peace and against poverty... you all are just incapable of seeing how very on-the-face-of-it GOOD the Carters were and how the majority of the nation and world recognizes that, while also not seeing how very overtly evil, corrupt and grossly immoral your serial cheater rich man president is?
You all read the many warnings about the rich oppressors found in the Bible - words that appear to be written directly and exactly about wealthy deviants like Trump - and you just don't see how very unGodly and evil he is on the face of it.
It boggles the mind.
I mean, it's one thing to disagree with his job as president. I don't think it's nearly as bad as many people think... but it can be debated how effective he was as president. But to actually suggest he was not an overtly good, saintly person, that's just mind-boggling.
December 31, 2024 at 3:43 PM
Dan continues with his ongoing devotional to perversion, depravity and incomplete assessments of deeds in order to portray like minded assholes as good people, while focusing on every little sinful thing by his opponents to render them as evil.
"Sadly, you and yours appear to have a broken moral compass."
My moral compass points North towards God and His Will in all things, even while I fail to be perfect. You, Dan, outright embrace that which is clearly evil believing some good deeds will be enough to hide that evil from honest people.
"YES, those who daily/regularly/yearly do good for others ARE good people. By definition."
No, they're not. They're simply people who strive to daily/regularly/yearly do good for others.
"Just because you disagree with their policies on some topics does not make them immoral by virtue of disagreeing with your personal policy preferences."
When those policies and opinions result in great harm to others and/or are clearly and unmistakably contrary to the Will of God, that makes them immoral. This is true of you and Carter, and Biden, and Obama, etc.
"Just as you disagreeing with my (or Carter's) policy choices makes you an immoral person."
It might if my positions were or could be shown to be harmful or contrary to the Will of God. Yet, lefties...you especially...are notorious for refusing to accurately state our positions and the true consequences of them. You make shit up.
"You see, the great thing about Carter and people like him, we believe in Grace and extending grace, even to those with whom we have political differences."
No, Dan. Here's how it works. If the most heinous human being alive is wrongly accused of something he didn't do, grace means defending him against the wrongful accusation. But when those like you advocate for policies like murdering one's child in utero (Carter, like the typical lefty coward, pretended he personally opposed abortion, but defended laws allowing for such heinous infanticide), sexual perversion of the LGB(and now)TQ deviants, anti-Semitism on a degree which has resulted in on going terrorist activity since the fall of the Shah of Iran and a host of other acts of evil, we're not longer talking about mere political differences. We're talking about the consequences of your policies so plain to see yet still perpetuated and supported by your kind. That sort of crap gets no grace from me. You're evil and need to stop it.
"Jimmy Carter, Sunday School teacher, peace broker, healthcare promoter, home builder, faithful parent and spouse, public servant, all-around good guy IS a saintly, moral man."
Saintly people don't defend laws allowing the unnecessary murder of children in utero, they aren't virulently anti-Semitic, don't defend LGBTQ perversions, don't interfere in elections in places like Venezuela, which allowed a thug to attain power and destroy the nation while pretending the election was legit. That's just a short list.
"I'd advise you to look at what Jesus and others in the Bible have to say... BY THEIR ACTIONS, we can know if someone is a good follower of Jesus or not. The Carters are modern day heroes of morality and decency, by definition, by observation."
There's tons of foul, rotted, maggot infested fruit on that tree, and you want to pretend it's in good shape regardless. That's not grace. That's crapping on the Will of God...which is how you roll.
"Daring to disagree with the Pharisees or with modern conservative religious types does not make one a bad person."
More Dan bad fruit...pretending a comparison between conservatives (about whom he has no understanding) and Pharisees is appropriate.
"Joking about sexual assault and actually assaulting/molesting women and children... THAT makes one a bad person."
Lying about a man sexually assaulting and actually assaulting/molesting women and children proves your evil.
"Using one's life to merely accumulate more and more and more, boasting about that wealth, using that wealth to avoid paying contractors and workers... THESE are the fruits that tell us a person is a bad person."
More TDS crap. The amount of one's wealth does not oblige one to pay for bad work or broken contracts. But you, being a hater of the worst kind, and one who opposes God by playing favorites against the wealthy, choose to believe without actual unassailable, incontrovertible evidence that Trump simply tried to stiff everyone. That's how Dan embraces grace. That's how Dan extends grace to those he hates so vociferously.
"Your collective partisanship has broken your moral compass."
It's not about partisanship. It's about not overstating someone's character beyond reality...something you do in both directions depending upon your own partisanship.
December 31, 2024 at 5:18 PM
"If not for the truth, one would think people like you would at least choose to be quiet at the death of a saintly man."
The truth is that he wasn't "saintly". I feel no reason to remain quiet in the face of morons praising a guy who wasn't nearly as saintly as they want to pretend he was. You should at least have had the grace to be glad I didn't spoil your drool-fest at your Blog of Lies.
"To see modern conservatives grovel at the feet and defend the "honor" of your pervert king while attacking an overtly good, decent, Godly man... "
No conservative grovels at Trump's feet. Perverts like you grovel at a gravely flawed man and dare refer to him as "saintly" despite his many egregious policies which led to actual death and other harm. I mean, shit...you refer to yourself as a Christian and that's clearly not true, so your referencing this moron as saintly is pretty rich.
" You'd think you all would at least recognize how deviant and perverted you all are presenting yourselves as and choose to be silent and thought a fool rather than opening up your mouths and proving it."
Oh look at that! A fool daring to accuse me of being a fool! How ever will I sleep tonight? Given everything I've said about the guy is factual, easy to find when you pull your head out of his virtual ass and far more accurate a description of the guy about whom you clearly know no more than what his self-serving marketing revealed, I'm not at all concerned what a vile perv like you believes about me. You've been given over to your corruption long ago.
"You are insipidly incapable of recognizing, on the face of it, that this Sunday School teaching, lifelong Christian, loving and faithful parent and husband... one who's dedicated his life to public service and especially working for peace and against poverty..."
Lots of people, yourself included, profess to be Christians...even teaching it to unassuming kids, while being wholly in rebellion against the Will of God. You really think you're shaming me by running this crap after all the info I, along with Neil and Glenn, provided to reveal the true nature of this guy? You're far worse than a mere fool! How did he work for peace and prosperity? I presented his abortion level foreign policy which has led to anything BUT peace in the Middle East ever since. This buffoon tried to pretend it was HE who brought Egypt and Israel together when it was they who allowed him to join in the effort. And what policies of his while president or after, have led to widespread prosperity and the elevation of the poor out of poverty? I'll wait while you ignore yet another relevant question.
"you all are just incapable of seeing how very on-the-face-of-it GOOD the Carters were and how the majority of the nation and world recognizes that, while also not seeing how very overtly evil, corrupt and grossly immoral your serial cheater rich man president is?"
This is more unGodly Trump-hating bullshit. We can easily see the superficial nature of his goodness. That was his purpose, to posture as better than he is for his own aggrandizement. If I was the only one who failed to worship at his feet, I would be the only one with an accurate understanding of the guy about whom yours is infantile.
Moreover, you can't there's nothing about Trump which is deserving of the vile, Christ-hating hatred you heap upon him, particularly when he actually DID lift many out of poverty by his economy expanding policies, when he helped to broker accords between Israel and other arab neighbors, and protected the lives of Americans by his righteous and logical border policies. Pro-abortion and pro-homosexual policies alone make one overtly and indisputably morally corrupt. So does Carter's and your anti-Semitism and defense of Jew-hating islamists in Gaza.
"You all read the many warnings about the rich oppressors found in the Bible - words that appear to be written directly and exactly about wealthy deviants like Trump - and you just don't see how very unGodly and evil he is on the face of it."
No one is more oppressive than baby-killers like you. I see clearly how unGodly and evil YOU are. Repent while you still have time.
"It boggles the mind."
You need a mind before you can say yours is boggled.
"I mean, it's one thing to disagree with his job as president. I don't think it's nearly as bad as many people think..."
That's because you're completely stupid or would agree with his disastrous and extremely deadly policies. You evil people stick together.
"but it can be debated how effective he was as president."
Not hardly. I must say, however, that because of him we can make our own beer in our own homes. I consider that one of the few plusses on the plus side of his political ledger.
"But to actually suggest he was not an overtly good, saintly person, that's just mind-boggling."
Only to liars and the stupid who are too lazy to do any research about the guy.
In any case here, what we're seeing is a liar again ignoring what he doesn't want to believe in order to praise a far less than saintly man, as you do with MLK JR. You do just the opposite with Trump. It's false, inaccurate and not proper for an alleged adult to judge people on such incomplete (mostly purposely) info. But then...you're a well known liar.
Dan, who truly doesn't know shit from Shinola, and even less about Jimmy Carter, believes himself more Christian despite revering a poor example of one as if "saintly". Of course, Dan's no Christian, so it's understandable he'd have difficulty identifying one. I mean, imagine judging a good tree by the few good branches or leaves while ignoring the rot which infests it. That's Dan in a nutshell.
I present two examples of two very different men. One Dan thinks of as one of Christ's twelve, and another Dan needs to believe is the devil incarnate. Each of these two relate that which I've seen in numerous articles about each dude, but Dan ignores anything which conflicts or contradicts his false narratives and heresies. Yes...Dan's heresies aren't limited to religion:
https://www.newsmax.com/newsmax-tv/ronald-kessler-jimmy-carter-joe-biden/2024/12/30/id/1193408/
vs
https://clashdaily.com/2024/10/epic-gorkas-story-about-trump-green-berets-nukes-democrat-lies-from-orbit/
Dan will find ways to insist these are both partisan pieces, but as I said, these types of stories about the true character of each man are many indeed.
Trump's not a poser like Dan's favored lying Democrats are. Warts and all, what you see is what you get and what you see is visible because he doesn't play bullshit games so necessary of most Dems and many RINOs to appeal for support. He's a regular guy despite his wealth and celebrity, which only adds to his appeal. No one dismisses his flaws or suggests they don't matter. Honest people simply put things in perspective and when the general welfare is at stake, no honest person pretends the insignificant matters, even when what is insignificant is personally troubling...as so much was with me the first time around.
The description of Carter's true character harkens to similar critiques about Hillary Clinton by SS staff. He basically...like Hillary...thinks his peanut infused shit doesn't stink.
Dan can pretend Jesus just passed away if he wants to. He's just that stupid, that partisan and that much a liar. Better people know better.
Another article about Carter and how this great "Christian" hated Israel and Jews.
https://gellerreport.com/2024/12/jimmy-carter-a-moral-atrocity.html/?lctg=40029338
Another excellent examination of how horrid were Carter's beliefs and policies.
https://notthebee.com/article/scott-jennings-did-not-hold-back-in-telling-cnn-viewers-what-he-thought-about-jimmy-carter
Glenn,
Thanks for the contributions. It's amazing how there are so many from those who have a far closer relationship or association with this guy who seems to me to be a far greater scumbag than I thought he could be. I can't say that my basic position was more or a view of Carter as a very stupid, but good man. He was certainly the former, but evidently not so much the latter, just because he ladled out some soup for poor folk now and then.
Here's something else I've come to take as certainty: the end of the Not The Bee piece suggests Biden is vying for the title as the worst president ever. I leaned toward him being so since he was wrongly put in the White House. But the more I read about what Carter was, together with what we're hearing about how early on (before the 2020 election), Dems knew Biden was senile, I have to insist Carter is still the worst ever. He wasn't senile, so he has no excuse.
These articles put me in mind of the many negative traits applied to Trump by his hateful detractors, like Dan. Carter seem far more the nepotist than Trump ever has demonstrated himself to be. The greater difference is that Trump has done more good for our nation than Carter, who actually next to nothing to make our lives better.
And as I stated in not so many words earlier, the left...especially Dan...inflates the "good deeds" of Carter while completely ignoring the incredible amount of harm Carter has done both here and around the world. My offerings document much of it. He was an arrogant piece of shit who did nothing to justify his high self-regard. Trump at least gets things done which benefit us all.
Carter set the stage for the incompetence of the Obama years. That makes him worse than Obama himself, though I don't doubt Obama would have vied for the title with or without any input from Carter. And while Biden had fifty years of incompetence in American politics, he was always a moron, while these two stains on America...Carter and Obama...are regarded as brilliant people. Also a clear falsehood.
But of course, it is natural for a liar like Dan to pretend Carter is a saint. He ignores his greater list of misdeeds to focus on the few good things he had done...a scant few. It's how Dan rolls. It's how all liars roll.
Jimmy Carter did NOT personally help build over 4000 houses in his lifetime. That would seem to mean that he physically worked on 100 houses per year of his post presidential life. As someone who has some direct experience with this, I can say that it is almost completely impossible. Carter's role with Habitat for Humanity is one of the most misunderstood pieces of information about Habitat. I say this as someone who has personally helped build over 350 houses in just over 10 years for Habitat. So, I'd say that I've been reasonably effective by the Carter standard and likely more effective that you. Carter was a figurehead who raised awareness and did build some houses for Habitat, which is not a bad thing, but I've personally worked with individuals who've done and much or more that Carter, yet will largely go unrecognized. Carter's effectiveness was limited to lending his name to an already worthy cause. To be specific, the yearly Jimmy and Rosalyn Carter work project, is only effective because of the massive amount of work done by others so that Jimmy and Rosalyn could (especially in recent years) show up to pound a few nails and pose for pictures.
To be clear, I'm not criticizing him for his involvement, just pointing out that his involvement was more about PR and fundraising than anything else.
OH SHIT!
Craig! I think I accidentally deleted your excellent comment regarding the self-promoting nature of Carter's involvement with H4H! Your personal work for H4H gives you far credibility than anyone else here, especially low bar Dan. Please re-write it and I'll be more careful.
I think it published as a response to Dan's comment.
Habitat for Humanity is getting harder and harder to support as an organization, at least our local chapter. They've intentionally moved away from seeing the organization as a ministry and moved towards being a non profit. As this has happened, they've pushed faith organizations aside and focused on corporations and government funding. This has led to not only stopping the gift of a Bible at the dedication, but a wholesale dive into every left wing fad and spending large sums of the budget on lobbing and not on housing. Their idea of "affordable" housing as $500,000 houses, with roughly half of that figure being a forgivable loan. If $500k is now "affordable" things are in pretty bad shape.
But yes, Catrer's involvement was much more about photo ops and PR, than actually building houses. Not denigrating that in the least, it was beneficial. But to pretend like Carter was that responsible for 4000 houses is absurd.
I think it published as a response to Dan's comment.
Habitat for Humanity is getting harder and harder to support as an organization, at least our local chapter. They've intentionally moved away from seeing the organization as a ministry and moved towards being a non profit. As this has happened, they've pushed faith organizations aside and focused on corporations and government funding. This has led to not only stopping the gift of a Bible at the dedication, but a wholesale dive into every left wing fad and spending large sums of the budget on lobbing and not on housing. Their idea of "affordable" housing as $500,000 houses, with roughly half of that figure being a forgivable loan. If $500k is now "affordable" things are in pretty bad shape.
But yes, Carter's involvement was much more about photo ops and PR, than actually building houses. Not denigrating that in the least, it was beneficial. But to pretend like Carter was that responsible for 4000 houses is absurd.
Marshal:
Your personal work for H4H gives you far credibility than anyone else here, especially low bar Dan.
You should know that I was involved in Habitat many years ago. Our church founded the local chapter in Louisville. So, maybe you should not presume so much.
If you're interested in knowing more about Habitat: You should know that Millard Fuller was the founder of Habitat, and he got the idea while living at Koinonia Farm, which was founded by Clarence Jordan.
From Habitat's website:
The idea that became Habitat for Humanity first grew from the fertile soil of Koinonia Farm, a community farm outside of Americus, Georgia, founded by farmer and biblical scholar Clarence Jordan.
Jordan, in turn, attended the Southern Baptist Seminary in the 1930s and, while in the seminary, he spent time volunteering at the church that would become Jeff St Baptist - my church. He left from service in urban ministry in Louisville to head to Georgia to found an interracial farm - Koinonia Farm - in Georgia, just down the road from Jimmy Carter's home, who was a friend of the Jordans as well as with the Fullers.
If you're familiar with the Cotton Patch Gospels translation/paraphrase, those were written by Jordan, a saint well-versed in the Bible (having a PhD in Greek New Testament) and in dealing with the problems of poverty.
All of which to say that I and my church are well-connected and well-familiar with Koinonia Farm, Jimmy Carter, Millard Fuller and Habitat. So, I am glad (and frankly, not surprised) to hear that Craig has some connection with Habitat, but you should not presume what you are ignorant of, Marshal.
Well, Dan has to try to one up other people, while showing his ignorance at the same time. Unfortunately for Dan, Habitat is gradually leaving behind the Christian foundation of the organization in favor of the secular/left fads of the day. But hey, some people Dan knew did some things with one small HFH chapter decades ago, and someone else was involved in the founding of what is now Dan's church so he knows everything about HFH. I guess working for one of the largest HFH chapters in the US for over a decade is only "some connection" with HFH. Not to mention that I still have friends in our local chapter and a decent relationship with Jonathan Reckford. But I get it, Dan is in show off mode and he's determined to win.
I found it, Craig! Whew! I thought I f'd up big time!
"If you're interested in knowing more about Habitat"
No, I'm not, but you're going to bore us with useless information, anyway. This post isn't about H4H, but about what a scumbag Jimmy Carter truly was rather than the saint you unjustly choose to regard him as having been.
As I watch Dan copy/paste from various HFH websites as if he wasn't doing Google searches to come up with these bits of trivia, I have to note his obsessive attempts at establishing dominance over Art. His assertion that the only way, or at least best way, to have credibility on this topic is to do something that Dan hasn't even done, and volunteer for one organization for decades. I get it, Carter was a big name who latched on to HFH and brought publicity. Yeah, he pounded some nails for photo ops, etc. But to give him credit for personally helping to build over 4000 houses is absurd. Ignoring that HFH, Carter, and the rest significantly altered their view of "christianity" is either ignored or praised. Anyway, this attempt to establish some sort of dominance second, third, and fourth hand is bizarre. Ignoring the harm Carter caused, Iran being only one example, as if it's offset by his other works seems bizarre, but it's clear that Saint Jimmy the redneck is to be Canonized without regard to the harm he did. Just think how many would be alive and not brutally oppressed had Carter stopped the ayatollahs from taking over Iran.
It's a strange thing to watch.
I posted, then deleted one of Dan's unnecessary descriptions of the founding of H4H because the lying son-of-a-bitch chose to use it as another opportunity to connect racism of the time to conservative Christians, proving again he doesn't understand either conservatism or Christianity. Then of course there's the unjustified condescension.
My working with H4H would do nothing to change my justified opinion of Jimmy Carter, nor would it help Dan's unjustified worship of the pig.
Just noticed he made another false claim about the "nature of conservatives back then and still today", so I'm gonna delete that one, too.
Dan. This ain't your bullshit laden Blog of Lies. Don't come here and lie about better people. You will now, from this point on, be given the Dan Trabue treatment, with the exception that it will happen because you actually lied or misbehaved in a manner deserving of it. A truer Dan Trabue treatment would mean I'd delete you for expressing an opposing POV I couldn't shred. That never happens.
Craig, why did you try to turn this into some pissing contest? I was addressing Marshal's literally ignorant attack about you have presumably having more connection to Habitat than I do and I was noting that Marshal was making that assumption in ignorance, that I indeed have a long and storied background with Habitat. I said nothing negative about you or your time there. I of course, did not know how many years you had some connection there so I merely noted that you had "some experience," as well as I did. There was no judgment. Indeed, I noted that it didn't surprise me that you might have some connection with Habitat because I knew you worked some on housing issues.
You, then, had to jump in and join in Marshal's meaningless and ignorance-based attack for no reason. Why?
Craig:
But to give him credit for personally helping to build over 4000 houses is absurd.
You're right. I should have said he was personally responsible for helping tens of thousands of houses, by his role modeling helping the organization and inspiring others to help out in a similar way.
I never said that he single-handedly assembled 4,000 houses with just his hammer and a bunch of nails. Anyone who knows how Habitat works knows that. I noted that, "Jimmy Carter personally helped build over 4000 homes. In his free time."
AND HE OBJECTIVELY, FACTUALLY DID. WHY in the name of all that is holy and good and decent are you joining in to attack a man who has just died who was easily, far and away the most moral, giving, Christ-like president we've had in our lifetimes?
What is wrong with you all that you let your partisan divisiveness take you to such ugly, hateful places?
You all are exhibiting JCDS (and that could be for Jimmy Carter or that other JC).
Lord have mercy.
Art,
If you're interesting in learning more about HFH as it is today, LMK. If you're interested in the background of HFH, do what Dan does and search it on Google. At least you'll get information that's not curated to further Dan's obsession with dominance.
Marshal:
Just noticed he made another false claim about the "nature of conservatives back then and still today",
You are speaking, still, from a place of ignorance. The childhood of my 60s in Kentucky (and regular visits to Georgia to visit my church-going cousins, aunt and uncle there) was not far removed from the South of the 40s. Things were better, of course, in the 60s and 70s, but of course, the church going racists were very often quite conservative in their belief systems.
You can't be an adult man and not know this. Are you choosing ignorance?
This is, of course, slightly off topic, except for the reality that Carter is someone raised in the very ultra-conservative, ultra-religious Southern Baptist world of the South in mid-century 1900s. HE was able to overcome in large degrees the racism that was endemic to that world. Another star in his crown.
Why do you have this need to attack good people?
I mean, you object to me being harsh with Trump, but at least, there is no doubt that he is overtly, on the face of it, a bad, bad, greedy, selfish narcissistic human. But trying to kick Jimmy Carter is like trying to kick an innocent child, by comparison. And in the week of his passing, no less.
