Thanks for the response. It's interesting, my focus was always the 1973 oil crisis; which is repeating in history again right now. I mostly dismissed 1979 as just a post-crisis fluctuation. #nixonsfault for price fixing. You're not allowed to price fix. You know what they're doing with insulin right now?
In Canada we get taught more about the 1979 canadian embassy helped save the US diplomats.
Check out this. He publicly admitted to seeing a UFO. You might think he was a crackpot or something but suddenly the navy started revealing UFO videos.
There's some high ranking elected us politicians who upon this coming out they said there's so much more still classified. Yet nobody is talking about this.
Or the sensationalized "killer rabbit attack" for that matter.
The fact that someone would bend over backwards to misinterpret a sensationalized incident with a wild animal as Carter "being played" says more about that person's preconceived political ideology than Carter's, and identifies them as one of Carter's "political and ideological opponents". How exactly does a swimming rabbit "play" a human being, or frame him as hapless and enfeebled?
>The incident with the rabbit became fodder for political and ideological opponents who wanted to frame Carter's presidency as hapless and enfeebled, although the event's proximity to the U.S. release of the comedy feature film Monty Python and the Holy Grail, which includes scenes of a killer rabbit slaying humans, led to some people describing Carter as having "fended off a killer rabbit" instead.
To get back to the actual point of this discussion, why do you believe that the sensationalized story about Carter "being attacked by a bunny" is more indicative of whether Carter was hapless, enfeebled, or getting played, than the objective historical fact that he bravely and selflessly risked his own life and health by saving a Canadian nuclear reactor after a meltdown?
Edit: I saw that. You just edited your comment to tell me that editing my comment (to add more information) is bad form, then you quickly edited your comment again to remove that remark after you remembered that was exactly what you were doing and have already done several times in this discussion, yourself (to change the meaning of your post). And that shows your intellectual dishonesty. So please stick to the discussion topic and reply to the points I raised, instead of hypocritically admonishing me not to do exactly what you've already just done repeatedly (like your "Racism bad" addendum -- we all already know that, but your original "So?" post sounded like you didn't believe that, so you had to add that obvious disclaimer, followed by more racism apologetic non-sequiturs, attempting to excuse Reagan's racism by pointing out that he used to be a Democrat). Denying and making excuses and carrying the water for racism is much worse form than editing comments, but "there you go again", to quote Reagan.
It proves that's the kind of stuff he spends his time watching on youtube, he believes it supports his own argument and point of view, so he recommends that other people spend their time watching it too.
On the other hand, I'd rather spend my time watching and recommend other people watch stuff like this:
(For whatever reason, that's not available on youtube. My pet conspiracy theory about why not is that the Pepsi Corporation suppressed it because they don't want anyone to watch it! So I included a partial transcript to save you from being tracked and receiving targeted advertisements for watching it. ;) )
Ha ha! Thank you for pointing that out, since it proves my point.
Well that's certainly disingenuous of him to lie that it's a video of "judgmental British skinheads" then, isn't it?
I'm sorry you took the bait and watched the video, and it's nice for you that it wasn't a rick roll or something worse, but I have no desire to waste my finite time on Earth watching youtube videos of "judgmental British skinheads laughing their asses off", or for that kind of stuff to pollute my viewing history and recommendations, or to contribute to their ad revenue, so I gave him the benefit of the doubt, assumed good faith, and took his false claim at face value instead of presuming that he was simply lying.
HN Guideline: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
My bad for being so trusting, but I'm in your debt for setting me straight that he's a liar.
But doesn't the fact you kindly shared that he lied just prove my point that he's not arguing in good faith, and is intellectually dishonest?
So now that you've selflessly subjected yourself to that video, what is it that YOU think it proves, besides my point that he's not arguing in good faith, and can't come up with a better argument?
At least I posted an accurate description and transcript to the video I linked to. Did you click through and watch that too?
It wasn't very sporting of him to punk you with sarcasm on the internet, where it is notoriously hard to suss out. But I think you made it easy for him by not giving him the benefit of the doubt.
Yes, I know the quote is paraphrased and was originally about Nixon. I just find this befuddlement why Jimmy Carter lost amusing.
Man got very badly played:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter%27s_engagement_wi...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979_oil_crisis
He was also attacked by a bunny:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter_rabbit_incident