Malthus, you have a considered opinion at least, though we may disagree.
But watching Finn froth at the mouth is more fun.
C’mon Finn, what is Carter’s “agenda”?
To remind you:
And while I’m at it:
Try to figure why seeing the same people use the same scumfuck tactics and make the same ‘honest mistakes’ again and again and again gets annoying and why someone might react to such behavior in a “bitter” fashion.
Try to figure out why being trolled, dealing with constant lies, and/or having mental defectives like Elvis gum at my ankles might just yield a thread that isn’t chock full o’ humor.
Try to understand why, when I’m right, I know what I’m talking about, and people (like you) have a habit of disagreeing with the facts because they don’t fit their prejudices, I might come off as “self righteous”… in the same way that a biologist might come off as ‘self righteous’ if he’s debating Creationists.
For bonus points, try to understand why heckling the biologist for being so sick of dealing with dishonest Creationists is a fucking shitty thing to do.
Try to look at yourself and why you constantly behave like a jerk who doesn’t give a shit about fighting ignorance but does care about giving a hard time to those who are trying to argue honestly and meeting with enough bullshit to be frustrated by it.
Then try to figure out why you constantly being an asshole and needling me for pointing out when people are repeatedly wrong and dishonest, rather than taking the time to task for their repeated mistakes and dishonesty, makes you a pretty gigantic schmuck. Try to grok why, when Elvis behaves dishonesty and stupidly, your response is to clown around about how I’m wrong to point it out.
You keep using the phrase “agenda-driven” to describe Carter. Words have meanings and surely you must mean something when you use the word “agenda.”
What is Carter’s “agenda”?
It’s a simple question.
I thijk Malthus successfully explained Carter’s motives.
You went through this shit in the original thread where I answered you, after posting what I thought in my first post about Carter’s habit of lying, and you asked again. In this thread, I just pointed out that he is lying “to prop up his narrative that Israel is a warmongering aggressor that wasn’t nothing to do with peace”.
Quit trying to change the subject. Challenge the facts or the logic already, or just admit you can’t.
Save us all some time and trouble, eh?
Hmm, you and Bricker grow more alike every day. 
Sorry that was to Spoke.
Captain Amazing: I think Malthus’ gloss is a plausible one, but I’m not sure what Carter’s real motives are. You cannot, after all, trust a committed liar. I do know that his agenda is to use fiction to demonize Israel and support a narrative in which Hamas et al want nothing but Peace and Israel is an unapologetic aggressor that wants nothing to do with peace. It’s also clear that someone who holds such opinions and prejudices and is so obstinately dedicated to them that he’ll ignore facts and promote fictions to defend them, is a bigot. That’s the definition after all.
Why he has that agenda, those prejudices, and that bigotry is up for debate of course, but it’s disappointing to see folks deny that it’s even the case.
I doubt anybody here really thinks that Spoke (and the rest of the Usual Suspects) would be just fine with someone lying in order to demonize the Palestinians. Or that, when faced with someone who was demonizing the Palestinians and using lies to do it, they’d declare that we couldn’t analyze the facts until we had conclusively nailed down his private thoughts and motives. It’d be nice to see that at least a few anti-Israel folks in these threads gave a damn about honesty or integrity and didn’t simply support Carter because his lies reinforce their views.
Ah well.
I’d also like a pony.
You know, based on Jimmy Carter’s recent statements, it appears that his favorite recording artists are Brenda Lee and Britney Spears.
Flatter him all you like, but he has a strict “dinner and a show” minimum.
Malthus isn’t the one who keeps using “agenda-driven” with vaguely sinister connotations.
I want to know what Finn means when he says “agenda.”
What is Carter’s agenda, Finn? What is that lying bigot up to? What do you mean when you use the word? Quit weaseling.
Why would he do that? Why does he want to demonize Israel? To what end? Spell it out for us.
(No helping now. Let Finn answer for himself.)
Well, Democrats being somewhat thin on the ground in Georgia, and spoke being a big fan of Carter, I think he just doesn’t like hearing him criticized.
As for Carter, though, I think it’s impossible to know for sure what his agenda is. I’m willing to believe that he does actually want peace in the Middle East and a two state solution, but I think he also accepts the paradigm of the virtuous oppressed; that the Palestinians, who are admittedly suffering, are the innocent victims of Israeli oppression, and that the solution to the problem is for the Israelis to stop their horrible oppression, and then everything will be good. As far as Carter is concerned, he’s speaking truth to power.