Shame on you. Be a better man.
For what it's worth, my ultra-conservative cousins from Georgia STILL honor and recognize the obvious Christ-like nature of Jimmy and Rosalyn Carter. In spite of their partisan bias against progressive people.
Marshal:
..."moral" person in power who is stupid...
"...This article indicates either a liar or an incredibly stupid person..."
..." I can't say that my basic position was more or a view of Carter as a very stupid, but good man..."
All these ignorant claims about Carter being "stupid," only reinforce your ignorance in all areas of his life and humanity. Carter had a genius IQ and was a renaissance man, as has been noted by many people. For instance:
"If ever a Renaissance man occupied the White House, it was Jimmy Carter. In addition to being a politician, an engineer, a naval officer, a businessman, a furniture maker, a mountain climber, and a runner, he wrote many books on a wide variety of subjects. He was also a poet." (and he spoke Spanish and even delivered speeches in Spanish, even if he wasn't exceedingly fluent).
https://www.britannica.com/story/5-things-you-dont-know-about-jimmy-carter
Again, you are free to your personal flawed human opinions about the man (that you clearly hold from a place of ignorance, informed not by reality but by conservative echo chambers you listen to), but you're not free to your own reality.
Carter was smarter than any of us here, more well-educated than any of us here and more fluent in more skills than any of us here. According to the data.
Dan,
I deleted your comment to Craig because you...of all people...dared to call him "deviant". Between the three of us, you are indeed truly and by definition "deviant" or "perverted". Indeed, don't disparage any of my visitors, even those like you.
Marshal...
"I deleted your comment to Craig because you...of all people...dared to call him "deviant". Between the three of us, you are indeed truly and by definition "deviant" or "perverted".
I, the Sunday School teacher, deacon, worship leader, faithful husband to one woman for 40 years, loving father, lifelong Christian, man who works with and for and alongside those with disabilities, the homeless, the immigrants, for God's creation, etc... I am a deviant... but your pervert prince is golden... (all the while being an imperfect humans being)...???
Your moral compass is deeply broken.
You ignorantly judge Carter and people like me perverse and deviant, WHILE defending the most overtly corrupt, dishonest and actually deviant passant to hold office in our lifetime. .?
There's something deeply broken with your moral reasoning.
Dan
January 2, 2025 at 2:15 PM
"You should know that I was involved in Habitat many years ago."
I don't care and had no need to know it.
"Our church founded the local chapter in Louisville."
I don't care about this value-free bit of info, either.
"So, maybe you should not presume so much.":
Says the arrogant POS who presumes much about better people as if paid to do so.
"If you're interested in knowing more about Habitat"
Again, I'm not the least bit interested.
"All of which to say that I and my church are well-connected and well-familiar with.... Jimmy Carter."
Yet you overstate his efforts, his character and his value to mankind nonetheless. But then...it's you and your church, so it's not unexpected.
"but you should not presume what you are ignorant of, Marshal."
Haven't done it yet, so I don't know what you're referencing.
January 2, 2025 at 3:58 PM
"Craig, why did you try to turn this into some pissing contest?"
Uh...that would have been you, Mary Lou. It was evident in your first comment alone. You need to be far more respectful if you expect the least amount of respect for yourself.
"I was addressing Marshal's literally ignorant attack about you have presumably having more connection to Habitat than I do and I was noting that Marshal was making that assumption in ignorance, that I indeed have a long and storied background with Habitat."
I'm not gonna say I actually said that, but I'm gonna say I'll stand behind it nonetheless, just because you're a lying POS and nothing you say is worthy of being believed without solid proof.
"You, then, had to jump in and join in Marshal's meaningless and ignorance-based attack for no reason."
What "meaningless and ignorance-based attack" are you referencing? Be specific with date and time, as is you requirement and obligation here.
"You're right. I should have said he was personally responsible for helping tens of thousands of houses, by his role modeling helping the organization and inspiring others to help out in a similar way."
Yeah...speaking truthfully is always better, but even this "correction" isn't good enough. It still gives him more credit than his name and one week per year deserve.
I was quite well enough aware of H4H long before I was aware of Carter's association with it, and indeed never automatically connected him with when I heard any reference to H4H. I know a couple of people who volunteered with them...one a former roommate of mine...and I believe they...and I'm guessing Craig, too...did not join up because of Carter's association with it. Indeed, I believe they'd all have joined up regardless.
"I never said that he single-handedly assembled 4,000 houses with just his hammer and a bunch of nails. Anyone who knows how Habitat works knows that. I noted that, "Jimmy Carter personally helped build over 4000 homes. In his free time.""
Exactly. And stating it that way suggests his personal involvement with all 4K+. This is another case of you whining about conclusions compelled by your own words. It only becomes an absurd notion when one learns he gave only one week per year.
"WHY in the name of all that is holy and good and decent are you joining in to attack a man who has just died who was easily, far and away the most moral, giving, Christ-like president we've had in our lifetimes?"
There's nothing at all "good and holy and decent" in lauding an anti-Semite who defended and supported islamic terrorism.
"What is wrong with you all that you let your partisan divisiveness take you to such ugly, hateful places?"
What a stupid question from a amoral loon. There's ugliness and hatefulness in corrupt presentations of history and a man's character, as is common with you. We're dealing in actual facts regarding the guy without ignoring positives, few as they may be.
"You all are exhibiting JCDS (and that could be for Jimmy Carter or that other JC)."
That might be true if our criticisms weren't based on historical fact, which they are. And to dare suggest that those like us are further from the teachings of Christ than you is a new degree of condescending stupidity. You abuse and corrupt His words. We abide them.
"Lord have mercy."
If you repent, He just might.
January 2, 2025 at 4:07 PM
"You are speaking, still, from a place of ignorance."
Not at all. But you're speaking from a place of abject dishonesty. Every time you try to link conservatism with racism, you prove what a liar you are and how absent any understanding in you of conservatism there is.
"the church going racists were very often quite conservative in their belief systems."
Bullshit.
"You can't be an adult man and not know this. Are you choosing ignorance?"
I know that you continue to take any opportunity to link your true character to that of conservatives. I know you continually choose lies and falsehoods.
But this has nothing to do with the post regarding your laughable deification of Jimmy Carter.
"Why do you have this need to attack good people?"
I don't. That's YOUR thing. I'm correcting your false portrayal of Carter as some angelic saint...which I've done very effectively. But as is always the case, if the subject is a Dem or any form of leftist, there's no amount of evil which can matter to your worship of the person, while if the subject leans right, there's no amount of good deeds which can mitigate your hatred and focus on character flaws and misdeeds. Case in point:
"I mean, you object to me being harsh with Trump, but at least, there is no doubt that he is overtly, on the face of it, a bad, bad, greedy, selfish narcissistic human."
There's plenty of doubt that he's anywhere near the devil incarnate you choose to believe he is while pretending to "embrace grace".
"But trying to kick Jimmy Carter is like trying to kick an innocent child, by comparison. And in the week of his passing, no less."
As if his passing and when it happened could make any difference here. But I'm not "trying to kick" Carter, but actually in fact giving a more honest report of the guy that lefties never give even if they know the facts. That's not how your kind rolls at all. He's no innocent child and my links describe clinical narcissism in the guy.
"Shame on you. Be a better man."
Kiss my ass. My tolerance of your crap on my blog contrasting with your fascistic canceling and deleting at your is alone evidence I'm a better man than you. Indeed, as perverse and morally bankrupt as you are, you're a fine one to shame anyone.
"For what it's worth, my ultra-conservative cousins from Georgia STILL honor and recognize the obvious Christ-like nature of Jimmy and Rosalyn Carter. In spite of their partisan bias against progressive people."
It's worth absolutely nothing. In fact, you owe me. I doubt your cousins are "ultra-conservative" but I hope they are. That would mean they're actual Christians and not fakes like you. But I wouldn't fault them for buying into the lie of Carter's "sainthood". Many who don't investigate for themselves believe him to be a far better man than what he was. I did as well until I started seeing all these testimonies from those with years long contact with the guy. He was a prick.
"Craig, why did you try to turn this into some pissing contest?"
I didn't. that was you after my initial comment regarding my extensive experience with HFH, and you felt like you had to take credit for something your church did at some point in the past. I'm merely pointing out your hypocrisy.
"AND HE OBJECTIVELY, FACTUALLY DID. WHY in the name of all that is holy and good and decent are you joining in to attack a man who has just died who was easily, far and away the most moral, giving, Christ-like president we've had in our lifetimes?"
I'm not attacking him or anyone. I'm simply pointing out the unlikelihood of Carter having a significant impact on the actual construction of over "4000 houses". Noting that he'd have had to have personally worked on over 100 houses per year every single year after his presidency for this to be mathematically accurate. I know from personal experience that regular volunteers in high capacity chapters rarely work more than 100 days per year, and that they rarely work on more than 5-7 individual houses per year. Again, merely using my experience in a high capacity (top 5 in the US) chapter to draw reasonable conclusions.
Now if your new point is that Carter engaged in photo ops and PR for HFH, which "inspired" others to build houses, then that's exactly the point I made. My correcting you, isn't attacking Carter.
"What is wrong with you all that you let your partisan divisiveness take you to such ugly, hateful places?"
Trying to help you accurately represent Carter's role with HFH is "ugly and hateful", really? Or is disagreeing with your Canonization of Carter what's got you all worked up?
"You all are exhibiting JCDS (and that could be for Jimmy Carter or that other JC)."
No, but the fact that you have to make shit up to accuse me of because I had the temerity to not blindly agree with your made up stat, tells me all I need to know.
January 2, 2025 at 5:29 PM
"All these ignorant claims about Carter being "stupid," only reinforce your ignorance in all areas of his life and humanity. Carter had a genius IQ and was a renaissance man, as has been noted by many people."
Yet the presidency of this "genius" was a disaster, just like your other beloved one-timer, Joe Biden. He couldn't improve a crappy economy. Trump did. He couldn't keep the mullahs at bay. Trump did. He couldn't tell whether it was Israel or the Gazans who were the murderous, terrorist war-criminals. Trump did.
""If ever a Renaissance man occupied the White House, it was Jimmy Carter. In addition to being a politician, an engineer, a naval officer, a businessman, a furniture maker, a mountain climber, and a runner, he wrote many books on a wide variety of subjects. He was also a poet." (and he spoke Spanish and even delivered speeches in Spanish, even if he wasn't exceedingly fluent).
https://www.britannica.com/story/5-things-you-dont-know-about-jimmy-carter"
None of that makes him a genius, particularly if one feels compelled to add "mountain climber" and "runner" to the list in order to pad it. What's more, other presidents had personal histories of similar types without destroying the American economy while in office and needed admit being chumped by Russia. No sycophantic links of your can improve upon the truth.
"Again, you are free to your personal flawed human opinions about the man (that you clearly hold from a place of ignorance, informed not by reality but by conservative echo chambers you listen to), but you're not free to your own reality."
GFY! The reality is that he was an incompetent as a president and a dangerous butt-insky afterward. He did very little to improve much that outweighs his long list of failures. The reality...not the reality you wish exists, but actual reality...is that he's not all worthy of the praise stupid people like you shower all over him...as free as you may be to be so stupid.
"Carter was smarter than any of us here, more well-educated than any of us here and more fluent in more skills than any of us here. According to the data."
Well, he may certainly have been smarter than you...THAT'S a low bar, to be sure... but I think it would be pushing things to dare compare him to all of us here. His record of incompetence makes the claim directly insulting.
Thanks. Although I can take Dan's ad hom attacks on me, they happen so regularly that I just kind of acknowledge them as the actions of someone who has nothing of substance and is left with bullshit, made up , personal attacks.
"All of which to say that I and my church are well-connected and well-familiar with.... Jimmy Carter."
This is exactly the hypocrisy I'm talking about. That Dan can draw some tenuous "connection" between "his church" sometime in the past, and somehow impute that connection to himself and impute some kind of special relationship to Carter that those of us who've only met him could never possibly have, shows his desperation to engage in the "pissing contest" that he started.
"and I'm guessing Craig, too...did not join up because of Carter's association with it. Indeed, I believe they'd all have joined up regardless."
For me, if anything, Carter's association with HFH was a slight negative to my decision to work there. Yet I was involved in a Carter build, was with him, and saw that the majority of his involvement was photo ops and PR, not actually building houses. AGAIN, not that those are bad or unimportant, just that the image of Carter actually engaging in the construction process of "4000 houses" is exaggerated. It also demeans that thousands of regular volunteers that spend hundreds or thousands of hours per year volunteering at build sites and actually completing homes.
FWIW, the entire Carter Build event is much more about PR and fundraising than about actually building houses. The last one involved much more work being done by paid contractors than volunteers, and volunteers spending less time from their day actually building than on a normal build day.
AGAIN, not bad, just not accurate.
January 2, 2025 at 6:41 PM
"Marshal..."
"I deleted your comment to Craig because you...of all people...dared to call him "deviant". Between the three of us, you are indeed truly and by definition "deviant" or "perverted"."
"I, the Sunday School teacher, deacon, worship leader, faithful husband to one woman for 40 years, loving father, lifelong Christian, man who works with and for and alongside those with disabilities, the homeless, the immigrants, for God's creation, etc... I am a deviant..."
Oh, absolutely, and your constant reposting of this far less than accurate description of yourself will never work here where truth is put above such self-aggrandizement. It pains me to keep seeing you say you were allowed to teach children in Sunday School, given your many perversions of Scripture you regard as accurate representations without true evidentiary support. Those poor little kids! There's a millstone with your name on it somewhere.
And clearly, support for sexual deviancy...possibly due to your own private desires in that direction...proves the charge accurate as well, and that's not even considering the perversions of Scripture you indulge in order to rationalize it.
Pretending there's some question about the full humanity of people in utero...and that their innocent, defenseless lives are merely of value on the whims of their parents...if a far worse perversion than your laughable defense of SSM.
And of course perverting the bio of Carter as you've been doing, as you do your own, in order to highlight whatever you think justifies your...as Craig referred to it....canonization of the man qualifies, too. This is a very short list given your decades of self-indictment as a pervert and deviant.
"but your pervert prince is golden... (all the while being an imperfect humans being)...???"
I keep telling you...I never supported Joe Biden, nor did I support Obama or Clinton if you meant them.
But person I did support since 2016, Donald Trump, has not displayed any overt manifestations of perversion while in office, and I don't regard simply being hot for babes particularly perverse, even if clearly immoral when acted upon. Normal men are hot for babes. That's as it was meant to be for without such desire, humanity would have died out thousands of years ago. Conversely, were most men hot for men, the same result would have occurred.
"Your moral compass is deeply broken."
Says the most immoral person who visits here. My moral compass does not tolerate the unjustified murder of innocent unborn under the many failed rationalizations assholes like you hold up as legitimate. Lies are never legitimate unless one perverts the meaning of "lies", as you clearly do.
My moral compass doesn't lie about sexual orientation being beyond one's ability to overcome, especially for those truly in Christ. It doesn't lie in daring to suggest God would bless, favor or tolerate SSMs when the underlying behavior is abomination, as if "marriage" makes it OK. Only fornication between a man and a woman can be made "OK" by the two of them marrying (as it's the only true definition of marriage there is: one man to one woman), but that means only the sexual relationship is OK after vows are exchanged, not before.
My moral compass doesn't allow for perverting Scripture to rationalize personal preferences as you so clearly have done for years on these blogs.
And my moral compass doesn't find it necessary to overstate either the good or bad in a politician to make a case for or against him, especially when the facts well known so plainly do that for us.
You're a pervert and a deviant, Dan, in so many ways. Repent now while you still can.
"You ignorantly judge Carter and people like me perverse and deviant, WHILE defending the most overtly corrupt, dishonest and actually deviant passant to hold office in our lifetime. .?"
Once again, I did NOT support Biden, Obama or Clinton, so please stop saying this. But thanks for more validation. You pervert what is so clearly present in my words in this post and the comments following. I assess Carter's presidency and character on actual facts of record, as well as testimonies of those with closer association with him than you had.
"There's something deeply broken with your moral reasoning."
Says the pervert liar, Dan Trabue.
"I, the Sunday School teacher, deacon, worship leader, faithful husband to one woman for 40 years, loving father, lifelong Christian, man who works with and for and alongside those with disabilities, the homeless, the immigrants, for God's creation, etc..."
Wow, that's quite the collection of "good works". It's almost like you're suggesting that these "good works" qualify you for something, what would that something be?
Of course what got your comment deleted was your ad hom attack aimed at me, not for anything related to Trump. But I understand how important excuses are when apologies would be more appropriate.
While I wouldn't refer to Carter as "deviant", I would say that his religious views deviated from much of Biblical, historic Christianity as he embraced a much more progressive christian philosophy as the times and culture changed, he changed to accommodate those changes. His increasing antisemitism also seems at odds with your characterization. But all of that is irrelevant, he was a mediocre (at best) president, who had the good fortune to lose to Regan before his foreign policy disasters got any worse, and who has gotten some great PR for his charitable engagements after he left office. I don't understand this attempt to Canonize someone who's likely disagree with your attempts to paint him as worthy of Canonization.
"I am a deviant... but your pervert prince is golden... (all the while being an imperfect humans being)...???"
Given that neither Art nor I have ever even hinted at this pile of bullshit, I see that your willingness to lie about others remains intact.
For someone who paints himself as such a wonderful person, he sure exhibits a lot of pride, doesn't he?
My "moral compass", how I react to it, is affected by my sin nature and by my desire to place my own desires before those of YHWH. My compass still points to True North, I just choose (all too often) to ignore it in favor of following my own path.
It's strange that Dan regularly uses language like "moral compass' and "target" that assume a fixed, unchanging, standard that we are to follow or ail at while simultaneously arguing that no such standard exists (or that it is impossible to accurately know what that standard is).
I mean if we're really going the "pissing contest" route based on stuff our churches did years ago, I'm guessing that major sponsor of a HFH home during the first Carter build, half a million for low income housing, starting a ministry to provide low income housing, half a million for a clinic on the Congo, and significant financial investments in micro lending, would be a good start. Oh, and an ongoing relationship with John Perkins.
But, we're not doing that, apparently only Dan gets to claim credit for that kind of stuff.
So, because Dan's church "many years ago" "started" a HFH chapter he must have some sort of extensive magical knowledge of HFH.
"Jordan, in turn, attended the Southern Baptist Seminary in the 1930s and, while in the seminary, he spent time volunteering at the church that would become Jeff St Baptist - my church."
So, because one guy spent some unknown period of time "volunteering" at the church that "would become" (but wasn't then) Dan's church, Dan gets to claim some magical connection to founding the entire HFHI organization.
Maybe not quite "stolen valor", but definitely not much for a "pissing contest". Why start a "pissing contest" with so little "piss"?
Craig,
Whether it's prideful or simply one of many ways in which Dan inflates the goodness of those he cherishes...in this case, himself...it seems incredibly unnecessary given how often he's chosen to use that uncompelling manner of self-defense. At this point, no one here is unaware of this list which purposely omits that which isn't Christian and that which he'd rationalize as being Christian. It fails in the face of all he's said over the years to leave him worthy of praise.
It's similar with Carter. There's no way an honest person can suggest that Trump has never helped people out or engaged in some form of charity toward those in need. I've listed many which are easily confirmed by an honest investigation of the type Dan never attempts, lest he be forced to concede Trump ain't such a bad guy after all. Can't have that! Oh, no! Trump must be crucified!
But Carter, MLK JR, Biden...these are all absolute angels of the type to which Trump should aspire but could never become.
Bullshit. Dan's favored have much for which they will answer before the Judgement Seat, and honesty denies them all the level of praise...particularly as compared to Trump, Reagan, and a host of other right-wing figures.
I came across an article about Jimma upon which I will give my brilliant opinion later, once I've properly digested it. Until then, it occurred to me that my complaint about saying Carter helped build 4K+ plus homes for H4H...which is a more than justified complaint at that...could easily have been avoided by Dan or anyone else who hoped to speak well of this guy without having to overstate his contribution as if it was truly special. I thought about this before and decided to offer this better choice, which could easily have said this way:
Habitat For Humanity, since its inception, has built or renovated over 4000 homes, providing affordable housing in the process. Former President Jimmy Carter supported the efforts of H4H through among other things, volunteering one week per year to swing a hammer to that end, as well as generating funding by his connection to the charity.
Wow! Sounds like a really great thing to do without giving any impression he personally built more homes than he did. I'm still wondering if he ever participated in building a home from start to finish, but whatever. One week per year for the charity of one's choice? I give props for that...though if he wasn't so busy interfering where he would never do any real good, he could have given a week per month and been more helpful to mankind.
So as promised, I now present this article from LiveAction.org:
https://www.liveaction.org/news/jimmy-carter-democratis-died-100/?_hsenc=p2ANqtz--n0y2GFiWNd-6ZT0fvnpS8fuVqwIvoDMn6p2Fxv_YeqF8qAdlsIDt9DFln8qnI_zNZB4WWRtI_QiHDlHQn2A9Cr41e4A&_hsmi=340671171
It's extremely difficult to take this guy's "Christianity" seriously when he does what most every Dem does when dealing with the subject of abortion: He equivocates and pretends there are legitimate justifications for it. Oh...and he started another taxpayer funded program instead of enacting economic policy which would have resulted in expansion, leaving fewer with financial concerns as an excuse to seek out a hit man for their unborn.
While "Thou shalt not murder." is a well known principle of the Judeo-Christian tradition of God, opposing abortion by an alleged Christian who happens to be president is not in the least a church/state issue, fraudulent as that argument is. While he is uphold law as president, he's under no obligation to support a law...especially such a heinous law as Roe had been. His position on this issue did not align with the claim of his "extreme care for each and every human at all times" anymore than his arrogant dismissive behavior toward subordinates was.
