Seems you are right. I can’t find any version of that quote that does not trace back to the Al-Ahram Weekly article.
My point was that, on its face, the claim that this guy could dictate religious opinions to Jews is nonsense - but of course it is that much more egregious nonsense, if the statement was simply invented in the first place.
My apologies glutton, that was over the line.
To rephrase: what the heck kind of research methodology are you using? What type of epistemology are you using? When you get a cite making claims about something else, why doesn’t it even occur to you to go back to the primary source and see if the second source is accurate? What judgment process are you using to determine if you should post links here, or keep quiet and determine if they’re true before posting them?
Would you, just as uncritically, post pro-Israel cites? Why or why not?
On the edit:
Yeah, that was my second clue that someone was seriously wrong. The first being that the Al-Ahram article includes not one link to Haaretz, a paper that has virtually all of its content online.
Agreed on both points. And I find it especially important to point out, not just that there are nutters on both sides, but the context those nutters exist in. Even if this was accurate rather than fictional nutterhood.
Damn… nevermind, that’s still too snarky by half. And no, whatever process you use to determine what you post isn’t relevant to the thread, only what you post and what how you support it. Although, in case you’re curious, you should be aware of what effect such bullshit posts have on a debate and why they’re not helpful for keeping a debate on the up and up.
I’ll gladly accept any Warning that gets handed down. Just because your post sucked doesn’t mean I get to take you to task for posting something that sucked. So yep, apologies on that count too.
Well gosh, no one could have seen this coming:
Well there you go spoke, someone finally called him a bigot due to his constant lying and trying to empower a group of genocidal rejectionists. What a lucky break!
By the way, you might want to reconsider righteous indignation. Carter is a bigot. I’d ask how Carter isn’t someone whose ‘fact filtering’ and inability to correct any falsehood if it doesn’t reinforce his Hamas-good-Israel-bad narrative, is anything other than “a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices”. I’d also point out that you can be a bigot without being an anti-Semite, but I suppose that won’t do much good, eh?
But then again, folks have been asking you how he’s anything other than someone who’s obstinately devoted to his own opinions and prejudices for the entire thread. You haven’t joined the debate yet. Will you do so now? Or do we just get something like ‘Carter isn’t a bigot… because he’s a peacemaker!’
Hmm. He’s devoted to his worldview on this issue and selectively ignores facts or even lies if the truth doesn’t suit his opinions.
How is that not bigotry?
I am put in mind of an earlier era in American history when character smears were used to silence political opposition. In particular, this exchange:
Oooooh, burn!
I wish you’d realize that those of us with questions about Carter’s mindset and actions have a right to question that - and attempting to shut that down is, frankly, likewise McCarthyite in its implications.
Also, there is a tendency by some people to believe rhetoric over facts. Mr. Welch in your quote exploited that - his impassioned speech there was a diversion from the fact that Fred Fisher had been removed from the case by Welch himself because of Fisher’s past Lawyer’s Guild membership. Moreover, this action made the papers in mid-April of 1954 - some little time before the June hearing you’re linking to.
So it isn’t as if McCarthy was smearing someone - he was talking about a recent news story. It is as if you were to say Larry Craig were gay and I were to accuse you of a smear - it would be laughable.
This isn’t to excuse the other things McCarthy did, but this one gets bandied around a lot and on this one point he didn’t really do much wrong. Not that he didn’t suffer for it anyway.
It should be a lesson about rhetoric - listen to it enough times and you might just believe it to be true. Like you’ve done with Carter, perhaps. 
The Carter-haters really need to lighten up.
It was revealed in this interview that Jimmy’s mom Lillian (he’s got a new book coming out about her) would have approved of his latest Mideast trip:*
"Q: You’ve been quoted as saying your mother was “the most influential woman in my life.” How has her influence extended to your most recent meetings with the Palestinian group Hamas, in light of the Bush administration’s expressed concern? What do you think your mother would have said about such a controversial move?
A: She always liked controversy herself and I think she would have approved completely. I think that would have added a little bit of spice or titillation to the fact that we were reaching out to people who were scorned and deprived and excluded from processes. I think in addition to that, the excitement of doing something that was somewhat controversial would have been an extra appeal to her.
** Was it to you, too?**
A: We just had a meeting this morning at the Carter Center, and we agreed it was probably the most fun trip and most completely successful and positive trip that we’ve ever taken, and my wife and I have been in more than 125 countries. This was superb. The welcome that we got everywhere we went — except in some of the United States news media — was overwhelming. It was really great. *
So remember, when you diss Jimmy Carter you’re dissing Ms. Lillian too, and she can’t even fight back.
For shame. 
Also, don’t Spice and Tiltillation beat Shock and Awe any day?
I don’t hate Carter. I haven’t been too hard on him here.
I remember Miss Lillian pretty well, and I’m sure she’s fighting back. We’re just not in a place where we can hear her swear.
Have I been whooshed?
I’ve been whooshed, right?
I encourage readers of this thread to view the documentary Jimmy Carter Man from Plains and to decide for themselves whether there is any guile in Carter’s mouth.
Or they could, ya know, just look at the multiple cites which prove definitively that Carter makes stuff up, refuses to retract his lies when caught, and distorts issues that are so elementary that 30 seconds of googling disproves his bunk.
Or they could rent a movie. :rolleyes:
You can feel free to comment on the facts any time.
Any time now.
I’d also encourage readers to read this opinion piece and to decide for themselves.
If by “guile” you mean deceit then there is no real debate. He has stated things that are plain untrue and all of them serve to demonize Israel and to paint Hamas as noble fighters for a “national liberation movement”. Finn has documented many such “misspeaks” and the linked article documents more.
Why is he doing it? I don’t know. The author of the linked article says it well:
I mean guile concerning his motives. Watch and decide.
If by “reaching out to people whom were scorned and deprived and excluded from processes” he means Hamas, he’s delusional. They were elected!
Now the Palestinians are reaping what they have sown. They were better off inching towards mutual distrust with Fatah than they will be with Hamas holding sway over any negotiations on the Palestinian side.
Don’t blame me, I voted for Kodos.
I voted for Xenu. It’s a wash.
FinnAgain, are you a Jew? I’m just wondering. I would think that only a Jew could defend Israel so passionately and effectively. Or are you Finnish? What does your username mean exactly?