Besides demonizing Israel for his narrative, yes, I’d agree. As I said, it’s hard to tell what a liar really thinks/means/whatever. However:
The problem with that is that he’s lied about things which he knows the truth of, and others he should know the truth of. I find it impossible to credit the notion that Carter believes all of his lies, unless he’s gone senile, which I suppose is possible. If not, I see no other conclusion than that he’s lying on purpose, and deliberately using those lies to reinforce his narrative. Whatever he believes his narrative is in service of is between him and his conscience.
Spoke: deja vu!
Stop playing stupid, you know what I said his agenda is because you just quoted that exact phrase before you went on to play dumb and ask, again, what his agenda is.
Try to actually address the facts of Carter’s “factual errors” and their context and use, and quit asking me to read his mind and see what the motivation is for his bigotry or why he uses lies to prop up his narrative. Let’s first see you defend your claims that he doesn’t lie, that his lies aren’t in the service of propping up his narrative, and that his actions of lying about facts in order to demonize Israel don’t make it clear that he’s a bigot who has formed his prejudices about Israel and he doesn’t let the facts get in the way.
After that, maybe you can offer up a reason why he lies so often and why all of his lies, bar none, are agenda-driven fictions that are designed to flesh out and support his narrative. I mean, unless your response is to handwave them away some more.
I’m really not what you’d call a big fan, and I don’t mind seeing Carter criticized. Hell, I have several criticisms of Carter myself.
What I do mind are bullshit smears like Finn’s.
Well, he is a Baptist, you know. If you had a proper Methodist upbringing, that would put you on your guard right there.
I think he believes his narrative, and rejects the facts that don’t fit his narrative as not being true.
Give it a rest. Socrates you ain’t.
You mean something when you keep using “agenda-driven.” You use it again here.
You obviously have some notion that Carter has a sinister intent. Well? What is it? At least give us some possibilities.
Because it really hard to imagine why Carter would insert himself into this dispute if his motive is sinister. What is his end game?
You can’t answer, because the only answer that makes sense is that Carter is sincerely seeking peace. And you don’t want to give that answer because it doesn’t fit in with your “Carter the eeeevil bigot” narrative.
Well, that would at the very least mean that he was “obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices” when they came to Israel. But I still can’t agree, because several times he had to know he was lying. Like when he was serving as Hamas’ spokesman and Hamas’ own people contradicted his claims, but he didn’t retract them. Or, for instance, from something I cited in the other thread:
To say nothing of other examples when he certainly would have known the facts. I suppose the question then becomes if he’s a bigot and simply doesn’t care for facts, or if he’s a bigot and is deliberately lying to support his views. I credit the second as much more likely as, unless he really is senile, I don’t see how he is so ‘confused’ as to his ‘mistakes’.
You ignorant schmuck, go on and show that it’s bullshit or it’s a smear. How fucking useless are you, all you can do is whine? Yet again you tool:
In order to show it’s a smear, you have to show how I’m wrong. Can you do that? Can you show that they’re not major untruths? That each and every single one is in the service of supporting his fictional narrative? That ignoring facts you don’t like, or outright pretending they don’t exist, and making up bullshit that isn’t factual, all in the service of demonizing a nation, is bigotry?
But you can’t, can you?
You’ve got nuthin, at all.
It should be so simple. Show that I’m bullshitting about Carter. Show that he’s not a liar. Show that he’s not a bigot. Go for it. It’s about time. If you’re not going to even defend your own position, then go away and annoy someone else.
Any time now Spoke. You’re such a valiant defender of dishonesty in the service of bigotry. Don’t stop half way, go all out. I know that you can’t engage the actual facts so you’re trying to change the subject, but try to address the facts eh?
How odd, I also defined it, yet again. And you keep pretending you can’t read. Gee, I wonder… are you being honest? Are you really still confused about a term I’ve defined several times? It’s a mystery!
No, it’s not, you’re just a partisan whore (like Carter, go figure!)
One might insert them self into a debate, use lies to support their agenda of demonizing one side in order to, guess what, serve as a biased advocate for only one side. Who’d a thunk it! It’s interesting that you can’t even bring your tiny little brain to conceive of this potential. Carter is either totally honest or eeeeevil.
And why would Carter do that? What’s in it for him?