This is just more fact which belies the claim of sainthood bestowed upon him by stupid people.
The problem with beatifying those you mention, is the it ignores their many flaws and failing, while playing up their virtues. With Trump, it's a matter of ignoring his virtues (To be fair, he does his charitable stuff more quietly.), and playing up his vices. They, and we, are all sinful/imperfect/flawed humans who are not the one sided caricatures Dan needs to portray.
As I pointed out earlier, Dan's very view on morality denies the existence or accuracy of a "moral compass", but regardless our "moral compass" always points to "True North", we just choose to ignore it. How can a morality that is not "universal or objective" produce a "moral compass" that points in the same direction for everyone and provides a standard to measure against?
Craig,
When dares question our "moral compasses" and references other such terms as he scolds us for our righteous, well-supported views, it's just a fake exploiting such terms to assert he is somehow, most inexplicably, speaking from a "moral" highground. It's just another ploy. It's an insult implying we've done wrong, rather than demonstrating that we actually have. Note again the continued reference to him of only positive traits in those he favors, while at the same time referencing only negative traits never actually proved to be true in those he hates. And of course, he never considers any good traits, qualities or actions on the public record of those he hates, because the point is to foster hatred for them in others as he wallows in hatred himself. But oh...don't worry how many died as a direct result of Carter policies and actions! No, no! Just focus on what saintly man he was for hammering a few nails and never divorcing his wife.
We simply must remember when we deal with Dan, we're dealing with a legitimate fool of low character and intellect.
I just realized that this whole "best man" concept involves defining "best man" in a way that excludes any man who does not conform to Dan's subjective definition of the term which essentially excludes anyone BUT Carter from being considered. The very criteria Dan uses are so specific to Dan and his bizarre sense of what's important, that no other president could even be considered. This seems to be a trend on the left. Redefine terms to exclude any and everything except their desired result.
What, Carter's policies caused actual harm to the citizens he was sworn to protect, well then lets just ignore those so we can Canonize him. What, Carter's policies caused harm to the people of Iran, well we'll just ignore that because he held to progressive christian beliefs.
LOL! The Trump agenda is dead on arrival. Merry Christmas late to you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vRIMjkNdCs
Hey look! Another trolling moron! At least I have readers, right?
But Dave...your link simply states the obvious about the current situation. Concerns that the party must be unified and willing to make sure they vote doesn't speak to how motivated they might all be to do so. At this point, the GOP seems highly motivated to move Trump's agenda for the benefit of all Americans. The only real question is how many on the Dem side care more about the nation than hate Trump and/or the GOP. The people roundly rejected the status quo. Trump represents that rejection and it's correction. How many Dems, especially those up for reelection in the upcoming midterms want to be replaced because they refused to abide the will of the people? We shall see.
Craig,
That's it, exactly. It also requires ignoring all which is clearly evidence of bad behavior.
I'm also amazed that one can think Carter should get props for being "a good and decent man" when his stupidity resulted in so much harm and suffering. It's as if to say that it doesn't at all matter how much resulted, but only that he meant well. And since he allegedly meant well, there's something wrong with those who point to his many great failures. No, no, no, no! He meant well, that's all which matter and hence, he was the gosh-darned best man ever to be president!
As Michael McDonald sang, "What a Dan"...uh...I mean..."fool believes!"
Again, was Carter a decent man, sure. Was he well intentioned, sure. Was he a nice guy, sure. But so were many of our presidents. This notion that we must narrowly define Carter in such a way as to Canonize him, is silly. Especially Dan's limiting his comparison to presidents in his lifetime.
You see this a lot in sports. Someone will come up with a stat like "Team X has the best record in history in Thursday games where player Y passes for 500 yards.". Or when they arbitrarily cut of winning percentage to exclude a decade of losing "Team X has won more than 15 games a year since 2021.". Ignoring that they won 3 games a year for 30 years before that.
Dan does this a lot. He sets up hypotheticals or defines things in such a way as to exclude any possible answers/conclusions other than the one he started with.
I don't want to bash Carter, at this point his presidency is almost ancient history and the stuff he's done since then isn't an exercise of his power. He was, essentially, an overreaction to Nixon who was so "nice" and "clean", but didn't have the chops to actually do the job.
Craig,
The irony is that I was one who was of the opinion that Carter seemed to be a nice and decent guy. I would have gone on with that opinion were it not for lefties like Dan going way over the top about it, together with the many articles and testimonies which totally contradicted it. Now I believe he was a narcissistic prick. That narcissism...his belief he was the guy to fix things, though without Trump's ability to actually succeed...was coupled with his unChristian behavior toward his subordinates. All of this leads me to believe his "intentions" were to be known as something he never was nor was capable of becoming.
Dan wants to point to things like his long-time marriage. Nice pat on the back for doing what's supposed to be automatic and expected of any who dare say to another, "I do". And his "deeds" were all publicized. We haven't heard any tales of good deeds he's done in private, exposed by those who know the guy. We've had no small number of such with Trump.
All in all, there wasn't a whole lot particularly exceptional about Carter which justifies the elevation of him to godhood by such people as Dan, who evidently doesn't see Carter's anti-Semitism as a mitigating factor at all. It's just one more "character flaw" Dan brushes to the side in order to laud Carter as saintly.
It's interesting how this whole thing makes a point I wrote about earlier. Dan's and most of the left leaning culture are judging Carter's saintliness based on his comparison to others, not by comparing him to some objective standard.
I agree that had the lefties not gone over the top in their efforts to Canonize Carter, this wouldn't even be a discussion. It'd be "nice guy, bumbling fool as a president, ineffective policies, good intentions, etc" and we'd be done. It's the desperate need to make him something he wasn't that's driven people to actually look at his actual record and realize that he wasn't as good as his PR made him seem.
You're right about using his marriage as a criteria. Given that the denigration of marriage has been primarily driven by the left, to lionize someone who exhibited a virtue that is not celebrated by the left, seems not to make much sense.
Ultimately, this discussion is less about Carter than about the idiots like Dan who feel the need to Canonize him. If they weren't intent on making him something that he wasn't, this wouldn't be an issue at all.
"the main thing I want to impress on the listeners today is just to use every influence you have to encourage up more attention being paid by banks and by city governments and by state governments and by the federal government to making housing available for everybody, decent housing."
This notion that the government is responsible for providing housing goes against virtually everything that HFH originally stood for.
Oh, Dan's allowing his troll to lie at the cesspool, so much for his commitment to Truth.
LOL moron! Every single democrat senator will stand in line to block the Trump agenda and every single democrat senator who does so will be reelected. Dems will retake the House by margins of 30+ seats by the midterms and we will have complete control of the government by 2028. Everyone has to learn things the hard way sometimes.
Yes, Dave. You're a moron. You seem to forget that Trump's victory was the result of hordes of former Dem voters from pretty much every demographic rejecting the Dem party because of the realization that all suffering was due to their policies. To then double down on stupid and do nothing but block Trump's policies which, as they did the first time around, improve the lives of all Americans and expect the voters will turn back to support the very people getting in the way is truly moronic. If it happens, it will prove Dem voters are moronic (they are). If that makes you happy, it cements the reality of your own moronic mind.
Craig,
That's exactly it. There are still those (I heard Hannity express it just about twenty minutes ago as I drove home) who hold this "nice guy/stupid president" perception, and would have been content accepting it. I think it's better, though, that the reality has been exposed by enough people to put the first half of that equation right. Not really a nice guy, either.
Oh, come on. It’s clear you’re just spinning a fairy tale. Let’s not pretend that Trump’s victory was some grand rejection of the Democratic Party by all demographics. Plenty of voters saw through the chaos and division he brought. Your claim that his policies improved the lives of all Americans is laughable, especially considering the social upheaval and economic disparity that soared under his administration. To suggest that voters would turn back to Republicans after experiencing that disaster is the true mark of absurdity. If they do, it would just solidify how out of touch you and your circle are. But hey, if that brings you some twisted joy, keep living in that bubble!
"Oh, come one" yourself! I spin nothing for there's no need to spin when considering the facts.
Also, I pretend nothing. All reports acknowledge that Trump picked up enough people from most every demographic group to put him over the top. That a grand enough rejection of the Dem Party, particularly how it had been run by the abjectly stupid Harris/Biden administration.
Trump brought no chaos...except for the aforementioned attraction of so many from so many otherwise Dem voters...and no division, as attracting from those disparate groups represents uniting, not division at all.
I don't "claim" anything about the beneficial impact of Trump's first term in office. It's documented. And "social upheaval" was the result of leftist activism, not anything Trump did. Then, more people voted for him in 2020 than had voted for him in 2016, so people did indeed return to support him for a second term then, and were it not for all the many manifestations of election fraud and interference by your kind, we'd likely be awaiting a third consecutive GOP term by his GOP successor.
So the facts I've stated before I'll state here again for you: Trump did more to improve the state of the nation in four years than Obama did in eight, and he did it in the face of constant obstruction by your politicians who ignored their duty to their constituents just to do so. That anyone would continue voting for Congressmen and Senators who spend time doing such demonstrate a unique level of moronic behavior one only sees in Democrat voters. Then, after Making America Great Again in his first term, Biden immediately began wreaking havoc, along with his puppet handler and all the box-checked incompetents with which he fill his administration.
And you stupidly suggest the Trump years were a disaster?? Here's a tip: It's a lot easier to pay attention to what's going on around you when your head isn't planted so firmly and deeply up your ass. I already have a moron visiting here, and Dan's quite enough. I don't need another.
Oh wow, your analysis is just a breath of fresh air! I mean, who doesn't love a good history lesson from someone who’s clearly been living rent-free in an alternate reality?
Let’s see: facts, you say? How scientific! The way you weave together personal bias and selective statistics makes me wonder if you’re auditioning for a role in a new political drama. "Trump: The Uniter Who Divided" could be a hit, considering how you’ve managed to turn the chaos and division of those years into some kind of magical transformation. Bravo!
And the “many manifestations of election fraud”? Such a bold and original claim! Next, you’ll be telling us that the moon landing was staged and that Bigfoot is hiding out in Mar-a-Lago. Really, the creativity is dazzling.
As for the touting of Trump’s accomplishments over Obama’s, it’s incredible how you can gloss over the economic recovery post-Great Recession, the expansion of healthcare coverage, and environmental protections. But hey, who needs a nuanced view of history when you can just point to a few memes and call it a day, right?
Ah yes, and the significant rise in voters for Trump in 2020—forgetting the small detail that every modern presidential candidate usually gets more votes the second time around, right? It's almost as if you’re suggesting that time itself is some sort of conspiracy against the GOP.
But hey, keep that unique level of insight coming. I’m sure it’s doing wonders for the collective IQ of the internet. And don’t worry about me; I’ll make sure to remove my head from its precarious position just in time to appreciate your next brilliant take. You really have a gift!
Nobody can dispute that unemployment numbers due to Trump's economic policies were the best since the early 1960s, with black unemployment being lower than at any time since they began tracking that specific demographic. Obama did nothing to expand the economy, which moved forward at the slowest pace in recent history by virtue of the private sector's efforts, not due to anything he his party had done. This is NOT an "alternate reality" no matter how many drugs you inject into your veins. Inflation was under 2%, and GDP growth rose to a level after Obama suggested magic would be required to do so. Illegal incursions over our southern border were under far better control as all Border enforcement people affirm. Obamacare did not result in a significant expansion of coverage. It resulted in a significant expansion of medical and insurance costs, while many were never covered at all. Obamacare was and is an abject failure.
As to election totals, Obama received fewer votes his second term than his first. Freaking FDR received fewer votes his third term and even fewer for his fourth. But the difference between Trump popular vote total in his second attempt in 2020 exceeded that of his first by over 11 million votes. In the meantime, the senile guy who didn't campaign, but who you think fairly won that election had 81million? You really are a moron, aren't you?
But hey...you've already had your chance to bloviate your puke which has no relevance to the post. You're done here. If you wish to comment on the post itself, go for it. No more off topic crap will draw any response. You're just too stupid.
The funniest bit of stupidity is suggesting Trump was somehow an instigator of division! This after a president who took every opportunity to speak in racist terms following every confrontation between a cop or citizen and what became a dead black guy. Trump wasn't behind antifa rioting or BLM rioting. That was all on your favored marxists, who exploited every opportunity.
So they played John Lennon's Imagine at Carter's funeral, and apparently at his wife's as well. But he was totally a Bible-believing Christian or something.
Been awhile... all apologies, particularly for dropping the conversation with Dan without so much as an explanation! Bipolar depression is a helluva thing, and I've only recently come out of it after literally eight months.
(I might pick that conversation back up, if only to weigh in on the last comments I read but never addressed, and maybe to wrap things up with a proper conclusion. Might be a while yet; we'll see.)
The most interesting article I've read about Jimmy Carter is this Daily Mail piece from 2023, about what the Secret Service really thought about the Baptist Sunday School teacher.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11807897/Ex-Secret-Service-agents-reveal-Jimmy-Carter-actually-rude-time.html
If the accounts are accurate, this might be the most damning thing about Carter, EVEN including his atrocious politics: the man may have been much more sanctimonious than sanctified, exhibiting precisely the sort of behavior that made Jesus so critical of the first-century Pharisees, making displays of their piety in order to be seen and praised by men.
We should pray that the same can never be said about us, that we would never draw such criticism from people who know us in our most unguarded moments. We shall be known by our fruits.
...I do wonder how Dan would respond to that Daily Mail article I cite, whether it would prompt him to reassess his judgment that Carter was "the most overtly moral, decent, gracious, kind, Godly, saintly, giving, wise Christ-like man who's ever held the office of president."
Neil,
I don't really pay attention to funerals for presidents...for no particular reason. I wonder if he requested that song. If it was played at his wife's funeral, it might have been a favorite of theirs. Many lefties are enamored with that song, which indicts them to a degree as the marxists they seem to be. I never liked the song because of its insipid, pretentious lyrics. Too many revere it as if a hymn.
Bubba,
Welcome back and Happy New Year to ya! I hope your condition is under control to your satisfaction. So very glad to hear you're doing better and I hope it lasts a long time.
You offering may be one I've posted myself, either here or elsewhere (perhaps at Craig's), but it is echoed in the testimonies of others who have had up close and personal experiences with the man. Dan never directly addresses such offerings, unless he thinks he can write them off as right-wing propaganda. He did similar when I reported on the sexual escapades of MLK JR, another Dan "untouchable". It works like this:
Every negative rumor regarding someone like Donald Trump is gospel truth. Every negative report about any of his favored lefties is rank right-wing propaganda simply because he says so.
Carter seems to have been quite the poser, and arrogant and narcissistic as well.
Bubba -- praying for rapid and permanent hearing for you! I know that can be very debilitating.
All -- I saw the Secret Service article as well. Carrying empty suitcases to look humble?! Yeah, that proves the opposite. What a fraud. And no surprise that his fanboys can't see it. His butthurt over losing to Reagan, who Carter haughtily looked down upon, seemed to drive him to meddle in U.S. politics for decades -- always helping our enemies and not us. Pure ego.
Bubba...
I do wonder how Dan would respond to that Daily Mail article I cite...
The DAILY MAIL UK TABLOID article you "cite," which names UNNAMED sources CLAIMING to have formerly worked in the secret service who allegedly claim (anonymously and with zero support) that Carter was not as nice as he appears... You're wondering what I think of hearsay from an anonymous source (ie, gossip) from a disreputable tabloid about a man from allegedly two (??) anonymous sources?
I don't give much stock to gossip and hearsay, but then, that's biblical. I especially don't give much stock to gossip from allegedly unnamed "sources" which may or may not even exist.
Why? How much stock do you place in anonymous "sources..." gossiping about a guy they allegedly didn't like that much, without offering any proof, just gossip?
WHY are we even talking about this?
Better yet, WHY are people who state that they are Christians who care about things like integrity, honesty, and who presumably are opposed to unsourced, anonymous gossip from disreputable sources?
Look, here are at least two actual secret service officers going on the record to attest that Carter was the real deal...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wfla.com/news/polk-county/lakeland-man-recalls-working-president-carters-detail-as-a-secret-service-agent/amp/
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=reRBE2bRu0M
...add those actual on the record secret service agents' testimony to the many people across the aisle who can recognize that, of course, on the face of it, Carter was a sincere, highly intelligent, decent good family man, Sunday School teacher and over-all good guy... WHY are you all struggling SO VERY HARD to demonize a saint of God, a fellow Christian who's done more good than any of you all would/will ever do, much less the amoral liar you all support and actually voted for?!
I don't think you all even understand how puzzling it is to a good portion of the world that you all find it more difficult to criticize even slightly your convicted felon, corrupt con man that you support and voted for, while at the same time you want to openly abuse and demonize this very good man at his passing.
The party allegedly of "family values" has thrown their support behind an openly corrupt and deviant man and attacked a decent Christian. My conservative parents would be aghast.
My conservative, Trump-voting Southern Baptist cousins from Georgia testify that "He visited the restaurant that Tammy and I worked at during high school since not many dining spots in Plains! It was always a pleasure to wait on Governor Carter then and his entourage!"
People across the political spectrum are reporting about what a genuine, kind, decent Christian Carter was. But yes, let's listen to unnamed gossip from a tabloid.
Does that answer your question, Bubba?
Look, Bubba, the Carters were imperfect human people. Is it POSSIBLE that they were not always perfectly kind and loving and respectful? Is it POSSIBLE that there actually exists in the real world one or two or even a handful of secret service agents and others who were put off by what they thought was disrespectful behavior by the Carters, by Jimmy Carter? Of course, it is. Indeed, it's likely.
Humans are not perfect, you know? Not even sainted Christ-like Godly people like the Carters with their long and storied on-the-record observable decency and work to help others, especially the least of these. But WHAT IF the Carters were not always perfectly overboard kind and loving to everyone? WHO IS?
HOW does that change anything? How does that make Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter obvious sainted Christians based on their observable actions and behavior and overt decency?
WHY are you kicking at the goads?
On another front, Sorry to hear about the bipolar concerns, Bubba. I have several beloved friends suffering from the same and I know, from them, it's a very tough road to hoe. I pray for God's peace upon your mind and psyche and for the best of medical advice from your supporters.
As to some humans having a personal aversion to the classic song, Imagine... imagine that. Neil doesn't like Imagine and he imagines that his personal dislike for the song means that it's not a Christian song or a song that Christians can appreciate.
Fortunately for all of us, graceless people and those like Neil are not the final arbiters in who decides what songs they do and don't want at their funerals or what songs do and don't say about Christianity or human rights or decency.
Of course, we CAN imagine a world with no religions (meaning, no religious bigotry, not religious wars, no religious imperialism, imposed by one set of human religious folk against other humans), it isn't hard to do! We CAN imagine all the world living in peace. It's not just a dream. It's what Jesus taught and what reasonable people aspire for. Because, why wouldn't we?
Do you all have any sick puppies you'd like to kick, as well? Why not just be quiet and let people mourn, rather than attack a just deceased man more saintly and decent than you (or Reagan or Bush or Clinton and Trump's not even in the conversation!)?
What is sickly in you all that you feel the need to attack and demonize every little thing?
How about this: Just imagine that Carter was a sexual predator and serial womanizer and a wildly wealthy hedonist with his toilets of gold and his corroded silver and gold, testifying against him about the way he'd oppressed his workers... Just imagine Carter like that... THEN maybe you'll be silent upon his death.
False prophets and con men CAN be very convincing to those willing to be conned, but be better than that. Repent, friends.
Yeah, a nihilistic ode to a world without religion of heaven seems and odd choice for an alleged Bible-believing Christian.
Bubba,
Also praying for you and your Bipolar.
I'm not surprised Carter was such a phony. At the Carter Build in the early 2000's Al Franken walked around in a clearly brand new construction costume, and would only pick up a tool when pictures were being taken.
Dan whines about unnamed sources and then provides unnamed sources of his own to counter them. Dan's supposedly conservative cousins are not any more credible than Dan himself, if it is Dan reporting on what they might have said.
But I've provided multiples "named" sources which affirm what the anonymous Secret Service personnel reported about Carter's arrogance. I guess only Dan's sources count, right?
I'm not about playing tit-for-tat games about the character of Carter. I merely affirm that his canonization is unjust as it is seriously undeserved. It's simply as it always is:
Rumors and allegations of a negative kind regarding conservatives or Trump are absolute facts by their mere mention, whereas no amount of evidence and testimony is worth a damn if it in any way denigrates the happy talk about those Dan supports.
Now, Dan's even wetting his Pull*Ups over "Imagine", which is clearly socialist/communist in nature, by Lennon's own admission (though he tried to minimize what that means). But it does indeed put Carter's "Christianity" in question to regard that song well, as it is anti-Christian. Sure, I can imagine a world with no religion, but I don't necessarily believe it means peaceful coexistence world-wide. It's not religion which compels bad behaviors and discord. It's man's sin nature.
People are free to mourn whomever they choose to mourn. That's not at issue. What's at issue is the beatification of Carter, which is not an attack on him so much as on the morons who think he was all that...morons like Dan, who are incapable of seeing beyond the superficial. Carter was certainly a prideful man, for who other than a prideful man could do so much damage and still regard himself as the one who can put things right?
Can continues to focus on "good deeds" where those deeds can be counted as evidence of his premise, while ignoring all the "bad deeds" and failures which, when acknowledged honestly and objectively, mitigate any such high praise of which Dan insists Carter is worthy.
