willie said:Today, tomorrow, Jimmy Carter and Jessee Jackson will both do their best to prove the country is doing the wrong thing.
Just in case TF and RRaley missed this...

willie said:Today, tomorrow, Jimmy Carter and Jessee Jackson will both do their best to prove the country is doing the wrong thing.
rraley said:I love how Jimmy Carter is number 7 in that top 100...yeah the man who started Habitat for Humanity is really, really screwing America up.
They thought of this when they began the program. The answer is "sweat equity"; the owner(s) are required to help build their own house. And they also will be asked to help on other sites. The owner(s) are charged cost for the home and granted a 0% mortgage. Their payments rollover into funding new projects. But they are not simply given the home.Bruzilla said:it goes against the core principal of human existence, that being that you respect more what you have earned.
Bruzilla said:So how is it that not one White family gets a house??? So let's face it... it's not Habitat for Humanity, it's Houses for Black Families.
So, is it possible that your local affiliate is run by a bunch of nutty Liberals that slanted the decisions in favor of the inner-city folks? Sure. But it's not the organization's policy. And maybe, just maybe, the decisions were legitimate. Do you know the breakdown of other HFH recipients?From the HFH website: Families in need of decent shelter apply to local Habitat affiliates. The affiliate's family selection committee chooses homeowners based on their level of need, their willingness to become partners in the program and their ability to repay the no-interest loan. Every affiliate follows a nondiscriminatory policy of family selection. Neither race nor religion is a factor in choosing the families who receive Habitat houses.
HFH promotes itself as an "ecumenical Christian housing ministry". As such, it figures that they expect that most housing recipients will be essentially good people. They're working hard but need some help to "move up". I have seen many stories that align with that premise.Bruzilla said:So now that we've taken all of these poor, disadvantaged, families out of downtown Jacksonville, and away from the urban dillemas they faced, and dropped them square into a racially mixed, middle-income, surburban setting, I'm sure all of the families are doing much better. Amazingly... NO.
Technically, HFH was founded in 1976 by Millard and Linda Fuller, as someone noted previously.Bruzilla said:Yep... just another success story from the man who brought you "Making Deals With Honorable North Koreans I and II."
Uhh, you are still blurring "great man" with "great president". He does seem to be a good guy; I was born the year he took office, so I didn't know him as his presidency unfolded. But, great guy and serviceman and husband though he may be, he could still be a totally worthless president.rraley said:There are no if's, or's, or but's about it: Jimmy Carter is a great man, end of story.
Let me see.. if not for REAGAN undoing Carters "fixes" we would have gone to war with the M60 tank NOT the M1. The Air Force would have been flying the F-4, the F-104, and there would be no Israel, just a Palestinian State... Arafat would have been a celebrated warrior, and a great diplomat himself.. And I'm sure Hussein would NOT have stopped at Kuwait, with a powerless ally that we WOULD have been, and without the neighboring countries possessing superior Americna weapon systems, there would have been NOTHING to stop him form controlling the whole of the Middle East today.. where we would be begging at his feet for another 1,000,000 gallons of oil next month..rraley said:It's great how partisanship has clouded your view of the decency/compassion of a man.
That little peanut farmer from Georgia who went to the Naval Academy to serve as a submarine officer and to become President of the United States is a great American story and he is a great man. It was nice to have a man in the White House in the late 1970s who had integrity and decency; sure his policies may not have come around as well as intentioned, but seriously, whose policies would have? There are no if's, or's, or but's about it: Jimmy Carter is a great man, end of story.
I think your dead horse has turned to a pulp. More importantly, I regret to inform you that your logic is non sequitur. That's fancy talk for, "does not follow". To point, whether or not he is "screwing up America" is all about his policies. The idea that he is a "great man" is irrelevant. He could be (and probably is) a wise, caring, friendly and sincere gentleman... who also just happens to be a nutty Liberal that supports weakening the military, spending absurd lumps of money on ridiculous programs, giving entitlements to people that do not deserve them and all that other Liberal junk.rraley said:I am not arguing the merits of his policies; I am arguing that he is a great man who cannot possibly be "screwing" America up right now, as this guy contends.
FromTexas said:
Shut up Jimmy and go build something.FromTexas said: