What's new

(subway)..."Eat FRESH " !

11911393_383330331865265_4304592331079134934_n.jpg
 
you seemed to have left out that picture of obama with him, I guess it didn't fit your clouded agenda
 
I have no agenda, just pointing out the hypocrisy of you and your fellow right wingers, who have zero independent thoughts.
 
if anyone knows hypocrisy and lack of independent thought  it's you Mr occupydemocrat
 
for the record I didn't like Carter as POTUS but he's a very honorable man much more so than the trash D's have had in there or running for it since
 
700UW said:
I have no agenda, just pointing out the hypocrisy of you and your fellow right wingers, who have zero independent thoughts.
95% of your posts originate with memes at Occupy Democrats, and you say right wingers have zero independent thoughts?...
 
Ms Tree said:
He is more honorable than all who came after him.
Yes and no. His work on the humanitarian front after leaving office is without question more impressive than what any other modern day president has done, including Clinton and his "foundation"...

Politically, though, I won't call him honorable.

Carter issued the executive order that continues to deny the 52 Iranian hostages who were held for 444 days the ability to sue Iran for compensation. Instead of being treated as prisoners of war, they were simply given back pay plus a per diem rate, which essentially worked out to $22,200 each.

https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43210.pdf

Over 30 years later, it's still not undone, which is also a reflection on *every* sitting president since then. Congress has finally started to act -- instead of seeking compensation from Iran, they're going to tap into the sanctions collected from companies who have violated the embargo, which will work out to a payment of several million per hostage. Bills have passed in both chambers of Congress, so let's see if Obama signs it...

After leaving office, Carter has twice spoken out against the policies of sitting presidents (W and O), something that no other former president had done in modern times. Having an elder statesmen undermine a current administration isn't what I'd all honorable.
 
You have an interesting habit of either posting incomplete information or misleading information.
 
Carter did not issue an executive order denying the hostages the right to sue.  It was an executive agreement.  While the words are similar they are by no means the same thing.  
 
The Algiers Accord (executive agreement) negotiated the release of the hostages.  Had it not been for this accord, the hostages may not have been released.  What do you think the hostages would have preferred?  The right to sue or their freedom?  By the way, that little bit of info was in the link you posted which it seems you did not bother to read.
 
Even if the accord did not exist, what do you think the odds are of Iran paying the damages if the courts found in the hostages favor?  I'm sure they would have just written a check right?
 
As for him speaking out against a sitting president, I don't see a problem with it.  If he sees something as being wrong I think it is a duty of any American to speak out.  Not like he and other presidents wrote a letter to a foreign government to undermine an on going negotiation. 
 
Ms Tree said:
Even if the accord did not exist, what do you think the odds are of Iran paying the damages if the courts found in the hostages favor?  I'm sure they would have just written a check right?
There are ways to extract blood from a stone. At the time, there was over $12B in assets frozen by the US that the courts could have attached claims to. Instead, the agreement negotiated by Carter's administration allowed a majority of that money to go back to Iran.
 
Armchair president much Eric?

Ever think those were the term Iraq stood firm on or the hostages wouldn't have been released?

Speculate much?

And I wasn't a fan of Carter when he was in office but he has done some amazing humanitarian work after.
 
Back
Top