Worse, is Dan's attacks on those who look at Carter honestly and objectively and find him wanting. That's because Dan is the conned one, and is willing to be conned where his agenda can benefit. He's not a friend and is more in need of repentance than most of us.
It's always strange when Dan bitches about stuff, but has to lie about what he's complaining about. All it took was a quick perusal of the article to find all sorts of named sources who were quoted on the record. But I guess that Dan's cherry picked sources are automatically more credible.
Impressive, Dan just decided that he's reinterpret Lennon's words to make up some fantasy interpretation to make the lyrics less problematic. It's good to know that Dan magically knows what Lennon "means" and that the rest of us have no clue.
It's also interesting that Dan can't defend Carter, without attacking others. Maybe Dan's not so saintly either.
Imagine is a crap song, espousing a crap worldview.
Imagine a world where there's no reward for good or punishment for evil. Where there's nothing beyond human existence. Hardly compatible with Christianity.
I like the melody. So much better could have been done with it. It's the commie lyrics I don't like and it hacks me off that they exist in a song I'd otherwise love to sing. Melodically, it's one of the few post-Beatle Lennon songs I like, stained by insipid, pretentious commie lyrics.
Dan Trabue not so saintly??? What are you trying to do? Provoke him to list all his good deeds again to prove you wrong?
?? Imagine? By John Lennon? Do y'all even know the lyrics?
It says NOTHING about being no rewards or punishments. It says NOTHING about communism. There ARE possessions in communism, so even that line isn't about communism.
Also, it's poetry, not a spelled out political or religious treatise.
There can be rewards without heaven. There can be punishments without hell. Of course.
The windmills y'all choose to tilt against are baffling. And the venom and vigor with which you choose to denounce songs like Imagine and saints like Jimmy Carter... well, that is precisely why some would dream of a world without religion. Lennon wrote that song about the graceless and abusive human religions and traditions that you all are embodying here.
Shaking my head...
Dan
Just as you all seem to completely and entirely miss the obvious point of the Godly decency of Jimmy Carter, you all seem to miss the obvious point entirely of Lennon's Imagine.
It would be one thing if you thought to yourselves, "I don't really think that Carter was as good a man as many people think, or as good a president... and I don't really think Imagine is that good of a song..." if you just thought those sour thoughts in your heads and remained silent, that would be one thing. But it's not enough to you to merely disagree with the others who recognize the obvious decency, rationality and holiness of Carter and Imagine. You have to DENOUNCE them... suggest that neither are Christian in orientation. And you don't even have the decency to speak such awful and graceless thoughts with the caveat of "in my opinion..." you state it as if these human opinions of yours were a given fact.
The hubris!
Imagine is a song whose central tenet is the CRAZY and SATANIC notion that all the world should and can live in peace. The evil banality of Lennon (and Carter!) for making such a suggestion! How DARE they reject God with that unholy premise of living simply and peaceably!
Never mind that this is precisely what Jesus and the various biblical authors teach us to do. "In as much as it's possible, live at peace with one another," St Paul says. Jesus says BLESSED are the peacemakers. But you all demonize the peacemakers Lennon and Carter.
When Lennon poetically imagines a world without religion, where there is no heaven or hell, he's imagining where we all live at peace and with decent, gracious lives... Just as Jesus and God repeatedly teach in the Bible.
While Jesus (who was attacked, vexed and eventually killed by religious humans) never said "imagine no religion..." a rational person can certainly understand that this might be something Jesus would imagine... at least insofar as he imagined a world (a realm of God, one might say) where religious zealots did not go around persecuting and prosecuting humans - especially the poor and marginalized! - for not living up to their man made religious rules in the precise way the religious zealots wanted them to.
The religious zealots were exclusive and damning of those who didn't heed their human religious ways. Jesus was inclusive and welcoming of folks, calling for GRACE not religiosity. God said, "for I deserve Mercy (love, grace) NOT your (religious) sacrifices." and "I hate, I despise your religious festivals; your assemblies are a stench to me."
In other words, it was not Lennon alone who despise empty religious nothingness. It was not Lennon (or Carter) alone who advocated for living our lives in peace.
But it's not enough that you all quietly disagree with such Godly and holy and decent reasoning... you have to actively denounce it. As if one could not DARE to disagree with your almighty opinions about your almighty human religions and traditions.
What's wrong with y'all?
January 10, 2025 at 5:37 PM
I have to say, Danny...reading your last two comments provokes two words: "blithering" and "idiot". Your comments suggest you're a blithering idiot. To wit:
"?? Imagine? By John Lennon? Do y'all even know the lyrics?"
Yes. That's how we can say it's crap.
"It says NOTHING about being no rewards or punishments."
"No hell below us...above us only sky." Sounds like no punishments or rewards. I want heaven...to exist for eternity in God's Holy Presence, not join you in eternal hell. Imagining no heaven is not imagining anything I care to find is true.
" It says NOTHING about communism."
It IS communism, and Lennon even said it is, just not like Russian or Chinese communism. It's just another "it'll be different 'cuz we'll do it the right way" communism.
"There can be rewards without heaven."
None worth having compared to heaven.
"There can be punishments without hell."
None worth fearing as is hell.
"The windmills y'all choose to tilt against are baffling."
OOH! DANNY'S BAFFLED!! Hard to Imagine!
"And the venom and vigor with which you choose to denounce songs like Imagine and saints like Jimmy Carter... well, that is precisely why some would dream of a world without religion."
The venom and vigor with which you choose to denounce those who don't worship Jimmah Carter as you do...well, that's precisely why you're in no position to shame anyone.
Speaking of "venom":
" Lennon wrote that song about the graceless and abusive human religions and traditions that you all are embodying here."
No. Lennon was just another lefty moron who regarded himself as above people of faith while never truly embodying anything better.
"Shaking my head..."
Sounds like a baby rattle when you do that, doesn't it?
January 10, 2025 at 6:18 PM
"Just as you all seem to completely and entirely miss the obvious point of the Godly decency of Jimmy Carter, you all seem to miss the obvious point entirely of Lennon's Imagine."
We don't miss on either point, Danny-girl. We're not so easily conned by those who posture as Christian. There are no shortages of examples of such people...televangelists, for example...and Carter may be just one more of them, according to the many and various testimonies of those who experienced the true Jimmah. You didn't. So pound sand.
"It would be one thing if you thought to yourselves, "I don't really think that Carter was as good a man as many people think, or as good a president... and I don't really think Imagine is that good of a song..." if you just thought those sour thoughts in your heads and remained silent, that would be one thing."
It would have been one thing had you kept your worship of Carter to yourself and remained silent. But you did a post on your elevation of Carter to deity.
"But it's not enough to you to merely disagree with the others who recognize the obvious decency, rationality and holiness of Carter and Imagine. You have to DENOUNCE them..."
Oh, I've no problem pointing out stupid people like you. You don't know enough about Carter to pretend he's worthy of the worship you salivate in his direction. I simply weigh all the info about the guy and make an honest, objective assessment of his character. He's no saint. Not by a long shot, and worse, he's no genius. He caused lots of suffering. That's a fact. Saints don't do that. And no, I don't care if he meant well.
(More later. It's tip off!)
"Imagine is a song whose central tenet is the CRAZY and SATANIC notion that all the world should and can live in peace. The evil banality of Lennon (and Carter!) for making such a suggestion! How DARE they reject God with that unholy premise of living simply and peaceably!"
This song necessarily rejects God in the process. To speak of no religion is more than likely a shot at the Christian religion, and whether organized or not, such people crap on it as if its the source of misery. There's nothing "Godly" or "Christian" about living in peace if God is not the center of it...if Jesus is not the Way, the Truth and the Life.
"Never mind that this is precisely what Jesus and the various biblical authors teach us to do. "In as much as it's possible, live at peace with one another," St Paul says. Jesus says BLESSED are the peacemakers. But you all demonize the peacemakers Lennon and Carter."
No, little hateful Danny. We're not "demonizing" them. We're speaking truthfully about their nonsensical and infantile notions reflected in the insipid commie song "Imagine". Lennon, like most moronic leftists (like you), called upon US to "give peace a chance". Not on those actually acting barbarically. Preaching to the choir is pointless for effecting change. Carter didn't do much at all which resulted in peace, but in fact actually did much to insure there would be less of it. Again, good intentions mean nothing, especially on the world stage. Criticizing either of them is legitimately warranted.
"When Lennon poetically imagines a world without religion, where there is no heaven or hell, he's imagining where we all live at peace and with decent, gracious lives... Just as Jesus and God repeatedly teach in the Bible."
Jesus/God the Father preach something entirely different than Lennon's insipid and infantile world without religion, which results in no peace and brotherhood at all. Without religion, particularly the Christian religion, what is left is a vacuum any and every scumbag will seek to fill. There would not be a coming together of all the world.
However, if there was no religion, I'd be a richer man. I'd take all your stuff for myself. If there is no religion, there is no morality and thus no obligation on my part to act in a way little girls like you would demand.
"While Jesus (who was attacked, vexed and eventually killed by religious humans) never said "imagine no religion..." a rational person can certainly understand that this might be something Jesus would imagine..."
No rational person with any understanding of Christianity would ever "understand" this wild ass fantasy.
"at least insofar as he imagined a world (a realm of God, one might say) where religious zealots did not go around persecuting and prosecuting humans - especially the poor and marginalized! - for not living up to their man made religious rules in the precise way the religious zealots wanted them to."
Christ "imagined" and preached a world wherein people repent, accept Him as Savior and abide God's commandments. That's what Christ imagined.
"The religious zealots were exclusive and damning of those who didn't heed their human religious ways. Jesus was inclusive and welcoming of folks, calling for GRACE not religiosity. God said, "for I deserve Mercy (love, grace) NOT your (religious) sacrifices." and "I hate, I despise your religious festivals; your assemblies are a stench to me.""
This is typical Dan perversion. Jesus was not "inclusive" of any and everyone. Jesus spoke of the narrow path and how few would follow it. Making up your own shit is no better than the Pharisees making up theirs.
"But it's not enough that you all quietly disagree with such Godly and holy and decent reasoning... you have to actively denounce it."
That's only because your lefty claptrap isn't "Godly" at all. It's your invented god...your golden calf.
"As if one could not DARE to disagree with your almighty opinions about your almighty human religions and traditions."
Oh, you're perfectly free to disagree with Scripture all you like. After all, it's what you do. You're free to dismiss the Truth of Scripture as "almighty human religion and traditions" all you like. You again do little to support your opposition to Truth but spew this crap again and again. After all, it's what you do.
"What's wrong with y'all?"
Some say I'm an idiot for continually engaging with the likes of you. I simply regard myself as spiritually poor and in dire need of my Lord and Savior, Jesus the Christ.
Other than that, nothing I can't handle. Any other stupid questions?
A good analysis of Jimmy's "Christianity" by Justin Peters. Around the 27:00 mark, he highlights how "Imagine" was one of Carter's favorite songs and an anthem of Communist countries like Cuba, and how Lennon was a Commie. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AB1lanvs35M
The more I learn about Carter, the worse he gets.
Marshal:
Jesus was not "inclusive" of any and everyone. Jesus spoke of the narrow path and how few would follow it. Making up your own shit is no better than the Pharisees making up theirs.
If you take the words of Jesus literally and seriously, of course, Jesus was inclusive of everyone. That's not saying that all will accept the invitation to join the beloved community, but all are welcome. And those series of invitations and welcomings begin, for Jesus in his own words, with the poor and marginalized.
* I have come to bring good news TO THE POOR, to the imprisoned and sick, to the marginalized. WHO is he bringing good news to? ALL the poor and marginalized.
* For God so loved THE WORLD...
* I have come to seek and save the LOST (ie, all of us, if we are lost, anyway)...
* Come ALL who are weary and heavy laden (again, beginning with the poor and marginalized)
* if ANY one thirsts let them come unto me and drink... (WHO? ANY who thirst, in Jesus' literal words)...
* I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me. (Who can open that door? ANYONE, in Jesus' literal words)...
It IS true that the proud and graceless Pharisees, who remain graceless and exclusionary... the rich and powerful, who refuse to abandon their power and wealth... the oppressors who refuse to abandon the oppression of the poor and marginalized... that there are SOME very specifically identified people who may choose to refuse the invitation, but the invitation is repeatedly and consistently to all, in the words of Jesus.
But maybe you don't want to take all those ALLs literally when Jesus is issuing the invitations.
Marshal...
To speak of no religion is more than likely a shot at the Christian religion...
You demonstrate no better aptitude for understanding Lennon's words than you do mine or Jesus' words.
Lennon was quite clear that he found all religions problematic TO THE EXTENT that they divide, fight, bicker, demonize, wage actual and figurative wars, kill and attack. The complaint was against hatred and division (like, you know, Jesus) and the point was in favor of peace and love (like, you know, Jesus.)
That you personally choose to read something additional INTO that text doesn't mean that's Lennon's intent or what other people understand of the text or that it's a rational conclusion to read such nonsense that are contrary into the intent of the song... You don't get to decide what Lennon meant.
Marshal:
if there was no religion, I'd be a richer man. I'd take all your stuff for myself. If there is no religion, there is no morality and thus no obligation on my part to act in a way little girls like you would demand.
Do you see how that diminishes the value of your little human religion? IF the ONLY reason you are good or decent and not an oppressor is fear of a damning god and hope for a reward, where is the value or morality in that? It's not a morality at all, don't you see? It's a transactional bargain you make based on your fear of a damning godling. "I'll be good, little god, as long as you don't send me to that torture place and you accept me into that good place... but without that, to hell with with you?"
Is that what you're saying? That is, if God made God's Self clear and told you, "NO, child, I'm not going to punish you for a tortured eternity for the typical failings of an imperfect humanity, and the Realm of God that I'm speaking of is God's will be done ON EARTH, here and now... the heaven part is more figurative..." would you spit in that God's face and say, "Forget about it! I'm out!"
That would be the sort of religion that Lennon would like to see go away... the hedonistic, one step away from hell on earth, oppressive and bitter religions...
It's a reasonable question.
Just fyi, dear brothers, the saints at Jeff St were considering doing Imagine tomorrow to honor dear brother Jimmy, but instead we're going with Footsteps of the Faithful more in fitting with epiphany times. Beautiful lyrics written by a genius songwriter who you might reject because they were transgender. Your loss, though:
1. these days it's a road less traveled
this path of the solid ground
when straight and narrow runs to gravel
sometimes it's the long way 'round
christmas eve is a lonely highway
i walk on a weary mile
sister, if you're going my way
can i wander with you a while?
CH: are you goin down to bethlehem
with a shooting star to guide you
though the trail's a river of frozen tears
and the trees are bent with snow
if you're going down to bethlehem
can i walk a while beside you
in the footsteps of the faithful
on a christmas long ago
2. oh my brother, when your feet get weary
i will come when i hear your call
when the days go dark and dreary
catch me up if i start to fall
if we both should slip and stumble
on the road to the freedom land
there's a greater to share our troubles
just reach out and he'll take your hand
CH: are you goin down to bethlehem ...
BR: look up now from the road of danger
love you, one another
there's a light shinin in the manger
now, get up sister, c'mon brother
CH: are you goin down to bethlehem ...
Hallelujah, amen.
Brother Neil, in another attempt to demonize Saint Jimmy, said...
To be clear: Imagine is an anthem the world wide, in communist nations and in capitalist nations. Only in certain conservative circles is it attacked and demonized and, if it were up to some of them, even banned.
The rest of the rational and spiritual world recognizes the simple poetry calling for the world to be more united in peace and love. Hardly anything worthy of being attacked.
But then, they attacked Jesus for preaching a similar message!
Live and let live, men. If you don't like it, don't listen to it. If someone sings it at your church as we have at mine and you don't like it, shrug your shoulders and graciously allow, "Well, if it's meaningful to them, who am I to try to take that joy away or to discount those peacemakers?"
"Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather resolve this, not to put a stumbling block or a cause to fall in our brother’s way."
~St Paul, in Romans 14
"Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the faith God has distributed to each of you...
Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good.
Be devoted to one another in love. Honor one another above yourselves...
Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud...
If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone..."
~St Paul in Romans 12
Live and let live, dear brothers. IF you see someone knocking a poor widow down and taking advantage of her, step up and help out! But, if you merely disagree that this song is sufficiently respectful of God, in your personal opinion, and others recognize the God in the powerful, simple call to be peaceful and loving, choose the better part of wisdom and be quiet.
Seems to me.
"Imagine there's no Heaven."
True enough for those who die as "Christian" Leftists. But there is a Hell. Sadly, it seems more likely for Muslims and other "tough cases" to repent than for "Christian" Leftists. They are so steeped in their politics-disguised-as-religion that they never seem to break out of it. But I trust that God will make some spiritually alive.
None of us deserve his grace. But for us who are saved, we honor him by speaking the truth about "Christian" Leftists and the like. They spew God-mocking poison.
Carter et al are/were ashamed of Jesus. It won't/didn't end well.
For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of Man also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.”(Mark 8:38, ESV)
Great link, Neil. Thanks for it. It really lays out the issue of Carter's alleged faith really well. Indeed, one could actually exchange "Jimmy Carter" for "Dan Trabue", and it would be just as true.
January 11, 2025 at 11:53 AM
"If you take the words of Jesus literally and seriously, of course, Jesus was inclusive of everyone."
I indeed take the words of Jesus (the entirety of Scripture, actually) literally and do so in the manner which in no way resembles your perversion of the concept of literal interpretation. God certainly desires that none should perish. But that's not "inclusive" if the result is that many have and will perish. An invitation is not "inclusive" if there are terms involved which must be met. Thus, those included are those who respond on the terms presented. The rest perish. They exclude themselves.
You then go on to list again that which you don't understand, or which you pervert to fit your anti-Christian alternative preferences.
From there you take another shot at the well-to-do, again pretending they're more of an apt parallel to your understanding of the Pharisees than you consistently present yourself as being.
And you do all this to prove to us you don't understand that heaven is incredibly exclusive.
Just a point to make, when Jesus spoke of "the poor" he was talking about poor in spirit. That's what the real theologians say, which really is more logical than poor in finances.
Who says Carter... perhaps the most overtly Christian president... church-goer, Sunday School teacher... EVER deliberately rejected or was ashamed of Jesus? What are you even talking about..??
Once again, it appears you're suggesting that those who dare disagree with your personal human traditions are somehow rejecting Jesus!
WHERE did Carter ever reject Jesus??
How are you incapable of seeing how frivolously ridiculous and irrational and outright dishonest your nonsensical claims are... backed by absolutely nothing, as they are?
Dan
January 11, 2025 at 12:08 PM
"You demonstrate no better aptitude for understanding Lennon's words than you do mine or Jesus' words."
So you pathetically need to tell yourself.
"Lennon was quite clear that he found all religions problematic TO THE EXTENT that they divide, fight, bicker, demonize, wage actual and figurative wars, kill and attack."
His "clarity" doesn't mean shit if he pretends religions are the source or motivating factor in divisiveness, or that there would actually be less of it were there no religions. But he speaks of religion as all atheists and "progressive" "Christians" do. There was never anything new or profound there, and certainly nothing helpful to healing divisions.
"The complaint was against hatred and division (like, you know, Jesus) and the point was in favor of peace and love (like, you know, Jesus.)"
Blah, blah, blah. Meaningless tripe and platitudes. There's little but the most superficial comparison between Lennon's preaching and that of my Lord, Jesus. Peace and love without Jesus is worthless.
"That you personally choose to read something additional INTO that text doesn't mean that's Lennon's intent or what other people understand of the text or that it's a rational conclusion to read such nonsense that are contrary into the intent of the song... You don't get to decide what Lennon meant."
Sure I do. But I don't need to. His own words are clear enough.
"Marshal:"
"if there was no religion, I'd be a richer man. I'd take all your stuff for myself. If there is no religion, there is no morality and thus no obligation on my part to act in a way little girls like you would demand."
"Do you see how that diminishes the value of your little human religion?"
No. But it certainly diminishes yours and your defense of Lennon/Carter.
"IF the ONLY reason you are good or decent and not an oppressor is fear of a damning god and hope for a reward, where is the value or morality in that?"
"Good" or "decent" is without meaning where God doesn't exist. There IS no morality without Him. There's only what is fashionable...what's in vogue at any given moment in time. But whether my obedience to God is out of fear of His Holy Wrath or out of an acknowledgement of and desire for His Holy Love, what's moral is His Way, not what Dan Trabue regards as "good" and "decent". Who the f**k cares what Dan Trabue believes? I abide the Will of God (in my imperfect way) and without a belief in God, there is no possibility of a reduction in division and hatred and war and other suffering.
"It's not a morality at all, don't you see? It's a transactional bargain you make based on your fear of a damning godling. "I'll be good, little god, as long as you don't send me to that torture place and you accept me into that good place... but without that, to hell with with you?""
Everything hinges on belief in God, in acceptance of Christ as Savior. What you regard as "morality" is just your girlish fear of being abused by those who would see you as easy prey. And I also see you as easy prey, but my love of God and my desire to obey His Will negates preying upon you as an option available to me. Without God, you're toast. Without God I'm living larger because I have your stuff and the ability to keep it.
But as God exists, that's not an issue. What is an issue is that I'm not truly one who seeks to take what isn't mine properly earned, I don't get off on beating up wussies like you and I don't bullshit about my desire to be a nice guy isn't the result of having been born and raised in a culture heavily influenced by Christianity. I don't pretend it's a natural thing, but that what is natural...our sin nature...is mitigated by having been so born and raised.
"Is that what you're saying?"
"That is, if God made God's Self clear and told you, "NO, child, I'm not going to punish you for a tortured eternity for the typical failings of an imperfect humanity, and the Realm of God that I'm speaking of is God's will be done ON EARTH, here and now... the heaven part is more figurative..." would you spit in that God's face and say, "Forget about it! I'm out!""
Ah...another of Dan's self-serving hypotheticals. It reflects your infantile inability to understand the Lord's Prayer and worse, God's Justice.
"That would be the sort of religion that Lennon would like to see go away... the hedonistic, one step away from hell on earth, oppressive and bitter religions..."
Who cares what that pagan hedonist would've liked?
"It's a reasonable question."
You don't understand what "reasonable" means or looks like. Hint: it's not akin to what you like or want or need.
Marshal (et al), when I say INCLUSIVE, I mean that the invitation to accept Jesus' Good News to the poor and marginalized is open to ALL OF HUMANITY.
That is, it literally includes ALL OF HUMANITY.
Do you disagree?
I further mean that God is a God of grace and that grace is for ALL, it is inclusive of ALL humanity.
Do you disagree?
I, of course, recognize the reality that some people reject that grace, that open invitation.
I assume you agree?
And Jesus said that those who rejected that grace were often the rich and powerful, the religious zealots like the Pharisees, who created a RULES-based religion and one had to abide by those graceless rules to their satisfaction, and by doing so, they were rejecting the grace to ALL that God was/is offering.
Do you disagree?
It would be hard to disagree if you take the words of Jesus literally and if you take Jesus and the way of Grace seriously. But you tell me.
January 11, 2025 at 12:54 PM
First, we're not your brothers. We don't count as brothers those who mock Christ, who promote perversion of His Word as you do.
Secondly, I don't give a flying rat's ass what the "saints" of Jeff St have planned to honor Carter, but I'm not surprised they'd choose music from between an atheist commie and a sexual pervert.
Marshal:
Peace and love without Jesus is worthless.
? Can one truly have peace and love without Jesus? Isn't Jesus/God the author of peace and love? Therefore, IF someone is living a life of peace and love (even imperfectly, given our imperfect human nature), THEN one is living in Jesus' way. How could they NOT be?
Or do you theorize in your human opinions, that there are TWO "kinds" of peace and of love? There is God's peace (in your theory) and there are other types of peaces? God's love (in your human theory) and other types of love?
If so, prove your human theory or admit that it's just a theory that you are guessing about but can't objectively support.
PEACE is of God. LOVE is of God. Friends, the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control... THESE things are OF God and evidence of God, according to biblical teaching.
Do you seriously disagree with literal words literally found in the Bible?
Who cares what that pagan hedonist would've liked?
You'll have to ask your pervert president that, brother. Trump is in a whole other category from saints like Lennon and Carter. Those were decent, loving men as evidenced by their lives (well, especially Carter, but Lennon seemed decent enough). The actual pagan, actual hedonist between these three men is, far and away, the rich oppressive actual deviant you voted for and continue to defend.
Weird.
Marshal, I ask again the reasonable question that you appear too cowardly to even begin to try to answer:
That is, if God made God's Self clear and told you,
"NO, child, I'm not going to punish you for a tortured eternity
for the typical failings of an imperfect humanity, and
the Realm of God that I'm speaking of is
God's will be done ON EARTH, here and now...
the heaven part is more figurative..."
would you spit in that God's face and say, "Forget about it! I'm out!"?
You seem to place an incredibly amount of arrogant self-importance and trust in YOUR PARTICULAR human opinions of God... so much that you appear to be testifying that you would be a hedonistic vulgar villain IF you turned out to have a wrong idea of God and you would reject God Almighty IF you misunderstood God.
That seems to be a rather blasphemous place to stand.
Marshal theorized and opined, with no support:
"Good" or "decent" is without meaning where God doesn't exist. There IS no morality without Him.
1. I didn't say that God doesn't exist. I asked you the reasonable question, IF it turned out you held a mistaken opinion about what God thinks of heaven and hell, would you reject God almighty?
2. Prove that there is no morality without God. You can't, of course.
3. That is, you hold this human theory (not in any way a proven fact, objectively so or you'd prove it) that
a. there IS morality or moral positions... ie, good and bad. This is a point that I don't disagree with, of course, nor does most of humanity by all evidence.
AND, you theorize in your personal human opinion:
b. That this "morality" exists ONLY because of a God that you theorize "invented" or "designed" it or otherwise caused it to be and thus, your little human theory goes, without God (or a god as you imagine God), there can't be morality.
But that is not biblical. It's not proven. It's not rational. It is wholly unsupported except by your personal human opinion.
Can you admit that much, at least? That this IS your personal human theory, not something God has told you, nor anything the Biblical authors have said, even?
January 11, 2025 at 1:07 PM
"Brother Neil, in another attempt to demonize Saint Jimmy, said..."
Neil's not your brother, girl. Don't insult my visitors by daring to suggest such a thing. And his alleged attempt to demonize Carter was not presented by you. No matter, he wasn't attempting any such thing, you lying heretic. Presenting truths about the man you willfully choose to leave out is not "demonizing". It's simply providing the full story.
"To be clear: Imagine is an anthem the world wide, in communist nations and in capitalist nations. Only in certain conservative circles is it attacked and demonized and, if it were up to some of them, even banned."
This is moronic. First of all, it doesn't matter if even capitalist nation play this commie song. As we see in this United States of America, we're infested with a dangerous amount of marxists and perverts. Conservatives rightly point out the commie message of "Imagine". Whiny little girly "progressives" like you get your panties in a bunch when better people disagree with your fantasies. No conservative would seek to "ban" the song. We simply wouldn't play it in our churches and pretend it's like a freakin' hymn.
"The rest of the rational and spiritual world recognizes the simple poetry calling for the world to be more united in peace and love. Hardly anything worthy of being attacked."
It's an atheist, commie song worthy of criticism as such.
"But then, they attacked Jesus for preaching a similar message!"
Jesus never preached an anti-God, commie message.
"Live and let live, men."
I don't believe anyone here suggested assholes like you couldn't listen to Lennon's song, play it in your heretical church or anything like that.
"If you don't like it, don't listen to it."
Gee, thanks for the permission, Nancy!
"If someone sings it at your church as we have at mine and you don't like it, shrug your shoulders and graciously allow, "Well, if it's meaningful to them, who am I to try to take that joy away or to discount those peacemakers?""
Unlike you, I and most others who post here attend actual Christian churches, so there's little chance the song would be on the Sunday Hymn list.
""Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather resolve this, not to put a stumbling block or a cause to fall in our brother’s way."
~St Paul, in Romans 14
"Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the faith God has distributed to each of you...
Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good.
Be devoted to one another in love. Honor one another above yourselves...
Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud...
If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone..."
~St Paul in Romans 12"
I love when Dan posts passages he doesn't understand or abide.
"Live and let live, dear brothers."
Says the whiny little bitch who can't stand another blog criticizing his Carter worship.
"IF you see someone knocking a poor widow down and taking advantage of her, step up and help out!"
WTF???
"But, if you merely disagree that this song is sufficiently respectful of God, in your personal opinion, and others recognize the God in the powerful, simple call to be peaceful and loving, choose the better part of wisdom and be quiet."
It's NOT respectful of God at all. Lennon's an atheist. His attitude against religions is an expression of his hatred of God. You're not wise at all and certainly not enough to dare presume to tell me I'd be wise NOT to speak out against heresies like yours, Carter's or Lennon's. Maybe Paul should have shut the hell up and not preached to the many churches of his time doing better what I'm doing here.
You're a putz, Dan, and seem eager to remain so. When you post blatant crap at your blog, I will respond to it here with truth.
As you said, the more we read and hear about Carter, the more we know he wasn't what he claimed to be. That's why Dan's wet himself so thoroughly. For some reason he needs to believe the myth rather than the truth.
And of course, Dan isn't done puking stupid all over my blog:
January 11, 2025 at 4:24 PM
"Who says Carter... perhaps the most overtly Christian president... church-goer, Sunday School teacher... EVER deliberately rejected or was ashamed of Jesus? What are you even talking about..??"
Watch the entirety of Neil's link, then ask stupid questions.
"Once again, it appears you're suggesting that those who dare disagree with your personal human traditions are somehow rejecting Jesus!"
And once again, you're wrong.
"WHERE did Carter ever reject Jesus??"
Watch the entirety of Neil's link, then ask stupid questions.
"How are you incapable of seeing how frivolously ridiculous and irrational and outright dishonest your nonsensical claims are... backed by absolutely nothing, as they are?"
I'm not, because what we've been reporting are truths and facts about the guy you refuse to acknowledge regardless of the source. You want and need...for some perversely psychotic reason...to believe Carter was a saintly guy, pretty much just because that's how he postured and you're all about superficial posturing suggesting more.
January 11, 2025 at 4:43 PM
"Marshal (et al), when I say INCLUSIVE, I mean that the invitation to accept Jesus' Good News to the poor and marginalized is open to ALL OF HUMANITY."
You weren't required to restate your erroneous understanding of inclusion.
"That is, it literally includes ALL OF HUMANITY.
Do you disagree?"
Irrelevant. The invitation is made with the full knowledge not all will accept. This makes your understanding of "inclusion" really moot. While the invitation is open to all who will respond on God's terms, Heaven is exclusively for those who do. That's a significant difference and being among the exclusive is far more important than being among the invitees.
"I further mean that God is a God of grace and that grace is for ALL, it is inclusive of ALL humanity.
Do you disagree?"
Yes. It's irrelevant. What matters is whether or not one abides on God's terms. But hey...if you need this to count as a touchdown, you go ahead and do your little end zone dance.
"I, of course, recognize the reality that some people reject that grace, that open invitation."
Then you recognize how little value there is in the "inclusive" nature of the invite. Only acceptance matters.
"And Jesus said that those who rejected that grace were often the rich and powerful, the religious zealots like the Pharisees, who created a RULES-based religion and one had to abide by those graceless rules to their satisfaction, and by doing so, they were rejecting the grace to ALL that God was/is offering."
Blah, blah, blah. More nonsense and poor presentation of Scripture.
"It would be hard to disagree if you take the words of Jesus literally and if you take Jesus and the way of Grace seriously. But you tell me."
I disagree with your perversions of Scripture and your nonsensical position on "inclusion".
I also disagree with you doing your tangential crap again. This thread is about Carter not being the saint you say he was nor the "best" person to be president. Anti-Semites who promote sexual perversion and abortion aren't saints.
January 11, 2025 at 4:49 PM
"Peace and love without Jesus is worthless."
"? Can one truly have peace and love without Jesus? Isn't Jesus/God the author of peace and love? Therefore, IF someone is living a life of peace and love (even imperfectly, given our imperfect human nature), THEN one is living in Jesus' way. How could they NOT be?"
How can anyone live "Jesus' way" if there's no Jesus? If there's no God? Lennon was an atheist. His blathering about peace and love was meaningless as well as not at all impactful on the culture. And again, like lefties do, he preached to those who were not the source of violence and hatred.
"Or do you theorize in your human opinions, that there are TWO "kinds" of peace and of love? There is God's peace (in your theory) and there are other types of peaces? God's love (in your human theory) and other types of love?"
WTF??? More stupid questions from an incredible stupid girl.
"If so, prove your human theory or admit that it's just a theory that you are guessing about but can't objectively support."
You don't get to dictate here, bitch. Stick to the topic of the post or take a hike.
"PEACE is of God. LOVE is of God. Friends, the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control... THESE things are OF God and evidence of God, according to biblical teaching."
Off topic tripe. I'm not your friend. I don't befriend baby killing, perv promoting fake Christians like you.
"Do you seriously disagree with literal words literally found in the Bible?"
Of course not. I simply understand them and don't pervert them like you do.
January 11, 2025 at 4:52 PM
"You'll have to ask your pervert president that, brother."
I'm not your brother, bitch. Stop being disrespectful by saying I am. Also, I didn't vote for Biden. That perv is YOUR guy, not mine.
"Trump is in a whole other category from saints like Lennon and Carter."
Well, that's true. He actually made life better for Americans and others around the world. Lennon and Carter, neither anywhere near a saint, didn't do much to help anyone and in Carter's case, not enough to outweigh all the harm he did.
"Those were decent, loving men as evidenced by their lives (well, especially Carter, but Lennon seemed decent enough). The actual pagan, actual hedonist between these three men is, far and away, the rich oppressive actual deviant you voted for and continue to defend."
These were two guys with loads of negatives you pretend don't exist so you can laud them as saints, mostly to contrast them with a flawed guy who did so much more for so many more people.
Weird.
January 11, 2025 at 4:55 PM
"Marshal, I ask again the reasonable question that you appear too cowardly to even begin to try to answer"
Your question was not reasonable in the least. It requires that your favored falsehood be true and I'm not obliged to respond to stupidity. God would not have need of clarifying what I already well understand...which are teachings which are clear already. He would not have me believe your heresies as if they are true and then demand I accept them.
" You seem to place an incredibly amount of arrogant self-importance and trust in YOUR PARTICULAR human opinions of God"
There's nothing "arrogant" or "self-important" about accepting what is clearly true. You accuse me because you reject the truth and demand I regard the truth as mere opinion or invented human tradition. Pound sand up your ass.
" you appear to be testifying that you would be a hedonistic vulgar villain IF you turned out to have a wrong idea of God and you would reject God Almighty IF you misunderstood God."
No. This is you doing your damndest to find fault in me where it doesn't exist. My comments were reflective of an scenario in which God doesn't exist, not that I have Him wrong. You can tell by how I mentioned "if there's no God (or Jesus)" before stating I'd take all your stuff. There would be no moral quality to any action I might take if God doesn't exist. Living the status quo would be stupid when I could improve my lot by taking all your stuff (assuming any of it is actually worth taking...I guess your cash would be a good start). Try to pay attention rather than presume you have the moral high ground. You're a heretic. You have more work to do to insist you could ever have the moral high ground.
January 11, 2025 at 5:01 PM
"Marshal theorized and opined, with no support:"
I'm not obliged to support anything here. You don't get to demand that I do. YOU, however, are obliged to prove me wrong with evidence and not your bullshit, self-serving nonsensical questions.
""Good" or "decent" is without meaning where God doesn't exist. There IS no morality without Him."
"1. I didn't say that God doesn't exist."
Pay attention, dipshit. Lennon's song suggests no God. But you don't actually believe the God of the Bible exists, so what's the difference?
"I asked you the reasonable question, IF it turned out you held a mistaken opinion about what God thinks of heaven and hell, would you reject God almighty?"
It's not a reasonable question. It's a deflection. Just try to prove I hold a mistaken understanding. Don't ask me what I'd do if your fictitious false god said something contrary to Scriptural teaching.
"2. Prove that there is no morality without God. You can't, of course."
I don't need to. God either is the source of morality or He isn't. Clearly, fake Christians like you pretend there's some other source, though you do nothing to support the premise.
"3. That is, you hold this human theory (not in any way a proven fact, objectively so or you'd prove it) that"
You mean...I abide Biblical truth you find personally problematic, so you'll refer to it as "human theory" instead of "Biblical truth".
"a. there IS morality or moral positions... ie, good and bad. This is a point that I don't disagree with, of course, nor does most of humanity by all evidence."
Oh, look! Dan's trying to pretend he's thinking and graciously conceding the obvious. Except of course for that "most of humanity" bit. That requires evidential support we'll never get from him.
"AND, you theorize in your personal human opinion:"
Stating FACT is not "theorizing".
"b. That this "morality" exists ONLY because of a God that you theorize "invented" or "designed" it or otherwise caused it to be and thus, your little human theory goes, without God (or a god as you imagine God), there can't be morality."
Wantonly disrespectful and insulting from the hypocrite who demands respect and civility at his blog.
"But that is not biblical."
Of course it is. God's the Creator of all things, is He not? Yet you want to pretend He's not the source of morality? How pathetically absurd!
"It's not proven. It's not rational. It is wholly unsupported except by your personal human opinion."
What other source of morality is there? You can't even name another much less prove another exists. God created everything, but somehow, not morality. His Law has no bearing on the fact, it's just a coincidence that it aligns with everything we regard as moral.
"Can you admit that much, at least? That this IS your personal human theory, not something God has told you, nor anything the Biblical authors have said, even?"
No. This isn't true, it's what you want true to be. You don't get to do that. What's more, you're among the least capable of doing it at all.
John 1:3
Case closed.
"case closed..."
snicker. Come on. Be an adult reasoner, not a third grade wannabe bully.
++++++++
Moving on, since you all have been so emotionally thrilled with Neil's link:
From Neil's little link to some dude named Justin Peters Ministries (who? Who should care what Justin thinks and why? Is he an expert on Carter, Lennon or anything of significance beyond his own little human opinion? As it turns out, Peters is one of many ultra-conservative religious types who attended Soutwestern Southern Baptist Theological Seminary... SO? how does that make him an expert on Lennon, Carter or Other People's Faiths? Answer: It just don't. How many houses has Peters helped build? How many diseases has he cured? How many elections has he made sure were fair? WHO CARES about little Justin's personal human opinions and why should we??)...
This "Justin" opines about Jimmy Carter, who he allegedly said:
When asked about his favorite song, his answer was, "Imagine..." "When I go to a strange country, Cuba and some other places, in some of those nations, Imagine has become an unofficial national anthem. If you go to Havana, for instance, you'll see a statue of John Lennon"
Okay.
So? You all say things like this with breathless expectation, as if all the world should join in your great aghast. But we don't. So. WHO is Peters? Who are Neil or Marshal?
What do you think this proves other than Mr Peters is personally concerned about Carter, because... some reason??
More...
Continuing with "Justin's" personal human opinions:
"Friends, Cuba is a communist country. It's communist. So, yeah, I guess I'm very unsurprised that they have a statue of Lennon there who was also a communist and a professing atheist. This is Carters favorite song. He admires that... that they have a statue of a professing atheist in a communist country... he thinks that's cool."
Okay. So? Who cares? Where has GOD ALMIGHTY ever stated that we should listen to "Justin's" (whoever he is) personal opinion about Carter's personal opinion, thinking it's cool that there's a statue of Lennon (in the context of a song of peace and love)?
WHAT DIFFERENCE does it make that Carter thinks that's cool? HOW is that a problem for anyone beyond conservative people like little Justin and Marshal and Neil? Is it hard evidence of ONE SINGLE THING beyond your all's personal little opinions?
Lord have mercy!
Justin continues citing Carter:
"When we go to a folk concert.. they always play Imagine. And it's one of my favorites.just personally. If you listen to the lyrics closely, you'll see that it's against religion, it's against national boundaries, it's against nationalism, it's against jingoism but the impact it has on people is profound." (Carter's opinion)
Justin offers his little human opinion on that comment:
Carter is well aware of the point of the song. He says it's against religion and that's why it's one of his favorite songs. Does that sound like a Christian to you?
To be accurate, Carter notes that, among other things, the song is against religion. So? YOU ALL are against at least some religions, right. Indeed, YOU ALL are against 99.9% of religions, are you not? You're against Muslims, against Mormons, against Catholics (or most of them, anyway), against liberal Christians... YOU all are opposed to most religions. Can you imagine that!?
If YOU all are against most religions and you can imagine a world where those religions don't exist, why are you aghast that Lennon is against religion? AND, do you not understand WHY Lennon would write that line of poetry?
It appears not.
More...
Justin continued offering his human opinions...
In his later years, Carter's appreciation of Imagine was much in evidence. When students performed it (at a college setting), he (Carter) rose to his feet and led the applause...
sputter, sputter!
"I (little Justin whoeverheis) cannot imagine a scenario which a true Christian would say that this song which is unambiguously anti-theistic... that's my favorite song..."
Okay, little Justin can't personally imagine in his opinion why ANY true Christians would like this song. So what? I can't imagine why any decent person or "true Christian" would like many hymns or songs like "God Bless the USA..." What of it? Does that mean that because I, personally, don't care for God Bless the USA, that anyone who has another opinion is wrong or somehow NOT a Christian?
WHERE is the grace in this demand that people acknowledge your personal opinions?
What OF little Justin's opinions? Why does that matter in this conversation?
Because Neil and Marshal "can't imagine in their... sputter, sputter... wildest imagination that another Christian would like the song," that all Christians who do are wrong?
Says who?
Look, I get that "Justin," Marshal and Neil (and probably Glenn) are aghast that somehow, Carter (and millions of others) appreciate the message of love and peace in the song "Imagine," but what difference does it make that you all are shocked, personally shocked!! that Carter would dare to like and appreciate this song...? What OF it that you all don't like it or find it somehow lacking or even that you all hold an opinion that, to you and in your heads, this is, you think, a bad song because, YOU think, it is disrespectful of God and, YOU think, it endorses "communism..."? SO?
That's really what this boils down to... a huge, SO WHAT if you all don't care for the song personally? Why should anyone care about your personal little human opinions about this song?
Do you think you all speak for God when you say it's a bad song?
If so, THAT is what Lennon and millions of others are concerned about... that sort of unsupported and graceless, divisive, arrogant and potentially dangerous human religious traditions.
Marshal...
"John 1:3
Case closed."
What John 1:3 says...
"Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made."
Some problems with your rather simplistic non-answer...
1. Is morality a "made thing"? OR, is it just a consequence of humanity's existence? OR is it a consequence of God's existence outside of humanity?
2. WHO SAYS that morality is a "made" thing and based on what authority or data?
3. Are you suggesting that because the human, Marshal, reads this very poetic, figurative bit of literature and the human, Marshal, imagines/theories that morality is one of the "made" things being cited here, that Marshal is objectively right?
Says who?
So very many things you all theorize are righteously, rationally responded to with the obvious, SAYS WHO? Which question always, perforce, remains ignored and unanswered.
The verse prior to your proof text says, the Word was with God and the Word WAS God.
Are you suggesting God is simply a Word and, if so, which Word? Are you guessing that the Almighty God is the word, Aardvark? Perspicacity? (Not those things, mind you, just the word for these things...)
Says who?
Sigh.
Dan
1 John 1, first few verses:
In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
He was in the beginning with God.
All things came into being through Him,
and apart from Him not even one thing came into being
that has come into being.
In Him was life, and the life was the Light of mankind.
And the Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not grasp it.
So, Marshal, tell me authoritatively and with some objectively proven data:
WHAT is "the Word" spoken of here?
Is it literally Jesus and John is using figurative, poetic language to cryptically refer to Jesus as "the Word..."?
What did John mean by "THE WORD," and in what sense is Jesus "the Word..." Literally, that Jesus is A word? That literally, Jesus is THE Word? What is THAT word?
Setting aside all of that literally figurative language and assuming (as we probably all do) that John is speaking figuratively of Jesus (for whatever meaning), then all the uses of HE/HIM that follow are speaking (figuratively and literally) of Jesus, right?
So, when the text says:
apart from Him not even one thing came into being
that has come into being.
And since evil is in the world, do you think it "came into being" and thus, do you think that Jesus "created" evil, which after all, evil is in the world? Do you think Jesus invented rape and caused rape to happen, since, after all, rape is in the world? Child abuse? Child rape... ALL invented by the "Word" which is "Him" which is Jesus... is that your theory?
Or please explain your theory on all that.
In Him was life, and the life was the Light of mankind.
So, you theorize that in JESUS was "life," (meaning what, exactly?) and that life was the "light of humanity..."? Is that a literal or figurative "light..."?
Please explain, perhaps with data and charts and objectively proven information.
OR, perhaps it's the case that the human author, John, was speaking largely in a figurative manner. But if that's the case, how do you objectively identify the literal and the figurative?
These are reasonable questions that always go ignored.
“Just a point to make, when Jesus spoke of "the poor" he was talking about poor in spirit. That's what the real theologians say, which really is more logical than poor in finances”
Great point, Glenn. You can always spot the “Christian” Leftists because they always quote the “poor” version and not the “poor in spirit” version from Matthew 5. The latter passage makes the meaning of both of them clear, but wolves always obfuscate.
And, as always, conservatives give more of their time, blood, and money than Leftists. Go look at Biden’s historical giving. Even when selling out Americans for millions of dollars, he only donates a pittance.
Re. John Lennon: I’ve been a huge Beatles fan for 50 years, but Lennon was a total jerk. I read a biography of his. The author obviously loved Lennon, but told the truth about how selfish and mean he could be. The Commie’s goal in the years before he died was to have saved up ONE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS. So yeah, “all you need is love . . . And $100,000,000.” Again, loved his music, but he was a druggy and a phony.
From “Imagine” — Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people sharin' all the world
Yoo, hoo, oo-oo
Yep. No possessions, except $100,000,000 for John.
It really is fitting that the Leftist phonies love that song. It helps them rationalize their evil and hypocrisy, as they beg “Caesar” to confiscate from others to “give” on their behalf while they pretend they are like Jesus. Sure, wolves. Even the hypocrites in Matthew 6 were better than the “Christian” Leftists. At least they gave their own money!
Indeed, Glenn. But this point has been rejected by Dan constantly as it doesn't align with his marxist sensibilities.
Well said, Neil. Dan's having a conniption over our refusal to bow down and give praise to Sts. Carter and Lennon.
January 11, 2025 at 7:09 PM
"case closed..."
"snicker. Come on. Be an adult reasoner, not a third grade wannabe bully."
...says Danny, the bitchy little third grade girl seeking to bully us into agreement with his misplaced worship of Carter and Lennon.
"Moving on, since you all have been so emotionally thrilled with Neil's link:"
"Emotionally thrilled". An interesting way to spin it, typical of a bitchy, bullying third grade girl.
"From Neil's little link to some dude named Justin Peters Ministries (who? Who should care what Justin thinks and why?"
Certainly fake Christians who whine like bitchy little third grade girls won't. Especially since Peters dares to disagree with Dan's reverent devotion to the notion that Carter is some kind of "saint".
"Is he an expert on Carter, Lennon or anything of significance..."
It wouldn't matter because he disagrees with Dan's mancrush on those dudes. But Peters certainly is Biblically knowledgeable and just based on this video has a far more solid grasp on the faith than Dan or Carter does. That's enough for me.
"As it turns out, Peters is one of many ultra-conservative religious types who attended Soutwestern Southern Baptist Theological Seminary..."
...and thus he's right off a far better representative of the Christian faith than Dan or Carter. Dan knows this. It's why he's crapping on the guy.
"SO? how does that make him an expert on Lennon, Carter or Other People's Faiths? Answer:"
It makes him expert enough to determine how actual Christians respond to atheist anthems like "Imagine".
"How many houses has Peters helped build?"
How does building houses confirm one's Christian faith? It doesn't.
"How many diseases has he cured?"
Which diseases have Carter or Lennon cured? What a dumbfuck question to ask. That's our Danny-girl!
"How many elections has he made sure were fair?"
As many as Carter has, which was none.
"WHO CARES about little Justin's personal human opinions and why should we??)..."
Who cares that little Danny's panties are in a twist because of Peter's reasoned analysis of Carter's claim of Christianity?
"This "Justin" opines about Jimmy Carter, who he allegedly said:
When asked about his favorite song, his answer was, "Imagine..." "When I go to a strange country, Cuba and some other places, in some of those nations, Imagine has become an unofficial national anthem. If you go to Havana, for instance, you'll see a statue of John Lennon"
Okay.
So? You all say things like this with breathless expectation, as if all the world should join in your great aghast. But we don't."
"Breathless expectation"??? WTF?? We don't look for all the world to do a damned thing about this issue. But it's plain that only leftists are aghast that conservatives and real Christians aren't smitten by Jew-hating posers who love commie anthems.
"So. WHO is Peters? Who are Neil or Marshal?"
Better Christians by default than Dan Trabue or Jimmah Carter.
"What do you think this proves other than Mr Peters is personally concerned about Carter, because... some reason??"
Uh...there's no proof requested for anything. Nothing he said about Carter is false and all of it he supported. He's merely...as I have here...responded to the unjustified praise of Carter as something he never was, by morons like you.
January 11, 2025 at 7:12 PM
As I continue commenting on Dan's pathetic panty wetting, it should be noted that it all would be better presented at his own Blog of Lies, where it can be summarily ignored.
"Continuing with "Justin's" personal human opinions:"
...which are all really well said and on point...
""Friends, Cuba is a communist country. It's communist. So, yeah, I guess I'm very unsurprised that they have a statue of Lennon there who was also a communist and a professing atheist. This is Carters favorite song. He admires that... that they have a statue of a professing atheist in a communist country... he thinks that's cool."
Okay. So? Who cares?"
Those who might wish to know about the real Jimmy Carter. Those who wish to elevate him to sainthood really don't want to know about the real Jimmy Carter. They only want to focus on his "good deeds" and ignore all the many negatives which clearly seem to outweigh those "good deeds". Those like Dan, for whom truth is a real problem.
"Where has GOD ALMIGHTY ever stated that we should listen to "Justin's" (whoever he is) personal opinion about Carter's personal opinion, thinking it's cool that there's a statue of Lennon (in the context of a song of peace and love)?"
What an incredibly stupid question! Let's all point at Dan and laugh!
"WHAT DIFFERENCE does it make that Carter thinks that's cool?"
It gives insight regarding the true nature of the man. It shows just how freaking far to the left the putz was.
"HOW is that a problem for anyone beyond conservative people like little Justin and Marshal and Neil?"
Who are you calling "little", Nancy?
That Carter's leftism isn't a problem for more people is a problem for this nation and a true indictment of the character of those for whom it's no problem.
"Is it hard evidence of ONE SINGLE THING beyond your all's personal little opinions?"
Yeah. It's hard evidence of Carter's unworthiness of praise.
"Lord have mercy!"
Which "Lord" is it to whom you appeal? YOUR "Lord", or the One True God of the Christian Bible?
"Justin continues citing Carter:
"When we go to a folk concert.. they always play Imagine. And it's one of my favorites.just personally. If you listen to the lyrics closely, you'll see that it's against religion, it's against national boundaries, it's against nationalism, it's against jingoism but the impact it has on people is profound." (Carter's opinion)
Justin offers his little human opinion on that comment:"
Which is spot on. Peter's is a sharp dude. And unlike you, he seems to be a solid Christian.
"Carter is well aware of the point of the song. He says it's against religion and that's why it's one of his favorite songs. Does that sound like a Christian to you?"
No. Not at all. It sounds like a Trabue-level fake Christian!
"To be accurate,..."
Peters was accurate.
"YOU ALL are against at least some religions, right."
Lennon's not imagining being against "some" religions, is he, butthead?
"Indeed, YOU ALL are against 99.9% of religions, are you not? You're against Muslims, against Mormons, against Catholics (or most of them, anyway), against liberal Christians... YOU all are opposed to most religions. Can you imagine that!?"
More accurately, we recognize the false nature of those faiths which are not of the Judeo-Christian variety. That include "progressive christians" like you.
"If YOU all are against most religions and you can imagine a world where those religions don't exist, why are you aghast that Lennon is against religion? AND, do you not understand WHY Lennon would write that line of poetry?"
Again, not "against" non-Judeo-Christian faiths. They're just false. Lennon writes that line of poetry out of his disdain for Christianity. Like most dumbass lefties, he believed religion is the source of hatred and divisions. It's typical leftist infantile thinking promoted as profound by the stupid.
January 11, 2025 at 7:17 PM
"Okay, little Justin"
Don't disparage the man, you vile little bitch. He's a better man and a far more solid Christian than you or Carter.
"...can't personally imagine in his opinion why ANY true Christians would like this song."
No true Scotsman...I mean...no true Christian does like the song! Only fake christians like you do.
"So what? I can't imagine why any decent person or "true Christian" would like many hymns or songs like "God Bless the USA...""
No one here gives a flying rat's ass what you think about what actually decent people or actual true Christians like.
"What of it? Does that mean that because I, personally, don't care for God Bless the USA, that anyone who has another opinion is wrong or somehow NOT a Christian?"
That would be stupid, because God Bless The USA isn't anti-religion or America. But you're already not a Christian, so...
"WHERE is the grace in this demand that people acknowledge your personal opinions?"
...says the asshole who's pissed we don't agree with his personal opinion about Jew-hating lefty, Jimmy Carter.
"What OF little Justin's opinions? Why does that matter in this conversation?"
Well, little Danny-girl...Neil felt it was relevant to the discussion regarding the irrational worship of Jimmy Carter by morons like you. To have someone who actually seems to have seriously studied Scripture, and demonstrates just in that video a far better grasp of it than you, is valuable in adding relevant facts and truth to make the case.
"Because Neil and Marshal "can't imagine in their... sputter, sputter... wildest imagination that another Christian would like the song," that all Christians who do are wrong?"
First, none of us "sputter". I don't believe any actual Christians like the song at all! (Except for the melody, which I like). The lyrics are crap and send a crappy message no true Christian could possibly like.
"Says who?"
Real Christians. Find one and ask.
"Look, I get that "Justin," Marshal and Neil (and probably Glenn) are aghast that somehow, Carter (and millions of others) appreciate the message of love and peace in the song "Imagine," but what difference does it make that you all are shocked, personally shocked!!"
It's not surprising at all to us that fake Christians and stupid people think the most salient message of this song is peace and love. That's insipid platitude, and to imagine peace and love breaking out because religion or national borders no longer exist is something only fake Christians and the stupid would find appealing. You qualify on both counts.
"...that Carter would dare to like and appreciate this song...?"
...demonstrates the true measure of this guy. It ain't good.
"What OF it that you all don't like it or find it somehow lacking or even that you all hold an opinion that, to you and in your heads, this is, you think, a bad song because, YOU think, it is disrespectful of God and, YOU think, it endorses "communism..."? SO?"
So, we reject the song for the crap it is and question the intelligence and character of those who find it hymn-like.
"That's really what this boils down to... a huge, SO WHAT if you all don't care for the song personally? Why should anyone care about your personal little human opinions about this song?"
It clearly matters to you what we think of this song and morons who love it, or you wouldn't be here boring me with stupid comments and questions.
"Do you think you all speak for God when you say it's a bad song?"
Nope. I think you're a dumbass, though.
"If so, THAT is what Lennon and millions of others are concerned about... that sort of unsupported and graceless, divisive, arrogant and potentially dangerous human religious traditions."
Thanks for validating what I said earlier about Lennon stupidly believing religion is the source of hatred and division. It's not, and certainly not Christianity. It's dumbasses like you responsible for hatred and division. Lefties always are.
January 11, 2025 at 8:01 PM
"John 1:3
Case closed."
"What John 1:3 says...
"Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.""
Yeah, I know. That's why I cited it in response to your moronic opinions about the source of morality.
"Some problems with your rather simplistic non-answer..."
Simplistic because I'm dealing with a simpleton. But it's an accurate answer beyond your ability to confront honestly. To wit:
"1. Is morality a "made thing"? OR, is it just a consequence of humanity's existence? OR is it a consequence of God's existence outside of humanity?"
God is "GOOD" and thus God is morality. What we regard as moral is due to God's existence. Without God, there is no morality.
"2. WHO SAYS that morality is a "made" thing and based on what authority or data?"
Don't know. I said God is the source of morality. If there's no God, there's no morality.
"3. Are you suggesting that because the human, Marshal, reads this very poetic, figurative bit of literature and the human, Marshal, imagines/theories that morality is one of the "made" things being cited here, that Marshal is objectively right?"
I'm objectively right because my citation supports the premise that without God there is no morality.
"Says who?"
Honest, actual Christians, beginning with John at the start of his Gospel.
"So very many things you all theorize are righteously, rationally responded to with the obvious, SAYS WHO? Which question always, perforce, remains ignored and unanswered."
There's nothing particularly "righteous" or "rational" about your childish "SAYS WHO?" which is just an insipid attempt to trash truth without doing any heavy lifting. That bullshit dog don't hunt here.
"The verse prior to your proof text says, the Word was with God and the Word WAS God."
The relevant verse for responding to your false stupidity is verse 3. Verses 1 & 2 aren't, except to establish the Deity Who's existence is required for morality to exist. Thanks for the assist.
"Are you suggesting God is simply a Word and, if so, which Word? Are you guessing that the Almighty God is the word, Aardvark? Perspicacity? (Not those things, mind you, just the word for these things...)"
No. I'm stating emphatically that if God doesn't exist, neither does morality. But given your low character, you try this nonsensical bullshit in lieu of an actual argument.
January 11, 2025 at 8:34 PM
"So, Marshal, tell me authoritatively and with some objectively proven data"
No. I'm not obliged to do a damned thing you demand I do simply because you've been shown up yet again. You're not authorized to make demands and less so to further drive this conversation away from the topic of the post.
Your question aren't "reasonable", because you have no familiarity with the term. Simply labeling your bullshit as "reasonable" doesn't make them so. They're irrelevant to the point of the post and thus, by definition, wholly UNreasonable.
So lets' refocus:
1. Carter was no saint, not even close.
2. Carter was a shit president and his post-presidency wasn't anything about which to write home.
3. Canonizing the dude as you insist on doing is without justification and requires ignoring all the horrible negatives which accompany what little good he sought to do, much of which wasn't good at all.
4. Crapping on the many people presented here and elsewhere who provided insights inconvenient to your canonizing of the dude is consistent with your low character and proves you know very little about the guy you think is deserving of sainthood.
5. You're a dumbass.
For clarity, I don't begrudge those like Lennon who get rich. I'm a free-market guy. Just follow the laws. But don't virtue signal and push foolish and evil ideologies like Communism when you know that you are one of the elites who will never be harmed by the systems you create (looking your direction, Bernie Sanders and AOC types). Lennon already had tens of millions of $$ (in the 70s, no less) and had no intention of giving it all away and having no possessions. He just virtue-signaled to useful idiots who think his lyrics made him saintly. And Carter was just as performative.
Some Leftist fools try to dismiss threads like this by noting that Trump has moral issues, but that is a diversion. We know Trump has failings and don't rationalize them away; we just know that his policies are infinitely better than destructive Leftism. But the useful idiots rationalize that people like Carter and Lennon were saintly (false) and then pretend that it meant their ideologies were good (extra false).
Neil,
That's pretty much been my argument all along with regard how those like Dan treat those they like versus those they don't. And again, they like to inflate what they regard as good works in their heroes, while ignoring the good works of those they unjustly despise. I insist Trump's done more good for more people than had Carter and Carter's responsible for more suffering for more people than Trump is, and by a wide margin.
Marshal:
That's pretty much been my argument all along with regard how those like Dan treat those they like versus those they don't....
From Jesus:
For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat,
I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink,
I was a stranger and you invited me in,
I needed clothes and you clothed me,
I was sick and you looked after me,
I was in prison and you came to visit me...’
By this all will know that you are my disciples,
if you have love for one another...
...Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.
From St Paul:
But the fruit of the Spirit is
love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness,
faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.
From St John:
Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous. Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil
From St James:
the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere.
Jimmy Carter was a peaceable, gentle, loving, Sunday-School teaching man, one who was kind to strangers and loving to his family, and faithful to them. He WORKED for peace and towards peacemaking. He WORKED to build houses and promote building houses for the poor. He WORKED to find cures for diseases and promote democracy and human rights around the world.
He poured out his live for the least of these, the poor, those suffering from war, those without housing, those who were sick. The evidence is there, obvious to all.
BY HIS FRUITS, you can know him.
This, according to the Bible, which you all claim to believe and from the teachings of Jesus, who you claim to follow.
Trump, on the other hand, has built an entire life proudly promoting doing all he could do to get richer and portray himself as richer (even richer than he was, all part of his act and his con to get even more money for himself). He lived/lives a hedonistic, pleasure-seeking life, cheating on multiple wives and women and boasting about using his wealth and power to get away with sexual assault and all manner of evil. He used/uses his money to abuse others and he does it all with a vindictive, hateful, divisive manner.
By their fruits you will know them. Says Jesus.
Please. Open your eyes. Let God soften your hearts and open your minds. You all are marks being conned.
January 12, 2025 at 7:12 PM
Dan,
For you to continually pervert Scripture, to present passages in a manner which fails to score you any points because of the dishonest nature of your attempt, this only validates my low opinion of you. What's more, when you look at my words you quoted at the top of this dishonest attempt:
"That's pretty much been my argument all along with regard how those like Dan treat those they like versus those they don't...."
...your desperate attempt to pretend you're aligned with the Word is contemptible. Ignoring all the well supported reports of his true character and focusing only a your superficial understanding of his public posturing is not in any way lessened by your cheap attempt manifested in your producing a few passages. Carter's "fruits" included his blatant anti-Semitism, his willful interference in the affairs of subsequent presidents, as if he was ever actually smarter than any of them, his ill treatment of so many subordinates, his support of a regime which went on to cause all manner of death and suffering either directly or through their proxies, and all the other true measures of his character you pretend don't exist or are "propaganda" without having lifted a finger to support that contention.
Trump, on the other hand, despite his well-known character flaws, actually did far more to help far more people that Carter ever did without ever enabling the bad actors around the world in their evil deeds.
Thus, of the many stark differences between the typical conservative and dumbass, lying moron progressives like you, is honesty. We don't ignore the flaws of our own, but you do constantly, be it Carter's anti-Semitism (which you haven't once addressed), MLK Jr's routine orgies (affirmed by those close to him) or Obama's indulgence in crack and homosexual relations (as per the testimony of the guy who shared those experiences). No, you just insist it's all lies and your guys are saints.
And you'll regard every allegation about those you oppose as gospel truth, which makes you a liar...a bearer of false witness of the worst kind...a gossip...an asshole who seeks to make a flawed man worse in the eyes of his supporters who aren't at all fooled or conned by him, but grateful that he's actually making things far better for far more people than any of the morally corrupt people you promote as "decent" or "saintly" people.
The biggest problem of all is that anyone gives an abject, proven moron like you the time of day.
Lennon, like so many on the left/communists was a hypocrite. Given his post Beatles output, it seems reasonable to wonder how much good music he contributed to the Beatles catalogue. Imagine is a shallow, collection of drivel masquerading as some profound statement.
Like most, I went through a Beatles phase when I was younger. At this point I appreciate what they did, how much they affected music, and some of their songs, but I wouldn't say I'm a fan.
It's interesting how Dan uses scripture (when convenient) which describes the actions of believers, to judge non believers.
We will take over your nation in the name of Allah. Just give it time. Give it some more time. Islam is increasing its numbers in the states.
Craig,
There's enough out there where one can determine which Beatle songs were mostly Lennon songs, which were McCartney and which were actual collaborations. I think Lennon was more music minded during most of his time in the Beatles and less message minded. Afterward, message was all which mattered, IMHO.
I'm still a Beatle fan.
He asserts the moral quality of those he admires and then find verses he pretends actually apply to those people, simply because he wants them to. We're to agree with him...to be persuaded to his opinion of a person because "OH LOOK! THERE ARE THESE VERSES WHICH DESCRIBE JIMMY CARTER!"
But Dan's is a completely superficial understanding of the man, and our unwillingness to pray to Jimmy Carter means, in Dan's weak mind, an attack on he whom Dan regards as "saintly".
The truth is that Dan's worship of certain public figures is as much...if not more...to have an invented comparison to use against Trump than it is any sincere understanding of said person. The main thing we need to know is that Trump is evil incarnate and pointing to a Jimmy Carter (without all the facts) PROVES Dan's hatred of Trump is justified. Yet, Trump still stands as just a flawed individual with far more to comment him than liars like Dan are willing to honestly acknowledge. I've listed many "good deeds" of Trump, most of which would not be known were it not for others who publicized them. Dan doesn't care because of the mention of grabbing women by the crotch...the thought of which gives Dan a tingle in his lady bits.
The real problem for those like Dan is that Trump actually is intelligent, gets things done and focuses on that which will or can have the most positive impact for the benefit of all people, and his track record...unlike Carter's...proves he's successful in doing that to a degree far beyond that of those Dan prefers. That's gotta really hurt!
You say that like it's a good thing, Moron, and I'll wager you can't explain why it might be.
For me, should your kind actually "take over", it will mean Christ's Second Coming is just around the corner and your kind will not fare well at all. In that, your "take over" would indeed be a good thing.
In the meantime, you blathering isn't helping Craig's argument at all.
Art, that may be True as far as dissecting credits. Having said that, I have a ton of respect for the Beatles, and what they meant historically (although they probably had a significant negative impact as well), but I can't say that I'm a fan.
Absolutely. Dan's surface level worship of those his political faith tells him to worship, isn't surprising. Nor is his cherry picking proof texts to justify his attempt at beatification.
I'd say that we're applying the same standards to both Trump and Carter. We're balancing their good/bad and drawing conclusions from there. The difference is that our/my conclusions about Carter are not that he was evil incarnate, while Dan needs to believe that about Trump.
Carter's "gift" was giving publicity to things that others developed. It was using his notoriety to further the work of others, not to engage in anything himself. That's not a bad thing, it's just not worth sainthood.
That's quite alright, Craig. No one's required to be a fan. My wife never was. I've know a few with a serious man-crush on Lennon. I once got into an argument over which Beatle had the best voice...McCartney or Lennon (though I put Harrison at #2). I was speaking only of vocal quality and ability, not personal preference. I might like Joe Cocker over Caruso, but Caruso has the better voice. Lennon kicks it on certain songs. McCartney can sing most anything (his overall rang is sick).
That last paragraph of yours, in particular, is very well said.
It's funny...I had linked to a piece in which it was stated the Carter would carry empty luggage to posture as a common guy when the cameras were on, then passed it off to his detail afterwards. Then, just last night, I saw a Bill O'Reilly piece where he spoke of his own meeting with Carter in the '70s, when Bill was just a reporter. He had awaited his arrival at an airport in, I think, Texas. Bill was the only reporter there. Carter greeted him by name, and Bill was properly pleased, but then stated how Carter's people clearly spoke with news groups to learn who was coming out, and they learned it was this guy, Bill O'Reilly. That's cool.
But then he also mentioned that Carter was carrying a garment bag over his shoulder, which turned out to be empty, just as the other link of mine stated was Carter's routine.
Dan likes to speak of Carter teaching Sunday School, which he did, evidently, while president and after, to the chagrin of his SS detail, as it made their jobs harder than it had to be. He would often just do stuff out of the blue...that is, without first considering security issues...which he could have done in a more structured manner, such as shaking hands and speaking with the people. A "decent" person would consider how his actions impact those around him, especially those tasked with keeping him from getting murdered.
Anyway, I wouldn't insist that Carter was a total dickhead, but he wasn't a saint and he wasn't a genius. To say so when there's so much which contradicts that is childish. One can still admire the guy if one feels so compelled. But let's not go overboard.
Craig...
It's interesting how Dan uses scripture (when convenient) which describes the actions of believers, to judge non believers.
I cite scripture for the legalists' sake (ie, you all... people who think they need a scripture to tell them what to think about morality). I note the reality of Jimmy Carter obviously being a good man based upon the reality of his life and how he is, on the face of it, an overtly good man. He's a family man, not a cheater and an abuser and a sexual predator and one who even LAUGHS and boasts about sexually abusing women and children.
He's a life-long church-goer and Christian and Sunday school teacher, an overtly decent man for most who knew him.
He's someone who has dedicated a good portion of his life to service to others, especially and specifically the poor, the marginalized and sick.
He's someone who has dedicated a good portion of his life to promoting human rights and free and healthy democracies.
He is someone who, on the face of it, given the evidence of his life of human service, is a good man. THAT is why I think he's an obviously good man, because of the evidence.
But for the legalists who need a verse or verses to support their opinions/prejudices, I also cited Scriptures which say the same thing. You will know them by their fruit. Carter is someone with good fruit, with good practices, with a life of observable decency, faithfulness and goodness.
That isn't saying he is a perfect man. Don't be ridiculous. That isn't saying that there were not some days when he was less-than-patient or where some handful of people around him may have found him disingenuous. But, the "evidence" you people cite of him being a bad man is not rational and does not hold up to basic human decency. Does one need to be perfect with no bad days to be a good person? Of course, not.
Does one need to agree with conservatives on policy positions to be a good person? Of course, not.
Graceless legalists might say so, but legalists are rationally and biblically flawed thinkers.
You all are blinded by your partisan nonsense.
Of course, on the face of it, Carter lived a good life and was a good man in his life. Of course, on the face of it, Trump is a deviant narcissist, an abuser and a hedonist.
Only the intentionally blinded would say otherwise.
Marshal: Re: "mohummad akbar," you are, of course, being played. That's not a real name and probably not a real person. But then, you have a history of being played for a fool by con artists. And never knowing it.
Oh really, Dan??? Like so many use aliases for one reason or another (like your troll, for example)??? But this particular troll made an off topic prediction I found to be as stupid as any comment you routinely make and I responded to it.
No one is more conned than those like you, putz. You actually believe there are more than two genders, that a man can really be a woman and only needs to have his body mutilated and drugged in order to be his "true self". You actually believe there's some question about the full humanity and value of the conceived. You more stupidly belied Joe Biden and his box-checked selections for his administration (including the stupid Kamala Harris) are actually better people than Trump and better for the nation that Trump. You think Obama is a decent person, that Carter is because "on the face of it" you need to believe he's "saintly". You're an idiot and that's not merely "on the face of it", but based on a couple decades of discourse in which you've proven it over and over again.
January 13, 2025 at 9:19 PM
And here you go again, doing what you always do, listing only that which "on the face of it" speaks well of someone you need to present as a better person than Trump or conservatives in general. We are not "legalists". We are people who review all available information in judging the cut of another's jib without dishonestly omitting that which is unfavorable.
No "good" man is anti-Semitic, and his lies about Israeli "apartheid" doesn't help. His presidency was as much a clusterf**k as Biden's, so what this means is that he was either not at all a "decent", "good" man or he was a complete moron who meant well. The latter isn't sufficient when the consequences of his actions are so deadly, as was the case with him.
But here's the thing: you know no more about Carter than you do about Trump. You simply treat them 180 degrees differently, by ignoring Carter's many flaws and Trump's many good traits. You applaud what you refer to as "on the face of it", which means it only appears he's a good dude, while repeating any negative about Trump you can scrape out of your shorts without doing a damned thing to verify any of it as actually true. You're a hater of the worst kind...one who hates while posturing as "Christian".
As to that, as is true of you, there are many who claim to be Christian and yet are scumbags. Have you sat in on any of Jimmy Carter's Sunday School lessons? Given his poor position on abortion, homosexuality, islamist terrorism, may God have mercy on every kid who had to sit through his bloviating.
Stop printing your lists which have been rendered moot as well as far from comprehensive when you next try to defend you or your kind as "good and decent" people. You are not.
Marshal:
No "good" man is anti-Semitic
That you personally think in your head that, to you and in your opinion, Carter was "anti-Semitic" does not mean one thing. It doesn't. It's an empty claim, not proof. AND, that you think this NOT because he has expressed anti-semitic thoughts but because you disagree with how he handled Israeli policies in a very complicated situation that has been complicated for decades... again, disagreeing with YOUR PERSONAL HUMAN OPINIONS does not make one bad or "anti-Semitic."
Likewise, that you take gossip from unnamed sources that they had their feelings hurt by Jimmy Carter not being kind enough to them, THAT is not evidence of being unkind or "bad." Gossip is gossip, a destroyer of worlds and a killer of people. Shame on those who rely upon rumors and gossip.
On the other hand, when I note Trump's perversion, it's because of what HE boasts and laughs about, abusing his privilege to sneak peeks at girls getting undressed... about sexually assaulting women and getting away with it. And in addition to his own personal testimony as to his vile nature, we have the testimony of a couple dozen women which does not convict him in a court of law, but one would be foolish to ignore the combination of Trump's own words, what we know about his cheating on multiple women, and the testimony of so many women. I'm no fool.
And that's just one bit of evidence in one area of Trump's life that demonstrates he's a vulgar, nasty human, not a good man. There's also his overt hedonism, there's his corruption, his obviously narcissistic behaviors, his constant nonsense lies and foolish boasting and bullying and on and on.
Your eyes are blinded to reality.
Gotcha. I guess I'm drawing a distinction between what they accomplished and appreciation of that, with being a fan. (Not that those are exclusive) I'd agree that in terms of voice quality I'd rank them 1. Paul 2. George 4. (T) Ringo, John. Having said that, I prefer Ringo's voice to Johns for the most part.
My primary point still stands, buttressed by Neil's comments. Lennon was an incredible hypocrite, like many musicians who pretend to be Marxist/Communist while amassing huge amounts of personal wealth. RATM anyone.
I agree that evaluating a president requires a balanced approach. I'd argue that no US president in history deserves the gushing, teen-aged girl level, adulation that the fanboys are giving Carter. Maybe Lincoln would be the only one I'd venture to mention.
Speaking of gossip, rumors and childish slander, Craig:
Dan's surface level worship of those his political faith tells him to worship, isn't surprising.
I don't worship people. I note the reality that my wife, my children, my conservative parents and many of my conservative friends, so many of my friends and some others in the world (Malala, the Carters, the Obamas, Andy Beshear, MLK, Mr Rogers, Gandhi, etc, etc) are good people living good lives doing good things... being kind, loving, forgiving, etc... I'm just noting the reality of good people doing good things.
That is not, of course, "worship." It's an inane bit of false gossip to say that out loud.
AND, it has nothing to do with my "political faith..." I didn't like the Clintons and think in many ways, at least Bill Clinton has NOT been a good person, for instance. And, other than his bad policies when he was in office, George W Bush does not appear to be an overtly bad person and he seems in many ways to be a decent enough fella. It's not like he's out there helping the poor and marginalized the way Carter was, but there are more ways than one of being a good person.
Do you not have people who you think of as good people? If and when you acknowledge good people, does that mean somehow you worship them?
What is wrong with you all, friends? This is not decent, respectful adult conversation.
Have you sat in on any of Jimmy Carter's Sunday School lessons?
I have not, but maybe a dozen or two of my friends have visited there. And to a person, they were impressed by his kindness and wise words in biblical instruction (even if he may have expressed things in a way more traditional and conservative to our tastes). Why would you complain about a man's Sunday School class that you know absolutely nothing about?
Marshal:
You're a hater of the worst kind...one who hates while posturing as "Christian".
The irony is deafening.
You cite scripture, usually cherry picked and out of context, when you think it benefits you. For you to claim that you only cite it for us is simply to cynically manipulate scripture when you clearly don't believe it be be authoritative in the same manner we do.
That you cannot simply fanboy over Carter, without lying about my/our support for Trump indicates that this is less about your adulation of Carter and more about bashing Trump voters with falsehoods.
If going to church made one a Christian or "good", sitting in the garage would make one a car. The notion that such a superficial measure is given such weight speaks to the shallowness of your adulation. If only going to church carried the weight you give it, our society would have many more "good" people than we do.
I get it, you wish to Canonize Carter because he's a "good man" based on your subjective, biased, politically skewed, personal standards. Or because he's more "good" than Trump. That's quite the low bar for sainthood.
He's a man, who's done some "good" things and some less than "good" things. Not a saint.
Carter's "good" life measured by your biased, subjective, standards can only lead you the declare him a saint if you ignore the less than "good" or give the "good" a disproportionate amount of weight.
It's strange. I know of no one in this conversation who would argue that Trump is not a narcissist and hedonist to some degree (we all are), and from a civil law standpoint "abuser" is not inaccurate. Yet no one is arguing that he's perfect, not even that he's "good" on some mythical scale. What we are suggesting is that given the choices in the 2024 presidential election that Trump is the better/less bad choice of the options in the general election. Given the choice between someone in cognitive decline, someone with so little substance, an idiot (Walz), and Trump we chose Trump. Yes, he was the "lesser of two evils", yet we had a less than perfect choice and we made it.
The problem is that both Trump and Carter are not being evaluated for sainthood, they were evaluated for POTUS. Carter sucked as POTUS, Trump did pretty well (Art would say awesomely well), neither is qualified for sainthood.
It's almost as if Dan is, or knows, Mohummad and wants everyone to appreciate his/the clever attempt at subterfuge. The idiocy level is about right for Dan or his troll.
"on the face of it" strikes me as simply a cop out to justify judging someone based on very shallow/surface impressions and to ignore the deeper levels of their character.
I'd argue that the empty luggage thing is an excellent example. "on the face of it" Carter's actions reinforce his "good" public persona. When the reality is that it was simply an act. Essentially Carter, in this area, lived a lie. He lied by carrying empty suitcases, and the accepted the public plaudits for his lies. What definition of a "good" man would encompass one who intentionally lies in his public presentation, then accepts the praise of those who he's deceived. Much like Gore accepting plaudits for "creating the internet", at least this aspect of Carter's public persona was simply a lie. Given that, seemingly incontrovertible, fact how could anyone make assumptions about any of Carter's "on the face of it" public actions? Why would we assume, based on the empty suitcase lie, that Carter's church attendance wasn't merely an act to fool idiots like Dan? (I'm not saying it was, but when someone embraces lies in their public persona it opens everything up to scrutiny)
I truly believe that Carter supported the work of HFH, yet it seems possible that his involvement was as much about rehabilitating his own public image as it was about housing. It's possible that Carter's HFH involvement was, in essence, one more empty suitcase. (I'm not saying it was, but it's possible given what we know about his public persona being at least partly false)
Ultimately, this is the result of placing politicians on pedestals they probably don't deserve. Given Christs example of divesting himself of His power and position to provide salvation for humans, is seeking higher and higher political office, including the pinnacle of political power, really an example of being Christlike?
Demented Dan wrote, regarding Trump:
"one who even LAUGHS and boasts about sexually abusing women and children."
This is a lie from the pit of hell (dan's brain is in the pit of hell"
Trump NEVER boasted about sexually abusing women and children--NEVER. One joking comment he made has been blown so out of proportion by the LEFT that it is insane; but then again LEFTISTS are sexual perverts.
Trump was making a point about how someone like him, with his $millions would have women seeking them just for their money and they be wanting wealthy men to bed them. He said because of that he (and men rich like him) could grab a woman by their genitals and get away with it.
Dan just keeps spreading the lies that the media print.
"Your eyes are blinded to reality."
Pot, meet kettle.
Your veneration of Carter certainly comes off as worship. Of course, my use of the term worship in this context is intentionally hyperbolic, snarky, and sarcastic.
For someone who, in this very thread, is engaging in spreading falsehood, it's amusing when you mistake snark for gossip.
"Do you not have people who you think of as good people?"
Yes, and as I've said, I think Carter was a reasonably "good" person.
"If and when you acknowledge good people, does that mean somehow you worship them?"
Well, the problem is that when I acknowledge someone it's usually for "good" actions and I don't think I've ever advocated sainthood for merely being "good".
January 14, 2025 at 10:44 AM
"That you personally think in your head that, to you and in your opinion, Carter was "anti-Semitic" does not mean one thing. It doesn't. It's an empty claim, not proof."
There is no shortage of info which supports what you so desperately need to be an empty claim. This is typical of you and suggests dishonesty, ignorance, stupidity or some combination of all of these traits, which is the safest bet.
1. When "brokering" peace between Israel and Egypt...negotiations already in progress when he became part of the process....he wanted to forbid Jews from living outside Israel's pre-'67 borders and insisted the agreement contain provisions for a "Palestinian" state, as if that was necessary in a treaty to end the conflict between Israel and Egypt. Anyone with half a brain recognizes the threat the so-called "palestinians" have always posed to Israel.
2. IN '78, Carter established the US's Holocaust Memorial Council which led to the US Holocaust Memorial Museum. Carter complained there were too many Jews involved, most of which were Holocaust survivors. He even rejected a Christian scholar's proposed membership because his name "sounded too Jewish".
3. He regarded the BDS movement as a legitimate goal.
4. He blamed the Jews for losing to Reagan.
5. His book "Peace Not Apartheid" smeared Israel as uniquely evil and warmongering for daring to defend themselves from the truly uniquely evil and warmongering Gazans and West Bankers. Even the NYT slammed the book, criticizing it for blaming Israel alone for all the problems of the Middle East. Prof. Kenneth Stein, professor of Contemporary Middle Eastern History at Emory University, helped build the Carter Center at Emory and worked with Carter for 23 years. He, along with dozens of others, resigned from the Center citing the many falsehoods Carter perpetrated in the publishing of that book.
6, In typical anti-Semitic style, he dismissed criticisms of his books as victimization by "powerful" Jews.
I have more, but no time at present. All these things are easily found with minimal research.
It is said that the book calls for a continuation of Pallie terrorism against Jews and Israel until a Pallie state is established. Carter apologized and claimed he would revise future editions of the book to omit such calls, but never did. How saintly!
FYI, the interviewer (Billy something) is now on record as saying that there was a concerted effort in the MSM to do anything they could to discredit Trump. I'd now like to know what was said before Trump's comments on tape and whether or not there was manipulation of the conversation. Regardless, it was an absolutely stupid thing to say, even though Trump was merely expressing the reality that there are some women who will use their sexuality to attract the rich and powerful and allow the men to engage in behavior that seems outside the bounds of normal behavior. But, it's much more of an indictment on the culture that allows/encourages that than an admission by Trump of anything he'd actually done.
As I've looked back at Dan's theory about Carter, I've noticed that Dan has to skew the criteria so that the only possible answer is Carter. (at least in his mind) He arbitrarily excludes every president not in his "lifetime" then sets the criteria based on his beliefs about Carter.
For example, for all the talk about Carter's helping people, Truman and Eisenhower helped millions upon millions of people in the aftermath of WW2. Truman was also a regular churchgoer and devoted husband for decades.
I'm not advocating for Truman, and honestly believe that this who "best man" argument is stupid. But if you have to arbitrarily limit the pool of "candidates", and skew the requirements, to get the answer you want, I'm not impressed with the whole exercise.
Glenn...
"Trump was making a point about how someone like him, with his $millions would have women seeking them just for their money and they be wanting wealthy men to bed them. "
Wow. The delusion is SO strong for y'all.
Tell me... IF it your pervert king is EXACTLY the sexual predator right-thunking people presume... would you all STIILL defend, promote, vote for him?
Would you ever apologize for being so blind?
I'm guessing, No. I'm also guessing you won't even entertain the question in your partisan-fogged mind.
But you tell me.
Dan
Craig,
I have the Billy Bush video saved somewhere, but it's still available in pretty much its entirety. What I've seen begins with audio only, from inside the bus in which they were traveling to whatever the event was. You can hear Bush asking Trump these questions, clearly salacious in nature, and definitely to procure some salacious response. Trump, trusting that he was merely talking back and forth, gets into this stuff about how he's affected by hot babes, as if he's speaking about a reality of himself rather than merely messing around. The reaction he claims is provoked in him by the sight of hot babe is put to the test when they disembark from the bus and meet with the woman (a hostess of some kind) and Trump treats her respectfully, even after Bush encourages the woman to "give him (Trump) some love". No groping took place, and instead only the most "timid" type of hug and peck one could imagine.
Dan gets off on the fact that during the conversation in the bus, Trump speaks of how it is for those of his celebrity when women are around. It's the typical "groupie" effect of which he spoke, and what they're willing to do for and with celebs of his stature. He NEVER said he actually grabs women by the crotch...a notion that clearly excites Dan right down to his girly bits.
I've posted a link to this video for Dan's edification on at least two occasions. Dan continues to pretend Trump abuses women, because the mere thought excites him, and it gives him validation of his vile grace embracing hatred to believe it, because that's evidently what embracing grace looks like.
And there you go with this dumbass type of hypothetical as if it means or proves anything. Tell me, Dan....if Carter turned out to have sex with chimpanzees on a regular basis, would you still praise him as some kind of saint? The answer is obvious: of course you would because you would disregard any evidence or admission of his perversion as you're doing now with the many citations regarding his many flaws.
There's no blindness on our part regarding Trump, Carter, Biden, or anyone else. There's only vile hatred of dumbasses like you who pretend to be Christian.
Here's more testimony about Carter's anti-Semitism:
https://www.jns.org/jimmy-carter-was-no-saint-for-jews/
You all act is if this was some crazy, impossible question to answer. Marshal:
if Carter turned out to have sex with chimpanzees on a regular basis
I would condemn it. Period.
It's really quite simple. When someone has been shown to be abusive to innocent people or creatures and are unrepentant about it, they should be condemned. Period.
See how easy that is?
Now how about you all? WOULD YOU CONDEMN TRUMP AND APOLOGIZE FOR VOTING for a sexual predator if even ONE HALF of the allegations (and his own words) about him turn out to be true?
Why would you not easily and quickly condemn sexual assault?
For the same reason you won't condemn his serial cheating on multiple women. For the same reason you won't condemn his corruption. For the same reason you won't easily condemn his overt lying and idiocy and narcissism... because you've been conned and can't even begin to admit you were mistaken EVEN IF it turned out you were mistaken... OR you can't admit that you wouldn't condemn even sexual assault IF it was one of "your guys."
Answer the question. It's a reasonable question and should be easy to answer.
Dan
Craig:
Well, the problem is that when I acknowledge someone it's usually for "good" actions and I don't think I've ever advocated sainthood for merely being "good".
Well, that's one of the differences between advocates of your particular human traditions and the advocates of my particular tradition. We DO think of the followers of Jesus as saints of God. And this, not even just the liberal followers of Jesus...
According to the conservatives over at Got Questions (and many others):
Therefore, scripturally speaking, the “saints” are the body of Christ, Christians, the church. All Christians are considered saints. All Christians are saints—and at the same time are called to be saints.
https://www.gotquestions.org/saints-Christian.html
So, yes, of course, I consider Carter a saint. Given his overtly good, decent, kind, loving, hard-working witness, why wouldn't I? And not only a Saint in the manner that all followers of Jesus are saints, but one who is, on the face of it, a good and decent man.
As to "on the face of it..." ALL that means is that, GIVEN THE KNOWN data, of course something is true and factual. And regarding Carter, that is something that Craig appears willing to grant. But not Marshal.
Why, then Craig, on the occasion of this saint's passing, are you defending Marshal and the others who are using this time of grieving to join in on the attacks and criticism? WHY NOT just be quiet or, better yet, condemn the Marshals and the pharisees of the world for attacking a known saint upon his death?
Can you not agree that there is something exceedingly vulgar and low-class in the actions and words of the Marshals, Neils and Glenns of the world, with their attacks upon a decent, kind man, a saint of God?
Dan
January 14, 2025 at 6:49 PM
"I would condemn it. Period."
You're a liar, because "GIVEN THE KNOWN data" Carter is anti-Semitic and as I said, you reject that known data (as I listed in previous comments) to continue acting as if he's some kind of "saint".
"Now how about you all? WOULD YOU CONDEMN TRUMP AND APOLOGIZE FOR VOTING for a sexual predator if even ONE HALF of the allegations (and his own words) about him turn out to be true?"
So if your wild imaginings turned out to be true? More likely than not, we'd be aware of long before you would've been and would have rejected him already. But because you're "embracing grace", you're presuming and assuming all you want to believe about him is indeed true. Yet, you won't concede any of the many examples of Trump's good works, but only focus on what you want to be true about him.
Take your bullshit, self-serving hypothetical questions and stick them up your ass where you keep your head. They're worthless. And the worst part of them is your implication that if truly nasty shit came out about Trump that we'd ignore it, which is a direct insult to us and our character, while in the meantime you ignore that which isn't even debatable concerning Carter's "shortcomings", such as his anti-Semitism, his pro-homo attitudes (going so far as to say...like dumbass Jeff St morons do...that Christ wouldn't have a problems with a "loving" homo union, his tepid rejection of abortion the way all you assholes do ("Well, I don't personally approve, but...!"). You ignore all these facts about the guy and then dare to ask us about hypotheticals you desperately wish was true to rationalize your grace embracing hatred of Trump.
"For the same reason you won't condemn his serial cheating on multiple women."
This is a wanton, willful and intentional lie. Each of us who supports Trump for president have roundly condemned his adultery. You best fucking apologize for lying so purposefully.
"For the same reason you won't condemn his corruption."
What "corruption"? When will you list examples of his "corruption" as president? Do you mean like his peddling influence through his crack-head son? Oh no...that was the guy you also stupidly insisted was a more decent person than Trump. Was it the crack-smoking while getting head from a homosexual? Oh no...that was the other guy you stupidly insisted was a more decent person than Trump. And those two examples aren't outliers for either of those indecent individuals. There's tons more. What has Trump done during his political career that comes close to the indecent behaviors of your preferred empty suits?
"For the same reason you won't easily condemn his overt lying and idiocy and narcissism"
Once again you lie about Trump lying, pretending he's somehow unique or even among the worst liars in politics. As a supporter of Biden as a "more decent person than Trump", the very notion is just more evidence of your well known dishonesty. And of course, many who have read Carter's book mentioned earlier attest to his lies and distortions therein. Obama has proven himself a liar. And between these three buffoons you regard as "more decent men", their lies are true lies, not the exaggerations and marketing of Trump. And of course, your party's platform is filled with lies and you lie about abortion, homosexuality, illegal immigrants, the wealthy, conservatives and so much more. What's more, all three displayed far more of what honest people might regard as narcissism. The difference is Trump has the track record to back up his self-promotion. Your boys don't.
And speaking of lies:
"...because you've been conned and can't even begin to admit you were mistaken EVEN IF it turned out you were mistaken..."
One is not "conned" if the alleged con artist has not failed to come through with the promises of his "con" without the "conned" having lost anything in the process. In all three admins of your three "more decent men", American decidedly lost in a host of ways. Those losses were for the most part restored under Trump's first term. And who is more conned than a Jeff St moron who buys into the LGBTQ lies as you do?
But here's what matters, dipshit: We AREN'T mistaken about Trump, so your hypothetical is worthless. In the meantime, you're incredibly mistaken and a truly conned chump by your support of Carter, Obama and Biden (and we can throw in Harris, who, by the grace of God and the wisdom of the American people, did not win in November). They've proven themselves losers and you STILL won't concede that truth!
So don't ask that dumbass question again until you find your testicles and admit you were wrong about Carter, Obama and Biden.
"Answer the question. It's a reasonable question and should be easy to answer."
There's nothing at all "reasonable" about your question. It's moronic and posed with devious purpose, and what's more, it's a direct insult implying we would not condemn the worst behavior you need to believe actually happened. You're an inveterate asshole. Leave your lies at your Blog of Lies.
January 14, 2025 at 6:57 PM
This is rich, because by your argument, Donald Trump is a saint as well. He's certainly done many "good deeds"...none of which you embrace grace enough to concede because you're a partisan marxist asshole. He's stated he's a Christian and thus he's among the saints. He's not anti-Semitic, though, like YOUR "saint".
"As to "on the face of it..." ALL that means is that, GIVEN THE KNOWN data, of course something is true and factual. And regarding Carter, that is something that Craig appears willing to grant. But not Marshal."
Here you lie, or you haven't the integrity to actually read my comments. I've already stated that I held the opinion that Carter appeared to be a decent sort, but that is now tempered by all that has come out since his passing. That is, my current position is not "on the face" of anything...a superficial understanding, but informed by more credible information (though you like to pretend I've only offered off-the-record testimonies...because you're an inveterate liar).
"Why, then Craig, on the occasion of this saint's passing, are you defending Marshal and the others who are using this time of grieving to join in on the attacks and criticism? WHY NOT just be quiet or, better yet, condemn the Marshals and the pharisees of the world for attacking a known saint upon his death?"
You mean the way you attack a known saint you don't like...Donald Trump? What you regard as attacks and criticisms are legitimate and objective truths about the guy you pretend is akin to an Apostle of Christ. And now that you've insisted you're using the term "saint" to refer to all Christians (though you've never used it in this way before, except for maybe the orgy loving MLK JR), you're obliged to refer to Trump in the same manner.
" Can you not agree that there is something exceedingly vulgar and low-class in the actions and words of the Marshals, Neils and Glenns of the world, with their attacks upon a decent, kind man, a saint of God?"
I can agree you're a liar, who has expressed far more vulgarity and low-class behavior with regard to Trump. The difference is that what I've said about Carter is totally backed up by fact. You're still wetting yourself with regard to Trump on rumors and innuendo. So totally "unsaintly" by Christian standards to demonize another in the manner you demonize Trump, who has done more good in his first four years as president than has Carter, Biden and Obama in twelve. Only a vulgar cretin from Jeff St would disagree with that fact.
Excellent, I somehow knew that Dan would go down this particular rabbit hole. What he's done is to use the term "saintly" to elevate Carter above others and to place him on some kind of pedestal based on his piety and good works.
That Dan doesn't use the term when he refers to any other believers, is telling.
Then he goes beyond this semantic bullshit and does exactly what I've suggested. Claimed that Carter is extra saintly.
On the face of it, it appears that you are ignoring some of the "known data' in your obsessive quest to beatify Carter.
I'm not defending anyone, nor am I attacking anyone. I AM looking at Carter's life and legacy and coming to the conclusions based on all of the known evidence. I'm just not choosing to view everything through a biased, partisan lens and to create random criteria to elevate him to some pedestal.
Given that fact that you have a long history of engaging in vile, vitriolic attacks on the "saints of God", I'm not sure that your protests hold much water.
Dan continues this charade even though he's been told countless times that it's bullshit.
The best person for a particular job at a particular time, might not be the person of the highest character. In this case, when faced with a choice between Trump and Biden/Harris some people chose Trump as the better option for this particular position.
I am unaware of anyone who "defends" Trump's every action or everything he's said. Dan did, sort of, condemn Biden for somethings yet would have voted for the doddering, incompetent, old, rich, white, guy if he'd had the chance. Spouting Biden's competence all the way.
The problem is that Dan won't admit that his vote for Biden/Harris was just as much of a lesser evil vote than our votes for Trump.
Craig,
I depart from you in this way:
Dan won't admit his vote for Biden/Harris was a "lesser of two evils" vote, because the moron actually believes both are "decent" people and Trump is not.
Conversely, well aware of Biden's fifty years of incompetence and Trump's great record as president, I voted to extend Trump's term for the further benefit of all Americans.
Other than that, yeah, I don't defend every action and expression of Trump and if there was anything to commend about Biden, I'd give it appropriate applause.
In the same way with Carter, there's little to commend and much to criticize...quite enough which belies any claim of his sainthood. But until Dan chose to drool all over the guy at his blog, I was content to regard Carter as a fairly decent guy. The facts don't support that. Is he evil incarnate? No more than Trump is.
Do I remember correctly that Carter did an interview with Playboy magazine where he said he lusted after women? That is a sexual sin.
Marshal, Craig, Neil, *AND* Dan, thank you so much for the kind words: bipolar (type-2) is an almost literal roller coaster.
(Check out the link in my profile name for an extremely helpful chart about the illness.)
I do have a bit to say about that Daily Mail article, but that will be another time -- it can wait, which is good because it has to!
Yes he did, and that doesn't sound like something saintly people do...depending upon how one is choosing to use the word "saint" at any given moment. And of course, Christ equated it with actually indulging in adultery, so there's that, too.
Take your time, Bubba. No one's required to comment on the schedule of any other.
"...and that doesn't sound like something saintly people do..."
? What are you talking about? Are you confusing, "saint" with "perfect..."?
Acknowledging foibles common to humanity does not make one, Not a saint.
Tell me, how are you defining saintly?
Dan
I tend to believe that the interview was, to some degree, a set up. Yet, Trump bears the responsibility for his response, regardless of how True or False it was. Obviously, he didn't know he'd run for president and how it would effect that. Beyond that, he's simply telling the Truth that the rich and powerful attract a certain kind of woman who will allow themselves to be groped. It's human nature that some women will use their sexual attractiveness/availability to attract rich/famous/powerful men.
Art, you are correct that Dan would never admit that his Biden vote, or his Harris vote, was a "lesser of two evils" vote, but the reality says other wise. The reality is that he'll always regard the more conservative candidate as the greater evil and will always vote for the more liberal candidate to prevent the greater evil. That he's convinced himself otherwise, is immaterial.
I understand that, however, that's kind of my point. Both candidates had significant negatives, neither was perfect, and for many Biden was the greater evil.
On a side note, I'd argue that the greater/lesser evil statement has broadened out to more than just evil.
My point exactly, it's not that hard to recognize "good" actions by those we disagree with politically, nor bad actions by those we agree with. It's Dan's hyper-partisan veneration of Carter that is drawing the criticism.
January 16, 2025 at 8:23 AM
"? What are you talking about? Are you confusing, "saint" with "perfect..."?"
No, but thanks for asking.
"Acknowledging foibles common to humanity does not make one, Not a saint."
Then you can't be demonizing Trump for the same "foibles" common to humanity. Yet you do, because...embrace grace.
"Tell me, how are you defining saintly?"
Consistently and without playing favorites according to partisanship, but applying the same standard to all.
I think we'd all say that we're happy to have you comment whenever, and that we completely understand.
Then you can't be demonizing Trump for the same "foibles" common to humanity.
Having moments of lusting after others (with no harmful actions involved, beyond in one's heart) is one thing. Boasting and laughing about using one's power to sexually assault women is NOT a "foible" common to humanity. Using one's power and wealth and white male privilege to ogle and take advantage of teenaged girls in various stages of undress is NOT a foible common to humanity. It's a "privilege" of being an ultra-wealthy, ultra-privileged white male. And it's certainly not Christian.
No. Not every person who says, "I'm one of you shit-faced sucker Christians! Vote for me!! Buy my vulgar, hedonistic, narcissistic shit!" is a follower of Jesus.
This should not need to be noted for rational adults who are not marks who've been played for idiots by a stupid con man.
January 16, 2025 at 9:59 PM
All you're doing is deciding how "less than perfect" one can be and still be regarded as a saint. Jesus equated lustful thoughts with actual indulgence in adulterous acts. That is to say, to think it is to do it. Thus, while you try to pretend that Jimmy's a good boy because he supposedly never indulged his lusts, Jesus said lusting is the same as adulterous behavior.
At the same time, Carter admitted to his lusts, while Trump basically cracked jokes you take as admissions of willful bad behavior. There's no "HARD DATA" or solid first hand testimony that Trump ever actually abused his position to ogle anybody. But while you pretend he's the worst liar ever, you choose to believe what he said to people like Billy Bush and Howard Stern as if he was in a fucking confessional...because you hate, which Jesus equates to murder.
And yeah, all the things you want to believe about Trump is common indeed, as few men would turn down an opportunity to get a quick peek at a naked chick regardless of how fat their wallets are. Here, you're simply embracing grace with your overt hatred of the wealthy, hatred of Trump and hatred of anyone who dares fail to worship Jimmy Carter or any other lefty you canonize as "saintly".
Then you lie by presuming Trump would ever say anything like "I'm one of you shit-faced sucker Christians!" as if you have any idea of the true degree of faith he might have, while just accepting Carter's a fucking apostle because he says "Christian-y" things and teaches Sunday school. You're a joke, Dan... a liar, a hater and a fake Christian.j
And again, I challenge you to explain the con you think Trump is playing. Note my latest post, wherein it explains just how chumped dumbshit fake Christians like you are for voting for Democrats.
Carter, as I've shown quite clearly, is an anti-Semite. That's far more common to humanity than actual Christians (find one and ask) like to believe is true. Yet, you call him "saintly". He gave more support to the Gazans than he ever did to the people they seek to wipe from the face of the earth.
So, as I've asked how far astray from the teachings of God can one be before one is no longer a Christian, and now you demonstrate that you find that line of demarcation somewhere between the anti-Semitism and lusting of Jimmy Carter and the lusting of Donald Trump. To think that people like you and Carter dare teach kids in Sunday school makes me puke. Between his anti-Semitism and your racism, you disgust me.
And by the way, with regard to racism, Carter's hadn't exactly a saintly past:
https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/jimmy-carters-racist-campaign-of-1970/article_4c93db03-438f-50c5-86dc-6a1964ecdb9b.html
I'll take a horn-dog over an anti-Semite racist any day, especially since THIS horndog knows how to MAGA and Carter never did.
I find it so amusing that every time Dan writes anything he just continues to prove what an anti-truth fool he is, how much HATE he has for truth, and how much he supports every sort of perversion and unholy teachings/behaviors all the will claiming to be a Christian. Everything he writes proves he has no idea what real Christianity is.
He's stepped in it deeply on this subject and rather than back off or concede a thing, he prefers to wallow.
Thanks, Marshal & Craig: I do wish I had the consistent bandwidth to consistently comment promptly, but I'm well aware and greatly appreciative of everyone's patience, Dan included.
Now, Dan:
I'm not really surprised that you would respond to a negative account of Jimmy Carter by attacking the source: I do wonder if you would refuse to cite this tabloid -- sorry, "TABLOID" -- if it had posted an article asserting, say, the validity of the Russian collusion hoax, but I won't digress.
The article was published by the Daily Mail, but it was written by Ronald Kessler, the author of 21 non-fiction books about the White House, U.S. Secret Service, FBI, and CIA, seven of which have reached The New York Times Best Seller list for hardcover non-fiction.
I think I need better reasons to reject his claims out-of-hand.
...I do think that, while it's important to know a politician's character, it's probably impossible to have a secondhand view of a president or presidential candidate's personal life that is truly objective and knowably reliable. There is simply too much room for ulterior motives in reporting anything negative OR positive, too many axes to grind and opportunities to make a quick buck.
But I personally think it's credible to claim that a man who sought the presidency in the late twentieth century and then went on to undermine his predecessors' authority has a simply ENORMOUS ego, one large enough to be incompatible with a mature Christian discipleship.
It wouldn't surprise me if Jimmy Carter had an ego the size of Trump's but was only better at hiding it and practicing his piety before men.
The decent Christian response may be to lament what amounts to Capitol Hill gossip and to express the hope that the negative reports aren't true, but I think it goes too far to assert that the reports cannot be true.
I mean, honestly, who the hell are you to lecture others about how Jimmy Carter was "a genuine, kind, decent Christian"? How exactly are you in a position to know that?
Looks like someone left italics on. This should help, hopefully!
...Dan, I am curious how exactly you know that a national politician was genuine and decent. Jesus' condemnation of the Pharisees makes clear that looks can be deceiving -- whitewashed tombs and cups that are only clean on the outside.
How exactly do you know your estimation of Jimmy Carter is accurate?
Oh, Bubba, you silly man! All one need do is look at the things Carter said and did and thus can know the depths of his sinless heart!
Conversely, one can look at behaviors of Trump which are incredibly common within humanity, speak of them as worse than they are...the worst ever...regardless of just how bad they are to any extent...and thereby know that Trump is Satan incarnate and we all should just hate him like Dan does, and that's really, really a lot!
I don't expect that Dan will return to this thread in any case unless he posts and checks the box to inform him of successive comments. He's happy to pretend threads where he's been shredded no longer exist.
Bubba asked: Dan, I am curious how exactly you know that a national politician was genuine and decent.
It's amazing to many people around the world how people who are supporters of the openly hedonistic, deviant, sexually predatory and overtly dishonest current president would have any gall to criticize Carter.
But the answer is just as Jesus said: By their fruit, you will know them. Jimmy Carter and his long time wife were, by all overt, clear evidence, just who they seemed to be: Kindly, Christian, devoted people with servant hearts who worked their whole lives to promote healthy, wholesome lives especially for and with the poor and disenfranchised (which is, itself, another sign of being a follower of Jesus - what you do for the least of these you do for me...) I've had many (10-20, that I know of... I was actually surprised to hear this repeated story after the Carters' deaths) who had visited him in his Sunday School class and at his church. The reports were all the same: He was an humble (another sign) decent man well familiar with the Bible who was just as he presented.
Now is it POSSIBLE that ALL that we've seen and come to know about the Carters was all some elaborate ruse and this famous man actually had a secret life of depravity and hate and burning down homes? No. No, it's not possible. That would be a daft belief to hold, given the evidence.
And the same is true for Trump in reverse. This is a man who is openly hedonistic, openly known to have cheated on multiple wives and multiple women, a serial adulterer, one who BOASTS about it... almost certainly a sexual predator of some sort, just based upon his own words... An obscenely rich man who has shown no evidence of humility who doesn't even think he's sinned sufficient to apologize for anything.
The biblical authors (and common sense) tell us that recognizing good character is not some arcane and impossible task. Just look at the lives of people, who they are, who they TELL you they are.
This is so strange that you all are working so hard to denounce and openly good and faithful Christian while working so hard to defend an openly hedonistic deviant with no morals beyond the "Get All I Can No Matter What" creed he lives by.
So strange.
Jesus gonna ask y'all about that one day.
Dan,
Why do you keep up with this bullshit? Here's something from someone who seems to generally be a Carter supporter, at least post presidency:
https://www.counterpunch.org/2016/01/11/jimmy-carters-blood-drenched-legacy-2/
Note how this guy doesn't shy away from the truth of this "saint". Those examples (along with those in the link to his original piece) indicate the guy was either abjectly stupid as president, or not at all concerned about the ramifications of his actions as president. Indeed, he bears responsibility for a large number of deaths. That is a LARGE number of deaths.
But what's most evil in your daring to compare these two men in order to crap on Trump once more by pretending Carter is worthy of your slobbering affection, is that you constantly compare the best you can dig up about Carter to the worst you can of Trump and thus, by golly, Trump's just a big old meany. You're an asshole. You NEVER consider good that Trump's accomplished and you pretend Carter's done nothing but. And then you have the gall to corrupt Scripture to aid in this endeavor, as if we are not familiar with it enough to see what you're doing. I look at you and this game you play and by your insistence of looking at the fruit, I see decaying rot throughout. I know what you favor and support which is starkly and unquestionably grave sin. And you lie about them on top of it, which is another affront to God.
You want to speak about being able to see Carter's behavior. I say Scripture warns against public displays in order to draw praise. I say there are enough separate reports about Carter which speak of him acting different when outside of public view and I've no reason whatever to suspect their stories are less true than those of friends and family you know who are very possibly as stupid and as easily buffaloed by public behavior as you clearly are.
In the meantime, there are plenty of stories which would never be heard about Trump's service to others were it not for others to report it because he doesn't seek cameras and reporters and dumbshits in front of whom the world would know, because he doesn't do such acts for that purpose, but only because he believes them to be good acts to do.
And once again, you lying piece of shit, no one here has been "working hard" to denounce him as much as simply denouncing your behavior in worshiping at the altar of Jimmah, for the PURPOSE of attacking Trump by holding up Carter to compare against him.
Our views of both men are objective and based on more than just a truncated list of all either has ever done. It's YOUR depravity and hatred which is at issue here.
Post a Comment